not spoken in any such Humour Men of Tender Consciences though under a mistake will conciliate veneration from others The worst I wish them is that God would shew them the evil of their former impositions upon the Consciences of their poor despised Brethren But that which induces me to mention it is I find the Defenders of the Hierarchy confidently assert that there can be but one Bishop in one Church at the same time therefore if the former be not divested of their power I see not how the present Incumbents can have any by their own Rule and so their Ordinations would be Null if the others be still valid The present Bishop of Worcester in his debate with Mr. Clarkson says it was the Inviolable Rule of the Church to have but one Bishop in a City and Church at once and Dr. Morrice labours hard to conquer Mr. Clarksons objection against it which was Def. of the Ans to Dr. St. p. 19. That Alexander was made Bishop of Jerusalem whilst Narcissus lived He says Narcissus took Alexander into the participation of the charge but foreseeing that Mr. C. would reply then here were two Bishops jointly governing one Church contrary to Dr. St's inviolable Rule he adds Alexander was the Bishop Narcissus retained but the Name and Title onely that is was but a Titular not a real Bishop and it seems that was his part of the Charge to have onely the Title and no Charge at all Now whether T.W. thinks the late Bishops are the Titular and the present the Real or on the contrary we will not oblige him to declare onely we guess at his Sentiments by his calling the Late Arch-Bishop the Ruler of Gods People above half a year after he was deprived Perhaps this Gentleman will satisfie himself with saying the late Prelates have the power still but are restrained from the exercise of it But that would be to confront the Act of Parliament which says expressly they are deprived of their Office and distinguishes betwixt being suspended from the exercise of their Office and being deprived of the Office it self if they did not take the Oaths before the first of August 1689. Primo Guliel Mariae they were suspended from the Execution of their Office for six Months and if then they still refused They shall be ipso facto deprived and are hereby judged to be deprived of their Offices Benefices Dignities and Promotions Ecclesiastical What is it then that the Civil Magistrate may not do in the making of an English Prelate I know it will be said he cannot consecrate him and it is the Consecration that gives the Episcopal power but to this I have two things to return 1. According to their own Practice Episcopal Jurisdiction is exercised by persons never so consecrated as by Presbyters and Lay-Chancellors in the cases before mentioned and they have Authority given them to exercise that Jurisdiction and that not by Deputation from the Bishop but by Legal Constitution and what is the Office of a Bishop but Authority to do the work of a Bishop 2. Since the whole Being of Episcopal power is founded upon their Consecration it is very reasonable to demand from them a plain Rule in Scripture for this Consecration of Bishops as distinct from the Ordination of Presbyters If they chuse this Foot to fix their Divine Right upon it is necessary a clear Scripture Canon should be produced for it but it is most certain they may turn over all the Leaves of their Bible all the Days of their Life before they can find any such thing And as the Scripture is altogether silent as to the difference betwixt the Ordination of a Presbyter and Consecration of a Bishop 1 Tit. nay in the Rule for Ordination makes them the same so this Ceremony of Consecration has not been at all times and all cases thought necessary Repertor Canon p. 49. or practised in the making of Bishops Godolphin tells us that antiently according to the Canon Law and where the Popes Spiritual Power and Authority was in force Bishops were not so much by Election as Postulation Sum. Rosel postulat tit si ques Pan. 2. p. 106. and in that case the Elected was a Bishop presently without Confirmation or Consecration onely by the assent of the Superiour And I have recited already the judgment of Mr. Dodwell that every particular Church had a Power to invest its Bishop and that the calling in the assistance of other Bishops was not for want of a right in themselves to do it I hope these Gentlemen will be more cautious how they lay the whole weight of Episcopal Authority upon Consecration which it seems might sometimes be omitted lest thereby they break their Line and the neck of their cause together Upon the whole matter I think it is clear enough that the English Prelaty is a meer Creature of the Civil Magistrate who may make every Parson of a Parish a Bishop if he pleases their whole power as distinct from Presbyters being founded upon the Laws of the Land by the Statute 25 Hen. VIII 19. it is declared That none of the Clergy shall from thenceforth presume to attempt alleadge claim or put in ure any Constitutions or Ordinances Provincial or any other Canons Nor shall Enact Promulge or Execute any such Canons Constitutions or Ordinances Provincial by whatsoever name or names they shall be called in their Convocations in time coming which shall always be assembled by the Authority of the Kings Writt unless the same Clergy may have the Kings most Royal Assent so to do upon pain of being Fined and Imprisoned at the King's will I need not say how severely the Canons of 40 were damned by the House of Commons where it was resolved That the Clergy in a Synod or Convocation Supplement oâ— Bakers Chron. p. 476. hath no power to make Canons Constitutions or Laws Ecclesiastical to bind either Laity or Clergy without a Parliament and that the Canons are against the Fundamental Laws of this Realm against the King's Prerogative Property of the Subjects Rights of Parliament and tend to Faction and Sedition And the Act of Uniformity has not left the Bishops power to add or change one Ceremony without the Consent of Parliament 4. Lastly We plead that the Civil Power has now left us to our Liberty in the case of Conformity and therefore we are not guilty of Disobedience to Authority in what we do I know it will presently be replied That the Act of Liberty only frees Dissenters from the Penalty of the Law not from the Precept of it and there is a sharp thing written it seems by Mr. Norris to prove that the only Change made by the Toleration as he calls it is that the Penal part of the Law is for the present laid aside Charge of Schism continued as for the Preceptive part that stands where it did and obliges under sin though not under Civil Penalty
to the World as a Bloody Seditious Sect and Traiterous Obstructors of what all the Godly People of the Kingdom do earnestly desire for the establishing of Religion and Peace in that we stick at the Execution of the King while yet we are as they falsly affirm content to have him Convicted and Condemned all which we must and do from our Hearts disclaim before the whole World For when we did first engage with the Parliament which we did not till called thereunto we did it with Loyal Hearts and Affections towards the King and his Posterity not intending the least hurt to his Person but to stop his Party from doing further hurt to the Kingdom not to bring his Majesty to Justice as some now speak but to put him into a better Capacity to do Justice to remove the wicked from before him that his Throne might be established in Righteousness not to Dethrone and Destroy him which we fear is the ready way to the Destruction of all his Kingdoms That which put any of us on at first to appear for the Parliament was the Propositions and Orders of the Lords and Commons in Parliament June 10. 1642. for bringing in of Money and Plate c. Wherein they assured us that whatsoever should be brought in thereupon should be employed upon no other occasion than to maintain The Protestant Religion The Kings Authority and His Person in his Royal Dignity the Free Course of Justice the Laws of the Land the Peace of the Kingdom and the Priviledges of Parliament against any force which shall oppose them As for the present actings at Westminster since the time that so many of the Members were by force secluded divers imprisoned and others thereupon withdrew from the House of Commons and there being not that Conjunction of the two Houses as heretofore we are wholly unsatisfied therein because we conceive them to be so far from being warranted by sufficient Authority as that in our Apprehensions they tend to an actual Alteration if not Subversion of that which the Honourable House of Commons in their Declaration of April 17. 1646. have taught us to call the Fundamental Constitution and Government of this Kingdom which they therein assure us if we understand them they would never alter Yea we hold our selves bound in Duty to God Religion the King Parliament and Kingdom to profess before God Angels and Men That we verily believe that which is so much feared to be now in Agitation the taking away the Life of the King in the present way of Trial is contrary to the Word of God the Principles of the Protestant Religion never yet stained with the least drop of the Blood of a King the Fundamental Constitution and Government of this Kingdom as also to the Oath of Allegiance the Protestation of May 5.1641 and the Solemn League and Covenant from all or any of which Engagements we know not any Power on Earth able to absolve us or others Therefore according to our Covenant we do in the Name of the great God to whom all must give a strict account warn and exhort all who either more immediately belong to our respective Charges or any way depend on our Ministry or to whom we have administred the said Covenant that we may not by our Silence suffer them to run into that provoking Sin of Perjury to keep close to the ways of God and the rules of Religion the Laws and their Vows in their constant maintaining the true Reformed Religion the Fundamental Constitution and Government of this Kingdom as also in preserving the Priviledges of both Houses of Parliament and the Union between the two Nations of England and Scotland to mourn bitterly for their own Sins the Sins of the City Army People and Kingdom and the miscarriages of the King himself which we cannot but acknowledge to be many and great in his Government that have cost the Kingdoms so dear and cast him down from his Excellency into a horrid pit of Misery almost beyond Example and to pray that God would give him effectual Repentance and sanctifie that bitter Cup of Divine displeasure that Divine Providence hath put into his hand and also that God would restrain the Violence of men that they may not dare to draw upon themselves and the Kingdom the Blood of their Soveraign c. This was back't with a Letter to the General and his Council of War to the same effect and yet all this has not been sufficient to defend them from the malicious slanders of men that either were then unborn or had not the Courage to run those hazards for the sake of their unfortunate Prince as they did The deplorable Death of this King has been made great use of in the Late Reigns to run down Dissenters and to justifie those unmerciful Laws that have been made and executed against them and to make it the better serve such designs they have made the highest Panegyricks upon that Prince and his extraordinary Piety and Devotion in which they have commonly taken their Text out of ΕΙΚΩΠΒΑΣΙΛΙΚΗ a Book which next to the Bible excell'd all others in pure Seraphick strains but alas the grave Cheat is at length discovered and though some men are very angry there is no remedy for heat and ill Language will never retrieve its blasted Reputation only the best on 't is there is another of the same kind pourtraying his Unhappy Son in his Solitudes and Sufferings too and those that regret the Disparagement of the former may try whether they can support the Credit of the latter but the World I hope grows too wise to be enamoured of such Pageantry The Vindicator affirmed That it was by the Address and Interest of the Party called Presbyterian under God That King Charles the Second was restored and he adds the solemn Promises fair Words and great Assurances that were given them by the Church and Court Party upon the Treaty of Restoration are very well known and the speedy and bare-faced Violation of all is not to be parallell'd in Story which T. W. misreports as if the Vindicator had said that King Charles the Second was not to be parallell'd in Story tho' afterwards having cleared his Eyes he confesses these things are charged upon the Church and Court Party and how will be bring them off he says All is Fiction and Forgery for the King referr'd all to the Parliament and they re-established and Confirmed all things to the satisfaction of the Nation in General Well if we cannot prove these things to be true we will own the Forgery and submit to all the Reproaches this Gentleman can heap upon us I would feign know where the Fiction lies Were there no Promises made by the Court and Church Party or were they not broken It is strange we should be obliged to prove that such Promises were made when the Kings Declaration speaks it so plainly in these Words We do declare a Liberty to tender Consciences and
and that Dissenters are not hereby excused from Disobedience to the State though they be not accountable to the Law for their Non-conformity This as far as I can learn by his Book he grounds upon these two Suppositions 1. That our present Liberty extends no farther than to the removing the Sanction of the Law 2. That the taking away of the Sanction does not take away the whole Obligation of the Law And having very civilly arraigned the Government as doing that which it ought not to do P. 24 32. in granting this Liberty and predicted I know not what ill Consequences to the Nation and general Interest of Religion which time will shew He concludes with a very great Complement upon himself that he believes the Argument has suffered no damage by the Management of it and that he has so broken the Neck of his Adversaries Objection P. 78. that he had need to be a skilful Artist that shall set it again I must confess this is enough to discourage a man from medling that is conscious to himself how little skill he has in setting broken Necks but however we will venture to examine the matter and if there should chance to be no such mortal blow given the less skill will serve to set all right again I could wish the Gentleman had bestowed a little more pains to make the first Point good for the Question is not what Toleration signifies in the strict or forensick sense of the word nor what Suarez says nor how he criticizes or distinguishes of it for the words of the Statute are to be our Rule in discovering the Extent and Effects of it and not the critical meaning of the word Toleration which we have nothing to do with being a word not to be found in the Act of Liberty from the beginning to the end of it and to lay the stress of his Argument upon a bare word which is not in the Statute is so grand an impertinency as one would not have expected from Mr. Norris and whatever his Admirers may say of this kind of Arguing I am sure the Lawyers will think it receives some damage in the management He tells us Where there is an Establisht National Church all that Toleration can do is only to remove the Penalty P. 15. and it cannot there be a Liberty of Allowance but only of Impunity But what if the very Act it self expresly says it is an Allowance why then either there may be an Allowance to dissent from an Establisht Church or else this Act of Allowance destroys the Establishment let him take whether of these Consequences he pleases it is all one to me The words of the Act are Provided always that no Congregation or Assembly for Religious Worship shall be permitted or allowed by this Act until the place of such Meeting shall be certified c. Here the Law says such Assemblies so certified are allowed by this Act. Mr. Norris says they are not allowed I hope he will not be displeased if we believe those favourable words of the Law rather than his unkind contradiction But he says It cannot be an Allowance and yet if it be so it can be so and let him argue the Notional impossibility as long as he pleases whilst we have the plain words of the Statute and matter of fact to the contrary but says he if it be an Allowance the National Church is not Establisht why then it is not Establisht for an Allowance it is if we may believe the words of the Law and if this Act of Allowance have destroyed the former Establishment who can help it And yet I see no reason why the Church of England may not be Establish'd and Nonconformity allowed too unless by Establishment something more be meant than that word can necessarily import Indeed if by Establishment he mean a direct positive Command to Worship God according to the Mode of the Episcopal Party I grant it cannot well consist with an Allowance to Worship him otherwise but certainly the Law is not to be set at variance with it self it has but one Voice and speaks distinctly and consistently and therefore if former Laws have said We command you all to Worship God after this manner and a latter Law says We allow you to Worship God after another manner it is plain the last is the present Voice of the Law signifying that it is not its design to tye us up to that particular Mode and that former Command which he accounts the Establishment cannot disannul the Allowance which comes after but if they cannot consist together the former must be vacated by the latter The Church of England has still a Legal Establishment that is to say she has great Priviledges large Revenues the Publick Places of Worship and those she has by Law but as Mr. Norris tells us All that Toleration can do where there is an Establishment is to remove the Penalty So we may reply All that Establishment can do or signifie where there is an Act of Allowance is only to confer such outward Priviledges and as the removal of the Penal Sanction does not always abolish the Command so the continuance of the Praemial Sanction does not continue the Obligation of the Command where an Act of express Allowance has taken it away 2. His other Maxim That the taking away of the Sanction does not take away the whole Obligation of the Law wants a little explanation too for though I readily grant it will not in all cases have that effect yet I suppose in some it may There are certain Laws that are as well satisfied with the bearing of the Penalty as with obeying the Precept and Mr. Norris confesses as much concerning those Laws that are purely Penal that is as he says that do not oblige absolutely to the Fact but only conditionally either to the Fact or to the Penalty that there are such Laws I grant only in this I differ from him P. 50. Whereas he says these purely Penal Laws bind to the Penalty I think we are not bound to the Penalty by the Authority of the Law but only by the honour and respect due to the Law-giver that is a man is not bound in Conscience to suffer the Penalty if he can avoid it without putting an affront upon the Office of the Magistracy for by our Laws as well as the Law of Nature no man is bound to accuse himself of any thing that has a Penalty annexed to it especially since the repealing of the Oath ex Officio We are thus far agreed that there are Laws that do not absolutely bind to the Fact Now the Question is Whether the Act of Uniformity and the rest as far as they relate to Protestant Dissenters be not some of those Laws that he calls purely Penal Mr. Norris well observes That Human Laws are not therefore purely Penal because Human and no question but he is so far right Human Laws may be so just and
warrantable and advantagious to the Publick Interest that they may formally oblige to Obedience how then shall we find out what Laws are purely penal and what are not so Truly here the Gentleman leaves us in the dark He tells us it is by accident that any Laws are purely Penal and not from the Specifick Nature of the Laws themselves but these Logical terms of Accident and Specifick Nature are not so proper in matters of Law nor are we ever the wiser in this case for them for who can tell what Accidents those are that make this difference since he has not been pleased to inform us And though he adds It is not from the different Authority of the Law but from the different Intention of the Law-giver that any Laws are purely Penal that is do not oblige absolutely to the fact yet we are never the nearer satisfaction for if the Obliging power of these Laws depend upon the Intention and Will of the Law-giver one would think where that Will and Intention are different the Authority of the Law must be different for the Authority of the Law and its Obliging power are the same thing but not to contend about the Phrase let us examine the Notion it self which is That it is the different Will and Intention of the Law-giver that makes any Law purely Penal there are two inconveniencies I think attend it 1. The Will and Intention of the Law-giver any farther than it is exprest by the words of the Law is very doubtful and uncertain and more especially where the Legislative Power is in the hands of so many as it is with us for it 's possible the King may intend one thing the Lords another the Commons a third yea there may be an infinite variety of Intentions amongst both Lords and Commons and if we say the Intention of the Majority must carry it yet by what Scrutiny shall that be found out And if the Will and Intention of the Law-giver must be understood only by the express words of the Law I suppose it will be hard to find any Statutes that in express terms declare they do not intend to bind absolutely to Obedience and yet such Laws there are by the Gentleman 's own acknowledgment But 2. To say it is the different Will and Intention of the Law-giver that makes any Law purely Penal will resolve the Obliging power of Human Laws into the Will of Man which is liable to considerable prejudices And I find this same ingenious Gentleman in another Treatise Miscellan consid of the Nature of sin Sect. 11 p. 370 371. has chosen to resolve the Obliging power of all Laws Divine as well as Human not into the bare will and pleasure of the Law-giver but in the fitness of the Laws themselves to promote the common good and this aptness fitness or tendency to promote the common good he tells us is the Supream Eternal and Irreversible Law which prescribes measures to all the rest and is the last reason of good and evil and he thus analyses the immorality of an Action into its last Principles It is to be avoided because it is sin it is sin because forbidden it is forbidden because it was in it self fit to be forbidden it was fit to be forbidden because naturally apt to prejudice the common Interest which is above all things to be regarded and prosecuted as the best and greatest End And though he acknowledges Authority is to be obeyed let the instance wherein Obedience is required be never so indifferent yet still the reason of this Obligation is not derived from the Authority of the Law-giver but from the common good P. 372. which requires that the Supream Authority be obeyed and yet by the way I cannot see how his foregoing Chain of Causes will admit of any meer positive Laws for did he not say a thing is therefore forbidden because it is in it self fit to be forbidden as naturally apt to prejudice the common good Now if this be so an indifferent Action which is not naturally and in it self apt to prejudice the common good cannot be either forbidden or commanded for according to his Scheme the fitness to promote the common good is not only the Reason of our obeying Laws but the Rule of God's making them also being as before the Supream Eternal and Irreversible Law which prescribes to all the rest Now if the Will of God must not be made the Ultimate Reason of our Obligation to obey his Laws but their fitness to promote the common good certainly the Will of Man must not be the Reason of the Obligation of Human Laws it would be very odd and dangerous to ascribe more to the Will of Man than to the Will of God therefore we must enquire for some better Reason why some Laws oblige absolutely to Obedience and other not than meerly the different Will and Intention of the Law-giver And I suppose the true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of this kind of Laws is to be found in the matter of them and those Laws are purely Penal which require things so very trivial and indifferent as naturally and in themselves have no fitness at all to promote the common good nor any tendency that way and though I dare by no means say that this tendency to common good is a Law so supream as that God himself must always observe it in his Commands and Prohibitions and that the Obliging power of his Laws is to be resolved into it for I doubt not God may command things that have no such tendency in themselves meerly to try whether men will obey the Authority of God for its own sake yet I am verily perswaded men should make the common good their Rule in every Law of theirs and that amongst men Salus Populi est suprema Lex and that God has not given them Authority to command any thing Demosthenes Natal Comit. Mythol l 2. c. 7. Aquinas q. 95. Camero praelec tom 1. p. 367. There was one saith the Bp. of Winch. on John 16. that would have his will stand for a reason 1 Sam. ch 2. Thus it must be for Hophni will have it so his reason is because he will God grant sayshe there be none such found amongst Christians and I say Amen but what has a tendency thereunto And therefore Cicero and others were wont to put the bonum publicum into the Definition of Human Laws and to affirm that those Edicts which command things no way tending to the publick good quidvis potius quà m Leges censendae sunt may be called any thing rather than Laws It is certain God has obliged Governours to steer by the Compass of Right Reason and to make the Point of publick good in all their Political actions if this be the Supream Law to all men it must be so to them they ought never to do an act Personal or Political but what has such a tendency if they do they act against the Authority
of God in this Supream Law and therefore cannot in the same thing act with his Authority And if in making such Laws as have no tendency to the publick good they act without Authority it is certain those Laws cannot bind men to Obedience though the publick good and a respect to the Persons and Office of their Governours may oblige them to submit to the Penalty The Authority of God is absolute is originally in himself and from himself and therefore is not under the direction of the publick good of his Creatures but the Authority of Man is derivative and dependant given unto him not for his own sake and pleasure but for the common Interest of Mankind and is wholly directed and limited thereby and therefore he cannot as God make Laws purely positive no way tending to good but meerly to try mens Obedience to his Authority for he has no Authority to command such things and a compliance with such Commands may be submission but cannot be proper Obedience And it is observable that there are many Statutes in England not repealed and yet not regarded because the matter of them is found to be so very trivial that no body thinks Conscience any way concerned in them as the Act for the tire of Wheels that about the Age of all Calves which the Butchers kill another requiring Butts for shooting in every Town another That no Bull shall be kill'd without Baiting That none shall pay above a Penny for a Quart of Ale and such like which are buried and forgotten in their own unusefulness The matter therefore is come to this Issue if those things wherein we dissent from the Episcopal party be naturally and in themselves apt to promote the common good a meer suspension of the Sanction will not excuse us from obedience because the Laws requiring those things are not meer Penal Laws But if they have no such tendency at all then though our Liberty were no more but a suspension of the Sanction yet the Law being purely Penal we are under no manner of obligation to Obedience by it We have therefore these two things to say for our selves under this head 1. That the Act for Liberty amounts to more than a bare suspension of the Penalty for it allows of our Congregations it secures us from disturbance laying a penalty upon all those that shall presume to do it it exempts our Ministers from serving in any Secular Offices which is conferring a kind of reward upon them I cannot but take notice how weak and ineffectual these Gentlemen would now make this Suspension of the Penal Laws to be and how little influence they will allow it to have upon the Preceptive part and yet when it was their Interest in the Late King's Reign to decry the Suspension of them by the Kings Declaration onely They pretend and plead that if that Declaration have any Legal effect it would discharge Ministers and People from attending upon the Publick Service of God thus Sir Robert Sawyer Pleaded in the Bishops Trial Pag. 100 103. When a Law is suspended the obligation thereof is taken away Now my Lord with submission I have always taken it that a Power to abrogate Laws is as much a part of the Legislature as a Power to make Laws A Power to lay Laws a-sleep and to suspend them is equal to a Power of abrogating them for they are no longer in Being as Laws while they are so laid a sleep or suspended c. 2. Though it should amount to no more but a bare suspension of the Penalty yet it is sufficient to excuse us from Disobedience because the Laws hereby suspended are meer Penal Laws that is such as require things that are no way apt to promote the common good those that say they are must prove it however here we remove the Cause out of that Court and must stand or fall by the intrinsick worth and nature of the things commanded CHAP. IV. The Nature and Rule of Decency Dissenters vindicated from the charge of Indecency in Expression Gesture and Habit no positive Decency in the Ceremonies Of Parochial Order A short account of the Reasons of our Non conformity Arguments for the imposition of Ceremonies answered IF we come off clear in these great points of Catholick Unity and Obedience to Superiors we shall more easily defend our selves against the lesser imputations of Indecency and Irregularity We begin with that of Indecency and therein shall enquire first into the Nature and Rule of Decency secondly into the Practice of the Non-conformists and how far it is agreeable to those Rules We fully assent and consent to that great Law of Decency laid down in Scripture and believe the transgression of that as of all other Divine Laws to be absolutely sinful We do not think it an indifferent thing whether we worship God decently or indecently But the question is what may be the Standard or Rule by which Decency is to be measured our thoughts about it such as they are we shall lay down in a few words 1. It must be something Antecedent to the Command of Superiors even the Apostle himself when he commands that all things be done decently supposes that there was a Decent way and method of acting which they could not be ignorant of he does not by his command make the Decency but supposes it and obliges them to the observation of it We therefore conclude Decency is not a thing of meer positive institution nor depends upon the Will and Command of Men but is of higher Original even the Light of Nature and is no other but the Natural decorum of an action To say the Ceremonies of the Church of England are therefore Decent because commanded is as much as to say were there no such command there would be no Decency in them and therefore that the omission of them is guilty of no other indecency than that of disobeying Superiours and where Superiours are pleased to suspend such commands the Worship of God may be performed as decently without them which indeed is to set aside the Argument of decency and to betake our selves wholly to that of Obedience which has been already discussed 2. 'T is therefore Nature or Custom which is a second Nature that is the rule and measure of Decency Vind. of Prot. Prin. p. 100. And Dr. Sherlock argues rationally upon this point when his Adversary would suggest that there is as much necessity of an Oecumenical determination of Decency and Order as of a National one he answers No for Decency of Worship is nothing else but to perform the External Acts of Worship in such a manner as may express our Reverence and Devotion to God therefore since there are no Catholick signs of Decency there can be no Catholick Uniformity in these matters The Decency of Garments Postures Gestures differ in several Countries and so do the expressions of Honour and Reverence and therefore such external Rites being only for external