which are upon all accounts indifferent and have neither any good nor hurt in them are by no means fit to be commanded in religious Worship for this is to trifle in sacred things which is contrary to the Decency and Gravity of Worship but those Ceremonies which serve the ends of Order and Decency are not indifferent things but necessary considered as decent There must upon some account or other be an antecedent Decency in things before they are fit to be commanded Church-Governours must take care to maintain the Decency of Worship but they must find things decent for by their meer command they cannot make them so All decent Rites and Ceremonies are by the Apostolical Rule to do all things decently and in order fitted and qualified to be made the Ceremonies of Religion which nothing purely indifferent is and all the Authority of Church-Governours in this matter is onely to determine what particular decent Rites of Worship shall be used in their Church that is to apply the Apostles general Rule to particular instances I know very well how jealous and fearful most men are of owning any other necessity or obligation to observe the external Rites and Ceremonies of Religion but what is derived from the Authority of Ecclesiastical or Civil Governours and therefore no wonder if in an Age wherein the Authority of the Church is so much despised and the Authority of the Prince in matters of Religion is absolutely denied they fall under such a general Contempt But I confess I see no reason why any man should be afraid to own some kind of necessity antecedent to all humane Authority For as I have already proved 1. The external Decency of Worship is absolutely necessary by an Apostolical Precept antecedent to all humane Authority 2. This makes it necessary that some decent Rites and Ceremonies should be used in religious Worship 3. This makes it necessary that nothing but what is decent should be used And therefore 4. All particular decent Ceremonies have this necessity antecedent to all humane Authority that some of them must be used in religious Worship and no other must And therefore 5. When the Governours of the Church have determined which particular decent Ceremonies shall be used in religious Worship these particular Ceremonies become necessary not meerly by Ecclesiastical Authority but by vertue of the Apostolical Command and their own natural Decency which brings them within the compass of that general Rule Church-Governours have Authority to apply that general Rule to particular Ceremonies which have such Order and Decency as comprehends them within that general Rule But these Rites and Ceremonies when they are fixt and determined do not derive their obligation meerly from the Authority of the Church but from the Apostolical Canon we must observe them not meerly because the Church has commanded them but because they are in themselves decent and so comprehended within the Apostolical Canon and therefore the proper Object of Church-Authority The Authority of the Church consists onely in applying the Apostolical Authority to such particular Rites and Ceremonies as by their own Decency are fit and qualified to be used in religious Worship but it is the Apostolical Authority as applied by the Church to such particular Ceremonies which gives them their necessity and obligation Hence Mr. Calvin observes that those Ecclesiastical Laws which relate to Discipline and Order must not be accounted humane Traditions because they are founded in this general Precept of doing all things decently and in order and so receive their approbation as it were from the mouth of Christ himself This I think is sufficient to shew that the decent Rites and Ceremonies of Religion have such goodness and necessity that they ought to be commanded for they have the goodness and necessity of Decency which is enjoyned by an Apostolical Canon But still the Controversie remains what this external Decency of Worship is and by what Rules we must judge of it for one man may account that decent which another may think has no positive Decency at all as it is in our present case The Church of England retains the use of some Ceremonies for the sake of Decency our modest Reconciler who is very sensible of his own proneness to mistake yet ventures to contradict the judgment of the Church and affirms that there is no positive Order or Decency in the Ceremonies of the Church of England wherefore they ought to be commanded And therefore it will be necessary Secondly To consider what the general notion of Decency in religious Worship is and by what Rules we must judge of it Now in general the external Decency of religious Worship consists in performing the Duties of Religion in such a manner as is expressive of Honour Reverence and Devotion This I suppose will not be denied by any man who acknowledges any such thing as external Worship but the difficulty is by what Rules we must judge of external Honour and Reverence and yet most men understand this very well also when they speak of civil Honour They know what Postures what Actions what Habit what Behaviour what Language what Address becomes them when they approach their Prince and their Parents or any other Persons whom they ought to honour or respect And this suggests to us two general Rules to direct us in religious Worship 1. That whatever would be deservedly thought a breach of good manners in common Conversation or a violation of that civil Respect and Honour which is due to Princes and all Superiours can never become the Worship of God What God tells the Israelites who offered the blind and the lame and the sick in Sacrifice holds good in all other cases Offer it now to thy Governour will he be pleased with thee or accept thy person saith the Lord of Hosts 1 Mal. 8. Such words and actions and behaviour as would be an affront to the Majesty of a Prince do much more unbecome religious Worship because God is much greater than the greatest Prince 2. That whatever is a necessary expression of our Honour and Reverence to men as far as it is agreeable with the nature of religious Worship is in a peculiar and eminent degreâ— due to Almighty God Many of the external expressions and signs of Honour both to God and man must of necessity be alike and if not the very same yet of the same kind and nature For whether we intend to honour God or men it must be done by some visible signs of Honour which are not necessarily determined either to religious or civil Worship but applicable to both If it be a signe of Honour to our Prince to be uncovered in his presence to deliver our Petitions upon the knee to come in a decent apparel to put on a grave and modest countenance to keep our distance c. that is if we must express our Reverence for our Prince in our words and gestures in our looks and habit and deportment of our
very consistent with the Apostolical Authority in governing the Church but an indulgence of Dissenters is not 335 St. Paul always asserted and exercised the Apostolical Authority as much as any Apostle and therefore would not suffer any diminution of it 337 The forbearance St. Paul pleads for was onely temporary 339 CHAP. VI. Containing an Answer to the 5th Chapter of the Protestant Reconciler His 1 Arg. from St. Paul's reproving the Christians for going to Law before the unbelievers 341 His 2 Arg. that St. Paul would not impose Virginity upon the Christians though he owned some advantages in that state above marriage therefore the Church must not impose her Ceremonies though they had the advantages of greater Decency 345 The difference between these two cases plain the Apostle had not authority to impose the one the Church has to impose the other 346 His 3 Arg. is from the Dispute about meats offered to Idols ibid. Those knowing persons who eat in the Idols Temple were the Gnostick Hereticks 347 The weak persons who were offended at this were some Paganizing Christians who still thought it lawful to worship their Country-Gods and were confirmed in this belief by seeing the Gnosticks eat in the Idols Temple 349 In the 1 Cor. 8. the Apostle Disputes against this practice of the Gnosticks upon a supposition of the lawfulness of it because it encouraged these imperfect Christians in Idolatry 350 The Reconciler mistakes the whole case The Apostle does not grant it lawful to eat in an Idols Temple but proves the contrary in chap. 10. 352 The weak Conscience is not a Conscience which did abstain from eating but which did eat 354 Not a scrupulous Conscience which doubted of the lawfulness of eating but a Conscience erroneously perswaded that it might lawfully eat 355 And therefore the Apostle does not plead for indulgence to this weak Conscicnce but warns them against confirming such persons in their mistakes 356 The Apostle's decision of this Controversie that it is not lawful to eat in an Idols Temple but that it is lawful to eat meats offered to Idols when sold in the Shambles or eat at private houses 357 But yet they were to abstain in these cases also when it gave offence 358 For whose sake the Apostle abridges them of this liberty of eating such meats at private houses ibid. Nothing of all this to our Reconciler's purpose 359 This forbearance onely in the exercise of their private liberty 360 His Argument from St. Paul's own example of charity and condescension ibid. St. Paul was an example of no other condescension than what he taught and if that do not plead for Dissenters as I have already proved it does not neither can his example do it 361 His Argument from St. Paul's preaching the Gospel freely at Corinth answered at large 362 c. CHAP. VII An Answer to his Motives for mutual condescension 372 His first Motive from the smalness and littleness of these things which ought not to come in competition with Love and Peace ibid. This inforced from Gods own example who suffered the violation of his Ceremonial Laws upon less accounts than these 377 And gave his own Son to die for us 380 His second Motive that God does not exclude weak and erring persons from his favour for such errours of judgment as â—re consistent with true love to him 382 His third Argument that Christ broke down the middle wall of partition between Iew and Gentile 387 His fourth Motive from the example of Christ and his Apostles in preaching the Gospel who concealed at first many things from their Hearers which they were not then able to bear 390 Mot. 5. from that Rule of Equity to do to others as we would be dealt with 392 6. From the obligations of Charity 397 7. That the same Arguments which are urged to perswade Dissenters to Conformity have equal force against the impositeon of Ceremonies as the terms of Communion The particular Argument considered and answered ibid. His Arguments from many general Topicks which he says are received and owned by all Casuits 404 An Answer to the Dissenters Questions produced by our Reconciler 405 CHAP. VIII Some short Animadversions on the Authorities produced by our Reconciler in his Preface 431 His Testimonies relating to the judgment of King James King Charles the first and our present Soveraign answered 433 Whether those Doctors of the Church of England whose Authority he alleadges were of his mind 438 Concerning the testimonies of foreign Divines 442 And the judgment of our own and foreign Divines about the terms of Concord between different Churches which does not prove that the same liberty is to be granted to the Members of the same Church  A conclusion containing an Address to the Dissenters to let them see how the Reconciler has abused them that they cannot plead for indulgence upon his Principles without confessing themselves to be Schismaticks and weak ignorant humorsome People 443 Errata P. 35. l. 32. for and r. as p. 47. l. 28. f. bind r. bend p. 96. l. 10. f. charity r. clarity A VINDICATION OF The Rights OF Ecclesiastical Authority BEING An ANSWER TO THE Protestant Reconciler The INTRODVCTION THE name of a Reconciler especially of a Protestant Reconciler is very popular at such a time as this and it is a very invidious thing for any man to own himself an Enemy to so Christian a Designe and therefore I do not pretend to answer the Title which is a very good one but to examine how well the Book agrees with the Title and whether our Author has chosen the proper method for such a Reconciliation For this Reconciliation will prove very chargeable to the Church if she must renounce her own Authority to reconcile Dissenters The usual methods taken by Reconcilers have been either to convince men that they do not differ so much as they think they do but that the Controversie is onely about the manner of expressing the same thing or that they are both gone too far into opposite Extremes and have left Truth and Peace in the middle or that the matter in dispute is not of such moment as to contend about it or that the truth of either side of the Question is not certain or that one of the contending Parties is in the wrong and therefore ought to yield to him who is in the right But our Reconciler has taken a new way by himself to prove that both the contending Parties are in the wrong and that both of them are in the right for thus he adjusts the Controversie He who saith that it is sinful and mischievous to impose those unnecessary Ceremonies and to retain those disputable expressions of our Liturgie which may be altered and removed without transgressing of the Law of God saith true And thus the present Constitution of the Church of England in these present circumstances is with great modesty and submission without any dispute pronounced sinful by a professed Member and
parts of the Service of God and therefore the Apostles Precept is not disobeyed by the omission of such Ceremonies and consequently this Precept cannot warrant the imposing of them That the Apostolical Precept is not disobeyed by the omission of these Ceremonies I readily grant but not for his reason that the omission of them is not indecent for this Precept commands the positive Decency of Worship as well as forbids the Indecency of it but because the Decency of Worship may be secured by other decent Rites and Ceremonies though these were omitted but his consequently is a far-fetch'd one The imposing any decent Rites may be warranted by this Precept though the neglect of them be not indecent for every decent Rite excludes Indecency and makes the Worship decent which is the sum of this Apostolical Precept Decent Rites and Ceremonies are not opposed to the Indecency of omitting such Rites but to other indecent Modes of Worship Kneeling at the Sacrament ought not to be opposed to not kneeling nor wearing a Surplice to not wearing a Surplice for they cannot be opposed as doing a thing decently or indecently but as doing or not doing a thing which may be decent or indecent according to the nature of things but they must be opposed to other Postures or Habits in Worship And such Rites as exclude Indecency and have a natural Decency in them are comprehended in this Rule 3. As for his Logick he tells us That Decency and Indecency are privatively opposite and between privative opposites in a capable subject there is no medium and therefore there is Decency sufficient in those actions where is no Indecency This our Reconciler calls a plain Argument which is nothing else but a plain Fallacy For suppose we grant him that Decency and Indecency Reverence and Irreverence are privative Opposites that is opposed to each other as a habit and its privation as sight and blindness how does it hence follow that there is Decency enough where there is no Indecency Sight and blindness are privatively opposite but will you say that man sees well enough who is not blind Though there be no medium between a habit and a total privation yet there are great degrees in habits and no man thinks he sees well enough though he be not stark blind if his eye be weak and tender or short-sighted or wants the assistance of Spectacles or other helps of Art Thus though Indecency were nothing else but the privation of Decency yet there are great degrees of Decency And when the Apostle commands that all things be done decently and in order our Reconciler must prove that he meant onely the lowest degree of Decency which is but one bare remove from Indecency otherwise he must give us leave to conclude that whatever is truly decent is comprehended in this Precept and the more decent any thing is the more agreeable is it to the Apostles designe But besides this Mr. Ieanes and our Reconciler after him are grievously out in their Logick For Decency and Indecency Reverence and Irreverence are not privative opposites for Indecency is not the meer privation of Decency but they are opposed as Vertue and Vice that is as two extreams are opposed to each other which are properly called adversa which are affirmative not negative opposites though the Grammatical Notation of the words Indecency and Irreverence seems to have betrayed him into that mistake And I suppose they will allow that there is a medium between two extreams and let our Reconciler consider how it would sound to say That man is vertuous enough who is not vicious Indecent and not decent do not signifie the same thing no more than unlearned and not learned I have been taught in Logick that homo est indoctus and homo est non doctus are not equipollent Propositions To say A man is learned a man is not learned a man is unlearned signifie very differently and so do these Propositions An action is decent an action is not decent an action is indecent the first signifies a positive Decency the second that there is no positive Decency the third that there is a plain opposition and contrariety to the Laws of Decency Civility and â—udeness in common conversation are opposed as Decency and Indecency are but there is an untutored and undisciplined humour which is neither civil nor rude This I think is sufficient to prove that there may be no Decency nor Reverence in such actions which cannot be strictly charged with Indecency and Irreverence and therefore when the Apostle commands that all things be done decently he requireâ— something more than not to be guilty of aâ—â— Indecency or Irreverence in Worship III. To proceed He observes that the same Reverend Bishop proves That beyond commanding that which hath a necessary relation to the express command of God or is so requisite for the doing of it that it cannot be well done without it by any other instrument or by it self alone the Bishops can give no Laws which properly and immediately bind the transgressors under sin I confess I do not certainly understand what this learned man refers to he having given us no particular instances which has given advantage to our Reconciler to apply it as he pleases But let us consider his Reasons and by that we may guess how far we are concerned 1. Because we never find the Apostles using their Coertion upon any man but the express breakers of a divine Commandment or the publick disturbers of the peace of the Church and the establisht necessary Order Thus far the Bishop To which the Reconciler adds Men must not therefore first make unnecessary Orders and when men cannot conscientiously submit unto them and therefore do not so cry out that they disturb the Churches peace These words he represents as the Bishops also though they are his own which is one of his pious frauds But as for the Argument I think it is evident it does not relate to our Dispute who pretend no other authority but to censure those who disturb the peace of the Church and the establisht necessary Order for such the Rules of Order and Decency are But how the Apostles censured such persons we cannot tell neither for we never read that any Christians in those days disputed the Apostolical authority in such matters or refused to obey their Canons and Injunctions and therefore there was no occasion to exercise such censures 2. Because even in those things which were so convenient that they had power to use Injunctions yet the Apostles were very backward to use their authority of commanding much less would they use severity but entreaty It was St. Paul 's case to Philemon before-mentioned Though I might be much bold in Christ to enjoyn that which is convenient yet for loves sake I rather entreat thee But this does not concern us neither for what is this to the Rules and Orders of Worship that he would not take Philemon's servant Onesimus from
him without his consent for I doubt Church-authority does not extend to such matters which are purely civil and secular and though when such things are highly expedient for the Worship of God the Bishop has authority to exhort and perswade and that man sins who disobeys yet this is not properly the object of Church-censures and Ecclesiastical authority no more than when men refuse to do some pious or charitable act at the Bishops request Philemon's obligations to St. Paul who was his spiritual Father who had converted him to the Christian Faith gave him a peculiar authority over him but the bare Apostolical authority did not extend to the disposal of mens Fortunes and Servants which in those days were part of their Estates 3. In those things where God had interposed no command though the Rule they gave contained in it that which was fit and decent yet if men would resist they gently did admonish reprove them let them alone So S. Paul in case of the Corinthian men wearing long hair If any man list to be contentious we have no such custom nor the Churches of God that is let him chuse it is not well done we leave him to his own liberty but let him look to it But this does not reach the case neither for wearing long hair did not concern the Rites and Ceremonies and Uniformity of religious Worship which is our onely Dispute but was an Indecency in common conversation and a great many such things the Apostles indulged both to Jews and Heathens till they could be reformed by Reason and better Instructions though at the same time they did more severely correct the Disorders and Indecencies of Worship And yet I confess it seems a very odd Comment upon the Apostles words We have no such custom nor the Churches of God viz. let him chuse it is not well done we leave him to himself Whereas in these words the Apostle is so far from leaving them to do as they please that he determines the Controversie against them by the highest Authority to a Christian next to an express Law of God viz. the Customs and Usages of the Christian Church The Apostle indeed does not here threaten Church-censures against them but first tries what Reason and Argument will do which is a very proper method for Bishops to use but a very ill Argument to prove that the Church must not censure those who refuse Obedience to her Laws and Constitutions 4. If the Bishops power were extended farther it might extend to Tyranny and there could be no limits beyond this to keep him within the measures and sweetness of the Government Evangelical but if he pretend to go farther he may be absolute and supreme in the things of this life which do not concern the Spirit and so fall into Dynasty as one anciently complained of the Bishop of Rome and change the Father into a Prince and the Church into an Empire This is a plain Argument that the Bishop does not speak here of the decent Rites and Circumstances of Worship for how the Authority of the Church to prescribe the decent Rites and Ceremonies of Religion should degenerate into Tyranny and secular Power is unintelligible to me The Usurpations of the Church of Rome we know came in at another door and the Presbyter who has little regard to the external Order and Decency of Worship can find other pretences to get some secular power into his hands But what limit can be set to Ecclesiastical Authority if the Church exceed what is barely necessary to prevent confusion in religious Worship I answer Decency is the bound of it and there needs no other What is decent and orderly in religious Worship belongs to Church-authority what is more is an irregular abuse and there is no great danger that such a Power as this should make Bishops secular Princes This makes it evident to me that this learned Prelate intended not one word of all this against the Ceremonies of the Church of England or the imposition of them and it is certain he could not unless we will say that he contradicts himself and then his authority is good on neither side And I shall make this appear once for all and thereby answer the Citations out of the Writings of this excellent Bishop to countenance this Reconciling Designe all together I observe then that the Bishop himself does expresly justifie the Ceremonies of the Church of England as not offending against any of those Rules he had prescribed for Ecclesiastical Laws When he speaks of Rituals and significant Ceremonies and censures such Ceremonies which are meerly for signification which seems to come nearest to our Case there he designedly not onely vindicates the Practice but applauds the Wisdom of the Church of England in reference to her Ceremonies There is reason to celebrate and honour the Wisdom of the Church of England which hath in all her Offices retained but one Ritual or Ceremony that is not of divine Ordinance or Apostolical Practice and that is the Cross in Baptism which though it be a significant Ceremony and of no other use though in this I cannot agree with the Bishop and have given my reasons for it above so it is very innocent in it self and being one and alone is in no regard troublesome or afflective to those who understand her power her liberty and reason I say she hath one onely Ceremony of her own appointment for the Ring in Marriage is the Symbol of a â—ivil and religious Contract it is a Pledge and Custom of the Nation not of the Religion And those other Circumstances of her Worship are but determinations of time and place and manner of a Duty they serve to other purposes besides signification they were not made for that but for Order and Decency for which there is an Apostolical Precept and a natural reason and an evident necessity or a great convenience Now if besides these uses they can be construed to any good signification or instruction that is so far from being a prejudice to them that it is their advantage their principal end being different and warranted and not destroyed by their superinduc'd and accidental use In other things we are to remember that Figures and Shadows were for the Old Testament but Light and Manifestation is in the New This is the judgment of this excellent Bishop about the Ceremonies of the Church of England which I think makes little for our Reconcilers purpose and therefore when he had transcribed that large Discourse about Rituals and Ceremonies meerly for signification out of the Bishops Writings he stops when he comes to this as being convinc'd in his Conscience that the Bishop did not intend one word of this against the Ceremonies of the Church of England which he expresly excepted and justified Well but though the Bishop out of civility to the Church made such an exception yet there was no reason for it his Arguments were as strong against the
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.
Church to have rejected those Ceremonies which had been made venerable by ancient use when they would equally or better serve those ends we designe than any new ones This is the very account our Church gives of it Having given the reason why she retained some Ceremonies still as I have already observed she answers that Objection why she has retained some old Ceremonies If they think much that any of the old remain and would rather have all devised new then such men granting some Ceremonies convenient to be had surely where the old may be well used there they cannot reasonably reprove the old onely for their age without bewraying of their own folly For in such a case they ought rather to have reverence to them for their antiquity if they will declare themselves to be more studious of Unity and Concord than of Innovations and new Fangleness which as much as may be with true setting forth of Christ's Religion is always to be eschewed Let our Reconciler consider whether this be Hypocrisie or true and sober reasoning 2. The Dean's second reason is To manifest the justice and equity of the Reformation by letting their Enemies see that they did not break Communion with them for meer indifferent things Or as our Reconciler adds That they left the Church of Rome no farther than she left the ancient Church Which the Dean does not say under that Head nor any thing like it But yet here he takes advantage and says It is manifest that we have left off praying for departed Saints the Vnction of the sick the mixing water with the Sacramental Wine c. with many other things which were retained in the ancient Church and in the Liturgie of Edward the Sixth he should have said the first Liturgy and which are things indifferent retained in the Roman Church But is our Reconciler in good earnest I fear the next Book we shall have from him will be the Roman Catholick Reconciler Are all these things as used in the Roman Church indifferent Is praying for the dead as it is joyned with the Doctrine of Purgatory and Merit in the Church of Rome a thing indifferent Is the Sacrament of Extream Unction an indifferent thing Are their Grossings and Exorcisms and such-like Ceremonies abused by the Church of Rome to the absurdest Superstitions indifferent things Our Reformers at first in veneration to the Primitive Church in which some of these Ceremonies were used did retain the use of them in the first Liturgy of Edward the Sixth but upon more mature deliberation finding how impossible it was to restore them to their primitive use and to purge them from the superstitious abuses of the Church of Rome to which their people were still addicted laid them all aside and for this they are reproached by our Reconciler Some men would have been called Papists in Masquerade for half so much as this But what is this to the Dean's reason That we do not break Communion with them for meer indifferent things For certainly to retain three indifferent Ceremonies though we should reject five hundred more equally indifferent is a sufficient proof that we do not quarrel nor break Communion for indifferent things considered as indifferent which is all that the Dean meant by it But he has a fling at some others besides the Dean though whom he means I cannot well tell but he says Some of our Church senselesly pretend we cannot change these Ceremonies because they have been once received and owned by the Church I suppose he means the Catholick Church and though I think it is too much to say we cannot change what has been once received for the Church of this Age has as much Authority as the Church of former Ages had yet I think what has been received by the Catholick Church ought not but upon very great reasons to be rejected by any particular Church But now had our Reconciler been honest he might have made a great many useful Remarks upon this History of ancient Ceremonies for the conviction of Dissenters He might have observed that even in the Apostles days there were several Ceremonies used of Apostolical institution which yet had not a divine but humane Authority and therefore were afterwards disused or altered by the Church That in all Ages of the Christian Church there have been greater numbers of Ceremonies used and those much more liable to exception than are now retained in the Church of England That the Church has always challenged and exercised this Authority in the Externals of Religion and therefore there has not been any Age of the Church since the Apostles with which our Dissenters could have communicated upon their Principles This had been done like an honest man and a true Reconciler but it is wonderful to me that he who can find so many good words for the Church of Rome can find none for the Church of England 3. It may so happen that some things must be determined by publick Authority which are matter of doubt and scruple to some professed Christians When I say Authority must determine such things I mean if they will do their duty and take care of the publick Decency and Uniformity of Worship without which there can be no Decency This is evident in such an Age as this wherein some men scruple every thing which relates to publick Worship but what they like and fancy themselves To be uncovered at Prayers is as considerable a scruple to some Quakers as to kneel at the Sacrament is to other Dissenters This it seems was a Dispute in the Church of Corinth in St. Paul's days but the Apostle made no scruple of determining that question notwithstanding that and yet praying covered or uncovered are but circumstances of Worship as kneeling or sitting at the â—acrament are and if I had a mind to argue this point with our Reconciler I think I could prove them as indifferent circumstances as the other For the reason the Apostle assigns for the mens praying uncovered and the women covered that one was an Emblem of Authority the other of Subjection which makes it a symbolical Ceremony as our Dissenters speak is quite contrary among us though it were so in the Apostles days and is so still in some Eastern Countries To be uncovered among us is a signe of Subjection and to be covered a signe of Authority and therefore Princes Parents and Masters are covered or have their Hats on while Subjects Children and Servants are uncovered in their presence And therefore in compliance with the Apostles reason men should now pray covered because that is a signe of civil Dignity and Superiority whereas we now pray uncovered in token of a religious Reverence and Subjection to God Now I would ask our Reconciler whether our Church may determine that all men shall pray with their Hats off notwithstanding the scruples of some Quakers for if the Church must have respect to mens scruples why not to the scruples of Quakers
that liberty to each other which the Church has decreed that they should allow to each other therefore the Church it self must not impose the observance of any indifferent Ceremonies on Dissenters or must alter or abate them in compliance with their Scruples This is the plain case here The Council at Ierusalem had decreed that the Gentiles who received the Faith of Christ should not be under a necessity of being circumcised or observing the Law of Moses and left the believing Jews at their liberty to observe the Rites and Ceremonies of their Law still but notwithstanding this determination the believing Gentiles who understood their Christian liberty despised the weakness and superstition of the believing Jews who continued zealous for the Law of Moses and the believing Jews were mightily scandalized and offended at the liberty which the Gentile Converts took and made great scruple of conversing with them or of worshipping God together This Scandal and Offence which the Council easily foresaw would be taken and given on both sides did not hinder them from making a peremptory Decree in this matter as I observed before and when such Scandals as these did arise between the believing Jews and Gentiles in the Church of Rome St. Paul in this Epistle earnestly exhorts them to mutual charity and forbearance to grant that liberty to each other without mutual censures contempt and scandal which the Church had already decreed should be granted for he pleads for no other forbearance than what was expresly decreed by the Council at Ierusalem In such cases wherein the Church allows a latitude and permits different apprehensions and practices certainly it becomes all Christians not to judge or censure offend or scandalize each other which is the onely case the Apostle mentions But will any man in his wits hence infer that the Church must make no Laws nor prescribe any Rules of Worship which are scrupled by private Christians and that if she do she sins against these Laws of Charity and Forbearance which the Apostle exhorts the Romans to observe The Governours of the Church may exercise the same authority which the Apostles did in the Council at Ierusalem they may determine what upon mature deliberation and advice they judge fit or necessary to be determined whatever scruples some Christians have entertained about it and when they have done so it becomes Christian Bishopâ— and Ministers as the Apostle here does to perswade private Christians to obey such Constitutions for the preservation of the Peace and Unity of the Church not to turn Reconcilers and to plead the Cause of Dissenters against church-Church-Authority which St. Paul never did And it becomes private Christians to submit to such Determinations and those who do not are guilty of the scandal and offence if there be any not those who do The Gentile Converts were guilty of scandal if they despised the Jews for observing the Law of Moses which the Council had still permitted them to observe the Jews were guilty of scandalizing the Gentiles if they judged and censured them and denied Communion to them for not observing the Law of Moses because the Council had delivered the Gentiles from any such necessity but no man can be guilty of any criminal scandal by obeying the lawful Constitutions of the Church whoever is scandalized at it but scandal always lies on the side of disobedience The Christian Jew gave no offence by observing the Law of Moses nor the Christian Gentile by not observing it because they both herein had the authority of the Apostolical Decree to justifie them and therefore St. Paul does not exhort the Jews not to observe the Law of Moses nor the Gentiles to observe it to avoid scandal which had been somewhat like our Reconciler's Address to the Church not to impose and to the Dissenters to obey such Impositions to avoid Schism but he exhorts them both to grant that liberty to each other which the Church had granted and not to judge and censure and despise and separate from each other for the use of this liberty which in both of them would be an express violation of the Apostolical Decree Governours indeed may be guilty of uncharitableness in the exercise of a just Authority as I have already discours'd and vindicated our Church from any such imputation but Subjects can never be guilty of scandal in obeying the lawful commands of a lawful Authority And private Christians may be guilty of scandal in the imprudent use of their just liberties but this can never extend to the authority of Government Thus it was with the Gentile Converts The Council at Ierusalem had delivered them from the necessity of observing the Laws of Moses but yet had not laid a necessity on them to eat Swines flesh or any other meats which were unclean by the Law when a Jew was present and therefore herein it became them to use their liberty without offence and to exercise a generous charity towards the weakness of a believing Jew in such cases as the Apostle argues from the 13th verse to the end of the Chapter and yet it became the Church to allow this liberty to the Gentiles which they might use uncharitably for to have abridged it had been to impose on them the observation of the Mosaical Law The Apostle indeed as the Reconciler observes did plainly assert That the things scrupled by the weak were pure and lawful in themselves that he knew and was perswaded by the Lord Iesus that there was nothing unclean of it self which is the very determination of the Council at Ierusalem and yet he requires the believing Gentiles to exercise great charity in the use of their liberty which is a plain instance of the exercise of a private charity in such cases where publick Authority can make no such determination in favour of the scrupulous The Council at Ierusalem and St. Paul in this Epistle determine against the scruples of the Jews and assert the liberty of the Gentiles and they could not do otherwise and yet St. Paul requires private Christians to use this liberty without offence and to exercise such charity to their Jewish Brethren as the Church it self did not and could not exercise And thus St. Paul falls under our Reconciler's lash as well as Dr. Womack As if Church-Governours were not as much concerned in the reasons laid down as were the common People that is that they were not obliged to receive the weak in Faith and being strong to bear the infirmities of the weak that they might judge another mans servant that they might put a stumbling-block or an occasion to fall in their Brothers way that they might walk uncharitably might grieve and even destroy him with their meat for whom Christ died that they might let their good be evil spoken of and might for meat destroy the work of God and that though it is good for private persons not to eat flesh nor drink wine nor to do any thing
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
not unite us in one body and to countenance such Scruples as these by the least Indulgence would lay an eternal foundation of Schisms and therefore the Argument does not hold from the case of the Jews to the case of the Dissenters because forbearance in one case would cure the Schism in t'other it will increase it 5. This indulgence to the Jews in the oâ—servation of the Law of Moses was very consistent with the Apostolical authority in governing the Church and prescribing the Rules and Orders of Christian Worship but an Indulgence of Dissenters in the use of indifferent things in Religious Worship is not so Our Reconciler proves from St. Paul's condescension to the Jews that the Governours of the Church must not impose the use of any indifferent things in the Worship of God or that in charity to Dissenters they must alter such Rules and Canons when as often as there are any who scruple the lawfulness of them that is they must part with their Authority or for ever suspend the exercise of it which is much at one to govern Religious Assemblies and to prescribe the decent Rites of Worship when there are any persons so ignorant or so humoursome as to dispute their Authority or the lawfulness of what they command The absurdity of this Principle I have already shewn at large but yet if the Apostle had set an Example of such condescension as this I would readily submit as not daring to dispute against an Apostolical practice But if this forbearance which the Apostle perswades the believing Jews and Gentiles to exercise towards each other do not entrench upon the Apostolical Authority in governing Religious Assemblies then it is no President to the Governours of the Church to give up their Authority to Dissenters Now this is the plain case here The Dispute between Jews and Gentiles as you have already seen did not concern Christian Worship nor the government of Christian Assemblies but the exercise of mens private liberty and therefore St. Paul might grant and might exhort to this forbearance without injuring the Apostolical Authority which onely concerns the government of Christian Assemblies and prescribing the Orders and Rules of publick Worship And indeed it is very evident that St. Paul would never have indulged the scruples of Christians to the diminution of the Apostolical Power and Authority which he asserted as high as any of the Apostles He gave several directions for the government of Religious Assemblies for the regular exercise of their Spiritual Gifts in the Church of Corinth for speaking with Tongues and prophesying for their demeanour and deportment of themselves that men should pray and prophesie uncovered and women covered that women should not speak in the Church for their celebrating the Lords Supper and Love-feasts for their holy kiss besides his general directions that all things should be done decently and in order and after these particular directions reserves the final ordering of things to himself The rest will I set in order when I come This same Power he committed to Titus in Crete For this cause left I thee in Crete that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting Now if our Reconciler could shew that in such matters as these which concerned the exercise of Church-Authority the Apostles allowed private Christians to dispute their commands and gave indulgence to every one to do as they pleased who did not like to do what was commanded it would be somewhat to the purpose and might justly be thought a standing Rule for Church-Governours but the Apostles understood their Authority and the Primitive Christians their Duty better than so none disputed their commands in Rules of Prudence and Decency nor would they suffer their commands to be disputed without censure St. Paul commends the Corinthians upon this account I praise you brethren that you remember me in all things and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you He commends them for their obedience to Titus and gives the Thessalonians this general Rule To know them which labour among you in the Lord and admonish you and to esteem them highly for their works sake And what that means we learn from the Epistle to the Hebrews Obey them that have the rule over you and submit your selves for they watch for your souls And he commands the Thessalonians If any man obey not our word by this Epistle note that man and have no company with him that he may be ashamed Which shews a true Apostolical Spirit and Power which we have no reason to doubt but he exercised in other cases as well as that which is there mentioned Now if this forbearance towards the believing Jews which St. Paul pleads for did not entrench upon Ecclesiastical Authority if it appears from other places that he did assert his Authority and require obedience and submission to it one would wonder how the Reconciler should hence prove that the Governours of the Church should give up their Authority to the Dissenters or which is all one not impose any thing which through ignorance or scrupulosity or from some worse cause they refuse to obey which St. Paul never did where he had authority to impose for as for his becoming all things to all men of which more in the next Chapter it referred onely to the exercise of a private liberty not of an Ecclesiastical Authority 6. I shall adde but one thing more that this forbearance which St. Paul pleads for was onely temporary It was a prudent Expedient for that time which was such a critical period as never happened before nor could ever haâ—pen again nor could continue long and therefore there was no such inconvenience in it but what might be dispensed with out of love and charity to weak Brethren The Jews who at that time believed in Christ could not presently be convinced that the Law of Moses was abrogated or out of date but St. Paul saw a time a coming which would effectually convince them of this when God should suffer the Romans to destroy their City and Temple and put a final end to the Jewish Worship which he seems to refer to when he tells them Let us therefore as many as be perfect thoroughly informed in the Christian Doctrine be thus minded and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded God shall reveal even this unto you Now when we see a fair prospect of the end of such Disputes and have an Expedient in the mean time to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church certainly Christian charity obligeth all men to mutual forbearance But now the case of the Dissenters is quite different from this They raise Scruples and Disputes after above fifteen hundred years prescription against them and separate from the Church of England upon such Principles as condemn the best and the purest Churches of former Ages and if their Scruples be indulged it is impossible there should ever be any Peace
The Apostle says Not to touch a woman And why our Reconciler says wife instead of woman I cannot tell I am sure it is a corruption of the Text and contrary to the Apostolical command Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence and likewise also the wife unto the husband v. 3. But to let that pass his Argument in short is this The Apostle declares that a single life has many advantages in it as to the purposes of Religion especially in that afflicted and persecuted state of the Ghuach above Marriage and therefore he recommends a single life to them But knowing as our Saviour had before declared that every one could not receive this saying he does not impose it upon them and therefore the Governours of the Church should not impose our Ceremonies though it could be proved that there is like profit decency or tendence to perform Gods service better as the Apostle says there was under the present circumstances in keeping their virginity Now I would onely ask our Reconciler whether the Apostle had any authority to impose Virginity on the Christians of those days or to forbid them to marry If he had not as I think our Reconciler will not say that he had then his Argument runs thus The Apostle would not impose that upon the Christians which he had no authority to impose therefore the Governours of the Church must not impose that which they have authority to impose Some things may have great profit and advantage in them which yet are instances of so perfect a Vertue as is above the common attainments of Christians and therefore not fit to be made a standing Law they may be proper matter for an Exhortation but not for a Command But what a wide difference is there between the instances of a raised and perfect Vertue and the decent Rites and Ceremonies of Worship It is too severe an imposition to command the one but there is no difficulty in observing the other But the difference between Laws of burden and Ecclesiastical Ceremonies has been already observâ—d Thirdly His next head of Arguments for condescension to Dissenters is taken from that Dispute about eating of those meats which were offered to Idols 1 Cor. 8. 10. Now there is no need of any other Answer to this but to state this case right which will convince every ordinary Reader how unapplicable any thing which the Apostle here discourses is to the case of our Dissenters And to do this plainly and briefly we must consider 1. Who those were who out of a pretence of extraordinary knowledge went to the Idol-Temples and eat of those meats which were offered in sacrifice to Idols 2. Who the weak were who were offended with this and what the scandal and offence was 3. How the Apostle reasons about this matter 1. Who these knowing Persons were who eat in the Idols Temples Now it is very plain that the Apostle in this place taxes the Gnostick Hereticks who had occasioned that first Schism â—n the Church of Corinth and taught the People to despise St. Paul as very ignorant of the Mysteries of the Gospel and what the just extent of Christian liberty was For 1. it is plain that he here taxes a vain and arrogant pretence of knowledge v. 2. If any man think that he knoweth any thing he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know which is purposely to warn the Christians against those men who boasted so much of their knowledge assuring them that they were very ignorant notwithstanding all their brags of knowledge 2. It is evident that these men out of pretence of greater knowledge did eat in the Idols Temple If any man see thee which hast knowledge who dost so much boast of thy knowledge sit at meat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in an Idols Temple Now this St. Paul in the tenth Chapter absolutely condemns not onely as sinful upon account of scandal but as sinful in it self as partaking with Devils by eating of their Sacrifices No true Orthodox Christian ever did this but the Gnostick Hereticks did partly out of luxury to partake in these splendid Entertainments and to defile themselves with those impure lusts which were part of their Mysteries as the Apostle insinuates ch 10.6 7 8. v. These things are our examples to the intent we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted neither be ye idolaters as were some of them as it is written The people sate down to eat and drink and rose up to play neither let us commit fornication as some of them committed and partly out of fear of persecution against which the Apostle warns and encourages the sincere Christians v. 13. There has no temptation no tryal by sufferings and persecutions taken you but what is common to men but God is faithful who will not suffer you to be tempted above what you are able but will with the temptation also make a way to escape that ye may be able to bear it And to justifie this practice of theirs in eating at an Idols Temple they pretended that an Idol is nothing in the world that the Gods whom the Heathen worshipped were not Gods but dead men or according to the Mythology of the Stoicks which prevailed in that Age among the Philosophical Idolaters and therefore most probably was embraced by the Gnosticks were onely the names of some divine Powers and Attributes of the one eternal God which the errour and superstition of these People had formed into several distinct Dâ—â—ies and therefore an Idol being nothing it could not pollute the meat which was offered in sacrifice to it but it was as lawful to eat of that as of any other ordinary Feast 2. Let us consider who these weak persons were who were offended and scandalized at this liberty which the Gnosticks took Now it is as plain that these were a sort of very imperfect Christians who together with the Faith of Christ retained many of their old Pagan Superstitions as the Jews did the observation of the Mosaical Law This appears from that account St. Paul gives of them that they were men who did not understand that an Idol is nothing but look'd upon them at least as some inferiour Gods and frequented their Temples and eat of the meat offered to them under the notion of Sacrifices and thereby did defile and pollute themselves with Idolatrous Worship Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge for some with conscience of the Idol to this hour eat it as a thing offered unto Idols and their conscience being weak a sick misinformed corrupt conscience is defiled with Idolatry And therefore the scandal which was given to these men was this that when they saw those who pretended to such perfect knowledge in the Mystery of Christianity eat of the Sacrifice in the Idols Temple this confirmed them in their errour and Idolatry and made them conclude that such Pagan Superstitions as these were reconcilablâ—
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
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
another sort of Ceremonies which are not the necessary circumstances of action but yet may be very decently used and do contribute to the Gravity and Solemnity of religious actions Of this nature is the signe of the Cross in Baptism which is no necessary circumstance for Baptism may be very decently and reverently administred without it but it is a thing very fitting and decent to be done at the time of Baptism and which adds to the external Solemnity of it Our Church has enjoyned no other Ceremony of this nature but onely the signe of the Cross but yet it will be necessary to discourse something briefly about the nature the decency and lawfulness of such Ceremonies as these and in particular about the Cross in Baptism First As to the nature of these Ceremonies I shall observe three things which I presume will contain all that is necessary to be known about them 1. That though they are symbolical and significant Ceremonies they are not meerly for signification that is they are not meer Images and Pictures of things which would transform Religion into an external piece of Pageantry A great many such things indeed have been used and are still in use in the Church of Rome as dressing up a Baby and rocking it in a Cradle as a Figure and Emblem of Christs birth about the time of his Nativity and such-like childish and ludicrous shows which unbecome the Gravity and Simplicity of the Christian Religion Such mean Representations as these are onely for the entertainment of Children but do mightily debase the Spirits of men and detain them by earthly Figures and Similitudes from contemplating those sublime Mysteries God never instituted such a Religion as this nor did Christ and his Apostles give any countenance or authority to it The Law of Moses indeed consisted of a great many significant Rites and Ceremonies such as Circumcision Washings Purifications Sacrifices c. many of which were instituted purely for their signification but then the designe of it was to teach them by such external Rites those things which at that time he did not think fit to give any express Laws about nor to make a plain and clear revelation of The Rites and Ceremonies of their Law were either typical of Christ and the state of the Gospel or had a moral signification to instruct them in those Evangelical Graces and Vertues which God did not think fit then expresly to command Now in such a dispensation as this it did highly become the divine Wisdom by such external Signs and Figures to give some hints and intimations of diviner Mysteries and a more excellent Philosophy to devout and inquisitive minds The designe of these legal Ceremonies was to teach them that by Hieroglyphicks which it was not yet time to teach them by plain Precepts and express Revelations But to transform the plain Precepts and Revelations of the Gospel into earthly Figures is to teach men backward to draw them off from the immediate contemplation of pure and naked Truth to court a Picture and a Shadow and to dote upon earthly Figures and Images of it And therefore it is a reproach to the wisdom of the Mosaical Dispensation to call such fooleries as these Jewish Rites and Superstitions There was a great deal of hidden and secret Wisdom contained in and taught by those Rites which at that time they had no other way to learn but such significant Ceremonies as are meerly for signification in the Christian Religion do onely obscure and debase divine Mysteries are wholly useless when we are instructed in those things by plain and express Revelations which these Ceremonies teach or rather darken by earthly Figures and they corrupt a Spiritual Worship which hereby degenerates into external pomp and show 2. These Ceremonies therefore though they are significant must not be meer teaching Signs which are out of date under the Gospel and a reproach to the clear Revelations and perfect light of it but are visible signs and expressions of some Grace or Vertue or Duty which we at that time exercise or profess the exercise of As to give you some instances of such Ceremonies as were both allowed and practised by Christ and his Apostles Christ washed his Disciples feet as an Example of Humility as well as Kindness which he recommended to their imitation and this seems to be literally practised by them after his death and was continued in some Churches to after-Ages But now we must not look upon this Ceremony onely as a signe of Humility but as a real exercise of it In those Countries to wash the feet of any man was a servile work and as mean an Office as they could do for one another and therefore it was a visible exercise of Humility in our Saviour to do it and so it was in them too who imitated him in it but did withal signifie all other acts of Kindness Humility and Condescension which by that act of washing the feet they did profess to each other And should men wash each others feet still without the exercise of that Humility with which our Saviour did it it would not be a religious Ceremony but a ludicrous piece of Superstition Thus the Kiss of Charity or the holy Kiss which was used in the Apostles days was not a meer significant Signe but a real exercise and expression of that Brotherly love which they had and which they expressed to each other and those who kissed without this divine Charity profaned the Ceremony Thus the Love-Feast which was in use also in the Apostles days where all Christians the rich and the poor eat together at a common Table was not onely a significant Signe of mutual Love but an Exercise and a visible Profession of it and therefore the Apostle severely reproves them for such disorders at that holy Feast as were inconsistent with that Brotherly Love and Charity which they profess'd in it Thus the signe of the Cross as it is used in our Church at Baptism is not meerly for signification but is a visible Profession of our Faith in a crucified Saviour and a Promise and Engagement of our selves to take up his Cross and to suffer as he did rather than to deny him In token that we shall not hereafter be ashamed to confess the Faith of Christ crucified and manfully to fight under his Banner against the World the Flesh and the Devil and to continue Christs faithful Servants and Souldiers unto our lives end But yet we must observe farther that though these Ceremonies may be called religious Actions or Ceremonies yet they are not properly acts of Religion in a strict sence as that signifies acts of Worship They are religious actions as being done upon a religious account as being the Exercise or Profession of some Vertue but we do not properly worship God in them no more than we do by being meek and humble and charitable and professing the Faith of Christ before men To kiss each other and
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
conceive non enim carnes secundum legem sed sola olera manducabant Because the weak persons mentioned here onely did eat herbs abstaining from all flesh and not from that alone which was forbidden by the Law of Moses But if we will take the opinion of this Commentator we must understand also one who is weak in body who has an ill stomach or ill digestion and therefore eats herbs because he cannot eat flesh through sickness or old age Infirmus aetate aut corporis vigore which are the words immediately before and then how this will reach the case of Ecclesiastical Ceremonies I cannot tell As for his reason that these weak persons eat onely herbs it is not evident from the Text. Herbs may be taken synecdochically for all sorts of meats allowed by the Law no sort of herbs being forbidden or it may signifie that rather than eat any meats forbidden by their Law they chose to live on herbs which might be often the case of those Jews who lived among Heathens as the Jews at Rome who are primarily concerned in this Epistle did And St. Chrysostom who positively asserts that this concerns meats forbidden by the Law of Moses assignes another reason for their eating herbs Because if they had onely abstained from Swines-flesh and other forbidden meat they would have discovered their Reverence for the Law of Moses still which he supposes they had a mind to conceal and therefore to palliate the business they abstained from all flesh and eat onely herbs that it might look more like fasting and abstinence than the observation of the Law Whether this be a good reason or not I am not now concerned to inquire it plainly shews what St. Chrysostom's opinion was in the case which I suppose may be thought as considerable as this Commentators But there can be no doubt about this if we consider what the Apostle saith v. 14. For I know and am perswaded by the Lord Iesus that there is nothing unclean of it self but to him that esteemeth any thing unclean to him it is unclean 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 common the word peculiarly used to signifie the distinction of clean and unclean meats among the Jews and there was no other Law that ever made such a distinction For though the Pythagoreans did forbid eating of flesh yet that was an inconsiderable Sect of Philosophers which could not occasion such a general Dispute as this was and they did not forbid flesh upon this distinction of clean and unclean meats which was peculiar to the Mosaical Law but for reasons peculiar to their Philosophy which were so vain and superstitious that we cannot imagine the Apostle would grant any indulgence to such fancies 2. His next reason is Because the Apostle doth in the Epistles to the Galatians and Colossions speak severely against their observation of the Iewish Festivals and therefore here would not speak of them as things indifferent concerning which it was onely needful that the observers or not observers of them should be well assured in their own minds and be permitted to continue in their practice as St. Ambrose saith the Apostle here asserts nor is it like that in such things he would permit them to abound in their own sence Which last assertion directly overthrows his whole Hypothesis for it seems the Apostle might have required of them to renounce the Law of Moses and the observation of it whatever scruples they pretended and then how does it become so necessary a duty in Church-Governours to renounce their own Authority to gratifie and humour every scrupulous Conscience for if ever there were reason to be favourable to scruples it was in the case of the believing Jews whose scruples were occasioned by a Divine Law which they were not yet convinc'd was abrogated and out of date And if as he says it was not likely the Apostle should suffer them to abound in their own sence in such things there is much less reason to expect this from Church-Governours in other matters where no such Authority can be pretended to justifie their scruples But of the different behaviour of the Apostle to the Romans and Galatians I shall give such an account in what follows as will not be much to our Reconciler's purpose 3. Because the Apostle confineth his discourse to meats not speaking of the whole observance of the Law of Moses he doth not therefore say that Christ had now abolished that Law or that it was not made unto and so could not oblige the Gentile World or any thing which seemeth proper to oppose unto those judaizing Christians but onely saith that meats did not commend to God and such-like things which are all proper to be spoken unto those who understanding of their liberty freely indulged themselves in eating of the Idol-Sacrifice Now this is a notable Argument if it be well considered The Apostle confines his discourse to meats and days not speaking of the whole observance of the Law of Moses Because his whole Epistle treats upon this Argument and he does not repeat all that he said in the foregoing Chapters about Circumcision and Sacrifices Washings and Purifications and the abrogation of the Mosaical Law in this 14th Chapter therefore these meats and drinks and days must not refer to Mosaical observances The whole Epistle concerns the Dispute between Jews and Gentiles and if he can find any other meats and days which the Jews thought themselves bound to observe and the Gentiles thought themselves freed from by Christ he will say something more to the purpose And whereas he argues that the Apostle does not urge such Arguments as are proper to prove the abrogation of the Law of Moses it is evident that this was not his business in this Chapter but he proves what he intended to prove how reasonable mutual forbearance is in these matters which supposes the abrogation of the Law already proved as indeed he had sufficiently proved it before for there is no place for forbearance against a positive Law 4. His last reason is as good as any of the former Because had the Apostle spoken to the strong Iewish Christian and declared his freedom from the observation of the whole Iewish Law he would have contradicted the Churches of Jerusalem and his own practice there for they were zealous for the observation of it and did esteem it their duty so to be and did not judge him a strong but a disorderly Christian who being a Iew observed not their Laws and Customs Now if this proves any thing it proves that St. Paul never did and indeed ought not to dispute against the freedom of the Jewish Converts from the observation of the Law and then we shall want a new Commentator upon most of his Epistles to deliver him from that scandal which all Exposiâ—ors hitherto have cast on him that he has in many places industriously proved that neither Jew nor Gentile were under the obligation of the Mosaical Law But it is
of it viz. the miraculous effusions of the holy Spirit What have we to do to pass any judgment at all concerning those mens internal communion with God and Christ who forsake the external and visible communion of the Church since the Apostle speaks here of Gods receiving them into visible Church-communion Must the Church alter the most prudent and wholsome Constitutions for the sake of every one whom she does not believe a damned Hypocrite May we not hope charitably that God will be merciful to the prejudices and mistakes of some well-meaning men without destroying all Order in the Church and all the Decency of Worship to let such men into our Communion When God shall as visibly declare that he receives all those into the communion of the Church who dissent from the Constitutions of it and will not conform to its Worship Discipline or Government as he did that he had received both Jews and Gentiles into the visible communion of the Church then the Reconciler's Argument may be worth considering but till then it is nothing to the purpose And I cannot but observe what dreadful apprehensions our Reconciler has of the evil and guilt of Schism who believes that such Schismaticks as wilfully separate from the communion of the Church may still be in communion with God and Christ. This his present Argument necessarily supposes for otherwise it does no way appear that God has received them and then it does not follow that the Church must receive them and yet certainly Schism cannot be so damning a sin as at other times he pretends it is if such Schismaticks are still in communion with God and Christ. So that great part of his Book is nothing but putting tricks upon the Church And when he declaims mostt ragically about involving so many precious Souls in the guilt of a damning Schism and destroying those with our Ceremonies for whom Christ died he secretly laughs in his sleeve at those silly people who are so credulous as to believe it for he believes no such matter himself but thinks it want of charity to believe that Schismaticks are not in communion with God nor living Members of Christs Body So that whatever strength those may conceive to be in his Book who believe Schism to be a damning sin it is plain he cannot think there is any strength in it himself for upon this supposition that a man may be saved as well in a Schism as in Church-communion as certainly all those shall who are in communion with God and Christ it is not worth disputing about these matters The Church may keep her Constitutions and Schismaticks may divide and subdivide into infinite Factions and no great hurt done but that it makes Protestant Reconcilers of no use It had been a much more honourable undertaking in him to have convinc'd the Church of her mistake about the damning nature of Schism and to have satisfied Dissenters that they might continue in their Schism without any danger than to scare them both with panick fears and to pelt them with such Arguments as are not worth half a farthing if this Argument be worth any thing for if God and Christ have received such Schismaticks into communion I know no reason they have to be concerned about the communion of the Church 2. The next Argument the Apostle uses or rather a continuation of the former Argument is contained in the fourth verse Who are thou that judgest another mans servant to his own master he standeth or falleth yea he shall be holden up for God is able to make him stand To the same purpose v. 10 12. But why dost thou judge thy brother that is whom God hath made thy Brother and declared him to be so by visible effects though thou refusest to own him for such or why dost thou set at nought thy brother for we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God This Argument our Reconciler thought fit to pass over for though it was very much to the Apostles purpose it was nothing to his For what is the meaning of judging another mans servant Are not private Christians subject to the Authority of the Church and liable to be judged and censured by their Governours No doubt of it if Christ have establish'd any Government in his Church And yet it seems this was such a matter as no man had any authority to judge in but was reserved wholly to the judgment of God For the plain case was this God had publickly declared his Will by the visible effusion of the holy Spirit both on Jews and Gentiles that he indulged the believing Jews at that time in the observation of the Law of Moses but would not impose that Yoke on the believing Gentiles Now when God had so visibly determined this Controversie neither private Christians nor Church-Governours had authority to determine it otherwise or to judge or censure or deny communion to each other upon that account for God may accept Jews and Gentiles upon what terms he pleases and to judge and reject the Jews for observing the Law of Moses when God is pleased to indulge them in it or to judge and reject the Gentiles for not observing the Law when God has so manifestly declared that he receives them without it is as if we should judge another mans Servant for doing or not doing what his own Master either allows or permits In such cases as these as St. Iames speaks He that speaketh evil of his brother and judgeth his brother speaketh evil of the Law and judgeth the Law but if thou judge the Law thou art not a doer of the Law but a judge There is one Law-giver who is able to save and to destroy who art thou that judgest another That is when we judge and condemn our Brother for doing or not doing such things which God has by a positive Law or some other publick declaration of his Will allowed them to do or to omit we are not doers of the Law that is do not behave our selves as those who are to receive Laws and to obey them but as judges as those who have authority to make Laws or to censure and controul them So that this Argument against judging another mans Servant relates onely to such matters which God has determined by his own authority and therefore cannot concern the case of our Dissenters unless our Reconciler can prove that God has plainly determined that the Church shall not prescribe the Rules of Order and Decency in publick Worship What God has left to the authority of the Church in such cases the Church may judge and censure and reject the disobedient because private Christians in all such cases are subject to Church-authority and the Church does not exceed her authority in judging them And this is the Dispute between the Church and Dissenters Whether they should obey the Authority of the Church in such matters which
God has not determined by his own Authority whereas the Dispute between Jews and Gentiles was actually determined by God that the Jews should be indulged in the observation of the Law but that it should not be imposed upon the Gentiles and therefore when they judged and censured one another upon this account they exceeded their authority they judged over Gods judgment and judged another mans Servant which the Church cannot be charged with when she judges and censures her own refractory and dissenting Members for their disobedience in such things as are subject to her authority 3. The Apostle perswades both Jews and Gentiles to receive one another to Christian communion because though they differed in their practice yet both of them acted out of reverence to the divine Authority The Jew knew that the Law of Moses was given by God and could not be satisfied that it was repealed and therefore still observed the Law in reverence to the Authority which first gave it The converted Gentiles knew that the Law was never given to them and were assured by the same persons upon whose authority they embraced the Gospel that they were not under the obligation of the Law and therefore they thankfully accept that liberty which Christ had purchased for them And therefore since both of them at that time could truly plead a divine authority for what they did and not meerly some unaccountable humour and prejudice they ought not to judge and censure one another for such different practices One man esteemeth one day above another another esteemeth every day alike let every man be fully perswaded in his own mind He that regardeth a day regardeth it to the Lord and he that regardeth not a day to the Lord he doth not regard it He that eateth eateth to the Lord for he giveth God thanks which would be a profane and impudent mockery of God did he not believe that God had given him liberty to eat indifferently of any thing and he that eateth not to the Lord he eateth not and giveth God thanks Our Reconciler represents the Apostles Argument thus These persons saith the Apostle ought to be received into communion although they differ in practice and in judgment about these matters because it was from conscience towards God and a desire to do what was most pleasing to him that some did eat and others not that some did regard a day and others not If charity therefore will teach us to conclude of such as do observe or do refuse observance of the Constitutions of our Church in these inferiour matters that as they outwardly profess so do they really observe or not observe them out of conscience towards God which they who cannot know mens Consciences but by their own professions cannot well deny then must they both by the Apostles Rule receive each other to communion and not reject each other on the accounts of differences in judgment or in practice in these lesser matters Let us then consider what the consequence of this Doctrine would be if it were true viz. that the Consciences of men are under no Government and when we consider what is usually meant by Conscience viz. mens private Opinions and Judgments of things the plain English of it is that every man must do as he list and thus all the Authority of Government is over-ruled by the more soveraign Authority of Conscience This is so extreamly absurd that it is wonderful to me that men of common understanding should not blush to own it For 1. It is plain that God will judge the Consciences of men and condemn them too if they be erroneous and wicked The Jews crucified our Saviour and persecuted his Apostles out of zeal for God as St. Paul witnesses but God destroyed their City Temple and Nation for it I suppose our Reconciler will not charge all the Heathen Idolaters even after the Empire was turned Christian with being a pack of damned Hypocrites Many of them no doubt very sincerely followed their Consciences and yet were damned not for Hypocrites but for conscientious Idolaters All the Laws of God oblige the Consciences of men whatever their particular Perswasions may be and if mens Consciences will not comply with the Laws of God the Law will judge and condemn them and yet it seems as hard a thing that God should condemn men who act out of conscience and a desire to do what is most pleasing to him as that Earthly Governours should condemn and punish them No you 'll say God is the sole Lord and Judge of Conscience and he alone has authority to give Laws to the Consciences of men which no humane power can but all this is senseless Cant for what is it to be the Lord of Conscience and to give Laws to Conscience Does it signifie any more than a Soveraign Authority to command under the guilt of sin if we disobey And have not all Governours then who have received authority from God to command the government of mens Consciences too as far as their authority reaches But this is not the Question Who has authority to give Laws to Conscience for whoever has authority to make Laws has authority to make Laws for Conscience unless they have authority to make Laws without obliging any body to obey them But the Question is Whether after Laws are made either by God or men every man may equitably challenge a liberty to follow the guidance of his own Conscience though his Conscience mistake its rule Now it is plain that God does not grant this liberty for he punishes such erroneous Consciences and will eternally damn those who do wicked actions out of a mistaken Zeal for his glory and yet if there were any reason or equity in the case it would more oblige God than any Earthly Governours because such misguided Zealots are supposed to intend Gods glory in what they do And if God will not indulge such men in the breach of his Laws though they intend to please him by it what reason have Earthly Governours to do it who receive their authority from God and cannot imitate a better Example in the exercise of it than God himself 2. Civil Magistrates ought to take no notice at all of mens Consciences in making or executing Laws for the good government of the Nation If the Saints should think it their priviledge and prerogative to rob and plunder and murder the ungodly if they should think themselves bound in conscience to pull down earthly Princes to set up King Jesus on his Throne should Magistrates be afraid of hanging such Villains as these as commit such horrid Outrages from a Principle of Conscience Nay if men refuse to give security to the Government or a legal testimony in any civil cause out of a scruple about the lawfulness of Oaths is the Government to take notice or to make any allowance for this If God does not Magistrates have less reason to do it because God knows what mens Consciences
the Idols Temple and then the sound Christian was to forbear for fear of encouraging such weak Christians in their Idolatry for they might apprehend it as lawful to sacrifice to an Idol as to eat of the Sacrifice and as lawful to eat of the Sacrifice in the Idols Temple as in a private house And thus the use of their innocent liberty in eating what is set before them without scruple might confirm such men in their Idolatrous practices and for that reason they were to forbear And it is probable enough that St. Paul might have respect to all these from what he adds v. 32. Give none offence neither to the Iew nor to the Gentile nor to the Church of God Not to the Jew who had a great abhorrence of Idolatry by doing any thing which should make them suspect you of the least approach to Idolatry which would confirm them in their aversion to Christianity not to the Gentile by confirming them in their Idolatry not to the Church of God by scandalizing either weak or scrupulous Christians much less by scandalizing the Christian Profession as the Gnosticks did by eating in the Idols Temple But how any thing of all this makes to our Reconciler's purpose I cannot see that which comes nearest the business is if we suppose that the Apostle commands them to abstain for the sake of those who scrupled the lawfulness of such meats but then this forbearance was only in the exercise of their private liberty in eating or not eating wherein Religion is not immediately concerned for though it were lawful to eat of such meats yet it was not their duty to do it their eating in it self considered did not please God though they eat without scandal much less when their eating was an offence to weak Christians Meat commendeth us not to God for neither if we eat are we the better neither if we eat not are we the worse as he had before told the Romans The Kingdom of God is not meat and drink and therefore in such cases it became them to exercise great charity in the use of their liberty But how little this makes to our Reconciler's purpose I have already shewn at large in the fifth Chapter and our Reconciler has offered nothing new here to deserve a new Answer All that remains to be considered in this Chapter is the Example of St. Paul himself which may be answered in a very few words He exercised great charity and forbearance both towards Jews and Gentiles and therefore being so great an Apostle ought to be an Example of the like forbearance to all succeeding Bishops and Pastors of the Church Now if our Reconciler can prove from the Example of St. Paul that the Governours of the Church ought not to prescribe the decent Rites and Ceremonies of Religion or ought to alter and abolish them in charity and condescension to Dissenters I will yield the Cause Let us then consider what St. Paul's condescension was and I observe in general that he was an Example of the same condescension and forbearance which he perswaded other private Christians to exercise and therefore if that charity and forbearance which he exhorts the Christians to exercise towards each other does not overthrow Ecclesiastical Authority nor plead for the Indulgence and Toleration of Dissenters then St. Paul's Example cannot do this neither This will appear from considering particulars In this Epistle to the Corinthians he perswades them not to eat meats offered to Idols especially in an Idols Temple for fear of offending and scandalizing weak Christians and this he tells them he would observe himself Wherefore if meat make my brother to offend I will eat no flesh while the world standeth lest I make my brother to offend In the Epistle to the Romans he perswades believing Jews and Gentiles to receive each other and not to judge and censure and scandalize one another about the observation or non-observation of the Law of Moses and this condescension both â—o Jews and Gentiles he exercised himself Vnto the Iew I became as a Iew that I might gain the Iews to them that are under the Law as under the Law that I might gain them that are under the Law to them that are withouâ— the Law as without Law that I might gain them that are without Law That is when he was among the Jews he lived as a Jew observed the Law of Moses as they did when he was among the Gentiles who had no regard to the Law of Moses he did not observe it neither he complied with the weakness and mistakes both of Jews and Gentiles he became all things to all men that he might by all means gain some that is he practised that condescension and forbearance which he taught others to practise And if that did not concern the case of our Dissenters nor plead for the like Indulgence and Toleration for them as I have already proved at large it does not neither can the Apostle's Example prove any such thing All this condescension of the Apostle was not in the exercise of his Apostolical Authority but in the use of his private liberty which he was very willing to restrain to make his Ministry the more effectual but he never parted with his Authority to govern the Church and to prescribe the Rules and Orders of Worship for the sake of any Dissenters as I have already proved But there is one instance more of St. Paul's condescension which our Reconciler takes notice of and indeed it is a very notable one viz. that though St. Paul asserts his right to live upon the Churches stock as well as other Ministers yet he maintained himself by his own labour that he might preach the Gospel to the Corinthians without charge for it is plain that he did receive Contributions from other Churches and this he did lest he should hinder the Gospel of Christ and to cut off occasion from them that desire occasion From whence our Reconciler thus argues Wherefore although the Rulers of the Church have certainly a right to impose things indifferent yet with submission to them I conceive they should not exercise that power in like circumstances viz. when by the exercise thereof they give occasion to them that desire occasion to traduce them as men who more regard a Ceremony than an immortal Soul the exercise of their commanding power than the preserving poor Souls from damning Schisms and the Church from sad Divisions when it hinders the preaching of the Gospel to their Flock as this imposing seems to do Ad Populum phalerae Now I shall briefly consider the Case and then I will consider our Reconciler's Application The Case is this St. Paul had a right to live on the Gospel by Gods own appointment and ordination as the Priests under the Law who ministred in holy things lived of the things of the Temple and they which wait at the Altar are partakers of the Altar have their portion