of Worship too or is the bare Decency of Worship a Jewish Yoke What correspondence is there between the Ceremonies of the Jewish Law and the decent circumstances of Worship between new and distinct acts and the decent Modes of actions But our Reconciler proceeds Ecclesiastical Laws must not be perpetual that is when they are made they are relative to time and place to persons and occasions subject to all changes c. Now besides that the Bishop stills speaks of such Laws as concern Rituals and external Observances not the decent circumstances of Worship and therefore it is impertinently alleadged in our present Controversie yet suppose it did relate to our Ceremonies what advantage could he make of it They must not be perpetual that is they are alterable when the wisdom of Governours sees fit and who denies it But must every one who believes these Ceremonies alterable presently grant that they must be altered right or wrong This is much like another mangled Testimony which he cites from Rule 12. n. 9. I shall transcribe the whole because our Reconciler has concealed the sence by transcribing onely part of it Excepting those things which the Apostles received from Christ in which they were Ministers to all Ages once for all conveying the mind of Christ to Generations to come in all other things they were but ordinary Ministers to govern the Churches in their own times and left all that ordinary power to their Successors with a power to rule their Churches such as they had and therefore whatever they conveyed as from Christ a part of his Doctrine or any thing of his appointment this was to bind for ever All this our Reconciler leaves out which is a Key to what follows For Christ is our onely Lawgiver and what he said was to bind for ever In all things which he said not the Apostles could not be Lawgivers they had no such authority and therefore whatsoever they ordered by their own wisdom was to abide as long as the reason did abide but still with the same liberty with which they appointed it for of all men in the world they would least put a Snare upon the Disciples or tye Fetters upon Christian liberty To what purpose he cites this he does not say but I suppose it was to insinuate that there is no Authority in the Church to make any Laws which Christ has not made because he is our onely Lawgiver and that to make such Laws is to put a Snare upon the Disciples and to tye Fetters upon Christian Liberty which the Apostles of all men would not do but this is directly contrary to the designe of the Bishop All that he says is no more than this That the Apostles had not authority to make such Laws as should perpetually oblige the Church in all Ages for Christ onely is so our Lawgiver that his Laws are perpetual and unalterable and therefore what they taught as from Christ that was to bind for ever but what Laws they made as ordinary Ministers to govern the Churches in their own times they might be altered when the reason of them ceas'd by the Bishops and Ministers of following Ages who have as much ordinary authority for the government of the Church as the Apostles themselves had So that the Governours of the Church have authority to make Laws though not unalterable ones and therefore it is not making Laws but making perpetual Laws which he calls putting a Snare upon the Disciples and tying Fetters on Christian Liberty for the more unalterable Laws there are the less Liberty the Church enjoys and those Laws which were of excellent use when they were first made yet when their reason and use ceases might prove Snares to Christians if there were no power in the Church to repeal them All his Citations from this excellent Bishop about Ecclesiastical Laws are of the same nature they do not concern the decent circumstances of Worship but Rituals and external Ministeries of Religion and I suppose I need not tell any man how impertinent his Testimonies about Fasts and Evangelical Councils and Subscriptions to Articles c. are to this Controversie This is sufficient to prove that this excellent Bishop is ours and to satisfie all men that this Protestant Reconciler is either a very ignorant and careless Reader of Books or a shameless Impostor in suborning mens words to give testimony against their own protest and avowed Principles and Doctrines There are several other little Arguments which are frequently repeated by our Reconciler and confirmed with great Names and great Authorities though it is probable enough that he has as much abused other great men as he has done the Bishop and I have not leisure nor opportunity to examine all and it is no great matter when the Argument is weak and trifling whose Argument it is They tell us that to impose such Ceremonies and Rites of Worship is to come after Christ and to mend and correct his Laws and to require new terms of Communion which Christ hath not required This is a great fault if the charge be good and just but is the Church of England guilty of any such thing Does she require any new acts of Worship which Christ has not required Has not Christ required that we should worship God decently Has he not made Obedience to our Rulers and Governours a necessary condition of Communion And does the Church of England require any more Has the Church of England imposed any thing upon her People but the Rules of Order and Decency and has not Christ enjoyned this Are the Ceremonies of our Church decent circumstances of Worship or are they not If they be then here are no new terms of Communion here is no mending nor correcting the Laws of Christ but onely a determination of some necessary circumstances which Christ left undetermined and gave authority to his Church to determine But why should Church-Communion be suspended upon such terms as are not necessary to Salvation Why is not that sufficient to make a man a Member of a Church which is sufficient to carry him to Heaven No doubt but it is and the Church of England requires no more The Decency of Worship is as necessary to eternal Salvation as publick Worship is which is not Worship if it be not decent Decency is necessary and though such or such particular Modes of Decency be not necessary yet some decent Mode of Worship is and therefore that Church which requires no more than the Decency of Worship requires nothing but what is necessary to Salvation That which confounds and blunders these men and makes them dream of new terms of Communion is this That they distinguish the act of Worship from the manner of performing it and because Christ hath onely instituted and commanded the act but the Church directs and prescribes the manner therefore they say the Church mends Christs Laws and makes new terms of Communion by requiring something more than Christ has
for which a Church may deny her Communion to any persons either because they renounce the terms of her Communion or because they refuse to submit to her Laws and Rules of Worship and therefore it is a ridiculous thing to say that a Church makes every thing a term of her Communion for the refusal of which she denies her Communion to her own Members We may call these if we please the terms of her particular Communion but this is no greater fault for any Church to make such terms of Communion than to make Laws for Government and Discipline for such terms are nothing else To return then to our Argument Since the act of Worship and the necessary circumstanâ—s of Action though they may be distinctly considered yet cannot be separated that Church which commands nothing but a decent performance of those acts of Worship which Christ himself has commanded us to perform cannot be charged with making any additions to the Laws of Christ or with commanding any new thing For the decent manner of doing a thing is included in the command of doing it unless we think our Saviour was indifferent whether we worship God decently or indecently and therefore if the Church onely enjoyn such habits and postures times and places as are necessary to the doing of the action and are decent circumstances of doing it she commands nothing but what Christ has virtually commanded And this is a plain Answer to that other Objection that the Apostles had authority to teach onely such things as Christ had commanded them which if it be opposed to their Authority of Governing the Church which required the exercise of their own Wisdom and Prudence and making occasional Laws in emergent cases is a very trifling Objection but however the Church of England teaches nothing but what Christ taught She teaches all the acts of Worship which Christ commanded and no other and she â—eaches the decent manner of doing this which is involved in the very command of doing it for though the particular decent Rites of Worship are not expressed yet all decent Rites are included in the command of doing it and therefore the Church may take her choice Well but the Apostles gave Laws onely about necessary things as we see in the Council of Ierusalem they would lay no other burden upon the Disciples but what they thought necessary at least for that time 15 Acts 29. Now though there might several Answers be given to this I shall say no more at present but that I take the Decency of Worship to be necessary I am sure St. Paul gives an express Law about it But as for the necessary things which were determined at the Council in Ierusalem they did not concern the circumstances of Worship but some external Rituals and Ceremonies which were matters of burden We have nothing like it in our Church and if ever the Church should undertake to determine such matters it will be seasonable to urge the practice of the Council at Ierusalem to determine onely necessary things These are the most material things our Reconciler has urged against the imposition of the Ceremonies of the Church of England Whether upon the whole it appears that they are so useless and unnecessary that the Church ought not to interpose her Authority in such matters or be justly blameable for doing it I must leave every man to judge CHAP. II. Concerning charity to the Souls of men and how far and in what cases it obliges Church-Governours and what regard Church-Governours ought to have to the Errours and Mistakes and Scruples of PRIVATE CHRISTIANS under their care HAving discours'd thus largely of the usefulness and necessity of the decent Ceremonies and Circumstances of religious Worship in opposition to our Reconciler who affirms them to be useless and unnecessary and to have no positive Order or Decency for which they should be commanded it is time now to consider the other part of his Argument viz. that charity to the Souls of men obliges Church-Governours not to impose any such unnecessary things or to alter and remove them if already imposed when through the mistake and scruples of some Christians about such matters they occasion their sin and fall and hazard their eternal Salvation that is when such Impositions as these which some men believe unlawful and others doubt whether they be lawful or not tempt men to forsake the Communion of the Church and lift themselves in a Schism which is a damning sin I need not point out to any particular place wherein this is said for it is to be found almost in every page of his Book and comes in at the tail of every Argument and therefore I shall once for all consider these Principles also and begin here with charity to the Souls of men which in the method of my Discourse is the second general Principle I promised to examine The Question then is this Secondly What obligation charity to the Souls of men lays upon the Governours of the Church That the Governours of the Church ought to exercise great tenderness and charity to the Souls of men I readily grant for the care of Souls is their proper work and business and our Reconciler could not have pitch'd upon a more popular Argument to declaim upon as he does at large p. 187 c. And indeed I find his Talent lies more in some insinuating Harangues than in c'ose reasoning but though he has made a fine Sâ—ory of this and said things artificially enough to move the Passions of his Readers he has never offered fairly to state the extent and measures of Charity with relation to acts of Government but onely asserted charity to the Souls of men to be the Duty of Governours as well as of private Christians which no body denies that I know of and from thence infers the alteration of our Ceremonies and that Church-Governours act uncharitably if they do not consent to such an alteration Now the alteration of publick Laws and Râ—tes of Worship which some men take an unjust and unreasonable offence at whatever mischief they do to their own Souls by such an unjust offence does not seem to me to be an immediate consequence from the obligations of charity to mens Souls and therefore there should have been something at least offered for the proof of it and I confess I cannot see any thing that looks like an Argument to this purpose Since therefore I have little or nothing to answer upon this Argument which our Reconciler thought better to take for granted than to prove it I shall endeavour to state this matter so plainly as to vindicate our Governours from this spightful and uncharitable Accusation of want of charity to mens Souls And to this end I shall briefly inquire wherein the Charity of Governours must consist and how it must express it self which I shall explain by these two Principles I. That the Charity of Governours is consistent with the Duty and Authority of Government II.
had said very true and this would have justified the Ceremonies of the Church of England and all the decent Ceremonies of any foreign Churches in all Ages But it is a manifest Fallacy to say that the particular Ceremonies which are used in the Church of England have no positive Order Decency or Reverence because the acts of Worship may be performed orderly decently and reverently without them which our Church always owned for she never condemned the Worship of other Churches which do not use her Ceremonies while by other means they secure the external Decency and Reverence of Worship But the Question is Whether the Ceremonies injoyned by the Church of England or some other decent Ceremonies in the room of them be not necessary to the external Decency and Reverence of Worship Whether we can worship decently and reverently without some decent habits postures places c Whether the Ceremonies used by the Church of England be not as decent and reverent as any other We do not pretend that our Ceremonies are the onely decent and reverent Ceremonies that can be used in religious Worship then indeed his Argument had been strong That those who do not use them must worship God irreverently and indecently but we say they have a positive Decency and Reverence and that those who worship God according to the Prescriptions of our Church observe an external Decency and Reverence of Worship But this he says not one word to and therefore I presume cannot for he has given evidence enough that he never wants will but when he wants power to be civil to the Church of England And therefore he might have spared his pains in proving that God may be decently and reverently worshipt without the use of the English Ceremonies for no body ever said otherwise that I know of and the very Argument whereby he proves it plainly shews that the Church of England is of that mind for she asserts these Ceremonies to be indifferent and alterable whereas as he well urges they could be neither if they were absolutely necessary to the Decency and Reverence of Worship But before I proceed it will be necessary for the clearer stating of this matter to consider the several kinds of Decency and upon what account we assert That our Ceremonies have a positive Decency in them Now we may distinguish between the decency of circumstances and the decency of things or actions No action can be performed without some circumstances and no action can be decently perâ—â—rmed without decent circumstances such as â—ime and place and posture and habit and this is as absolutely necessary as the Decency of publick Worship is And to this Head of decent circumstances we reduce the Surplice which is a decent habit for the Minister when he performs the publick Offices of Religion and kneeling at the Lords Supper which are two of the three Ceremonies of the Church of England The Cross in Baptism which is the third Ceremony is not a circumstance of action and therefore has not the same kind of Decency nor the same necessity that the other Ceremonies have but it is to be considered as a decent thing or action Now these two being of so distinct a nature must be considered distinctly also and therefore I must advertise my Reader that what I shall now discourse about the Decency of Worship and the necessity of iâ— concerns onely the decent circumstances of religious actions such as the Surplice and kneeâ—ing at the Lords Supper are As for decent things or actions such as the signe of the Cross is at Baptism I shall discourse of that distinctly by its self Having premised this let us now return to our Reconciler This modest man who is so sensible of his own weakness and proneness to mistake in judging who is so unwilling to do the least disservice to the Church of England who has such a hearty honour for his Reverend Superiours yet with great humility ventures to confute and expose all the Savoy-Commissioners who were very grave and reverend Persons The Commissioners observed That the Apostle hath commanded that all things be done decently and that there may be uniformity let there be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Rule and Canon for that purpose And hence he says they infer that though charity will move to pity and relieve those that are perplexed and scrupulous that we must not break Gods commandment in charity to them and therefore we must not perform publick Services indecently and disorderly for the sake of tender Consciences Which he adds is expresly said to justifie their refusal to abate the imposition of the Ceremonies especially these three the Surplice the signe of the Cross and Kneeling This seems to me to be very wisely and judiciously urged by our Commissioners but our Reconciler thinks they have greatly overshot themselves when they assert That by abating the use and imposition of these Ceremonies they should break Gods Commandment and perform publick Service indecently and disorderly Truly I think this is a little too much and our Author has loaded it with a great many hard consequences which I see not how they can answer but the best of it is that the Commissioners never said any such thing I am sure there is no such thing contained in the words cited by him which he reduces to this absurd Proposition But do not they say that they must not break Gods Command in Charity and therefore must not perform publick Services indecently and disorderly for the sake of tender Consciences Yes they do say so And was not that said to justifie their refusal to abate the imposition of the Ceremonies Suppose that too Does not this then signifie that by abating the use or imposition of these Ceremonies they shall break Gods Commandment and perform publick Service indecently and disorderly By no means This is onely one instance of our Author's proneness to mistake in judging which I wish he were more thoroughly sensible of and that would make him more modest without a complement The Commissioners assert very truly That the Apostle commands that all things be done decently and in order This they take to be Gods Command as well they might and therefore it is a breach of Gods Command to perform publick Services indecently and disorderly and charity does not oblige them to break any Command of God and therefore they must not do this for the sake of tender Consciences All this I presume our Reconciler himself will acknowledge What then is the fault Why the Commissioners urge this upon occasion of the Dispute about abating the Ceremonies of the Church of England and therefore it proves that they thought the Worship of God could not be decently and reverently performed without those particular Ceremonies for otherwise their Argument is not good Yes say I the Argument is very good without this Supposition and therefore the Reconciler's consequence is not good For I would ask him one plain Question Can any
great Sacrifice of the Cross. A great many such things our Reconciler himself has collected in his eighth Chapter which may properly be called the Rituals or Ceremonies or Religion most of which are now out of use in most Churches which formerly used them and none of them are in uâ—e among us But what we call the Ceremonies of the Church of England are not in this sence Rituals or Ceremonies but the decent circumstances of Worship as the Bishop acknowledges excepting the Cross in Baptism which yet is not a meer significant but a professing Signe as I have already discours'd and for such Ceremonies as these which serve for Order and Decency the Bishop tells us There is an Apostolical Precept and a natural Reason and an evident Necessity or a great Convenience In a word when the Bishop speaks of Rituals and Ceremonies he understands by them exterior actions or things something which is like the ceremonial observances of the Jewish Law which were not meer circumstances of action but religious Rites Such were their Sacrifices Washings and Purifications their Phylacteries their Fasts and Festivals new Moons and Sabbaths not considered meerly as circumstances of time but as having such a Sacredness and Religion stamped on them that the very observing them was an act of Religion that the religious Duties observed on them were appointed for the sake of the day not the day meerly for the sake of the Religion Such were the numerous Traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees about making broad their Phylacteries washing their Cups and Platters and their hands before dinner and an infinite number of other superstitious observances Now though some external actions and things wisely chosen and prudently used may be for the service of Religion at least are not unlawful to be used unless we will condemn the whole Christian Church for several Ages which used a great many external Rites yet every one sees what a vast difference there is between such Rites as these and the decent Circumstances of religious Worship And therefore those men mistake the case of the Church of England who lay the Controversie upon Rituals and Ceremonies for there is no such thing in the Church of England according to the true and proper signification of these words Our Fasts and Festivals look most like such Rituals and Ceremonies but are not so for with us they are not religious days but days appointed for the solemn Exercises of Religion which differ as much as a circumstance of time does from an act of Religion as making a day religious which none but God can do differs from appointing a day for the publick Solemnities of Religion which the Governours of the Church and State may do as the Religion of observing a day differs from those acts of Religion which are performed on such a day Now this very observation of the difference between Rituals and Ceremonies and the decent circumstances of Worship will answer most of his Citations which he has impertinently alleadged out of the Bishops Writings and a multitude of Objections which for want of observing this have been very injudiciously made against those which we call the Ceremonies of the Church of England Thus he observes from the Bishop That Ecclesiastical Laws which are meerly such cannot be universal and perpetual But then he should have told us what the Bishop meant by Ecclesiastical Laws meerly such That is saith he those which do not involve a divine Law within their matter And therefore this cannot relate to the decent circumstances of Worship for they all involve a divine Law in the matter of them they are onely the specification of the Law of Decency and include those very acts of Worship to which they belong To kneel at the Lords Supper is a command to receive the Lords Supper kneeling and when the Minister is enjoyn'd to wear theSurplice it signifies that he must perform divine Offices in a Surplice These are but the decent circumstances of necessary Duties and they founded on the Apostolical Rule of Decency Well but the Bishop adds When Christ had made us free from the Law of Ceremonies which God appointed to the Iewish Nation and to which all other Nations were bound if they came into that Communion it would be intolerable that the Churches who rejoyced in their freedom from that Yoke which God had imposed should submit themselves to a Yoke of Ordinances which men should make For though before they could not yet now they may exercise Communion and use the same Religion without communicating in Rites and Ordinances Now does not this make it plain that the Bishop does not speak of the decent circumstances of Worship such as our English Ceremonies are but of such Rituals and Ceremonies as answer to the Jewish Rites and Ordinances which he calls exterior things and actions which are of a different consideration and must be governed by different Rules and Measures And yet our Reconciler is so unfortunate that if the Bishop had meant this of the Ceremonies of our Church it had been nothing to his purpose for he adds in the very next words This does no way concern the Subjects of any Government what Liberty they are to retain and use I shall discourse in the following numbers but it concerns distinct Churches under distinct Governments and it means as it appears plainly by the Context and the whole Analogie of the thing that the Christian Churches must suffer no man to put a Law upon them who is not their Governour For when he says that Ecclesiastical Laws that are meerly such must not be universal he means that they must not be intended to oblige all Christendom except they will be obliged that is do consent That no Church or company of Christians have such authority as to oblige the whole Christian World and all the Churches in it to conform to their Rituals and Ceremonies which he says is contrary to Christian liberty and such an Usurpation as must not be endured which is directly levelled against the Usurpations of the Church of Rome But though one Church cannot impose upon another yet every Church has power over her own Members and they are bound to obey that Authority which is over them And by the way this answers all his Testimonies from Bishop Davenant and Bishop Hall in their Letters to Duraeus about his Pacificatory designe of uniting all the Reformed Churches into one Communion and several others cited in his Preface to the same purpose They discourse upon what terms distinct Churches which have no authority over each other ought to maintain Christian Communion and this he applies to particular Churches with reference to their own Members as if because particular Churches must not usurp authority and dominion over each other nor deny Communion upon every difference of Opinion or different Customs and Usages of Modes of Worship therefore no Church must govern her own Communion nor give Laws to her own Members as if because
useful themselves and not apt to tempt men to any sin then the Church of England is very charitable though Dissenters should be damned for their wilful and causeless Schism But besides this as far as it is possible to prevent the Cavils of evil-minded men our Church has taken care to explain the meaning of the signe of the Cross in Baptism and kneeling at receiving the Lords Supper to remove all suspicions of any superstitious opinions about them which is an Argument of great charity and great care of the Souls of men But you will say Had it not been greater charity to the Souls of men not to have retained such Ceremonies as needed explication than to explain the meaning of them which may not give satisfaction to all men of the lawfulness of their use This were something to the purpose indeed were there any thing doubtful in their signification but it is not the obscureness of these Ceremonies but the perverseness of men who endeavour to find out some superstition in them which makes such Declarations of the Church more charitable still as being a condescension not to the ignorance but to the frowardness of her Children Though to worship the Cross be Idolatry to use it as a Charm and Spell savour of Superstition yet to use it as a venerable Badge of our Christian Profession is neither and no man can reasonably suspect that it is used otherwise in Baptism To kneel at the Sacrament is a decent posture of receiving and can never be suspected as an act of Worship to the Bread in those who believe that after consecration it is Bread still and not the natural Body of Christ for to worship Bread which we believe to be nothing but Bread would be a more absurd Idolatry than the Papists are guilty of who believe it not to be Bread but the Body of Christ. This reason the Church assigns for it in the second Common-Prayer-Book of Edward the Sixth Although no Order can be so perfectly devised but it may by some either for their ignorance and infirmity or else for malice and obstinacy be misconstrued depraved and interpreted in a wrong part yet because brotherly charity willeth that so much as conveniently may be offences should be taken away therefore we willing to do the same declare that in kneeling at the Sacrament no adoration of the Elements is intended Thus our Reconciler cites this passages and I must trust him at present because I have not the Book by me but this sufficiently proves what I alleadge it for that our Church did not adde this explication as apprehending any necessity of it but to prevent the absurd interpretations of ignorant or malicious Cavillers But what our Reconciler adds Who can tell why this whole Preface in our present Common-Prayer-Book is left out is only a spightful insinuation of I know not what since the same Declaration is as large and full in our Common-Prayer-Book as words can make it But he proceeds and Why that Charity which willeth that as much as conveniently may be offences should be taken away should not will also the taking away or the abatement of unnecessary Ceremonies or alteration of scrupled expressions in our Liturgie I am not bound to answer these trifling Cavils as often as he repeats them but I think every man of sense will see some little difference between making the Rules and Orders of the Church as inoffensive as may be and destroying all decent and orderly Constitutions the first is such a Charity as becomes Governours the second is nothing better than the dissolution of Government But of Scruples more presently Thus our Reconciler observes that the Convocation held An. 1640. speaking of the laudable custom of bowing with the body in token of our reverence of God when we come into the place of publick Worship saith thus In the practice or admission of this Rite we desire the Rule of Charity prescribed by the Apostle may be observed which is That they who use this Rite despise not them who use it not and they who use it not condemn not them who use it Now saith the Author of the mischief of Impositions I would gladly hear a fair reason given why the Apostle should prescribe the Rule of Charity to be observed in this one Rite or Ceremony more than another And our Reconciler very modestly adds The Apostle prescribes a Rule and they will make use of it when and where and in what cases they please and in others where it is as useful lay it by like one of their vacated Canons This is wonderful deference to Authority But however this is another instance of the Churches Charity and moderation at least in this one Rite and methinks it deserved a little more civility than to be turned into an Argument of Reproach But cannot our Reconciler guess at any reason for this difference why she should grant that liberty in this one Rite which she denies in other cases Why then I 'll tell him one Because it is more capable of such an indulgence than other Ceremonies are for it is an act of private Worship though performed in the publick Church and therefore different usages in such matters do not disturb the Order and Decency of publick Worship When we offer up our common Worship to God which is the act of the whole Congregation it is fitting that there should be one Rule and Order observed for Uniformity is necessary to the Decency of Worship and to the Unity of it but there is no necessity that all mens private Devotions should be alike And it is possible to think of another reason too That this bowing the body in reverence to God when we enter into his house is properly a Ritual or Ceremony that is an exteriour action or thing not meerly a circumstance of Worship it is it self an external Rite of Worship not the circumstance of any other act It may be very decent to bow our body in reverence to God when we enter his house but it is not a decent circumstance of religious Worship and therefore there is not the same necessity that the Church should determine it as there is that she should determine the necessary circumstances of action without which the Worship of God cannot be decently performed and it seems to me to be an Argument of great wisdom in the Church that she has not made an uniformity in this Rite as necessary as in the other Ceremonies of Religion since there is not an equal necessity for it And I further adde that the Apostles Rule of Charity not to judge and censure one another upon such different usages does not relate to those Ceremonies which are also the decent circumstances of religious actions and so are necessary to the uniformity of publick Worship which must not be neglected out of a pretence of Charity but it may extend to such Rites as these which shews the great judgment of our Church in applying this Rule
as well as of other Dissenters when one are as reasonable as the other and this may as well be left undetermined as the other for we have the practice of the Apostle for one side of the Question and his reason for the other If our Reconciler can think of an Answer to this so can I too and so I can also for the Objections against kneeling at the Sacrament but still here are scruples on both sides and scruples for ought I see equally reasonable and therefore Governours ought to have an equal regard to them that is none at all if they will discharge their duty in taking care of the Decency of publick Worship Dr. Falkner gave another instance of this in the Dispute about leavened or unleavened Bread in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper where he says The one sort is necessary to be determined before the administration or otherwise the Ordinance it self must be omitted Here our Reconciler is resolved to try his strength because the Argument as managed by that otherwise-ingenious man containeth great mistakes which being rectified will set men right in the decision of the Controversie Here then if ever we may expect that our Reconciler will say something to the purpose because the decision of the Controversie depends on it 1. Then he allows there may be such cases where in genere something is necessary to be determined I see we shall have fine work of it when he begins with tricks and fallacies The Doctor speaks of the determination of a particular circumstance whether the Sacramental Bread shall be leavened or unleavened and he talks of determining some cases in genere that is that it shall be Bread for I know not else what he means by his in genere The Question is Whether any particular thing which is scrupled by some persons may or ought to be determined if it may let him say so plainly and make the best he can of it Well he grants that what is necessary to be determined must be determined but adds that the Dissenters do universally deny that it is necessary to determine any of these scrupled Ceremonies and they have perfect demonstration for the truth of that denial for necessatium est quod non potest aliter se habere that onely is necessary to be done which cannot be left undone I have seldom met with more trifling and sophistry in so few words For 1. Dr. Falkner speaks of a necessity of determining some things which have no antecedent necessity in their own natures such as the use of leavened or unleavened Bread in the Sacrament and our Reconciler grants the Magistrate a power to determine those things which are necessary in their own natures though that be nonsence for what is necessary in its own nature so necessary that it cannot be left undone determines it self without the authority of the Magistrate the Magistrate may command such things but they are determined to his hand Nothing can be determined either way by any Authority but that which is indifferent and undetermined in its own nature and I think it a contradiction that any thing should be indifferent in its own nature and so determinable by humane Authority which has either such a moral or physical necessity that it cannot be otherwise 2. Dr. Falkner proves that there may be a necessity of determining some particular manner of doing a thing before the action can be done because though no particular mode of doing it may be necessary yet it cannot be done without some particular mode of doing it He that will administer the Sacrament must administer it either in leavened or unleaved Bread this is physically necessary that it should be done in one or t'other and this physical necessity infers a moral necessity of determining which way we will do it before we can do it for we cannot at the same time and in the same individual act do it both ways and therefore we must resolve upon one way of doing it or we cannot do it at all To disprove this which is as certain as any demonstration in Euclide our Reconciler says that nothing must be determined but what is necessary in its own nature to the doing or well doing of any action As if so be I could travel into the Country without determining whether I will walk or ride or what way I will go because no one of these is in its own nature so necessary that I cannot travel without it for I may chuse which I will but yet I must chuse some way or other or I must stay at home Now should you ask a man who is taking a journey which way he will go by land or by water on foot or horseback or by Coach and he should tell you it is not necessary to his journey to determine either for they are all equally indifferent would you not think the man mad for though all are indifferent yet some one is necessary to his journey and if he will not determine which way he will go he can never go This is the case here Dr. Falkner says Before we can receive the Lords Supper it must be determined whether we will receive it in leavened or unleavened Bread No says the Reconciler any determination by the Magistrate is here unnecessary because either leavened or unleavened Bread may be received Right and therefore there is no necessity of an universal Law and uniform practice all the world over about this matter but still whoever administers or whoever receives the Sacrament must do it in leavened or unleavened Bread Suppose then in the same Church and Congregation there should be a dispute about this as there was between the Greek and Latin Church and some should scruple to administer or receive in leavened others in unleavened Bread what must be done in this case must the Church determine this matter or not or must there in every Congregation be two Ministers and two Sacraments one of the leavened the other of the unleavened Communion I know not what our Reconciler will say to this but I am sure either this matter must be determined notwithstanding the scruples and differing Opinions about it or there must be a Schismatical disorder and confusion in the same Church in the very act of Christian Communion But how little regard the Apostles themselves whom I suppose our Reconciler will grant to be a good President for Church-Governours had to the mistakes and scruples of Christians when there was a just reason for making any Decrees and Canons is evident from the practice of that first celebrated Council of Ierusalem The Jews did mightily urge the necessity of circumcising the converted Gentiles and made it a great scruple of Conscience so much as to eat or drink with them much less to own them of the same Church and Communion without Circumcision Paul and Barnabas were sent to Ierusalem to consult the other Apostles about this Question The Apostles accordingly met together and after
in which Religion is not concerned and another thing to eat or not to eat out of regard to the Law of Moses which was the Dispute between the Jew and Gentile and which is the case wherein St. Paul exhorts them to the exercise of mutual charity and forbearance Now let our Reconciler speak his conscience freely whether there be any thing alike in these two cases or whether there be the same reason to indulge a Dissenter in his scruples about indifferent things which never were commanded nor forbidden by any divine Law as there was at that time to indulge the Jews in the observation of the Law of Moses which they knew was given by God and had been in all Ages till that day religiously observed by them from the time it was first given and which they thought did â—till as much oblige them as ever The Dispute is not about the lawful use of indifferent things but about the obligation of a divine Law and though it was very reasonable to indulge the Jews for a time in observing the Law till it should be repealed in such an evident manner as to leave no reasonable scruple about it yet it can never be reasonable to indulge men in their scruples about indifferent things because there never was nor never will be any such reason for these scruples as ought to be indulged But our Reconciler in answer to what Dr. Falkner had urged That the Apostle in this Chapter 14 Rom. is not treating about and therefore not against the Rules of Order in the service of God meaning by that expression the imposed Ceremonies adds That still the sequel is firm for the Apostle may dispute upon another subject and yet lay down such Principles and use such Arguments as equally confute the pressing or imposing of those Ceremonies as the Conditions of Communion when such an imposition will silence many able Ministers and involve many Myriads in the guilt of Schism and Separation from the Church Now to this I answer 1. This may be sometimes true but then the subjects must be near of kin and there must be something contained in the Argument which indifferently relates to all other cases which are of a like nature 2. But yet whatever the Argument be it depends wholly upon a parity of Reason and cannot challenge the same authority in any other case as it hath in that to which it is immediately applied The Arguments the Apostle uses to perswade Jews and Gentiles not to judge and censure each other upon account of observing or not observing the Law of Moses are St. Paul's Arguments as applied to that case but are onely our Reconciler's Arguments as applied to the Ceremonies of the Church of England and have no more authority than he has nor any greater strength than his reasoning gives them And therefore he imposes upon his Readers when he pretends to dispute against the Impositions of our Church from the authority of St. Paul and confesses at the same time that St. Paul does not say one word about the matter He ought plainly to declare that there is nothing in Scripture which expresly condemns the Impositions of our Church but there are some Arguments used by Christ and his Apostles upon other occasions which he thinks by a parity of Reason condemns these Impositions But to pretend Scripture against us when he cannot produce any one Scripture which primarily relates to the imposition of indifferent things is to set up his own Reasonings for Scripture though they are generally such as few men will allow to be senâ—e Our Saviour's and St. Paul's Arguments are Scripture when applied to those cases to which they apply them but when they are applied to other purposes though the words are Scripture still yet this new application of them is not and I would desire my Readers to observe this that though our Reconciler has alleadged numerous places of Scripture yet he has not one Scripture-proof against the Church of England the words are Scripture but applied by him to other purposes than the Scripture intended 3. But yet parity of Reason where it is plain and evident is a very good Argument and therefore here I will joyn issue with him and make it appear that the Apostles Arguments in the 14th of the Romans whereby he perswades them to mutual charity and forbearance in reference to the Rites and Ceremonies of the Mosaical Law cannot by any parity of Reason be applied to the Ceremonies of the Church of England Now I observed before that there are two distinct parts in this Chapter and Arguments proper to each and though our Reconciler confounds them I shall consider them distinctly First The first part perswades them not to judge or censure or break Communion with each other for the sake of such different customs Him that is weak in the faith receive that is receive to Communion which the Reconciler himself confesses to be the true sence of it but not to doubtful disputations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without judging of each others differing opinions and perswasions of things For one believeth he may eat all things another who is weak eateth herbs This is the matter about which they differed The Gentile Converts believed that they were free from the Law of Moses which made a difference between clean and unclean meats and therefore might eat any thing the Jew who was weak in the Faith and was not yet perswaded of his freedom from the Mosaical Law abstained from all forbidden meats and fed on herbs Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not Let not the Gentile despise the Jew as ignorant of the Mystery of the Gospel and that liberty which is purchased by Christ and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth let not the Jew condemn and reject the Gentiles as profane and unclean persons with whom they ought not to converse much less to receive them into their Communion because they do not observe the Law of Moses So that the Apostle's designe in these words is to prevent that Schism which was likely to be occasioned between the Jewish and Gentile Converts upon account of the Law of Moses he does not say that either Jews should yield to Gentiles or Gentiles to Jews but each of them retaining their own liberty in these matters they should still own each other as Christian Brethren and live in Christian Communion together which shews how remote this case is from the Dispute between the Church and Dissenters for Jews and Gentiles notwithstanding their Disputes about the obligation of the Law of Moses might joyn together in all the acts of Christian Worship whereas the Dispute between the Church and Dissenters is about the very acts of Worship and therefore while this difference lasts they cannot joyn in one Communion of which more anon Which is a plain proof that nothing of all this relates to our present case But before I consider the Apostles reasons for
Dr. Falkner doth imagine that is that when the Apostle commands them to receive the weak he means they should own them for Christian Brethren and as such should receive them to Communion seeing the Schismatick is by the Doctrine of the Church without that Catholick Church in which alone Salvation can be had Since therefore we do censure him as one who hath no inward relation to or communion with Iesus Christ and therefore no relation to his Body since we do think him worthy of exclusion from Communion with the Church it seems not easie to conceive how we shall escape the condemnation of the Apostles Discourse were the designe of it that onely which he doth imagine As if it were the same thing to deny Communion to any persons as wanting something essential to Christianity and so having no right to Church-Communion and to â—hut those men out of our Communion who are disorderly in it or separate themselves from it as if it were the same thing to deny Communion to those who are not or are judged not to be Christians and to cast disorderly and irregular Christians who will not submit to the Rules and Government of the Church out of our Communion The first makes the Dispute upon which we part to be essential to Christianity as the Doctor well observed the second proceeds onely upon this Principle that those who will live in the Communion of any particular Church must be subject to the Rules and Orders of Worship and Discipline establish'd in it Which may instruct our Reconciler in the difference between the Jews and Gentiles not receiving one another upon the Dispute of the Mosaical Law and the Churches rejecting those from her Communion who will not conform to her Rules of Worship which he endeavours to make parallel cases And as for the Reason he assigns why the Apostle cannot by receiving mean that they should own each other as Christian Brethren because the Arguments he uses to perswade them to receive one another do suppose that they did own each other as Christians is plainly false for the Apostle perswades them to receive each other and to own one another for Christian Brethren because God had received them because he owned them for Christians and therefore if God received the weak Jew with all his weakness and the irregular Gentiles as they judged them with all their irregularities certainly both Jews and Gentiles ought to receive each other But this will better appear by considering the Apostles Arguments and shewing how peculiar they were to that case and that they cannot be applied to the case of Dissenters Now there are two or three Arguments which St. Paul uses to this purpose to perswade them to receive one another though our Reconciler has made a great many of them by applying all the Arguments in this Chapter which concern Christian forbearance and condescension and the avoiding scandal to this purpose 1. His first Argument is That God has received them which plainly refers to what is more largely discours'd in the Council at Ierusalem where St. Peter gives an account of the descent of the Holy Ghost upon Cornelius and those who were with him all uncircumcised Gentiles while he preached the Gospel to them which was such a visible demonstration of God's receiving them even in their uncircumcision that he durst not deny Water-baptism when God had already baptized them with the Holy Ghost This was confirmed by Barnabas and Paul who declared what wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them And the same Argument served for the circumcised Jews who still observed the Law that God had owned them also by bestowing his holy Spirit in a visible manner on them Now if either Circumcision or Uncircumcision had signified any thing in this matter God would not have indifferently bestowed his Spirit upon believing but circumcised Jews and uncircumcised Gentiles By sending his Spirit on Jewish and Gentile Converts in such a visible manner God did evidently declare that both circumcised Jews and the uncircumcised Gentiles who believed in Christ should be received into the Communion of Christs Church which is here called Gods receiving them For the gift of the Spirit belonged onely to the Disciples of Christ and therefore God did in a visible manner own all those for the Disciples of Christ on whom he bestowed such visible Gifts But how does this concern our Dissenters Yes says our Reconciler it rationally follows that none should be excluded from Communion with us who will not by our God and Saviour be excluded from Communion with them But he should have said whom God has in such a visible and miraculous manner received into Communion And if our Reconciler can prove that God has determined this Controversie about Ceremonies in as visible a manner as he did the Dispute about Circumcision he will say something to the purpose But this is all a mistake from the beginning to the end For I know no way of judging whether any man be in communion with Christ but by his communion with the Church There is no visible communion with God and Christ but by a visible communion with the Church and as for any communion with Christ which is invisible certainly the Governours of the Church who can see onely what is visible are not concerned about it and it is this visible Church-membership and Church communion of which the Apostle speaks He proves that God had received both Jews and Gentiles into the visible communion of his Church by the visible gifts of his holy Spirit and therefore that they ought not to deny external and visible communion to each other since God had received them both not meerly into an invisible communion with himself but into the visible communion of the Church which gave them a right to all acts of church-Church-communion And from hence our Reconciler proves that the Church must alter her Constitutions to receive those Dissenters into the Church who are not in the Church and will not communicate with her because God has received them but how does it appear that God has received them into the communion of the Church who shut themselves out of it Yes says the Reconciler the plain result of this first Argument is this That either we without breach of charity may judge of all Dissenters that they are not received into communion by God and that they are no living Members of Christ's Body but a pack of damned Hypocrites worthy to be excluded from the Church of God and to be under a severe Anathema or if we cannot charitably judge so hardly of them that we ought to receive them into communion with us notwithstanding their different conceptions and practice about lesser matters But what have we to do with the judgment of charity in this case for the Apostle speaks not of a judgment of charity but of a visible proof and demonstration of Gods receiving them from the visible signs and effects
against her uncharitable Impositions And when he has published a Book against the Constitutions of our Church agreed on by the wisdom of the Convocation and establisht by Act of Parliament when he has already the most mature and deliberate judgment of Church and State it looks like a very hypocritical piece of modesty a downright Challenge to the whole Clergy to cry out as he does Teach me my Reverend Brethren and I will hold my peace cause me to understand wherein I have erred and I will thankfully yea I will publickly retract it Any body I think but a Protestant Reconciler would call this libelling the Church and hectoring and out-braving all his Mothers Children How the rest of my Brethren will digest this outragious Contempt of Church-Authority I cannot tell for my part I cannot bear it but am resolved to do my weak endeavours to vindicate my dear Mother from the rudeness and insolence of her undutiful Son And in order to this I shall consider what it is he contends for wherein we agree and where we part and fairly debate on which side the truth lies The Proposition which he undertakes to prove is contained in these words That things indifferent which may be changed and altered without sin or violation of Gods Laws ought not especially under our present circumstances to be imposed by Superiours as the Conditions of Communion or as Conditions without which none shall minister in sacred things though called to that work and none shall be partakers of the publick Ordinances which Christ hath left to be the ordinary means of Grace and of Salvation to mankind bâ—t shall upon refusal to submit unto them for ever be excluded from the Church and from the Priviledges belonging to the Members of it Where by indifferent things which may be changed and altered without sin or violation of Gods Laws it is plain he means whatever is not expresly commanded by God and so must include all the Externals of Worship Government and Discipline which are not enjoyned by a divine Law That these ought not to be imposed signifies that it is sinful and mischievous to impose them as he expresly asserted before and which all his Arguments are designed to prove viz. that Governours sin in it To impose signifies onely to command and to impose as Conditions of Communion signifies no more than to impose though it sounds bigger For the Church makes such indifferent things the Conditions of Communion in no other sence than as she commands those of her Communion to worship God in such a manner and rejects those which will not which is nothing more than to command as to command is opposed to leaving every one at liberty to worship God as he pleases So that if the Church have not Authority to make these indifferent things the terms of Communion in this sence so as to reject those who will not worship God according to such Prescriptions i. e. who will not obey the Governours of the Church wherein they live then she has no power at all to command And when he adds especially in our present circumstances he refers to those Divisions and Schisms which he says are occasioned by such Impositions Whenever such Ceremonies are doubted and scrupled and made an occasion of Schism then especially it is a sin to impose them but when he says especially he plainly insinuates that it is at all times sinful and unlawful to impose such uncommanded Rites and Modes of Worship though it is a greater sin to do it when there are any who scruple the lawfulness of such Impositions This is the Doctrine of our Protestant Reconciler which I should rather have expected from a profess'd Enemy than from a pretended Advocate of the Church of England He has at once very modestly rejected all Ecclesiastical Authority in indifferent things He has condemned all the Canons and Constitutions of the Church for the orderly performance of Religious Worship from the Apostle days until this time which concern the external Circumstances and Ceremonies of Worship He has plainly renounced one of thoâ—e Articles of Religion to which he has subscribed and declared his Assent if he be a Member of our Church For Art 20. asserts That the Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies And if the Church has power to do this I suppose she may do it without sin and without asking leave of her Inferiours But though our Reconciler has stated this matter so generally as to condemn all Ecclesiastical Authority in indifferent things and has said many things which look that way in several parts of his Book yet his open and avowed designe is onely to prove the sinfulness of such Impositions when they are scrupled and made the occasion of Schisms and Divisions in the Church as he says it is at this day among us And here I shall joyn issue with him and give a particular Answer to every thing which has the least appearance of an Argument which though it will make this Answer larger than I could wish yet is necessary to stop the mouths of such pragmatical Reconcilers who are as troublesome and dangerous to the Government as Dissenters themselves CHAP. 1. Concerning the external Order and Decency of Worship and the Authority of the Church in such matters THat I may give a fair Answer to our Protestant Reconciler I shall first examine some of his Mistakes which run through his whole Book and whereon the whole Argument of his Book is founded the removing of which to men of any competent understanding would supersede the necessity of any farther Answer And they either concern 1. The usefulness of some Rites and Ceremonies of Religious Worship and the Authority of the Church in such matters Or 2. The obligations of charity to the Souls of men with the due measures and extent of it Or 3. That regard which ought to be had to an erroneous or scrupulous Conscience From these Topicks he all-along argues to prove that Church-Governours ought to alter the external Ceremonies of Worship because they are of no value in themselves and therefore charity to the Souls of men requires them in such things to condescend to the errours or scruples or weakness of their Brethren I shall begin with the first which is the fundamental Mistake on which all the rest depend and therefore must stand or fall with it and that concerns the external Order and Decency of Worship or the Authority of the Church in prescribing Rites and Ceremonies for the more decent and orderly performance of Religious Worship Now concerning this matter our Reconciler thinks that the external Ceremonies of Religion are of no account at all for publick Worship may be performed as decently and reverently without the use of those Ceremonies which are in dispute as with them For thus he expresly and dogmatically asserts That the Ceremonies which are imposed by our Church as they have nothing sinful in their nature for which Inferiours
Postures or Gestures in the Worship of God much more to institute any significant and symbolical Rites and Ceremonies that such things have no real and positive goodness in them and therefore are not worth contending for I shall discourse this matter more particularly and shall 1. shew how necessary some decent Rites and Ceremonies are to the external Decency of Worship which will justifie the Governours of the Church in such Impositions 2. Wherein the Decency of religious Worship consists which will justifie the Ceremonies in use among us as having a positive Order Decency and Reverence 3. I shall consider how our Reconciler states this matter First How necessary some decent Rites and Ceremonies are to the external Decency of Worship For though any one particular Habit or Posture or Gesture in religious Worship is so far indifferent as it is no-where expresly commanded yet a decent Habit and Posture c. is not indifferent but as necessary as external Worship is and expresly commanded by this Apostolical Rule That all things be done decently and in order If men will acknowledge that God requires publick external and visible Worship as well as the Worship of the Mind and Spirit which I have largely discoursed elsewhere it is certain there can be no visible Worship but by external and visible signs of honour for the internal Devotion of the mind cannot be seen by men though it be seen by God and therefore is not external and visible Worship Can that man be said to pay any visible Honour or Worship to God whose words and actions postures and behaviour signifie nothing of Honour or Reverence We know of what mighty consequence the Ceremonies of State are and how punctual Princes are in exacting them and when we remember that no Prince can be so jealous of his Honour as God is of his Worship we cannot think that the publick Solemnities and external Decenâ—y of Worship are such inconsiderable things when the glory of God is so nearly concerned in them For the external and visible glory of God consists in external and visible Worship and external Worship is nothing else but external significations of Reverence and Devotion And therefore though the particular modes and circumstances of Worship are not particularly prescribed by God yet some particular Rites of Worship for external Decency and Order are necessary and ought to be prescribed by those who have the care of publick Worship For if the external Decency of Worship be necessary by an Apostolical Precept and yet this external Decency cannot be secured without some particular Rules of Decency and Order then some such particular Rules are as necessary as Decency and Order is and whatever external Rites do contribute to the Decency and Order of Worship have all that real goodness in them which therâ— is in Decency and Order and no man can truly say that any such Rites and Ceremonies have no real goodness in them wherefore they ought to be commanded without asserting at the same time that there is no real goodness in Decency and Order for if they are decent and orderly they must have all that real goodness which is in Decency and Order For it is a manifest Fallacy to argue that such or such Rites or Ceremonies are in their own nature indifferent and not commanded by any positive Law of God and therefore have no real or necessary goodness in them when the end for which they serve is not indifferent but necessary and expresly commanded by God For I cannot see but that these men if they pleased might as well prove that those Rites and Ceremonies which serve the ends of Decency and Order are not indifferent but necessary by vertue of that Law which enjoyns the external Decency of Worship as that they are not necessary but indifferent because they are not in particular commanded by God For the same Law which makes the external Decency of Worship necessary makes the use of decent Rites necessary because the end cannot be attained without the means but the natural indifferency of things does not make them indifferent in their use when they are to serve a necessary end But the fallacy of this consists in the equivocal use of these terms real goodness necessity indifferency which therefore I shall briefly explain and apply to the present Controversie Real goodness may respect the intrinsick nature or the use of things In the first sence we call all moral Vertues good which have an intrinsick and eternal reason such as Prudence Tâ—mperance Fortitude Justice and all those natural acts of Homage and Worship which we owe to God and in this sence no Habits Postures or Gestures have any real goodness in them for they are no acts nor parts of Worship This turns all these external observances into superstition which our Saviour charged the Pharisees with of old and which we very justly charge the Church of Rome with at this day when we place such Vertue and Sanctity in these things as to advance them into proper Acts and Ministries of Religion the very doing of which is as acceptable or more acceptable to God than the most real and natural acts of Homage and Worship But then there are other things which have no natural nor intrinsick goodness in them which yet may be properly enough called and are really good with respect to their use and the end they serve if the end be good and such are those external Rites and Ceremonies which conduce to the decent and orderly performance of religious Worship For if the external Decency of Worship be good then those Ceremonies wherein the external Decency of Worship consists must be so far good also and fit to be commanded The like may be said about the different kinds of necessity as far as it concerns this matter For some things are necessary in their own nature as all those things are which have an internal and immutable goodness and being founded on eternal reasons other things which are not necessary in their own nature yet may be necessary by a divine and positive Institution as the Levitical Sacrifices and Ceremonies were under the Mosaical Law and as the Christian Sacraments are under the Gospel other things are neither necessary in their own nature nor by a positive Law which yet may be necessary as means in order to a necessary end And here are two degrees of necessity 1. When the means is so absolutely necessary to the end that the end cannot be obtained without it as it is in all those cases where there is but one way of doing a thing which makes that one way as absolutely necessary as the thing it self is as if there were but one Road from London to York it would be as necessary to travel that Road as it is to go to York but there are very few such cases as these in matters of Morality But 2. There is another kind of necessity when there are various means equally fitted and
Reverence of God and of the Vigour and Chearfulness of our Minds But I shall onely instance here in kneeling at the Sacrament which with our Reconciler's leave I must needs think a very decent Ceremony both as it distinguishes it from a common Feast and is very agreeable to the nature of that holy Mystery In this holy Supper we feast indeed at the Table of our Lord but this is not a common and ordinary Feast and therefore an ordinary Table-posture does not become us for this is not to discern the Lords body that is not to distinguish it from a common Feast If the Decency of religious Worship consists in peculiar and appropriate Ceremonies certainly there ought to be some distinguishing marks on this mysterious Feast And what more proper than to receive our Pardon upon our knees which is here sealed and conveyed to us What more proper than in the highest act of Worship to our Saviour to express the greatest humility of Soul and Body and when we receive the greatest and most ample favours from him to acknowledge our own unworthiness and pay the lowest Adorations to him I could be tempted to say that if any particular Ceremony in Religion be necessarily determined by an innate Decency and Fitness kneeling at the Lords Table is III. The Decency of Worship consists in a respect to the quality conditions and relations of those who worship God This Rule I learn from that reason the Apostle gives why a man should pray uncovered and a woman covered to signifie the natural Authority of the man and Subjection of the woman For the same reason he would not suffer a woman to speak in the Church because they must be under obedience for to teach is an act of Authority and therefore does not become her state of Subjection And there are other cases to which this may be applied but all that I shall at present observe is the use of distinct Habits for separate and consecrated Persons in the Worship of God The Apostle it seems thought it a piece of Decency that their external Garb and Habit when they worshipped God should be proper and suitable to their state and condition should represent and signifie the Authority and Government of the man and the Subjection of the woman And then I would fain know a reason why this is not decent for the Ministers of Religion too that they should perform the publick Offices of Religion in such a distinct Habit as may both signifie the peculiarity of their Function and that holiness and purity of mind which becomes those who minister in holy things A white Linnen Garment has always been thought very proper for this purpose the twenty four Elders who sate about the Throne are represented as clothed in white Linnen Garments nay that great multitude which stood before the Throne and before the Lamb were clothed with white Robes Nay this is one priviledge which was granted to the Wife of the Lamb that she should be clothed with fine Linnen clean and white Which I alledge onely for this purpose to shew that a white Linnen Garment is very proper for the Ministries of Religion and very expressive both of the Honour and Purity of the Ministerial Function for otherwise it would not be represented as the habit of those Elders who sate round the Throne nor as the habit of the Lambs Wife for all these prophetical descriptions must borrow their figures and resemblances from earthly things And if a white Linnen Garment were not proper to signifie the Dignity and Honour and Holiness of such Persons it could not properly be used to represent and signifie that in Heaven which it does not signifie on Earth And if a white Linnen Garment do very aptly â—ignifie both the Honour and Purity of such a Function and it be a piece of Decency to use such Habits in religious Worship as are proper to the state condition or relation of the Worshippers we may certainly conclude that a Surplice or a white Linnen Garment is a very decent Habit for the Ministers of Religion when they perform the publick Offices of Religion I confess I cannot see what can reasonably be objected against this For why should not the Ministers of Religion worship God in a Habit expressive of the Dignity and Holiness of their Office as well as men and women in such Habits as signifie the natural Honour and Dignity or Subjection of these different Sexes Is not Religion as much concerned in the Honour and Purity of the Ministerial Office as in such oeconomical relations And is it not as fitting then to signifie one as the other by distinct and appropriate Habits If it be said that these external signs are nothing worth and that the Honour of the Ministry is more concerned in the Purity of their Lives than in the whiteness of their Garments this answer might have been given to St. Paul when he commanded the men to pray uncovered and the women covered That the Obedience and Subjection of Wives to their own Husbands is much more valuable than their praying covered in token of such Subjection But it seems S. Paul thought that the Decency and Solemnity of Worship did require the external signs and significations of this though every body knows that a signe is not so valuable as the thing signified This I hope is a sufficient Vindication of those Rites and Ceremonies of Religion which are also the necessary circumstances of action and it is a wonderful thing that this should ever be a Controversie whether the Governours of the Church have any Authority in these matters The Dissenters themselves at other times will acknowledge that the Church has Authority to prescribe the necessary circumstances of action and I take that to be necessary without which an action cannot be performed as I think it cannot be without time place habit and posture And since different times places habits postures may be lawful and some are necessary it must be left to the prudence of Governours to determine which shall be observed according to the Rules of Decency and Order And when the determination of these things is necessary it seems a more ridiculous thing to me to quarrel with Habits and Postures for their signification if they signifie well for there is no other Rule that I know of to determine the Decency of religious Circumstances but by their signification as I think sufficiently appears from what I have already discours'd That which signifies nothing is neither decent nor indecent that which signifies ill any thing unworthy of God or unsutable to the nature of religious Worship is indecent that which signifies well the Devotion and Reverence of our Minds our religious Awe for God or that peculiar Honour we have for him is a very decent Circumstance and yet this is all which men raise so much Clamour about under the formidable name of Symbolical Ceremonies But as I observed before there are
to eat together at a common Table is a civil action and a testimony of civil kindnesses and respects but when this is done upon a religious account as a testimony and expression of Christian Charity it becomes a holy Kiss and a religious Feast These Ceremonies are as acceptable to God as those Duties and Graces are which we exercise and profess in them if we be sincere but they are no parts nor acts of Worship though performed in the time of Worship This short account of the nature of these Ceremonies shews us what a ridiculous pretence it is to charge them with being Sacraments of humane Institution Some tell us that the definition our Church gives of a Sacrament belongs to such Ceremonies as these that it is an outward visible signe of an inward spiritual Grace and here they stop as if this were the full definition of a Sacrament but our Church adds given unto us and ordained by Christ himself as a means whereby we receive the same and as a pledge to assure us thereof So that there can be no such thing as a humane Sacrament because there can be no Sacrament but what is ordained by Christ. True say they but that is the fault of it that when upon other accounts it has the nature of a Sacrament it has not that authority which should make it a divine and therefore it is onely a humane Sacrament These Ceremonies then it seems would be Sacraments if they had the authority of Christ then there is one Sacrament more than they think of viz. washing the Disciples feet which was instituted by Christ himself and is as much an outward visible signe of an inward spiritual Grace as the Cross in Baptism or any other significant Ceremony can be but it wants what our Church adds to make up the nature of a Sacrament that it is ordained as a means whereby we receive this spiritual Grace and as a pledge to assure us thereof Which shews that no Ceremony how symbolical soever it be can be a Sacrament which is not the Seal of a Covenant and Promise and an instituted means for the conveyance of Grace But to let that pass the nature of these Ceremonies does not consist in this That they are outward visible signs of an inward spiritual Grace but that they are the visible Exercise or Profession of some Grace or Duty Their nature does not consist in being signifying signs to teach a Duty but in signifying the actual Exercise or Profession of some Duty and this I suppose does not make them Sacraments Secondly Let us now consider the Decency of such Ceremonies and I cannot imagine what dispute there can be about it For if the Exercise or Profession of such Vertues be decent then the external Rite and Ceremony whereby such a Profession is made if it be used in a grave manner and upon a solemn occasion and be a proper and natural signe of such a Profession must be decent too If it be a decent thing for Christians to express their mutual love and charity to each other when they come together to worship God and to offer up their united Prayers to their common Father or to feast at the Table of their common Lord and Saviour then to kiss one another and to feast at a common Table which are proper and significant expressions of mutual Charity must be decent also at such times And thus they were used by the Primitive Christians they used to kiss each other after Prayers upon which account it is called Signaculum orationis or the Seal of Prayer Thus they kissed each other before their receiving the Lords Supper and began this mysterious Supper with a Love-Feast which was a common Table for the poor and the rich And if it were decent at such times to express their servent charity to each other the external Rite and Ceremony of this must be decent also for inward Charity cannot be expressed but either by words or signs and visible signs which are also the external acts and exercise of Charity are to be preferred before words Thus if it be decent upon some solemn occasions to make a publick profession of our Faith in a crucified Christ and our resolution to follow him even to the Cross and rather to die with him than deny him there cannot be a more solemn occasion for this than at our Baptism when we are received into the Communion of his Church this being an express Condition of our Discipleship to take up our Cross and follow him and therefore also there cannot be a more proper signe and emblem of this Profession than to receive the signe of the Cross in our foreheads for to receive the signe of the Cross is a natural profession of our crucified Lord and a suffering Religion and to receive this signe in our foreheads which are the seat of Modesty and Bashfulness is a visible Profession that we are not and will not be ashamed of the Cross. And as this is decent in it self so it contributes to the Gravity and Solemnity of that religious Administration as all awful grave and solemn Ceremonies do If we consider this as the profession of the Person baptised nothing can be more decent at such a time than to confess a crucified Christ under whose command we then lift our selves and our resolution to fight under the Banner of the Cross. If we consider it as the Profession of the Church who by her publick Ministers solemnly owns the Doctrine of the Cross and declares it as the Condition of our Discipleship when she receives any persons into the Communion of the Church is there any thing unbecoming in this Nay can any thing be more comely and decent than upon such solemn occasions to make such a solemn Profession of the Religion of the Cross Thirdly As for the lawfulness of these Ceremonies I think there is no need to prove that after what I have now discoursed for they being nothing else but the visible Exercise or Profession of some Grace or Duty upon fit and solemn occasions they cannot be unlawful unless the external Acts and visible Profession of a known Duty can be unlawful If it is our duty to make a publick Profession of our Faith in a crucified Saviour no time can be more proper for such a Profession than the time of our Baptism no signe can more naturally signifie this Profession than the signe of the Cross. Now I would gladly hear a wise reason why it should be unlawful to make such a Profession as this at our Baptism or unlawful to do it by signs as well as words I would desire to know why we may not profess our Faith in a crucified Saviour by the signe of the Cross as innocently and decently as make our Appeals to God in an Oath by laying our hand upon the Bible and kissing it Nay I would desire to know why the Church may not as well receive men into her Communion with the signe
the King of England must not impose the Laws of England on Italy or Spain therefore he must not make Laws for England neither This our Reconciler was aware of and therefore in his Preface to strengthen these Authorities he asks this Question Why that agreement in Fundamentals which is sufficient to preserve Communion betwixt Churches disagreeing in Rites and Ceremonies and Doctrines of inferior moment may not be sufficient also to preserve Communion among those Members of the same Church though disagreeing in like matters For if the reason why Christian Churches which do thus differ should be received and owned as Christians and Brethren of the same Communion with us is because these differences do not hinder their being real Members of Christs Body and therefore Fellow-members of the same Church and Body with us since the same reason proves the Members of any Church whatsoever who differ onely in non-fundamentals capable of being real Christians and so of the same Church and Body with us why should it not oblige us to receive them as Christian Brethren i. e. persons of the same Communion with us if we can do it without sin Now the Answer to this is so obvious that I wonder our Reconciler should miss it For 1. The reason of Communion between distinct Churches can be nothing else but the common Principles of Christianity one Lord one Faith one Hope one Baptism c. that is whatever is essential to Christian Faith and Worship for what is more than this as the particular Rules and Orders of Discipline and Government and Modes of Worship are the Object of Ecclesiastical Authority and since no Church has authority over another they ought not to impose their own Rules of Discipline or Worship upon each other But now no private Christian can live in the Communion of any particular Church without submitting to its Government and Discipline and conforming to its Rules of Worship Though one Church must not usurp Authority over another yet every Church must govern her own Members and direct her own Worship and there can be no Order nor Decency of Worship where there are no Rules of Worship no Uniformity but every man is left to do as he pleases And yet 2. Though the Communion of distinct Churches with each other does not require that they should all observe the same Usages and Rites of Worship in their own Churches yet it requires that the Members of these distinct Churches should communicate with each other and conform to each others Customs where they happen to be present It is a ridiculous thing to talk of two Churches being in Communion with each other who will not as occasion serves communicate together upon the terms of each others Communion For Calvinists to call the Lutherans or Lutherans the Calvinists Brethren but to refuse to joyn in Communion when they happen to be in each others Churches this is not to live in Communion with each other or for a Calvinist to communicate in the Lutheran Church or a Lutheran in the Calvinists but according to the Rites of their own Churches not of the Church in which they communicate this is not to communicate with but publickly to affront each other The onely Principle of Catholick Communion between distinct Churches in such matters as these is so far to allow of each others Rules and Modes of Worship as to conform when occasion serves to such indifferent Customs and Usages though very different from their own rather than divide the Communion of the Church and if this be necessary to the Communion of distinct Churches with each other then certainly it is necessary for the Members of every particular Church to submit to its Authority and conform to its Rules and Orders of Worship For 3. It is ridiculous to imagine that nothing more is necessary to a Christian in Church-Communion than what is absolutely necessary to the State of a Christian out of the visible Communion of any Church as if nothing more were necessary to make a man a Member of the Commonwealth than what is necessary to make him a man The belief of the fundamental Doctrines of Christianity and Obedience to those Laws of Righteousness which have an eternal and immutable goodness in them will make a man a good Christian in a private and single capacity but obedience to Government and conformity to the Rules of Discipline and Worship are as necessary to make a man a good Christian in Church-society as they are essential to the being and constitution of a Church and it is impossible to form a Church-Society onely of the Essentials of Christianity considered as a Systeme of Doctrines and Laws which every private Christian ought to observe for there are the Essentials of Christian-Communion as well as of Christian Religion Christ did not onely publish the Gospel but instituted a Church and the Government and Discipline of the Church is of a distinct consideration from the belief of the Gospel No man can be a Member of the Church without believing the Gospel but Church-Society lays some new obligations upon us beyond what is necessary in a single state out of Church-Society But to return Though this learned Bishop did not urge the abrogation of the Mosaical Law against the imposition of the Ceremonies of the Church of England nor against any other Rituals or Ceremonies neither but only against such usurpt Authority as challenge a power to make Laws for the whole Christian World yet this Argument is frequently alleadged by others and more than once repeated by our Reconciler to this purpose but how trifling it is appears from this distinction between Rituals and Ceremonies and the decent Circumstances of Worship They tell us that Christ removed those burdens which were on the Church and therefore would not impose new ones But does the Church of England lay any new burdens upon men Does she require any thing more than what is necessary Christ requires that we should celebrate his last Supper in remembrance of him that the Minister should perform all the publick Offices of Religion and that this should be done in a decent and reverent manner and does the Church of England require any more Does she institute any Ceremonies excepting the Cross in Baptism which is a professing Signe and relates to no act of Worship though it be thought decent to be done at the time of Baptism but what are decent circumstances of action And is Decency then a new burden which Christ hath not imposed on his Disciples Is Decency an unnecessary or unreasonable thing Did Christ leave it at liberty then whether his Disciples should worship God decently or not Christ hath taken away the Yoke of Jewish Ceremonies and has the Church of England put another Jewish Yoke on the Disciples necks Are there any such Rituals and Ceremonies in the Church of England as have the least affinity with the Jewish Yoke Did Christ when he abrogated the Jewish Law abrogate all Decency
That the Charity of Governours must express it self in the Acts of Government 1. That the Charity of Governours must be such as is consistent with the Duty and Authority of Government For charity to others cannot dispense with our own duty and therefore if Christ have given authority to his Ministers to govern his Church whatever pretences of charity there be to the contrary they must govern it or they are very uncharitable to themselves in neglecting their own Duty out of pretence of charity to others Nay all private acts of charity must give place to publick charity Now Government is a publick good that is is a publick charity and therefore must not be neglected out of pretence of charity to private Christians Now to apply this to our present purpose If the Governours of the Church could do what our Reconciler desires without neglecting their own Duty or injuring their Authority and Government I think this Plea of Charity would be more specious and plausible but that they cannot do it is as plain to me as a first Principle For 1. It is their duty to direct and govern religious Assemblies and to secure the Order and Decency of publick Worship which they cannot do without prescribing the Rules and determining the decent circumstances of action But you will say Cannot the Bishops govern the Church nor take care of the Decency of Worship unless they command the Minister to officiate in a Surplice and the People to receive kneeling Yes no doubt they may Then these Laws are alterable They are so Then in charity they are bound to alter them according to your own Rules for they may do this without neglecting their duty of governing religious Assemblies I deny the consequence and that for this reason because Charity does not require any man much less Governours to do a foolish thing which serves no good end at all For if they should alter our present Rules and decent Circumstances of Worship they must prescribe some others or else they neglect their Duty for the Decency of publick Worship cannot be preserved without the decent Circumstances of Worship and they cannot be secured especially in such an Age as this wherein so many men think a rude and slovenly Worship to be most pure and spiritual without some fixt and standing Rules of Decency Now whatever change they make they cannot change for the better nor remove any scruple by such a change For most of the Principles upon which our Dissenters dispute against our present Ceremonies will serve as well against any other establish'd Order of Worship and certainly it is not worth the while for Governours to alter Laws meerly to try the humours of People to see whether those who without reason scruple Impositions in one case will without reason submit to other Impositions when the same reasons hold in both It is neither consistent with the prudence nor charity of Government upon such slight pretences as these to make alterations so much for the worse as they must be if ever they alter our present Rules of Worship If this should gratifie some humoursome People it might justly offend and scandalize much better men to see a decent way of Worship changed for that which is less decent No saith our Reconciler this cannot with any truth be pretended Are not things indifferent such as may be imposed or not imposed at pleasure And doth not our Church declare her Ceremonies to be things indifferent Can therefore any regular Son of the Church of England be offended that she doth use her liberty in matters wholly left unto her liberty and by her first Reformers declared to be so Yes why not for all this Must every thing which is alterable be altered for no reason at all May it not justly offend a regular Son of the Church of England to see a more decent way of Worship laid aside and that which is less decent come in the room of it The Church of England I am sure is not of this mind she allows that her Ceremonies may be changed and altered but they ought to be altered onely upon just causes as she expresly determines and though in such cases she allows of some alteration in her Ceremonies yet she judges it necessary that some Ceremonies should be retained since without some Ceremonies it is not possible to keep any Order or quite Discipline in the Church But says our Reconciler they do not desire that the Ceremonies by Law establish'd should be abolished or that Conformists should be forbid to use them but onely that others whose Consciences will not permit them so to do should be dispensed with in their omission of them This would be a greater and more just offence than the other for this must be either in the same or in distinct Assemblies If in the same this introduces nothing but Disorder Confusion and Schismâ— into the Bowels of the Church if in distinct Assemblies this is to establish Schism by a Law and to make them onely legal Conventicles But he says As some sit some stand some kneel at Common-Prayer and Prayer before Sermon and this without confusion so may some sit some kneel some stand at the receiving the Sacrament But does our Reconciler think this variety of posture at Prayer an orderly and decent thing especially for men to sit at Prayers Standing may be sometimes necessary because especially in full Auditories all persons may not have the conveniency of kneeling But is one Irregularity sufficient to justifie another Does not the Church require an uniform posture at Prayer too And is it not more decent and orderly that it should be so And yet there is a great difference between such various postures at Prayers and at receiving the Lords Supper For excepting the rudeness of sitting when men have strength of body to kneel or stand which is an offence to pious and devout minds these variety of postures do not proceed from mens differing judgments and opinions about them and therefore do not occasion mutual scandal and offence censuring and judging one another in the very act of Worship But differing postures in receiving the Lords Supper is matter of Dispute and scruple one thinks kneeling idolatrous and superstitious the other deservedly thinks it rude and unmannerly to sit and this must of necessity occasion mutual Emulations in the very act of receiving than which nothing can be more inconsistent with the nature of that holy Communion And if you say that men must lay aside this judging and censorious humour you must either mean that while men retain these differing apprehensions of things they must not judge one another which is to say that they must not judge of men and things as they think which is ridiculously impossible unless you can teach men not to think as they think or that they must alter their apprehensions of things and look upon all these as indifferent postures and then there will be no reason to alter
the Laws or to allow of such different postures when mens scruples are removed 2. As the Governours of the Church would neglect their Duty so they would manifestly injure their Authority by such a compliance with the ignorance humour and scruples of men and therefore how charitable soever our Reconciler may think this it is not such a Charity as becomes Governours For private Christians to abridge themselves in the use of their Christian liberty for the sake of others is in many cases highly commendable and a generous act of charity but for Governours to renounce their Authority to gratifie Dissenters is so far from being an act of charity that it is betraying their Trust. Either Christ has committed this power to them to govern religious Assemblies and to prescribe the decent Rules of Worship or he has not if he have as our Reconciler has more than once owned in this very Book then this power is a Trust committed to them and such a Trust as they must give an account of and therefore no pretence of charity can justifie them in renouncing the exercise of it The Reconciler indeed tells us That which is here pleaded for is neither a denial nor a dissembling of their imposing power in Superiours but onely an abatement of the exercise thereof toward some weak Dissenters Which may be done with the asserting of the power and a profession that they do suspend the exercise thereof not through conviction that it may not be lawfully used but out of pure commiseration and howels of compassion towards their weak Brethren But all the Protestations in the World will not salve this matter for the great Dispute about Ceremonies turns upon this hinge whether the Church have authority to command any thing relating to the Worship of God which is not expresly instituted and enjoyned by Christ. Hence all such Rules of Order and Decency are by our modest and peaceable Dissenters opprobriously call'd Will-worship and Humane Inventions and teaching for Doctrines the commandments of men and though they had nothing to say against the lawfulness of the things themselves and indeed all that they have to say is next to nothing yet their not being commanded by God and their being commanded by men though by such men as are invested with Christ's authority to govern his Church is thought a sufficient reason not to submit to them Now when the Authority of the Church is the principal matter in dispute and Ceremonies onely a collateral dispute as depending upon an usurped and illegal Authority I would fain know of our Reconciler how upon these terms they can give up these Ceremonies to the clamours of the Dissenters without giving up their own Authority with them which is the principal thing in question and for the sake of which the Ceremonies are disputed Now let any man judge whether this be an act of charity to part with that Authority which Christ has placed in his Church Is this Authority for the good of the Church or is it not If it be not then it seems Christ has placed such an Authority in his Church as is not for the publick good and this charges our Saviour himself with want of prudence or charity to his own Church in setting such an uncharitable power over it If Church-Authority be for the publick good then it is no act of charity to part with it As to give but one instance of this which our Reconciler is often at He tells us That the Scripture-Exhortations to Peace and Unity are so far from requiring such an Vnity and Vniformity as we plead for that they perfectly confute all those who think it fit to lay the Vnion of the Church upon an uniformity in lesser matters and do impose them as the Conditions of Communion for either we must all submit to some infallible Guide and Iudge of Controversies in order to our Vnion as R. H. thinks it necessary in order to our compliance with these Precepts or else confess 't is morally impossible to comply with them it being visibly impossible to bring all men unto an unity of judgment and of practice in these things and so we must reflect upon the wisdom of our Lord and of his Precepts And grant that Protestants have no sufficient means of Vnity which is the very thing that Papists do so continually upbraid us with or must acknowledge that the way to this desired Vnity is not that of imposing and requiring uniformity in little matters concerning which the minds of men are full of doubts and scruples but that of mutual condescension and forbearance and charity in lesser differences God help that Church which meets with such Reconcilers as these But that which I shall observe here is his own concession and his Dilemma upon it He argues strongly That while men are left to judge for themselves in the Externals of Worship it is impossible to bring them unto an unity of judgment and practice in these things for this he says must be granted unless we own the necessity of an infallible Judge Here indeed the Reconciler and I differ a little about the infallibility of this Judge but we agree upon the main point that without a Judge to determine these matters there can be no Unity and Agreement among Christians which certainly is a demonstration in the Age in which we live how strange soever it might have been thought in the Primitive times of Unity And his Dilemma is a very sore one For either this reflects upon the Wisdom of Christ himself and grants that Protestants have no sufficient means of Unity or that the way to this desired Unity is not requiring uniformity in little matters Now to begin with the last first it is demonstrably true that there is no Church-Unity without Unity in Worship wherein the principal exercise of Christian Communion consists and that there can be no Decency and Order in this which is an Apostolical Precept without Uniformity and no Uniformity without such Impositions What follows then but that we must reflect on the wisdom of Christ in not leaving Authority in his Church sufficient to determine such matters and grant that Protestants have no means of Union These are hard terms but I cannot see how they can be avoided without granting that Christ has given though not an infallible Judge of all Controversies of Faith yet a supreme Authority to his Church to determine all matters of Decency and Order which all Christians are bound to obey in all cases where their Rules and Orders do not contradict some plain and express Law of Christ. And this Principle will quickly make us all of a mind in such matters Now then from hence I thus argue If the wisdom of Christ himself in instituting a Church-Society and commanding all Christians to live in Peace and Unity and Love if the Unity of Christians among themselves and the Decency and Uniformity of Worship are so nearly concerned in the sacredness of
thing is doubtful though some men may be very confident both ways and nothing that is doubtful can be necessary to salvation nor can the final decision of it be necessary to the peace of the Church But if the Arguments on one hand to an unbyassed and disinteressed judgment be plain and certain and the Objections on the other hand nothing but empty and trifling Cavils which is the true case between the Church of England and Dissenters in the dispute of Ceremonies if the dissent of these men shall be thought sufficient to render this matter uncertain we shall be condemned to eternal and unavoidable Scepticism But our Reconciler says Let any man peruse the Arguments of the Dissenters against Conformity to symbolical Ceremonies and he will find them strengthned by the suffrages of many grave and learned Divines both of our own and other Churches As for the grave Divines of other Churches let them mind their own business for their Authority is nothing to us and as for the Divines of our own Church who strengthen the Dissenters Arguments against Ceremonies who they are or how many or how grave and learned they are I cannot tell He has indeed transcribed several Sayings out of some of our Divines to plead for the relaxation of such Impositions but none that I know of to strengthen the Dissenters Arguments which no Divine in our Church can do who honestly conforms himself Well but how does this Passage in the Irenicum countenance this reconciling designe Suppose there be probable reasons on both sides where yet it is necessary to act one way what must be done in this case must every man be left to do as he pleases So says the Reconciler that this is the onely way to peace but the Irenicum says the quite contrary That the way to peace cannot be by leaving an absolutely to follow their own ways for that were to build a Babel instead of Salem Confusion instead of Peace It must be then by convincing men that neither of those ways to peace and order which they contend about is necessary by way of divine command though some be as a means to an end but which particular way or form it must be is wholly left to the prudence of those in whose power and trust it is to see the peace of the Church be secured on lasting foundations Which is a peremptory determination against our Reconciler who very rarely quotes any Author without wresting his words to another sence than what was intended If every thing were doubtful of which some men doubt and nothing must be determined which is thus doubtful it were impossible that there should be any external form and constitution of a Church or any external Worship If it be a good Argument that a thing is doubtful because some men doubt of it methinks it is as good an Argument that that is not doubtful which no body doubts of and thus symbolical Ceremonies as our Reconciler calls them are past all doubt for no Christian ever had any doubt about them for above fifteen hundred years which is time enough in this way to prove the certainty of any thing And though some Christians begin to doubt and to invent Arguments to countenance their doubts after fifteen hundred years yet this is no reason for the Church to doubt also Well but if mens doubting be not an Argument that the thing whereof they doubt is doubtful how shall we know what is doubtful and what not I answer Where there is no positive evidence and the probabilities or difficulties are great on both sides there is sufficient reason for doubting and in such cases I think the Church has not authority to determine either way when the doubt is about the lawfulness or unlawfulness the truth or falshood of things for the authority of the Church cannot alter the nature nor the evidence of things and therefore ought not to determine that to be lawful which it is equally probable may be unlawful nor that to be true which has equal proofs of its being false But this cannot concern the controversie about the lawful use of some Ceremonies in religious Worship for which we have as plain and positive evidence as we can desire for a thing of this nature as I have already shewn and therefore any mens doubting of this makes it no more doubtful than their doubts about any plain and necessary Article of Faith renders that also doubtful and suspicious 2. Though the Church must not command any thing which is of a doubtful nature yet the doubts and scruples or mistakes of Christians ought to have no influence upon acts of Government There cannot be a more unreasonable and senseless Imposition upon Governours than this which makes all Government the most arbitrary and precarious and useless thing in the world If this Rule were allowed what work would it make in Kingdoms and Families when Princes Parents and Masters must command nothing which their Subjects Children or Servants scruple to do That which makes Government necessary is that the generality of mankind do not know how to govern themselves but this Principle makes all men their own Governours and makes it unlawful for any Authority to impose any thing upon their Subjects which they have not a mind to for it is an easie matter to scruple or to pretend to scruple whatever we have no mind to do and yet if we will believe our Reconciler here is no distinction to be made between men who are really weak and scrupulous and those who pretend to it for it is an uncharitable thing it seems whatever evidence we have for it to charge those men with obstinacy malice or perverseness who pretend to Scruples and tender Consciences But to what purpose has God committed any Authority to some certain persons in Church or State if they must not govern according to the best judgment they have of things but must be governed by the mistakes or scruples of those whom they ought to govern If they must not command what is innocent useful and convenient when those whom they ought to command do not think it so This all men will acknowledge to be intolerable in the State and I challenge our Reconciler to shew me any wise reason wâ—â— the Secular Powers must have no regard to mens scruples in making useful Laws and the Governours of the Church must Whoever considers how wild unreasonable and fantastical some mens mistakes and scruples are must needs think it a very ridiculous Constitution of Government which has any regard to them It is in the Government of the Church as it is in the State and as it must of necessity be in all Governments Those who have authority to govern must take care to do it wisely and charitably and those who are subject must obey in all things lawful without cavilling at their Superiours commands where they are not manifestly contrary to some divine Law and if there happens any
of St. Pauls made some Proposals for the ease of scrupulous persons with reference to these Ceremonies what thanks had he for it How many bitter Invectives were written against him And can we flatter our selves then that the removal of these Ceremonies would cure our Divisions And if it will not why does he urge the evil and mischief of Divisions to perswade the Church to part with these Ceremonies Whatever other reasons there may be to part with these Ceremonies the cure of Divisions can be no reason when we certainly know before-hand that this will not cure them unless he thinks the Church bound to act upon such reasons as he himself and every body else knows to be no reason for nothing can be a reason for doing a thing which cannot be obtained by doing it But because our Reconciler attempts to say something to this in his tenth Chapter I shall follow him thither His first Objection is That the Church will gain little by such an Indulgence and this I verily believe to be true Let us hear then what he has to say to it And 1. he takes it for granted that he has already proved it the duty of Superiours to condescend in matters of this nature rather than to debar men from Communion with the Church of Christ for things unnecessary and which they nowhere are commanded to impose and if so let us do our duty and commit the event to God Now I answer 1. I can by no means grant that he has proved this and have in part already and doubt not to make it appear before I have done that he has not proved it But 2. Suppose he had proved that it is the duty of Superiours to condescend in such matters when they can do any good by their condescension has he proved also that it is their duty to condescend when they know they can do no good by it When these Divisions will not be cured by such condescension which is the present case The gaining of some very few Proselytes would not countervail the mischief of altering publick Constitutions though we should suppose it reasonable to condescend to such alterations when we can propose any great and publick good by doing it II. Our Reconciler answers Suppose that we by yielding in these matters should not reduce one of the Tribe of our dissenting Brethren yet should we take off their most plausible pretences and leave them nothing which could be rationally offered as a ground of Separation or accusation of our proceedings against them I doubt not but our Dissenters despise this Reconciler in their hearts for thinking that they have no plausible pretences nor rational grounds of Separation but the Dispute about Ceremonies What pretences then have the Dissenters in Scotland where none of these things are imposed And are they more quiet and peaceable or less clamorous in their Complaints than our Dissenters in England For whose sake shall the Church make this Experiment with the loss of their own Orders and Constitutions for the sake of Dissenters And what charity is it to them to discover their obstinacy and hypocrisie and render them more inexcusable to God and men Is it to satisfie our selves that the Dissenters are a sort of peevish and obstinate Schismaticks who will make Divisions without any just pretence or reason for it We know this already we know they have no rational grounds for their Separation though these Ceremonies be not removed Or do we think to stop their mouths and escape their reproaches and censures As if any man could stop the mouth of a Schismatick or make him blush Those who are resolved to continue Schismaticks will always find something to say for it and let them talk on the true Sons of the Church will defend her Constitutions with more reason than Dissenters reproach them III. However he says This will intirely stop the mouths of the Layety and if they be gained their Preachers must follow But who told him this I am sure Mr. Baxter often complains that their Layety is so headstrong and stubborn that they cannot govern them and in all my observation I find that they are as fond of Schism as zealous against Liturgies and Bishops as obstinately addicted to the peculiar Opinions and Practices of their Party as their Preachers are though I am of our Reconciler's mind that their Preachers will sooner follow their People to Church than the People their Preachers But with what face can our Reconciler say That these Ceremonies chiefly debar the Layety from full Communion with us when every one knows the contrary They can communicate with us notwithstanding these Ceremonies when they please and when they can serve any interest by it and their Preachers can give them leave to do so and is it not an admirable reason for altering the establish'd Constitutions of a Church to gratifie such humoursome Schismaticks who can conform when they please IV. He adds They who at first dissented from the Constitution of our Church declared they did it purely upon the account of these things i. e. the Ceremonies still used among us This now is a mistake in History for the first dislike that was taken against our Church was for the square Cap and Tippet and some Episcopal habitâ— which are not talked of in our days and some of which were used in the Universities without scruple in the late blessed times of Reformation But the use of these Ceremonies was never scrupled till Queen Elizabeth's days which was the fruit of the former Heats at Francford during the Marian Persecution and these men indeed did dissent as our Reconciler expresses it that is they expressed their dislike of these things but they did not separate upon it The first that made any steps to Separation set up other pretences complained for want of a right Ministry a right Government in the Church according to the Scriptures without which there can be no right Religion which are the pretences of our Separatists at this day Well but suppose what he says to be true what reason is this for altering our Ceremonies at this day Will our Separatists conform now if these Ceremonies are taken away That he dares not say but we shall gain this by it That it will appear that they are not the genuine Off-spring of the old dissenting Protestants As if any man but a Reconciler were to learn that now when it has been so often proved upon them and they themselves scorn and huff at the Argument and will not have the old Puritans made a President for them V. In the Treaty at the Savoy the abatement of the Ceremonies and the alteration of some disputable passages in the Liturgie was all that was contended for That is he means the Dispute went no farther but if they had gained these points we should then have heard more of them I am sure whoever reads their Petition for Peace will find all the Principles of Mr. Baxter's
whereby their Brother stumbleth or is made weak or is offended yet may Church-Governours impose such things although God has declared that their power is only for edification and not for destruction For this is the plain case all these Arguments St. Paul uses to perswade private Christians to mutual forbearance and charity in the exercise of their Christian liberty and yet both the Council at Ierusalem and St. Paul in this Chapter do positively determine that the Gentile Christians should have this liberty though St. Paul perswades them to great charity in the exercise of it So that the case of private Christians and publick Governours is so very different that charity may exact that from private Christians to avoid scandal and offence which no charity can justifie in Governours the Gentile Converts were to deny themselves in the use of their liberty to avoid giving offence to the Jewish â—hristians but a whole Council of Apostles did not think fit to deny this liberty to the Gentiles which might prove an offence and scandal to the Jews For the believing Gentiles might restrain the use of their liberty without injuring their Christian liberty for no man is bound to use all the liberty he has and therefore may suspend the use of it when it will serve the ends of charity but the Apostles could not deny the use of this liberty to the gentile Converts without destroying their Christian liberty And therefore our Reconciler is mightily out in his Argument That Church-Governours in their publick capacity are bound to all those acts of forbearance and charitable condescension which private Christians are bound to when in this very instance from which he argues it appears to be quite otherwise the Church determines for the liberty of the Gentiles to eat all sorts of meats without any regard to the Mosaical distinction between clean and unclean notwithstanding that offence it gave to the believing Jew and yet St. Paul perswades the believing Gentile not to use this liberty to the scandal and offence of their weak Brethren In a word This fourteenth Chapter to the Romans consists of two distinct parts though not so commonly observed which has occasioned very confused apprehensions about it 1. That which equally concerns both Jews and Gentiles viz. not to judge despise or censure each other nor to break Christian Communion upon account of their different apprehensions about the Mosaical Law that one believed he might indifferently eat of all sorts of meat and another eat herbs one preferred one day before another another thought all days alike Now all the indulgence to one another which the Apostle exacts in this case is onely to grant each other that liberty which the Apostolical Synod had granted them that the Jews might still observe the Law of Moses and that the Gentiles might enjoy their liberty not to observe it and therefore the Apostle uses much such Arguments to perswade them to this as were before used by the Council when they made their Decree of which more presently and this part reaches to the 13th verse But how our Reconciler hence infers that Church-Governours must not make any Determinations about things which are scrupled because the Apostle exhorts them to obey such Determinations and not to judge and censure one another for such matters which the Church had determined they might both lawfully do I cannot imagine 2. The second part peculiarly refers to the believing Gentiles to perswade them to exercise great charity and as much as might be to avoid all scandal and offence in the use of their Christian liberty That because their Jewish Brethren were so weak as to take offence at their liberty therefore they should forbear the use of it when it was likely to give offence And to this purpose he urges several Arguments from charity to the end of the Chapter and in the beginning of the 15th Chapter But this you have already heard peculiarly relates to the duty of private Christians in the private exercise of their Christian liberty and can by no means be applied to the Governours of the Church as exercising acts of Government in making publick Decrees and Constitutions for as I have already shewn the Church could not deny that liberty to the Gentiles nor make any Decree in favour of such Jewish scruples but onely exhorted the Gentiles to exercise this liberty charitably and without offence This one thing well considered is a sufficient Answer to our Reconciler's fourth Chapter since it makes it very plain that there is nothing in the 14th of the Romans to restrain the exercise of Ecclesiastical Authority whatever scruples men have entertained about it II. Another very material difference is that the subject of the Dispute between the Church and Dissenters is of a quite different nature from that Dispute which was between the Jewish and Gentile Christians about which the Apostle gave those directions about mutual forbearance and a charitable condescension to each other The Dispute between the Church and Dissenters is about indifferent things between the Jews and Gentiles about the observation of the Law of Moses Now these two are so vastly different that there may be very wise reasons for allowing some indulgence in one case but not in the other By indifferent things I mean such things as are neither morally good nor evil nor are either commanded nor forbidden by any positive Law of God Now if our Reconciler can shew any Dispute about such things in Scripture or any one Precept or Exhortation either to Governours or private Christians about forbearance or the exercise of charity in such matters I will yield him the Cause He has not produced one yet for the Dispute between Jew and Gentile was of another nature This our Reconciler acknowledges That this Discourse is generally thought to have relation to the Iewish Converts who thought it was unlawful to eat of meats forbidden by the Law of Moses and that it was their duty to observe the Iewish Festivals and says That his Discourse will be more firm if the Apostle speaks concerning the observance of the Law of Moses or of the meats and days prescribed by it And in this sence I desire to take it and believe this is the true sence of the words but it may be when he sees that this interpretation of the place will overthrow his whole Hypothesis he will be willing to retreat and therefore I shall briefly examine what he alleadges to prove the Apostle did not refer to the observation of the Law of Moses in this place but that he rather speaks of meats offered to Idols and the observing days of Fasting His Arguments are these 1. Because the weak Brethren did not abstain from Swines-flesh onely and other meats forbidden by the Law of Moses but they abstained from all kinds of flesh Whence saith the Commentator on the Romans in St. Jerom 's Works It may be proved that the Apostle speaketh not of the Iews as some
of every mans private liberty The Gentile Christians who knew that they were not under the obligation of the Mosaical Law which made a distinction between clean and unclean meats were perfectly at liberty whether they would eat or not eat such meats as were forbid by that Law and this was an instance of their own private liberty wherein no body was directly concerned but themselves neither any other particular man excepting the case of scandal nor the publick state of the Church For what is it to any man what is it to the Church whether I eat such meat or not when I may lawfully do either And therefore this is a proper Sphere for the exercise of a private Charity for Charity of what nature soever it be can be exercised onely in such matters as are perfectly in our power and therefore no private Christian can lawfully extend his charity any farther than his own private liberty extends whatever others are concerned in as well as himself especially whatever the Church of God and the publick state of Religion is concerned in is the object neither of private liberty nor of private charity And yet the Apostle here exhorts them to nothing but what was in the power of every private Christian. And whether we say that this Exhortation concerns onely particular Christians or Church-Governours also yet it is evident it concerns onely the exercise of their own private liberty Now if any such case should happen again which I think cannot possibly be that in the use of our private liberty in our Diet or Clothes or way of living we should give such offence to weak Christians as should make them suspect the truth of Christianity and endanger their final Apostacy this 14th Chap. to the Romans would be an admirable Text to preach on to correct such uncharitable abuses of our liberty but what is this to the use of decent but indifferent Rites and Ceremonies in the Worship of God for the decent Rites of Worship concern the publick exercise of Religion not every Christians private liberty every instance of our private liberty may indeed in some sence be called an indifferent thing as that signifies what we may do or may not do as we please but it is not indifferent as the decent Rites of Worship are indifferent for the Decency of Worship is the matter of an express positive Law and the particular Rites of Worship the Object of Ecclesiastical Prudence and Authority And what a vast difference this makes in the case of Scandal will appear from my second Observation on St. Paul's discourse which is this 2. That this compliance and condescension to a weak Brother must be in such matters wherein Religion and Religious Worship is not concerned For by this Argument St. Paul perswades them to this forbearance because Christian Religion is not at all concerned in it The Kingdom of God is not meat nor drink Their eating or not eating in it self considered was no act nor so much as a circumstance in Religion and it did not become the charity and goodness of the Christian temper to give such great scandal to a weak Brother for things in which Religion is not at all concerned Those who expound meat and drink in this place to signifie all the Externals of Religious Worship especially all such Rites and Circumstances as have not a divine institution and command as our Reconciler plainly does do mightily mistake the Apostles meaning and affix such Doctrines to him as are very absurd and unaccountable When the Apostle says The Kingdom of God is not meat and drink it plainly signifies that the Christian Religion does not consist in eating or not eating such or such meats that no man is the better Christian for eating Swines flesh or other prohibited meats nor the worse Christian meerly for not eating them No man questions whether the Kingdom of God signifies the Christian Religion or the state of the Christian Church and therefore when he says that meat and drink is not the Kingdom of God he must mean not that it is not the whole of Religion which no man ever dreamt of but that it is no part of it no act of Religious Worship as I think I need not prove to the Reconciler himself that though the Gospel gives us leave to eat Swines flesh yet it is no act of Religion to do it And therefore the Externals of Religion the decent Rites and Ceremonies of Worship how mean and indifferent soever they may be thought cannot be comprehended under those general terms of meats and drinks because this meat and drink was no act nor part nor circumstance of Religious Worship nor any thing relating to it but the decent circumstances of Religious Worship are necessary to publick Worship Now when the Apostle exhorts them to exercise forbearance and condescension to a weak Brother in such matters by this very Argument because Religion is not concerned in it our Reconciler will be a very wonderful man if he can prove that we must exercise the same indulgence in such matters as do concern Religious Worship if he can prove that the Governours of the Church must indulge private Christians in the different Rites and Modes of Religious Worship because private Christians must indulge each other in such different practices as do not at all relate to Religion I am resolved never to dispute more with him for I doubt not but he is at the same rate able to make good the greatest Paradoxes in Religion or Philosophy There is very great reason for Christians not to quarrel with each other nor to divide the Unity or disturb the Peace of the Church for such Disputes as do not properly belong to Religion for where it is purely matter of our own liberty there is room for the exercise of Charity and mutual Forbearance And this is the Apostles Argument that the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink But where Religion and the Worship of God is concerned it is of another nature for it is not in our power to do what we please in such matters nor to allow others the liberâ—y of doing what they please and therefore this is not the Object of Indulgence and Forbearance nor is there any one word in all the Scripture to countenance any such liberty which would effectually undermine all Order Decency and Uniformity of publick Worship And therefore when the Apostle adds that the Kingdom of God is righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost this does not signifie neither that this is the whole of Religion or the onely thing that we are to be concerned about as the Reconciler understands it for the external and visible Worship of God is as essential a part of Religion as these but these are plain and acknowledged Duties of Religion and we ought not to violate a plain and necessary Duty for the sake of that which is no Duty at all Which is the sum of the Apostle's Argument as
I observed before The necessary consequence of which is that in all such cases wherein not Religion but our own liberty is concerned the great Rule we are to observe is to promote the Peace of the Church and the mutual Edification of each other to follow after the things which make for peace and things wherewith one may edifie another Now this is a plain Rule which all men at first hearing will acknowledge to be reasonable not to violate the plain Duties of Religion in contending about such liberties the use and exercise of which are of no account in Religion not to scandalize a weak Brother nor destroy the Peace of the Church and the mutual edification of Christians in love by eating such meats as we may indeed in other cases lawfully eat but the eating of which is at no time and in no case in it self considered an act of Worship or acceptable to God But if we understand these words in our Reconciler's way that the Externals of Religion are of no account and therefore must be sacrificed to the dearer interests of Peace and Charity and mutual Edification I confess the Argument is plain enough but it is neither to the Apostle's purpose nor is it true And yet this is the fundamental Principle of all Reconcilers and of those men who affect the name and character of Moderation that the Externals of Religion are little worth and of small account with God But the great business which Christians ought to mind is Love and Charity and the practice of those moral Vertues wherein they place the life and substance of Religion and therefore it does not become them to quarrel about the external Modes of Worship but an indulgence in such matters becomes the good and benign temper of the Gospel Now how these men come to know that God is so indifferent about his own Worship I cannot guess nor how the Worship of God comes to be a less essential part of Religion than justice and charity to men I am sure under the Law God appeared very jealous of his Honour and Worship and though he rejected all the Worship of bad men and despised those external acts of Worship which were separated from Justice and Charity yet this was no Argument that he undervalued his own Worship because he was not pleased with an empty shew and appearance of it As for his preferring Mercy before Sacrifice I have given some account of it already and may do more in what follows but certainly Religion is properly the Worship of God and therefore that is the greatest thing in it And publick Worship which is the most visible Honour of God consists in external and visible Signs and therefore the Order Decency and Solemnity of Worship is so essential to the notion of publick Worship that there can be no Worship without it for to worship God visibly without publick and visible signs of Honour is a contradiction and therefore it does not seem to me to be so indifferent a thing after what manner God is worshipped and therefore not to be left indifferently to every mans humour upon every slight pretence of Charity and Moderation However it is plain that the Apostle does not speak one word of this here which had been nothing to his purpose and I cannot find any thing to this purpose in all the Scripture 3. This Apostolical Exhortation to avoid scandal concerns onely such cases wherein we are not bound to make a publick profession of our Faith nor to do that in publick in the view of all men which we believe we may very lawfully innocently do Hast thou faith have it to thy self before God that is keep thy Faith to thy self and enjoy thy liberty privately when thou may'st do it without offence Now I suppose our Reconciler will not think this a good Rule in all cases to dissemble our Faith and to keep our Religion to our selves which would effectually undermine the publick profession and practice of Religion in the World For if this were once granted men would find a great many other as good reasons to keep their Faith to themselves as avoiding scandal Indeed this Rule can hold onely in matters of a private nature such as I before observed this case to be for matters of a publick nature require a publick profession and practice For let us consider wherein the force of this Argument consists to perswade the Gentile Christians to exercise this forbearance towards their weak Jewish Brethren not to offend or scandalize them with their meat Hast thou faith have it to thy self before God which includes these two Arguments 1. That they are under no obligation to a publick profession or exercise of their Christian liberty in these matters 2. That though it be some restraint yet it is no injury to their liberty not to do those things publickly which give such offence For their liberty in such matters is maintained as well by a private as by a publick exercise of it For if they may do it at any time their liberty is secure though the exercise of it may be sometimes restrained But now if we apply this to the Rites and Ceremonies of publick Worship what sence is there in this Argument for publick Worship must be publickly profess'd and publickly practised or else it is not publick and therefore there is no place here to avoid publick scandal by keeping our Faith to our selves for then we must not worship God publickly as we think we may and that we ought to worship him for fear of giving offence So that this does not onely restrain but it destroys the Authority of Governours and the Liberty and Obedience of private Christians for what relates to publick Worship cannot be done at all if it must not be done publickly and that is no Authority and no Liberty which cannot be exercised without sin that is without a criminal offence and scandal As for what our Reconciler frequently urges and I have already observed and answered that it is not desired that the Church should renounce her Authority and Worship but onely give liberty to Dissenters to worship God in their own way this plainly shews how vastly different the case of the Jews and of our Dissenters is and how little they are concerned in that forbearance of which the Apostle speaks The Jews were offended not at the restraint of their own liberty for they were indulged in the observation of the Law of Moses but at that liberty which the Gentile believers used in breaking of the Law of Moses our Dissenters it seems are scandalized not so much at what we do as because they cannot do what they would The Apostle exhorts private Christians not to do such things publickly as offended their weak Brethren This great Reconciling Apostle exhorts or rather commands the Church to suffer Dissenters to worship God according to their own way and to do what is right in their own eyes and this would remove the
will allow that Christian Princes ought to take any care of the Christian Church we must grant them so much authority as is necessary to suppress Heresie and Schism and to punish those who are disobedient to the Censures and Authority of the Church How far this may extend is another Question I think all Protestants with great reason reject sanguinary Laws in this case but whoever grants any authority in these matters to Christian Princes must grant what may reasonably be thought sufficient to attain the end Thus I have as plainly as I could given an account of the Apostle's discourse in this Chapter about Scandal and Offence and proved that it cannot be applied to the case of indifferent things in the Worship of God by any parity of reason I grant St. Chrysostom and some other ancient Writers do accommodate this Doctrine of Scandal to other cases some of which passages our Reconciler has transcribed from them that if we must not scandalize our weak Brother by using our innocent liberty much less by our wicked examples by doing things evil in themselves which aggravates the guilt of the offence And I grant such accommodations as these are very allowable in popular Harangues but I hope our Reconciler does not take them for Arguments and yet if he did he could no more apply them to the case of the Church and Dissenters than he can the case of which St. Paul speaks But because this Discourse has been somewhat long though as plain and methodical as I could contrive it I shall reduce some of the most material things in it into a narrower compass and compare the Apostle's Arguments with the Reasonings of our Reconciler which will enable every ordinary Reader to judge how unlike they are The Case of the believing Iews 14 Rom. THe Dispute between the believing Jews Gentiles was concerning the observation of the Law of Moses not about things acknowledged to be indifferent The weakness of the Jews which occasioned their scruples was the effect of a great reverence for an express Law which was universally acknowledged to be given by God but was not at that time as visibly repealed as it was given The offence the Jews took against the Gentiles was at the breach of a divine Law which they still believed to be in force and so had as much reason to be offended as they had to believe the obligation of their Law which was so much as to render forbearance reasonable That weakness which pleaded for the indulgence of the Jews was their weakness in the Faith that they were not well confirm'd in the truth of Christianity and therefore ought to be tenderly used and indulged as being neither capable at present of better instruction nor severer government For the danger which the believing Jews were in and which St. Paul endeavoured to prevent was lest they should reject Christianity if Christianity rejected the Law of Moses which they certainly knew to be given by God and therefore it was reasonable to expect a while till they were confirmed in the Faith before they gave them any disturbance about such matters as would endanger their Apostacy while they more firmly believed the obligation of the Law of Moses than they did the Faith of Christ. And indeed God himself had by visible signs instructed both believing Jews and Gentiles not to judge and censure each other nor to break Christian Communion upon theâ—e Disputes because he had received the believing Jews and Gentiles into the visible Communion of the same one Catholick Church by the visible effusion of the Holy Spirit on them both though one observed the Law of Moses and the other did not and therefore it became both Jews and Gentiles to receive one another as Christian Brethren and to worship God together in the Communion of the same holy Offices And whoever after this visible determination made by God himself undertake to judge and censure and deprive each other of Communion for such matters usurp an Authority to judge over Gods judgment to reject those whom God receives which is like judging another mans servant over whom we have no authority for we have no authority to judge one another in such cases which God allows who is the supreme Lord and Judge of us all Besides this both Jews and Gentiles in observing and not observing the Law of Moses did it to the Lord acted out of reverence to the divine Authority The Jews observed the Law because God gave them this Law by Moses and had not so visibly repealed it as to remove all just scruples about it The Gentiles never were under the Law of Moses and God had received them into his Church without imposing that burden on them and therefore they did not observe the Law out of reverence and thankfulness to God for that liberty he had granted them And therefore Jews and Gentiles had reason to receive each other since it was not Humour Peevishness or Faction which made them differ but a regard to God and a reverence for his Authority which they both pretended and which at that time they both had And therefore St. Paul exhorts the believing Gentiles not to use their Christian liberty to the scandal and offence of their weak Brethren For this was such a case wherein they might be very kind to their weak Brethren if they pleased it being onely a restraint of their own private liberty wherein no body was concerned but themselves for though the Gospel had taken away the distinction of clean and unclean meats and made it lawful to eat indifferently of every thing yet it had not made it our duty to eat such things as the Law had forbidden but we might abstain if we pleased and therefore this was a proper Sphere for the exercise of a private charity not to destroy him with our meat for whom Christ died Especially considering that the Christian Religion is not at all concerned in our eating or not eating for the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink and therefore they ought not to transgress the Laws of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost of Brotherly love and charity and the peace and unity of the Christian Church which are great and essential Duties of Religion for the sake of eating or not eating such meats which in it self considered is no act of Religion at all Especially the case being such that men may keep their Faith to themselves and enjoy the private exercise of their liberty without offence Whereas the believing Jew who believes it unlawful to eat meats forbidden by the Law could not comply with the Gentile Christians without sin because it is against the judgment and perswasion of his own mind which makes it very reasonable as well as charitable to leave men to the direction of their own minds in the use of their own liberty where they are under the government and restraint of no other Law neither of God nor men for in this
superstitious or idolatrous which another thinks a decent Rite of Worship Now is it possible for the Israelites to sacrifice the abomination of the AEgyptians before their eyes and not give offence to them Is it possible for men to joyn as Friends and Brethren in such acts of Worship which they cannot agree to perform in the same manner Is it possible for him that sits at receiving the Lords Supper and believes that kneeling is superstitious and Idolatrous not to censure or deride or despise him that kneels Or is it possible for him who kneels and believes sitting to be a rude and unmannerly posture not to be grieved or offended at him who sits And will you call this worshipping God together when men cannot agree about it but one thinks his Brother idolatrous or superstitious and he in requital thinks him rude or prophane For my part I think it much better they should be parted than spoil each othersDevotion by such mutual antipathies and reciprocal censures No you will say there is no necessity of either that they should judge and censure each other or that they should separate St. Paul gives a better Rule in such cases to bear with each other that the strong should not judge the weak nor the weak despise the strong But what is the meaning of this That he who believes kneeling at the Sacrament to be superstitious should not judge and censure him whom he sees kneel as guilty of Superstition Or that he who believes sitting at the Sacrament to be rude and prophane should not judge him whom he sees to sit as guilty of rudeness and prophaneness This is absolutely impossible and implies a contradiction that we must and must not believe superstition to be superstition nor prophaneness to be prophaneness or that I can readily joyn in acts of Worship with him whom I believe in those very acts of Worship to be either superstitious or prophane I may judge charitably of men whom I believe to be guilty of some errours and mistakes and superstitious customs in matters which do not relate to Christian Worship I may charitably hope that God will not reject men for such mistakes and therefore may think it reasonable to receive them to Christian communion while they comply with the Rules and Orders of it which was the case between the Jews and Gentiles as I have already proved but it is impossible to joyn in communion with such men without judging and censuring those whom I believe in those very acts of Worship in which I joyn with them to be either superstitious or prophane And therefore though such men should worship in the same Church or Religious Assemblies yet they do not worship God in one Communion such men will naturally separate from each other and it is I think more desirable that they should The sum of this Argument is this That though St. Paul required and exhorted the believing Jews and Gentiles to bear with each other in such Disputes as did not concern the Christian Worship it does not hence follow that the Governours of the Church must not prescribe any Rules of Worship for fear of offending any scrupulous and ignorant Christians or that they are bound to alter them as soon as they perceive any such offence which inevitably brings nothing but Confusion and Disorder into the Christian Church 4. Another material difference between the case of the believing Jews and our Dissenters is this That the forbearance the Apostle pleads for was in order to cement Jews and Gentiles into one body and to unite them in one Christian communion to prevent Schisms and Separations between them and therefore he commands them Him that is weak in the faith receive that is into the communion of the Church to worship God together according to the general Rules of Christian Worship For the Disputes between them as I observed before did not concern Christian Worship and therefore a mutual forbearance in other things about which they differed would unite them into one body Thus he exhorts the Philippians Nevertheless whereto we have already attained let us walk by the same rule let us mind the same thing Believing Jews and Gentiles were both agreed as to the truth of Christianity and what concerned Christian Worship though they differed about some Mosaical observances and therefore the Apostle exhorts them notwithstanding their other Disputes to unite in Christian Worship about which they were all agreed This occasioned that Dispute between St. Paul and St. Peter which we have an account of in the Epistle to the Galatians They were both agreed that the Gentile Converts ought not to be circumcised they were agreed also that the Jewish Converts should be indulged in the observation of the Law of Moses and that both Jews and Gentiles should forbear each other in these matters and therefore St. Peter himself at Antioch before some Jewish Brethren came thither did eat with the Gentiles but when some believing Jews came to Antioch for fear of giving offence and scandal to them he separated himself from the believing but uncircumcised Gentiles Now the natural effect of this was to make a Schism between the Jewish and Gentile Converts to make two Churches one of Jewish the other of Gentile Christians This St. Paul could not endure and therefore publickly rebukes Peter for it He was willing to indulge Jewish Converts in their weakness but not to indulge them in a Schism which this very Indulgence was designed to prevent Now indeed mutual forbearance of each other when it tends to unite Christians into one body and communion is a great and necessary Duty but St. Paul never thought it a Duty when it would not prevent a Schism much less when it is likely to prove the foundation of eternal Schisms Now I have already proved that the removal of our Ceremonies and such abatements as our Reconciler pleads for as they are not the occasion so neither would they be the cure of our Schisms to be sure Indulgence in these matters would neither prevent nor heal our Schisms as that forbearance which the Apostle pleads for in this place infallibly would Their Dispute did not concern matters of Christian Worship and therefore if they indulged one another in those things wherein they differed as in eating or not eating those meats which were forbidden by the Law of Moses they might very well agree in those things wherein they were already agreed as they were in all matters of Christian Worship and therefore they might worship God together in Christian Assemblies as one Body and one Church which did effectually prevent a Schism But while Dissenters differ from the Church about the Rites and Modes of Worship it is impossible they should worship God together and to grant Indulgence to such different apprehensions which the Apostle pleads for in the case of the Jews would onely make a legal Schism and to remove these scrupled Ceremonies as I have already proved would
not certainly how God will deal with them in the other World God has nowhere told us any thing of it and therefore this is not so certain as to make it a President and Example for Governours 2. But suppose this were so as all of us have reason to hope it is yet this is no Example to Governours in Church or State For there is a vast difference between Gods judgements in the other World and acts of Government and Discipline in this The one respects mens personal deserts and determines their final doom the other onely respects the preservation of good order and government in Church or State And therefore the final judgment considers all circumstances which may deserve reward or punishment pity and compassion not onely what was done but who did it with what intention and designe whether knowingly or ignorantly or the like the other considers onely what is done what prejudice it is to the publick and how such an example deserves to be punished and therefore it is very fitting for earthly Governours to punish those sins which God will pardon because they cannot maintain good Government withour it If through ignorance and mistake though so innocent and involuntary that God may see reason to pardon it any men should disturb the Peace and Order of Church or State it would utterly overthrow all Government if these men must not be restrained nor punished Our Reconciler might have considered that God forgives us all our sins which we sincerely repent of though they were never so great and voluntary and methinks he might as well have undertaken the Cause of penitent Thieves and Rebels and Murderers as of impenitent Schismaticks He should do well when he sees the Tears and Sorrows and Agonies of such guilty Wretches and hears their solemn profession of repentance to mind the Judge and the Jury of the mercy and pitifulness of our good God who forgives the sins of all true Penitents and therefore they who are commanded to be followers of God like dear children to be merciful as our Father which is in Heaven is merciful to put on bowels of compassion as the Elect of God should not hang up those poor penitent Wretches but forgive that on Earth which God will forgive in Heaven Now I wonder how a Judge and Jury would gaze upon such a Reconciler as this whether they would think him fittest for Bedlam or Bridewel It is certain that this good and pitiful God whose Example our Reconciler proposes does himself make a difference between this World and the next in executing Judgments he sometimes punishes those sins in this World which he himself forgives in the next and therefore certainly Earthly Governours whether of Church or State may punish those sins in this World which God will pardon in the next Thus it was in the case of David whom the Prophet Nathan upon his repentance assured that God had pardoned him and yet at the same time denounced the Judgments of God against him the rebellion of his Son Absolom and the death of the child begotten in Adultery Thus we have reason to hope that so pious a man as Vzzah though he was struck dead upon the place yet was not eternally damned for touching the Ark. 3. And yet Gods final Judgment is no Rule and Pattern for humane Judicatures because Earthly Governours do not know the hearts and thoughts of men as Gods does He knows when mens ignorance is invincible and involuntary which no man can know and therefore God can make such allowances in his last and final Judgment which no man can or ought God judges the hearts of men but man can onely judge of their actions and therefore an Earthly Governour may and ought in justice to punish that which God may very equitably pardon 4. Especially considering that this last and final Judgment of God is designed to rectifie all the necessary defects as well as miscarriages of humane Judicatures A man who is guilty of some troublesome errour and mistake may and ought for the publick good to suffer for it in this World though it may be hard that he should suffer for it in the next And this very consideration as I have observed before answers all this difficulty Schismaticks how innocent soever their mistake is ought to be cast out of the Church on â—arth or all Ecclesiastical Authority is lost and the Church left without any Government to defend it self but if the case be favourable God will make allowances for it in the other World and he who is guilty of Schism without a schismatical mind we hope may find mercy And therefore this can be no reason for the Church not to pass her censures upon such men if they are visibly guilty of that which deserves a censure A temporal Judge does not intend to damn every man whom he hangs nor an Ecclesiastical Judge to damn those whom he censures they are onely concerned to see that the Judgment and Censure be deserved in this World but they leave the final Judgment to God himself This I think is enough to answer to this Argument though our Reconciler rhetoricates upon it He observes that the Scripture represents God as very pitiful and we believe God to be very pitiful as any earthly Parent can be but not indulgent to the humour or frowardness of children But it is this God of mercy who himself goes into the mountains to save and to bring home the strayed sheep And thus the Governours of the Church ought to do to bring home stray Sheep into their Fold not to indulge them in their wandrings But God provided an Asylum for him who ignorantly committed murder accidentally he means without intending any such thing which is not the errour of the mind but of the hand and therefore does not relate to this business But God remitted the sin of Abimeleck because he did it ignorantly but Abimeleck had been guilty of no sin for he had not touched Sarah Abraham's Wife But he had mercy of St. Paul for the same reason though he persecuted the Church of Christ but the mercy consisted in bringing him to repentance unless the Reconciler will say too that he had mercy on those who crucified Christ because they did it ignorantly and on all those Jews of whom St. Paul witnesses that they had a zeal for God but not according to knowledge And indeed it is worth coâ—sidering that this Argument of the Reconcilâ—r's pleads â—or a Toleration of all Religions especially if we can suppose that there are honest and ignorant men among them such persons will be received by God according to our Reconciler's Principles whatever Religion they be of Jews or Turks or Pagans though he does none the honour of a particular vindication but onely the Papists If Charity teaches us thus to hope saith the most learned Bishop Sanderson of our forefathers who lived and died in the idolatrous acts of Worship why then should we reject
Apostles which made it necessary to reveal the Gospel-mysteries by degrees and to persons well disposed and qualified to receive them but when a Doctrine has been fully published and confirmed by all necessary evidence and universally received as a Christian Doctrine the Governours and Pastors of the Church must continue to preach it whether Dissenters will hear or no for else we may lose all Christian Doctrines by degrees again and return to our Milk which he says is the Doctrine of Christs Humanity and leave off feeding on strong Meat which he says is the Doctrine of Christs Divinity because Jews and Socinians cannot bear it Whatever has been published by Christ and his Apostles as Christian Doctrine is the sacred Depositum which is committed to the Church and which all Bishops as well as Timothy are commanded to keep 5. His next Motive to condescension is from the consideration of that great Rule of Equity which calls upon us to do to others as we would be dealt with Now I confess this is a very good Topick to declaim on as our Reconciler doth for as it is usually managed it contains an Appeal to the Passions and Interests more than to the Reason of mankind It is a sufficient Answer to this to observe that this Rule obliges no man to do any thing but what is in it self just and equitable to be done for what is more than this how passionately soever men desire it is owing to their fondness and partiality to themselves not to a true reason and judgment of things and therefore unless it appear upon other accounts to be in it self reasonable to grant this Indulgence this Rule cannot make it so To discourse the true meaning of this Rule at large would be too great a digression from my present designe and therefore in answer to what our Reconciler says Would we be contented if we were inferiours to be punished imprisoned and banished for Opinions which we cannot help or shut out from the means of Grace for such Opinions Or should we not be glad that others would bear with us in some lesser matters in which we by our judgments are constrained to differ from them and would not pass upon us the sâ—verest censures because we are constrained thus to differ I say in answer to these and such-like Popular Appeals I shall ask him some other Questions as Whether ever any Offender or Criminal is contented to suffer for his fault or does not earnestly desire to be pardoned and to escape Whether it be unreasonable to punish any man because all men are unwilling to be punished Whether every mans love to himself in such cases or that natural pity which all men have for those who suffer be a Rule for the exercise of publick Discipline and Government in Church or State Whether any man in his wits can think it reasonable that mens private Fancies and Opinions should over-rule the Authority of Church and State Whether is the most pitiable sight to see a flourishing and truly Apostolick Church rent and torn in pieces by Factions and Schisms or to see such Schismaticks suffer in the suppression of their Schism Whether it be reasonable for the Civil Powers to punish Schismaticks when their Schism in the Church threatens the State and makes the Thrones of Princes shake and totter The truth is this Rule To do to others as we desire they should do to us may be a good Rule to direct our private Conversation but it does not extend to publick Government and my reason for it is this That this Rule has respect onely to every mans private happiness and supposes an equality between them For that which makes this a Rule of Equity is that equals as all men are considered as men ought to have equal usage and therefore that natural sense which every man has of happiness that natural aversion to suffer wrong and that natural desire to receive good from others should teach every man to deal by others who have the same sense of happiness and aversion to misery as they desire to be dealt with themselves But now publick Government has a greater respect to the Publick than to any mans private good and a mans private and particular good must give place to the publick Welfare and therefore what aversion soever there is in mankind to suffering it is very fit and just that private men when they deserve it should suffer for the publick Good and it is not every mans love to himself or what he is willing to suffer which is the Rule here but a regard to the publick Good And though all wise and good men ought to prefer the publick Good before their own private Interest yet whatever reason there is for this it is certain mens natural love to themselves to which this Rule appeals will never make them willing to suffer especially when the sufferings are great and capital upon any considerations and therefore to do as we would be done by is not our Rule in such cases for then no fault must ever be punished Nor is there an equality between Governours and Subjects either in Church or State Civil Magistrates are invested with the Authority of God who is the supreme Governour of the World and the Governours of the Church with the Authority of Christ who is the supreme Head of the Church and therefore they are not to consider the private passions and affections of men that because they themselves are not willing to suffer when they are in a fault therefore they must not punish others for they act not as private men but as publick Ministers of Justice and Discipline and where there is an inequality this Rule of Equity will not hold Governours and Subjects are equal considered as men but very unequal as Governours are invested with the Authority of God which sets them above other men This I take to be the true reason why the same men pass such different judgments on the same thing when they are Subjects and when they are Governours because when they are Subjects they have a principal regard to a private and particular good and consult the desires and weaknesses and passions of humane nature when they are Governours they have a greater regard to a publick good and consider what their Character and Office and Authority requires them to do Thus we know when some of our Dissenters had got the Power in their hands they were as severe in pressing Conformity to their new Models and Platforms as loud and fierce in their Declamations against Toleration as now they are against Conformity and for a Toleration When they had the Power in their hands they saw plainly what the necessities of Government required now the Power is out of their hands they consider what is necessary to their own preservation which makes them dislike those things when the Government is against them which they saw a necessity of before This is universally true of all
the coming of his Kingdom is to pray for the enlargement of his Church which was never enlarged yet by the preaching of Schismaticks which divides and lessens the Church but will never enlarge it and therefore those who pray heartily Thy Kingdom come must take care to suppress all Schisms and Schismatical Preachers who are the great Obstacle to the enlargement of Christ's Kingdom Q. 3. Can you or any mortal man prove that others may not be allowed to differ from you in such things wherein you differ from the Apostolick Primitive Church Ans. I dare put the final decision of this Controversie upon this issue whether the Church of England or Dissenters come nearest to the Pattern of the Apostolick Primitive Church But though it should be granted that we do not use all those Ceremonies which were in use in the Apostles times and that we use some which were not then used yet this will not justifie Dissenters for the Church in all Ages has authority to appoint her own Rites and Ceremonies of Worship while they comply with that general Rule of Decency and Order but private Christians have no authority to dissent from the Church while she enjoyns nothing which is contrary to the divine Laws Q. 4. What if the old Liturgie and that new one compiled and presented to the Bishops at the Savoy 1661. had both passed and been allowed for Ministers to use as they judged most convenient might not several Ministers and Congregations in this case have used several Modes of Worship without breach of the Churches Peace or counting each other Schismaticks What if our King and Parliament should make a Law enjoyning Conformists and Nonconformists that agree in the same Faith and Worship for substance to attend peaceably upon their Ministry and serve God and his Church the best they can whether they use the Ceremonies and scrupled expressions of the Liturgie or no without uncharitable reflections or bitter censures upon one another in word or writing where would be the sinfulness of such a Law Ans. This is much like Mr. Humphrey's Project of uniting all Dissenters into one National Church by an Act of Parliament under the King as the accidental Head of the Church which is largely and particularly answered in the Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation The onely fault in short is this That it destroys the Unity of the Church by dividing Christians into distinct and separate Communions and lays a foundation of eternal Schisms and Emulations which no Laws can prevent As for Mr. Baxter's Liturgy I confess I do not see why men may not as well be allowed to pray ex tempore as to use a form of Prayer which was written ex tempore It argued very little modesty in those men to present such crude and indigested stuff to the Commissioners and it argues as little understanding and honesty in our Reconciler to plead for it Q. 5. Dissenters ought for the Peace and Vnity of the Church to yield as far as they can without sinning against God and their own Souls and should not Imposers do the like Were this one Rule agreed on what Peace and Vnity would soon follow And if the obligation to preserve the Churches Peace extend so far as to the Rulers and Governours of the Church there may be as much Schism in their setting up unnecessary Rules which others cannot submit to as in mens varying from such Rules Ans. I wonder what these men mean by the Dissenters yielding as if they stood upon equal terms with the Church and that the Church and Dissenters like two Equals to compose a difference and quarrel should yield and condescend to each other The Dissenters ought not to yield to but to obey the Chuâ—ch the Church ought not to yield to Dissenters but to govern prudently and charitably The Church has done her part as I have already proved and the onely quarrel is that Dissenters will not do theirs But what an admirable Rule is this to make Peace when they do not they cannot tell us how far the Dissenters will yield and what the Church must yield to make Peace but for ought I perceive this is a great secret and like to continue so I suppose the Dissenters aâ—ter all think they can yield nothing and the Church sees no reason to alter any thing and here is an end of this Project Indeed it appears that the designe is to perswade the Church to yield every thing all her unnecessary Rules which others cannot otherwise called will not submit to that is at least all the decent Ceremonies of Worship if not her own Authority too And the onely Argument he uses to prove that the Church ought to yield is because Dissenters ought to yield that is it is the duty of Governours to submit to their Subjects because it is the duty of Subjects to submit to their Governours I do not much care to be an Undertaker and yet I will venture for once to propose this Expedient for Peace Let the Dissenter as in duty bound yield as far as he can without sinning against God and his own Soul and the Church shall yield every thing else that is necessary to this desired Union This is but a reasonable Proposition not onely because Subjects ought first to yield but because the Church knows not what is necessary to be yielded till she sees how far the Dissenter can yield Indeed would the Dissenter yield as far as he can without sinning against God and his own Soul there would be no need for the Churches yielding any thing for the Church enjoyns nothing which is a sin against God or injurious to the Souls of men and there is great reason to believe that the Dissenters themselves do not think she does Both dissenting Preachers and Hearers when it serves a secular interest can hear the Common-Prayer receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper kneeling though the Minister officiate in a Surplice and I am so charitable as to hope that when they do so they do not believe that they sin in it and therefore all this they can yield without sinning against God or their own Souls and therefore this they ought to yield and then there will be little left for the Church to yield His two next Questions Whether the Worship of God cannot be performed decently and in order without these Ceremonies and whether if men must be without the Word and without Sacraments rather than without these Ceremonies which yet there is no necessity of nor is it the intention of the Church that it should be so as you have already heard this do not make them of equal necessity with divine Institutions have been already answered at large in the first Chapter Q. 8. Whether the constitution of the Church should not be set as much as may be for the incompassing of all true Christians and whether the taking of a narrower compass be not a fundamental errour
in its policy and will not always hinder its stability and increase Ans. The plain meaning of which Question is this Whether it be not the best way to sâ—cure the Church against her Popish Adversaries to unite all Protestants of what denomination soever into one body and whether it be not more probable that a little Church which has not many Members nor any worldly strength and interest to support it should be sooner destroyed than a numerous flourishing and potent Church In answer to which we may consider 1. It were very desirable that the Church could be so modelled as to receive all Protestants and Papists also into our Communion that the Christian Church might have no Enemies who call themselves Christians but this is impossible to be done while both of them recede so far from the Principles of Catholick Communion 2. The Unity and Peace of the Church within it self how small soever it be is a better security to it than Schisms and Discords in its own bowels and make the foundation of the Church as large as you please if the building be not closely united in all its parts it will fall with its own weight While men are possess'd with Schismatical Principles it is not enough to make a lasting Union to remove those particular things about which they differ at present for when men are given to quarrel they will never want occasions for it Take away every thing which our Dissenters quarrel at and you leave no remains of a Church of England and thus indeed you may enlarge the Church by pulling it down by plucking up all its Hedges and Fences that it shall be no longer an Inclosure but a Common A Church which makes no new Articles of Faith nor rejects any old one which sets up no idolatrous and superstitious Worship which observes all the Institutions of our Saviour and secures the decency of publick Worship and exercises her Authority for the government of Religious Societies and the acts of Discipline prudently and charitably has laid her foundations as wide as she can and as she lawfully may and those who will not embrace her Communion upon these terms must stay out 3. For at best this is nothing more than carnal Policy to think to secure the Church by our strength and numbers The preservation of the Church is not owing to an arm of flesh but to the protection of Christ. His Flock is but a little Flock but all the united strength and power of the World cannot destroy it the gates of Hell cannot prevail against it 4. When we speak of enlarging the Constitutions of the Church so as to incompass all true Christians we ought to have a principal regard to the Communion of the Catholick Church and those who take any other compass than what is consistent with Catholick Communion though they should inclose a whole Nation of Dissenters they would mightily straiten the foundations of the Church Those who reject all external Rites of Decency and Order as unlawful in Christian Worship and reform and enlarge the Church upon these Principles reject the Communion of all Christian Churches that ever were in the World for 1500 years and of most Churches at this day and if this should enlarge the Church in England the Catholick Church would gain little by it when it unchurches most other Churches in the World The Church of England is modelled by such Principles that she can hold Communion with all sound and Catholick Churches that are now or ever were in the World and all Catholick Churches may have Communion with her which is as large a compass as she ought to take for that Church is a little too large which takes in Schismaticks to her Communion and too narrow which excludes any true Catholick Churches Thus I have answered those Questions which our Reconciler borrowed from Mr. Baxter and Mr. Barret and to these he has added some of his own which I must consider also Q. 9. Whether Baptism being requisite for the new birth of Infants and their regeneration by the Holy Spirit it be not hardship to lay such an unnecessary Condition on the Parents who have power to offer or withold the Child from Baptism which shall cause them to deprive their Infants of so great a benefit may not such Children complain in the language of St. Cyprian Nos parvuli quid fecimus Ans. Now though this may be easily answered by observing that in danger of death Children are allowed to be baptized privately without the signe of the Cross and therefore no Child in ordinary cases can die without Baptism but by the great neglect and carelesness of Parents how scrupulous soever they are of the signe of the Cross yet since it is so much in fashion to ask Questions I know not why I may not ask a few Questions too which I would desire our Reconciler to resolve and they shall be but very short ones As 1. How do Children come to have any right to Baptism is it an original right of their own or in the right of their Parents 2. If Children have a right to Baptism onely in the right of their Parents how do the Children of Schismaticks who though they are baptized themselves yet have renounced the Communion of the Church come to have any right to be received into the Communion of the Church by Baptism 3. How is the Church obliged to receive those children into Communion by Baptism whom she certainly knows if their Parents live will be nurst up in a Schism 4. How is the Church more concerned to alter her Constitutions for the children of Schismaticks than for their Schismatical Parents When he has answered these Questions I will answer his in the mean time I will proceed Q. 10. If men conceive themselves obliged to do all they can for the securing and restoring of the civil Peace when it is once disturbed and would not stick to lay aside a civil if unnecessary Ceremony for the prevention of civil Broils and the effusion of Christian bloud how frivolous soever were the exceptions of the seditious against it must they not be as much obliged to do the like for the prevention of Ecclesiastical Confusions and the effusion of the bloud of precious and immortal Souls Ans. No doubt but they are But as a wise Prince ought not to part with that Power and Authority which is necessary to preserve Peace and to prevent civil Wars and Confusions for the future onely that he may allay and prevent some present Heats and Commotions no more ought the Church to heal a present Schism by laying a foundation for eternal Schisms The example of our late martyred Soveraign will teach all Princes to beware of the one and those infinite Schisms which followed the dissolution of the Church of England will convince any man how impossible it is to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church without the exercise of Ecclesiastical Authority Q. 11. Would not our
for denying this liberty and indulgence is known to all men and it is hard to think then that he was a Reconciler for never any Reconciler was a Martyr for the Church And methinks the Act of Uniformity and the prosecution of Dissenters upon that and former Acts might convince any reasonable man that our present Soveraign is none of his Protestant Reconcilers But if notwithstanding all this he can prove against plain matter of fact and the evidence of sense and the experience and complaints of Dissenters all these to be Reconciling Kings I am resolved I will be a Protestant Reconciler too and I hope I may pass for as good a Reconciler as any of these renowned Kings without recanting this Book Let us hear then how he proves these great Princes to be Reconcilers As for King Iames he proves him to be a Reconciler from Casaubon's Epistle to Cardinal Perroon Now how faithfully Casaubon represented the Kings Judgment is more than our Reconciler can tell onely I am certain he did misrepresent him if he made a Reconciler of him But there is no reason to take Sanctuary in this for whoever considers the occasion of those words may put a very sober construction on them without giving any countenance to our Reconciler for the Dispute did not concern the Rules of Order and Decency in Religious Worship but the unscriptural Innovations of Popery which they imposed upon all Churches as terms of Catholick Communion Now in this Controversie any man may safely say what Casaubon says for the King without being a Protestant Reconciler For there is no nearer way of concord than to separate things necessary from unnecessary to call nothing simply necessary but what the Word of God commandeth to be believed or done or which the ancient Church did gather from the Word of God by necessary consequence that other humane Constitutions whatever antiquity or authority is pretended for them might be changed mollified antiquated and that this may in the general be said of most Ecclesiastical observations introduced without the Word of God Now this does not refer to the decent Circumstances and Ceremonies of Religion but to such Ecclesiastical observations as are in dispute between us and the Church of Rome as the Celibacy of the Clergy Prayers for the Dead Pilgrimages Monastick Vows the Worship of Saints and Angels and Images and the like for which the Church of Rome pretends the Authority of ancient Councils or the ancient practice and usage of the Church Now in these cases I am perfectly of the Kings mind and yet do not take my self to be a Protestant Reconciler in our Authors way Our Royal Martyr when he saw what danger Church and State and his own Royal Person was in from the outrageous zeal of dissenting Protestants who did not now humbly beg for Indulgence and Toleration but contended for Rule and Empire was willing if it were possible to allay these Heats and divert the Storm by yiâ—lding somewhat to their boisterous and threatning importunities and if he had yielded a great deal more at that time than he did I think it had been no argument of his own setled judgment of things The Reconciler might hence prove that the King thought it much better to yield a little at that time than to ruine Church and State by too much stiffness not that he thought it unlawful to impose any thing on his Subjects in matters of Religion which they were pleased to scruple And yet what is it that the King yielded under these necessities For that our Reconciler produces these words As for differences among our selves for matters indifferent in their own nature concerning Religion we shall in tenderness to any number of our loving Subjects very willingly comply with the advice of our Parliament that some Law may be made for the exemption of tender Consciences from punishment or prosecution for such Ceremonies and in such cases which by the judgment of most men are held to be matters indifferent and of some to be absolutely unlawful Does the King in these words promise to alter the Constitutions of the Church to abolish all Ceremonies c By no means he onely says that he will comply with the advice of his Parliament to exempt such tender Consciences from punishment And how can our Reconciler hence conclude that the King believed it unlawful to impose these Ceremonies because at such a critical time he was contented there should be some provision made to secure Dissenters from the execution of the penal Laws And yet that ill usage which so excellent a Prince met with from these dissenting Protestants after such a condescension as this gives no great encouragement to Princes to try this Experiment again Thus he proves our present Soveraign to be of his mind by his Declaration from Breda which he prints at large I suppose for fear People should forget that there had been such a Declaration or what were the contents of it How the present circumstances of affairs at that time might incline his Majesty to such a condescension is not my business to inquire it is sufficient for us to know that the House of Commons presented their Reasons to the King against that Declaration which so far satisfied him that he gave his assent to the Act of Uniformity and therefore I suppose is not of our Reconciler's mind now and indeed never was notwithstanding that Declaration for he never asserted it unlawful to impose scrupled Ceremonies upon Dissenters but thought it expedient at that time to indulge their weakness And while matters were under debate for the re-establishment of the Church of England no wonder that the King and his great Ministers should make Proposals of Accommodation and offer their Reasons and Arguments for it but I always thought that what is said by any person on one side or other while the matter is under debate is not so good an Argument what his judgment and opinion is as what he agrees and consents to when the Reasons on both sides have been heard and scann'd Thus our Kings are our own again and of all men in the world have the least reason to countenance such a designe as this which serves onely to encourage a busie and restless Party among us who first strike at the Church but will never be quiet till they have usurp'd the Throne What the sence of our Church is in this matter is evident from her Articles Canons and Constitutions and this signifies a great deal more to me than the opinion of any private Doctors of what note and eminency soever It is unreasonable to oppose the authority of any particular Doctors to the Judgment of the Church and it would be an endless work to number the Votes and Suffrages of private Doctors on both sides indeed their authority is no greater than their reason is and if any of them be of our Reconciler's mind I am sure they speak without book unless they have something more