as we may suppose from his own Character of himself by a dignified Clergy-man of our Church And that he also who pleads for separation from Communion with us on account of those few scrupled Ceremonies and disputable Expressions of our Liturgie is sinful and unreasonable as well as mischievous doth also speak the words of truth and soberness or that one should not impose these things as the conditions of Communion and the other should not when they are once imposed refuse Communion upon that account i. e. the Church sins in imposing and the Dissenter sins in disobeying such Impositions The Church is in the right as to the lawfulness of what she imposes but sins in the exercise of her Authority in commanding lawful things The Dissenter is in the right in affirming these Impositions to be the sin of the Imposers and yet sins in not obeying them that is the Dissenter judges aright of the duty of his Superiours but is mistaken in his own And if he can reconcile these things it will be one good step towards a Reconciliation Governours indeed may be over-rigorous and severe in the exercise of a just Authority but I dare not say that they always sin when they are so but that they do not act so wisely or so charitably as they might do For the Wisdom and Charity of Government is so nice a thing and subject to so many difficulties that the case of Governours would be very hard should every mistake in such matters be a sin and Government it self must necessarily lose its Sacredness and Authority if every Subject may censure the Wisdom and Charity of lawful Commands and Impositions and vote them to be mischievous and sinful if they do not agree with his Notions of Prudence and Charity All that Subjects are concerned to enquire about the Commands of their Superiours is concerning the lawfulness or unlawfulness of them if they go any farther they make themselves Governours not Subjects and therefore it is not very modest to condemn the Commands otherwise civilly called Impositions of Superiours as sinful and mischievous when it is lawful to obey them And he who thinks Dissenters do ill in refusing Obedience does not well himself in charging the Church with doing what is sinful and mischievous in imposing But then on the other hand if the Church do sin in imposing she either exceeds her Authority and Commission and so imposes without Authority or else she imposes something unlawful and in either of these cases no man can blame Dissenters for refusing Communion with the Church in such matters For no man is bound to communicate in unlawful things nor to obey where there is no Authority to command And therefore our Reconciler can never reconcile these two Propositions That the Church sins in imposing the Dissenter sins in rejecting such Impositions and in refusing Communion where it cannot be had without submitting to â—hem For though we are bound to submit to the Supreme Powers when they act illegally because we are bound never to resist yet we are not bound to yield an Active Obedience to any illegal Commands but the Church considered as a Church or Ecclesiastical Body having no external and compulsory Authority if she commands what she has no Authority to command no man is bound to obey her and if this occasion a Schism she her self is the Schismatick But to shew how ominously our Reconciler stumbles at the threshold let us state the case a little otherwise The great reason he assignes throughout his Book to prove that the Church sins in these Impositions is that there is a great number of men among us who either scruple the lawfulness or positively afsert the unlawfulness of them and this occasions a Schism in the Church To prevent which the Church is bound in charity to the Souls of men not to command such scrupled and unnecessary Ceremonies and sins if she does Now in this case also the sin and guilt can lie but on one side For if the Dissenters notwithstanding this may and ought to conform to such Impositions then there is no necessity upon that account for the Church to alter her Constitutions nor does she sin in imposing if they may not then the Dissenters do not sin in rejecting such Impositions If some particular Governours are acted by ill principles this contracts a personal guilt on themselves but it neither excuses Dissenters nor affects the Government while they command nothing but what the Church has Authority to command and what may be lawfully obeyed but if the meer scruples of Dissenters will make the Commands of the Church sinful when there is no other fault to be found in her Constitutions but that Disfenters will not obey them this overthrows all government in the Church So that our Reconciler who is resolved to prove both these Propositions that the Church sins in imposing and the Dissenter in breaking Communion for such Impositions will have much ado to reconcile his two Books together One part of his Task is certainly needless for if he can but convince the World of the truth of either part he effectually does the businâ—ss If he can convince the Disâ—enter that he ought to conform to these Impositions the Church may impose without sin or if he can perswade our Governours that it is sinful to impose there is no need to deal with Dissenters and therefore methinks it had savoured of more modesty and greater deference to Authority to have tried his skill upon Dissenters first But our Author by over-doing is like to spoil all For it is very probable he will convince Dissenters of what they believed before that the Church cannot impose such things from whence in spight of all his Logick they will conclude that they are not bound to obey and he will convince the Government that the Dissenter ought to conform and sins in not doing it which justifies their Impositions And thus he ends just where he began Nay could he convince the Church that she ought not to impose upon Dissenters while their scruples last and the Dissenters that they ought not to scruple these things nor disobey them when they are commanded we may expect it will take up some time to adjust the dispute after all this between the Church and the Dissenters which of them shall yield for both sides cannot yield unless we will say that the Church must leave off imposing and then the Dissenters must begin to obey that the Church must no longer command and then the Dissenter is bound to obey when no body commands So that could he effectually prove that the Church and the Dissenter are both guilty of sin the one in imposing the other in refusing Obedience yet I do not see what Reconciliation this is like to make For it is not enough to reconcile two contending Parties to prove that they are both in the fault unless you can propose some middle terms of accommodation or prove that though they are both
against her uncharitable Impositions And when he has published a Book against the Constitutions of our Church agreed on by the wisdom of the Convocation and establisht by Act of Parliament when he has already the most mature and deliberate judgment of Church and State it looks like a very hypocritical piece of modesty a downright Challenge to the whole Clergy to cry out as he does Teach me my Reverend Brethren and I will hold my peace cause me to understand wherein I have erred and I will thankfully yea I will publickly retract it Any body I think but a Protestant Reconciler would call this libelling the Church and hectoring and out-braving all his Mothers Children How the rest of my Brethren will digest this outragious Contempt of church-Church-Authority I cannot tell for my part I cannot bear it but am resolved to do my weak endeavours to vindicate my dear Mother from the rudeness and insolence of her undutiful Son And in order to this I shall consider what it is he contends for wherein we agree and where we part and fairly debate on which side the truth lies The Proposition which he undertakes to prove is contained in these words That things indifferent which may be changed and altered without sin or violation of Gods Laws ought not especially under our present circumstances to be imposed by Superiours as the Conditions of Communion or as Conditions without which none shall minister in sacred things though called to that work and none shall be partakers of the publick Ordinances which Christ hath left to be the ordinary means of Grace and of Salvation to mankind bâ—t shall upon refusal to submit unto them for ever be excluded from the Church and from the Priviledges belonging to the Members of it Where by indifferent things which may be changed and altered without sin or violation of Gods Laws it is plain he means whatever is not expresly commanded by God and so must include all the Externals of Worship Government and Discipline which are not enjoyned by a divine Law That these ought not to be imposed signifies that it is sinful and mischievous to impose them as he expresly asserted before and which all his Arguments are designed to prove viz. that Governours sin in it To impose signifies onely to command and to impose as Conditions of Communion signifies no more than to impose though it sounds bigger For the Church makes such indifferent things the Conditions of Communion in no other sence than as she commands those of her Communion to worship God in such a manner and rejects those which will not which is nothing more than to command as to command is opposed to leaving every one at liberty to worship God as he pleases So that if the Church have not Authority to make these indifferent things the terms of Communion in this sence so as to reject those who will not worship God according to such Prescriptions i. e. who will not obey the Governours of the Church wherein they live then she has no power at all to command And when he adds especially in our present circumstances he refers to those Divisions and Schisms which he says are occasioned by such Impositions Whenever such Ceremonies are doubted and scrupled and made an occasion of Schism then especially it is a sin to impose them but when he says especially he plainly insinuates that it is at all times sinful and unlawful to impose such uncommanded Rites and Modes of Worship though it is a greater sin to do it when there are any who scruple the lawfulness of such Impositions This is the Doctrine of our Protestant Reconciler which I should rather have expected from a profess'd Enemy than from a pretended Advocate of the Church of England He has at once very modestly rejected all Ecclesiastical Authority in indifferent things He has condemned all the Canons and Constitutions of the Church for the orderly performance of Religious Worship from the Apostle days until this time which concern the external Circumstances and Ceremonies of Worship He has plainly renounced one of thoâ—e Articles of Religion to which he has subscribed and declared his Assent if he be a Member of our Church For Art 20. asserts That the Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies And if the Church has power to do this I suppose she may do it without sin and without asking leave of her Inferiours But though our Reconciler has stated this matter so generally as to condemn all Ecclesiastical Authority in indifferent things and has said many things which look that way in several parts of his Book yet his open and avowed designe is onely to prove the sinfulness of such Impositions when they are scrupled and made the occasion of Schisms and Divisions in the Church as he says it is at this day among us And here I shall joyn issue with him and give a particular Answer to every thing which has the least appearance of an Argument which though it will make this Answer larger than I could wish yet is necessary to stop the mouths of such pragmatical Reconcilers who are as troublesome and dangerous to the Government as Dissenters themselves CHAP. 1. Concerning the external Order and Decency of Worship and the Authority of the Church in such matters THat I may give a fair Answer to our Protestant Reconciler I shall first examine some of his Mistakes which run through his whole Book and whereon the whole Argument of his Book is founded the removing of which to men of any competent understanding would supersede the necessity of any farther Answer And they either concern 1. The usefulness of some Rites and Ceremonies of Religious Worship and the Authority of the Church in such matters Or 2. The obligations of charity to the Souls of men with the due measures and extent of it Or 3. That regard which ought to be had to an erroneous or scrupulous Conscience From these Topicks he all-along argues to prove that Church-Governours ought to alter the external Ceremonies of Worship because they are of no value in themselves and therefore charity to the Souls of men requires them in such things to condescend to the errours or scruples or weakness of their Brethren I shall begin with the first which is the fundamental Mistake on which all the rest depend and therefore must stand or fall with it and that concerns the external Order and Decency of Worship or the Authority of the Church in prescribing Rites and Ceremonies for the more decent and orderly performance of Religious Worship Now concerning this matter our Reconciler thinks that the external Ceremonies of Religion are of no account at all for publick Worship may be performed as decently and reverently without the use of those Ceremonies which are in dispute as with them For thus he expresly and dogmatically asserts That the Ceremonies which are imposed by our Church as they have nothing sinful in their nature for which Inferiours
imposing the Ceremonies now used in the Church of England because it hath been proved already that they have nothing of this nature in them that is nothing of positive Order or Decency But what he says has been proved already I have made appear is not proved by him yet and I hope I have proved the contrary But if the Ceremonies of our Church which are nothing else but the decent circumstances of action or contribute to the Gravity and Solemnity of religious actions have no positive Decency and therefore cannot be prescribed by the Church I desire to know what that positive Decency is which the Church has authority to command for if it does not extend to the determination of the necessary circumstances of action I cannot see that the Church has any authority in matters of Decency And if as the Bishop says the Rulers of the Church are the perpetual Iudges and Dictators in such matters which he seems to assent to how does it become the great modesty of our Reconciler to assert That there is no positive Decency and Order in those Ceremonies which the Church has appointed for the sake of Decency and Order If the Rulers of the Church be the proper Judges of this how does our Reconciler come by this authority to judge his Judges II. Our Reconciler adds a limitation of this Rule That all things be done decently and in order in the words of the same Reverend Bishop That it is not to be extended to such Decencies as are onely ornament but is to be limited to such as onely rescue from confusion The reason is because the Prelates and spiritual Guides cannot do their duty unless things be so orderly that there is no confusion But if it can go beyond this limit then it can have no natural limit but may extend to Sumptuousness to Ornaments of Churches to rich Vtensits to Splendour and Majesty for all that is decent enough and in some circumstances very fit But because this is too subject to abuse and gives a secular power into the hands of Bishops and an authority over mens estates and fortunes and is not necessary for Souls nor any part of spiritual Government it is more than Christ gave to his Ministers How much our Reconciler has injured this learned Prelate by his numerous citations of his words to a quite different sence from what he intended shall be made appear before I leave this Argument though he has dealt no worse by him than he has by Christ and his Apostles whose words â—e has as grosly abused That this excellent Bishop had no designe in this or any thing else which our Reconciler transcribes from him to reflect on the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England I have more than one reason to believe as will appear presently and therefore though I could not give an account of every particular expression yet none but such a Protestant Reconciler would expound any of his words in contradiction to his declared sence of things I am sure what he here says if it be applied to the Ceremonies of the Church of England has no reason in it and that is a sufficient Argument to me that he never meant it so For 1. Supposing this to be true That this Rule is not to be extended to such Decencies as are onely ornament this does not concern the Church of England which has no such Ceremonies as are meerly for ornament And therefore the Church has authority enough to prescribe the decent Rites and Modes of Worship though she have not authority to make her Worship gay and theatrical which indeed is not decent and therefore not contained within this Rule The Bishop never thought of the Church of England when he gave this Rule but had his eye upon the fantastick Ceremonies and Amusements of the Romish Worship 2. But yet when he says That this Rule is not to be extended to such Decencies as are onely ornament it is evident that he does not exclude all Ornaments neither if they serve any ends of Religion beside For if they be really such Decencies and Ornaments as become Religion and Christian Worship I cannot imagine any reason why they should not be included in the Rule of Decency and Order Such Decency and Order as is opposed to confusion and disorder is always necessary and may always be had what state soever the Church is in while there is any publick face of a Church Ornamental Decencies cannot always be had and therefore do not always oblige as in the case of Persecutions But why any man should say that the Authority of the Church does not extend to Ornaments when it is in her power to adorn the Worship of God I cannot guess Must there be no difference between the afflicted and prosperous state of the Church When God has made in all other things a distinction between Necessaries Conveniences and Ornaments does he allow nothing but what is barely neâ—essary to his own Worship It is possible indeed that men may mistake in what they call the Ornaments of Religion as the Church of Rome evidently does but if they do not mistake and have it in their power to give an external beauty and lustre to Religion do they exceed their Commission in this too The Bishop acknowledges that Sumptuousness Ornaments of Churches rich Vtensils Splendour and Majesty is decent enough and in some circumstances very fit and I should much have wondered had he denied it Now when these things are decent and fit does it exceed the Authority of the Church to appoint them Can any thing be decent and fit to be done in any circumstances which the Church has no Authority to do And therefore when he says that meer Ornaments are not comprehended within the Rule of Decency and Order he means no more by it than that the Governours of the Church are not so strictly obliged to take care of the external Ornaments of Religion which cannot be had at all times as they are of the Decency and Order of Worship Ornaments are very fitting when they can be had but the Bishop has not authority to oblige the People to the charges and expences of such Ornaments unless they freely and willingly consent And that this is his meaning appears from the Reasons he gives of it That this is too subject to abuse and that it gives a secular power into the hands of Bishops and an authority over mens Estates and Fortunes Which are good Arguments onely upon this supposition that the Bishop had such authority as to oblige his People to such expences as he should think fit for the Ornaments of Religion but suppose devout people liberally contribute to such pious uses if his Authority and Commission does not extend to Ornaments he must not receive their money nor adorn the Church with it if he may then his Authority extends to Ornaments though he has no Authority over mens Estates for he must not do any thing in
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-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
significant Ceremonies of the Church of England as of any other Church But it seems the Bishop did not think so and when the Reconciler alledges the Bishops Authority as well as Arguments against us he ought to have urged his Arguments no farther than he himself did or to have told his Readers what exceptions the Bishop made and left it to him to judge whether the exception was good and reasonable or not And I am apt to think that every ordinary Reader would have made some little difference as the Bishop did between such significant Ceremonies as are withall the necessary circumstances of religious actions and receive their Decency from their signification and such Ceremonies as contribute nothing to the decent performance of religious actions but onely entertain a childish fancy with some Theatrical Shews and arbitrary Images and Figures of things of which the Bishop there speaks And indeed all his other Citations out of the Writings of this excellent Bishop are as little to his purpose because none of them concern the decent circumstances of religious Worship which is our present Dispute and therefore we cannot from thence learn what the Bishop's judgment was in these matters as to take a brief survey of these Arguments as he calls them taken out of Bishop Taylor 's Ductor Dubitantium His first Argument is patcht up of two Sayings at the distance of fifteen pages from each other and yet they are much nearer to each other in the book than they are in their designe and signification He says The Bishop truly saith That 't is not reasonable to think that God would give the Church-Rulers his Authority for trifling and needless purposes This is said in one place and to make up his Argument he tacks another Saying to it Now Rituals saith he and Externals are nothing of the substance of Religion but onely appendages and manner and circumstances a wise man will observe them not that they are pleasing to God but because they are commanded by Laws The first of these Sayings is under the third Rule That the Church hath power to make Laws in all things of necessary Duty by a direct Power and divine Authority So that this does not relate to the circumstances of religious actions but to some necessary Duties The instance the Bishop gives in that place is this That the Bishop hath power to command his Subject or Parishioner to put away his Concubine and if he does not he not onely sins by uncleanness but by disobedience too This sure is remote enough from the Dispute of Ceremonies But then he proves that such men sin by disobeying the Bishop in such cases by this Argument among others That it is not reasonable to think that God would give the Church-Rulers his Authority for trifling and needless purposes For it is a trifling thing to have Authority to command if that Authority have no effect if men may disobey such commands without sin So that these words whereby the Bishop proves the Authority of the Church to command and that those sin who disobey our Reconciler produces to prove that the Church has no Authority to command the decent Ceremonies of Religion because in his opinion they are trifling and needless things The latter part of his Argument is taken from the Bishops sixth Rule which is this Kings and Princes are by the ties of Religion not of Power obliged to keep the Laws of the Church His resolution of which in short is this That such Ecclesiastical Laws which are the Exercises of internal Religion cannot be neglected by Princes without some straining of their duty to God which is by the wisdom and choice of men determined in such an instance to such a specification but in Externals and Rituals they have a greater liberty so that every omission is not a sin in them though it may be in Subjects and his reason is That they are nothing of the substance of Religion but onely appendages and manner and circumstances and therefore a wise man will observe Rituals because they are commanded by Laws not that they are pleasing to God Since therefore these are wholly matter of obedience Kings are free save onely when they become bound collaterally and accidentally So that the Bishop does not here speak one word of Externals and Rituals as such trifling and needless things that the Church has no Authority to command them to which purpose our Reconciler applies it but as such things which being bound on us onely by humane Authority a Soveraign Prince who owns no higher humane Authority than his own is not so strictly obliged by them as his Subjects are but may dispense with himself when he sees fit These are excellent premises for such a conclusion as our Reconciler draws from them But yet it is worth the while to consider what the Bishop means by the Externals or Rituals of Religion Whatever our Reconciler finds said about Ecclesiastical Laws or the Externals and Rituals of Religion he presently applies to the Ceremonies of the Church of England which excepting the Cross are onely decent circumstances without which or such-like the Worship of God cannot be decently or reverently performed that is without which there can be no external Worship which consists in the external expressions of Honour and Devotion It is sufficiently evident what a vast difference the Bishop makes between these two Thus he expresly does in these words To the ceremonial Law of the Iews nothing was to be added and from it nothing was to be substracted and in Christianity we have less reason to adde any thing of Ceremony excepting N. B. the circumstances and advantages of the very Ministry as time and place and vessels and ornaments and necessary appendages But when we speak of Rituals and Ceremonies that is exterior actions or things besides the institution and command of Christ c. Where he expresly distinguishes between the circumstances and advantages of the very Ministry what is necessary or convenient for the decent and orderly performance of the publick acts of Worship from Rituals or Ceremonies whereby he understands exterior actions or things that is such Ceremonies as are not the circumstances of religious actions but are distinct acts themselves either instituted as parts of Worship and then he says they are intolerable or meerly for signification and that is a very little thing and of very inconsiderable use in the fulness and charity of the Revelations Evangelical Such he reckons giving Milk and Honey or a little Wine to persons to be baptized and to present Milk together with Bread and Wine at the Lords Table to signifie nutrition by the Body and Bloud of Christ to let a Pidgeon flie to signifie the coming of the Holy Spirit to light up Candles to represent the Epiphany to dress a Bed to express the secret and ineffable Generation of the Saviour of the World to prepare the figure of the Cross and to bury an Image to describe the
great Sacrifice of the Cross. A great many such things our Reconciler himself has collected in his eighth Chapter which may properly be called the Rituals or Ceremonies or Religion most of which are now out of use in most Churches which formerly used them and none of them are in uâ—e among us But what we call the Ceremonies of the Church of England are not in this sence Rituals or Ceremonies but the decent circumstances of Worship as the Bishop acknowledges excepting the Cross in Baptism which yet is not a meer significant but a professing Signe as I have already discours'd and for such Ceremonies as these which serve for Order and Decency the Bishop tells us There is an Apostolical Precept and a natural Reason and an evident Necessity or a great Convenience In a word when the Bishop speaks of Rituals and Ceremonies he understands by them exterior actions or things something which is like the ceremonial observances of the Jewish Law which were not meer circumstances of action but religious Rites Such were their Sacrifices Washings and Purifications their Phylacteries their Fasts and Festivals new Moons and Sabbaths not considered meerly as circumstances of time but as having such a Sacredness and Religion stamped on them that the very observing them was an act of Religion that the religious Duties observed on them were appointed for the sake of the day not the day meerly for the sake of the Religion Such were the numerous Traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees about making broad their Phylacteries washing their Cups and Platters and their hands before dinner and an infinite number of other superstitious observances Now though some external actions and things wisely chosen and prudently used may be for the service of Religion at least are not unlawful to be used unless we will condemn the whole Christian Church for several Ages which used a great many external Rites yet every one sees what a vast difference there is between such Rites as these and the decent Circumstances of religious Worship And therefore those men mistake the case of the Church of England who lay the Controversie upon Rituals and Ceremonies for there is no such thing in the Church of England according to the true and proper signification of these words Our Fasts and Festivals look most like such Rituals and Ceremonies but are not so for with us they are not religious days but days appointed for the solemn Exercises of Religion which differ as much as a circumstance of time does from an act of Religion as making a day religious which none but God can do differs from appointing a day for the publick Solemnities of Religion which the Governours of the Church and State may do as the Religion of observing a day differs from those acts of Religion which are performed on such a day Now this very observation of the difference between Rituals and Ceremonies and the decent circumstances of Worship will answer most of his Citations which he has impertinently alleadged out of the Bishops Writings and a multitude of Objections which for want of observing this have been very injudiciously made against those which we call the Ceremonies of the Church of England Thus he observes from the Bishop That Ecclesiastical Laws which are meerly such cannot be universal and perpetual But then he should have told us what the Bishop meant by Ecclesiastical Laws meerly such That is saith he those which do not involve a divine Law within their matter And therefore this cannot relate to the decent circumstances of Worship for they all involve a divine Law in the matter of them they are onely the specification of the Law of Decency and include those very acts of Worship to which they belong To kneel at the Lords Supper is a command to receive the Lords Supper kneeling and when the Minister is enjoyn'd to wear theSurplice it signifies that he must perform divine Offices in a Surplice These are but the decent circumstances of necessary Duties and they founded on the Apostolical Rule of Decency Well but the Bishop adds When Christ had made us free from the Law of Ceremonies which God appointed to the Iewish Nation and to which all other Nations were bound if they came into that Communion it would be intolerable that the Churches who rejoyced in their freedom from that Yoke which God had imposed should submit themselves to a Yoke of Ordinances which men should make For though before they could not yet now they may exercise Communion and use the same Religion without communicating in Rites and Ordinances Now does not this make it plain that the Bishop does not speak of the decent circumstances of Worship such as our English Ceremonies are but of such Rituals and Ceremonies as answer to the Jewish Rites and Ordinances which he calls exterior things and actions which are of a different consideration and must be governed by different Rules and Measures And yet our Reconciler is so unfortunate that if the Bishop had meant this of the Ceremonies of our Church it had been nothing to his purpose for he adds in the very next words This does no way concern the Subjects of any Government what Liberty they are to retain and use I shall discourse in the following numbers but it concerns distinct Churches under distinct Governments and it means as it appears plainly by the Context and the whole Analogie of the thing that the Christian Churches must suffer no man to put a Law upon them who is not their Governour For when he says that Ecclesiastical Laws that are meerly such must not be universal he means that they must not be intended to oblige all Christendom except they will be obliged that is do consent That no Church or company of Christians have such authority as to oblige the whole Christian World and all the Churches in it to conform to their Rituals and Ceremonies which he says is contrary to Christian liberty and such an Usurpation as must not be endured which is directly levelled against the Usurpations of the Church of Rome But though one Church cannot impose upon another yet every Church has power over her own Members and they are bound to obey that Authority which is over them And by the way this answers all his Testimonies from Bishop Davenant and Bishop Hall in their Letters to Duraeus about his Pacificatory designe of uniting all the Reformed Churches into one Communion and several others cited in his Preface to the same purpose They discourse upon what terms distinct Churches which have no authority over each other ought to maintain Christian Communion and this he applies to particular Churches with reference to their own Members as if because particular Churches must not usurp authority and dominion over each other nor deny Communion upon every difference of Opinion or different Customs and Usages of Modes of Worship therefore no Church must govern her own Communion nor give Laws to her own Members as if because
the Laws or to allow of such different postures when mens scruples are removed 2. As the Governours of the Church would neglect their Duty so they would manifestly injure their Authority by such a compliance with the ignorance humour and scruples of men and therefore how charitable soever our Reconciler may think this it is not such a Charity as becomes Governours For private Christians to abridge themselves in the use of their Christian liberty for the sake of others is in many cases highly commendable and a generous act of charity but for Governours to renounce their Authority to gratifie Dissenters is so far from being an act of charity that it is betraying their Trust. Either Christ has committed this power to them to govern religious Assemblies and to prescribe the decent Rules of Worship or he has not if he have as our Reconciler has more than once owned in this very Book then this power is a Trust committed to them and such a Trust as they must give an account of and therefore no pretence of charity can justifie them in renouncing the exercise of it The Reconciler indeed tells us That which is here pleaded for is neither a denial nor a dissembling of their imposing power in Superiours but onely an abatement of the exercise thereof toward some weak Dissenters Which may be done with the asserting of the power and a profession that they do suspend the exercise thereof not through conviction that it may not be lawfully used but out of pure commiseration and howels of compassion towards their weak Brethren But all the Protestations in the World will not salve this matter for the great Dispute about Ceremonies turns upon this hinge whether the Church have authority to command any thing relating to the Worship of God which is not expresly instituted and enjoyned by Christ. Hence all such Rules of Order and Decency are by our modest and peaceable Dissenters opprobriously call'd Will-worship and Humane Inventions and teaching for Doctrines the commandments of men and though they had nothing to say against the lawfulness of the things themselves and indeed all that they have to say is next to nothing yet their not being commanded by God and their being commanded by men though by such men as are invested with Christ's authority to govern his Church is thought a sufficient reason not to submit to them Now when the Authority of the Church is the principal matter in dispute and Ceremonies onely a collateral dispute as depending upon an usurped and illegal Authority I would fain know of our Reconciler how upon these terms they can give up these Ceremonies to the clamours of the Dissenters without giving up their own Authority with them which is the principal thing in question and for the sake of which the Ceremonies are disputed Now let any man judge whether this be an act of charity to part with that Authority which Christ has placed in his Church Is this Authority for the good of the Church or is it not If it be not then it seems Christ has placed such an Authority in his Church as is not for the publick good and this charges our Saviour himself with want of prudence or charity to his own Church in setting such an uncharitable power over it If church-Church-Authority be for the publick good then it is no act of charity to part with it As to give but one instance of this which our Reconciler is often at He tells us That the Scripture-Exhortations to Peace and Unity are so far from requiring such an Vnity and Vniformity as we plead for that they perfectly confute all those who think it fit to lay the Vnion of the Church upon an uniformity in lesser matters and do impose them as the Conditions of Communion for either we must all submit to some infallible Guide and Iudge of Controversies in order to our Vnion as R. H. thinks it necessary in order to our compliance with these Precepts or else confess 't is morally impossible to comply with them it being visibly impossible to bring all men unto an unity of judgment and of practice in these things and so we must reflect upon the wisdom of our Lord and of his Precepts And grant that Protestants have no sufficient means of Vnity which is the very thing that Papists do so continually upbraid us with or must acknowledge that the way to this desired Vnity is not that of imposing and requiring uniformity in little matters concerning which the minds of men are full of doubts and scruples but that of mutual condescension and forbearance and charity in lesser differences God help that Church which meets with such Reconcilers as these But that which I shall observe here is his own concession and his Dilemma upon it He argues strongly That while men are left to judge for themselves in the Externals of Worship it is impossible to bring them unto an unity of judgment and practice in these things for this he says must be granted unless we own the necessity of an infallible Judge Here indeed the Reconciler and I differ a little about the infallibility of this Judge but we agree upon the main point that without a Judge to determine these matters there can be no Unity and Agreement among Christians which certainly is a demonstration in the Age in which we live how strange soever it might have been thought in the Primitive times of Unity And his Dilemma is a very sore one For either this reflects upon the Wisdom of Christ himself and grants that Protestants have no sufficient means of Unity or that the way to this desired Unity is not requiring uniformity in little matters Now to begin with the last first it is demonstrably true that there is no Church-Unity without Unity in Worship wherein the principal exercise of Christian Communion consists and that there can be no Decency and Order in this which is an Apostolical Precept without Uniformity and no Uniformity without such Impositions What follows then but that we must reflect on the wisdom of Christ in not leaving Authority in his Church sufficient to determine such matters and grant that Protestants have no means of Union These are hard terms but I cannot see how they can be avoided without granting that Christ has given though not an infallible Judge of all Controversies of Faith yet a supreme Authority to his Church to determine all matters of Decency and Order which all Christians are bound to obey in all cases where their Rules and Orders do not contradict some plain and express Law of Christ. And this Principle will quickly make us all of a mind in such matters Now then from hence I thus argue If the wisdom of Christ himself in instituting a Church-Society and commanding all Christians to live in Peace and Unity and Love if the Unity of Christians among themselves and the Decency and Uniformity of Worship are so nearly concerned in the sacredness of
Church-Authority that without it the wisdom of Christ is obscured and exposed to censure the Peace and Unity of Christians rendered impracticable Protestants left destitute of any means of Union and occasion given to Papists to cry up the necessity of an infallible Judge that which draws so many fatal consequents after it does not seem to me to be any great act of charity and yet thus it would be should the Governours of the Church in compliance with the frowardness and scruples of Schismaticks give up their authority in the Externals of Worship and leave every man to do as he pleased While the Church maintains her Authority a little Discipline and Government and a few good Arguments may in time cure the Schism and if it will not let Schismaticks answer for it at the last day but if Schismaticks once gain this point and wheedle the Church for peace sake out of her Authority then we must bid an eternal farewel to Peace and Order and Uniformity in Religion for men will never agree in these matters without the determination of Authority There is no other means left in the Church to decide these differences when the Church has parted with her Authority and thus the Wisdom of Christ will be reproached and censured and the Protestant Name and Religion exposed to contempt and this is our Reconciler's Protestant Charity Well but suppose this compliance with Dissenters did not infer a renuntiation of their Power and Authority but onely a suspension of the exercise of it the case is much the same for this forbearance must be for ever unless we could suppose that these men will return to the obedience of the Church when the Church leaves off to command Now it is the same thing for the Church to renounce her Power and to renounce the exercise of it I suppose Christ gave this Power to the Church that she should exercise it and if the Power be necessary to the welfare and unity and edification of the Church to be sure the exercise of it is For Authority is a meer empty name and good for nothing when it doth nothing This I think is sufficient to prove that the charity of Governours does not require them to renounce their Government neither in the authority nor exercise of it And therefore II. The Charity of Governours must consist in the acts and exercise of Government that is as far as it concerns our present Dispute in making and repealing Laws And I dare joyn issue here with our Reconciler and challenge him and all his dissenting Clients to fix the least imputation of uncharitableness upon the Church of England on this account as to discourse this matter a little more particularly to confound all such unjust Defamers of Authority and Government 1. I shall begin with repealing Laws and altering such Rituals and Ceremonies as were either sinful superstitious or inconvenient because here our Reformation began And what Rules our Church ' observed in this we learn from the Preface to the Common-Prayer where the reasons are assigned why some Ceremonies were abolish'd As 1. Becauâ—e some of them which were at first well intended did in time degenerate into vanity and superstition 2. Others were from the beginning the effects of an indiscreet Devotion and such a Zeal as was without knowledge and dayly grew to more and more abuses and they were rejected because they were unprofitable blinded the people hindred them from a right understanding of the true nature of Christian Religion and obscured the glory of God 3. Some were put away because their very numbers were an intolerable burden and made the estate of Christian people in worse case concerning this matter than were the Jews as St. Austin complained in his days when the number of Ceremonies was much less than it was in this Church at the time of Reformation which was a great injury to the Gospel of Christ which is not a Ceremonial Law as much of Moses Law was but a Religion to serve God not in the bondage of the figure or shadow but in the freedom of the Spirit And lastly the most weighty cause of the abolishment of certain Ceremonies was that they were so far abused partly by the superstitious blindness of the ignorant and unlearned and partly by the unsatiable avarice of such as sought more their own lucre than the glory of God that the abuses could not well be taken away the thing remaining still With what grave and mature consideration our Church proceeded in this affair is evident from this account which contains all the wise reasons that can be thought of for the alteration of any publick Constitutions Here is charity to the Souls of men in delivering them from ignorance and superstition to which they were betrayed by the Rituals and Ceremonies of Religion a tender regard to the case and liberty of Christians which was oppressed by such a multitude as were hard to know and to remember and very troublesom to observe and almost impossible to understand which made them wholly useless and unprofitable Here is a great regard to the glory of God which was obscured by these Ceremonies to the purity of the Christian Religion which was transformed by a multitude of Ceremonies into a meer external and figurative Worship And here are the true reasons why any Ceremonies which have been long used in a Church and confirmed by Ecclesiastical Canons or Civil Laws ought notwithstanding that to be removed when either their numbers are excessive or the abuses of them such as cannot be taken away without abolishing the Ceremony it self Several instances of this may be given as to name onely Images in Churches which could not be safely retained at that time without the danger of idolatrous Worship For the generality of people in those days were so superstitiously addicted to the worship of Images that had they been left in Churches though the worship of them had been expresly forbid yet infinite numbers of people would have worshipped them notwithstanding This very reason our Church gives in her Homily against the peril of Idolatry part 3. of the necessity of removing Images out of Churches That as well by the origine and nature of Idols and Images themselves as by the proneness and inclination of mans corrupt nature to Idolatry it is evident that neither Images if they be publickly set up can be separated nor men if they see Images in Temples and Churches can be stayed and kept from Idolatry Wherefore they which thus reason though it be not expedient yet it is lawful to have Images publickly and do prove that lawfulness by a few picked and chosen men if they object that indifferently to all men which a very few can have without hurt and offence they seem to take the multitude for vile Souls of whose loss and safeguard no reputation is to be had for whom Christ yet paid as dearly as for the mightiest Prince or the wisest and best learned of the Earth
the Church ought in charity to the people to shew them the blindness of their Guides and therefore not to comply with them in their superstitious scruples III. But the men who were offended at it were onely Hypocrites whose hearts were hardened against the truth What were they all Hypocrites was there not one honest man among them Some Hypocrites there were then and so there are still Hypocrites in another sence than these men were Hypocrites For the Jews did generally believe the unlawfulness of any kind of work on the Sabbath-day and therefore were really scandalized and offended but we have a company of Hypocrites among us who do not really scruple what they pretend to do but onely make a pretence of scruples an occasion to abuse the People to stir up Schisms in the Church and Factions in the State men who can conform when they please and be offended and scandalized when they please But our Lord did all that could be reasonable to prevent their scandal No he did not abstain from working Miracles on the Sabbath-day which he might have done if he had pleased but he was so far from avoiding giving offence to them that he did it on purpose because they were offended at it and to deliver men from such Superstitions as made them take offence But he first satisfies them from their own practice on a less occasion and from the nature of the action and that with so much evidence and conviction that they were ashamed and could not answer him one word And has our Church been wanting in this to give satisfaction to Dissenters How many unanswerable Books have been written in justification of the Constitutions and Worship of our Church And that our Dissenters are not ashamed but will talk on when they have not one wise word to say is onely an Argument that they have less wit and more impudence than the Pharisees had Our Church indeed cannot work Miracles as Christ did to convince them though where plain and convincing Reasons will not do I doubt Miracles will not do neither for though the Pharisees were silenced by Christ yet they were neither convinc'd by his Reasons nor his Miracles Thus I have considered what obligation Charity to the Souls of men lays upon the Governours of the Church to abate those Ceremonies which some men scruple and take offence at But I must here briefly consider one Principle more of our Reconcilers which he no-where pretends to prove but takes for granted That the Charity of Governours requires the abatement of every thing which is not absolutely necessary in Religion if it prove an occasion of scruple and offence For why must the Church be tyed up to what is necessary Her Power and Authority extends to things which are useful and expedient though not absolutely necessary and therefore she may exercise this Power according to the measures of Prudence and Charity notwithstanding the unreasonable superstitious scruples of men which ought to lay no restraint upon the prudent Exercise of Government as I think I have already sufficiently proved and yet our Reconciler thinks it a sufficient reason why the Church should alter any scrupled Ceremonies how decent or expedient soever they are if we cannot prove them to be absolutely necessary Thus I have considered the main Principles of his Book and shall not think my self any further concerned to take notice of them as often as I meet with them If these Principles which I have now laid down hold good his Book is answered and the Governours of the Church may exercise their just Authority and he that is offended let him be offended And yet for the more ample satisfaction of all men what a trifler our Reconciler is I shall particularly examine his Arguments from Scripture and shew how impertinent they are to our present Dispute CHAP. III. Concerning a more particular Answer to our Reconciler's Objections against the imposition of indifferent things when they are an occasion of Discords Divisians and Schisms THough what I have already discours'd bâ— sufficient to satisfie every impartial Reader that all our Reconciler's Arguments are meer Fallacies as proceeding upon false and mistaken Principles yet for the more abundant satisfaction of all who are willing to be informed I shall proceed to a more particular examination of his Reasons why Church-Governours ought to alter or abate such scrupled Ceremonies I. And first he declaims very copiously about the great evil and mischief of Divisions and truly I believe Discord and Division especially among Christian Brethren to be as bad a thing as he can possibly describe it to be But what then what then the consequence is very plain For if Conformists do not conceive it better at least that we should run the hazard of all these dreadful evils than that we should consent to lay aside the imposition of a few indifferent Ceremonies or to the altering of a few scrupled expressions in our Liturgie then must they yield up these few Ceremonies and alter these expressions to prevent all the aforesaid evils 1. I answer Does our Reconciler then think that every thing that is the occasion of Discords and Divisions must be removed Is the cause of Divisions in the nature of things or in the minds of men And is it not most proper to apply the remedy to the disease to instruct people that they ought not to quarrel about such matters that they ought to pay such deference to their Superiours as chearfully to obey them in all things which God has not expresly forbid Till this be done the Church may aâ—ter her Constitutions every year and be as far off from Peace as now for while men are ignorant scrupulous and quarrelsome it is impossible for the Governours of Church and State by the most wise and prudent Constitutions to prevent Divisions 2. Is not the contempt of Ecclesiastical Authority and the rude and unmannerly performance of religious Worship as great a mischief as Divisions and yet it is impossible to indulge every scrupulous person without destroying the Authority of the Church and the Decency of Worship as I have already proved Now I must confess bonâ fide to our Reconciler that I think all our Divisions about Ceremonies a less scandal to the Christian Religion than this would be for it is better to have a well constituted Church with Division than to have none without it 3. Will our parting with some few Ceremonies cure these Divisions which he so much complains of This our Reconciler cannot undertake for and it is demonstrable it will not Is this the onely Controversie that Presbyterians Independents Quakers and other Sectaries have with the Church of England Has our Reconciler never read Mr. Baxter's Pleas for Peace and those other venomous Pamphlets of late date When the Church of England was pull'd down and these Ceremonies and Episcopacy it self removed out of the way did it cure Divisions or increase them When the Reverend Dean
no more than a Prince is to be blamed for making good Laws because some men will break them and be hanged for it 3. He perswades the Governours of the Church out of Charity to the Souls of men not to tempt them to Schism by their Impositions whereas there is no way to prevent Schism but by maintaining and asserting their own Authority When there is no Authority in the Church there will be as many Schisms in it as there will be Factions in the State without some â—upreme Power to whom all must obey And therefore out of Charity to the Souls of men and to prevent their Schism Church-Governours are bound to exercise their Authority and not to give way to ignorant and groundless scruples There is nothing occasions more Schisms than the different Rites and Modes of Worship and therefore if they would prevent Schism they ought to exercise their utmost Authority in maintaining the Decency and Uniformity of Worship which will prevent more Schisms than it can make It will preserve unity among those who have any reverence for the Authority of the Church or any sense of the danger of Schism and those who have not will be Schismaticks notwithstanding The onely way I know of to prevent Schism is by wise Instructions and by a strict Discipline the one to cure their ignorance and their scruples the other to curb their wantonness and petulancy but for Governours to suffer their Authority to be disputed and to give way to the frowardness fullenness or ignorance of men to alter the Laws and Constitutions as often as any man can find any thing to say against them would breed eternal confusion both in Church and State Government is the onely Cement and Bond of Unity and when Governours give the Reins out of their hands every young Phaëton will think himself fit to drive the Chariot of the Sun and no man will be governed when there is none to govern and what Order Unity there can be in the Church without Government or what Government where those who are to be governed must give Laws to their Governours I would desire our Reconciler at his leisure to tell me What follows in this Chapter has already been considered in my first Chapter and thither I refer my Reader CHAP. IV. An Answer to the Reconciler's Arguments from the Words the Doctrine the Deportment of Christ whilst he was here on Earth contained in his third Chapter THere are two main Principles on which all our Reconciler's Arguments are founded 1. That these disputed Ceremonies are wholly useless and unnecessary things 2. That the imposition of them is the cause of our Divisions and Schisms which would be cured by the removal of them which therefore is so great a charity to the Souls of men that Church-Governours ought to consent to and promote such an alteration Now all this being false as I have already proved his other Arguments must fall with it but yet to avoid all Cavils I shall particularly consider the force of what he urges And First He begins with the Doctrine and Deportment of our Saviour which I confess is a very good Topick if he could prove any thing from it and he has no less than eight Arguments to confound all the stiff Imposers of unnecessary things I. That our Lord doth frequently produce that saying of the Prophet Hosea I will have mercy and not sacrifice to justifie himself and his Disciples when for the good of their own bodies or the souls of others they did what was forbidden by the Law of Moses or by the Canons and Traditions of the Scribes â—nd Pharisees who sate in Moses Chair This is what every body will grant and therefore he needed not have troubled himself to prove it And his inference from hence is this That Precepts which contain onely Rituals are to give place to those which do concern the welfare of mens bodies and much more to those which do respect the welfare of our Brother's soul so that when both cannot together be observed we must neglect or violate the former to observe the latter From whence he concludes that therefore we must part with those Ceremonies which being made Conditions of Communion do accidentally afford occasion to such great and fatal evils to the Souls of men Now does not every body see that there is more in the conclusion than there is in the premises For 1. Does our Saviour here speak of abrogating the Laws of Sacrifice for the sake of Mercy How does he then hence conclude any thing about repealing the Laws of Ceremonies and Rituals which neither the Prophet nor our Saviour ever thought on when they said these words Though God prefers Mercy before Sacrifice yet he gave Laws about Sacrifices and Ceremonies and continued those Laws after these words were spoken and so may the Church do also for any thing that is here said to the contrary For 2. Our Saviour neither speaks here of making nor replealing Laws about Sacrifices or Rituals but onely prefers Mercy before Sacrifice when there happens a competition between them he supposes that both may be done and that both ought to be done but if both cannot be done at the same time Mercy must take place of Sacrifice And this Mercy our Church allows as much as any man can desire She is not so severe to exact kneeling at the Sacrament or at Prayers or standing at the Creed if men have any such infirmity on them that they cannot do it without great inconvenience she does not exact Godfathers or Godmothers or the signe of the Cross nor bringing the Child to Church when it is sick and in danger of death she does not impose fasting on weak and crasie persons nor think her Laws so sacred that no punctillo must be neglected when it is done without offence and scandal she will not blame any for staying from Church or going out in the midst of Prayers to quench a fire or to help a sick person And this answers to our Saviour's cases wherein he prefers Mercy before Sacrifice But how does this prove that the Governours of the Church must not exact obedience to wholsom Constitutions because some men scruple them Our Saviour never applies this saying to any such case and I am sure our Reconciler has neither reason nor authority to do it When our Reconciler proves from these words I will have mercy and not sacrifice that the Church must part with her Ceremonies for the sake of those who will separate from her if she do not he must either argue from the Saying it self or from those cases to which it is applied by our Saviour Now this Saying as it was meant by the Prophet Hosea signifies no more than this That God preferred all acts of real and substantial goodness before an external Religion even before Sacrifice it self as the Prophet Micah expresses it more at large but to the very same sence Wherewith shall I come before
disadvantage of so many Souls as are made Schismaticks upon this account Let us then briefly consider what likeness or affinity there is between these two cases 1. The Fasts of which the Dispute is here are private and voluntary Fasts such as men imposed upon themselves or observed in imitation of their Sect and Party or in obedience to the directions of their several Masters Christ imposed no such Fasts upon his Disciples therefore the Governours of the Church must not prescribe the Rites and Ceremonies of publick Worship though in such matters Christ conformed himself and taught his Disciples to conform to the Rules and Orders of their Synagogues which were all as much of humane institution as our Ceremonies are which is an admirable way of arguing The observing or not observing private and voluntary Fasts though it might offend some superstitious Pharisees was no affront to publick Authority nor made any alteration or confusion in publick Worship and therefore was not of that consequence whatever our Reconciler thinks as dissenting from publick Constitutions This Christ never indulged his Disciples in nor has the Church any reason to do it 2. This Indulgence was but temporary during our Saviour's abode with them on Earth but he tells them when he should be taken from them then they should fast And the ancient Writers look upon this saying to be a kind of Institution of the Quadrigesimal Fast and will our Reconciler argue â—rom a short Indulgence for a year or two granted to the Disciples by Christ to prove a perpetual Indulgence to the end of the World to be granted to Dissenters For if his Arguments are good they will last for ever Christ did not intend that his Disciples should be always Children nor has he imposed upon his Church to indulge such childish weakness and fancies for ever 3. Fasting was a very severe duty very afflictive both to mind and body and therefore there might be some reason for our Saviour to forbear commanding it for some time But what severity is there in the Ceremonies of our Church What mighty trouble is it to kneel at the Sacrament What offence is a white Linnen garment to the eye What disturbance does the signe of the Cross made with the gentle motion of the finger cause But though these Ceremonies are not grievous in themselves yet they are burdensom to the Conscience Let him shew then that our Saviour had any regard in this to a doubtful or scrupulous Conscience and I will grant it a good proof How could any Jew scruple the lawfulness of fasting which was so often commanded and recommended in their Law I am sure all the ancient Writers take notice onely of the severity of the Duty not of its burdensomness to the Conscience as the reason of our Saviour's Indulgence Well but he tells us that Theophylact and St. Chrysostom say That herein Christ gave them a Rule that when they should convert the World they also should condescend and behave themselves towards them with the greatest meekness Whether Christ intended this or not in what he now said to be sure it is a good Rule and that which the Apostles carefully observed they indulged the believing Jews in the observation of the Mosaical Law and bore with many weaknesses and infirmities both in Jews and Gentiles But did this meekness extend to suffer every man to worship God as he pleased Did they prescribe no Rules or Orders or Ceremonies of Worship Or did they prescribe such Rules without exacting obedience to them Did they suffer any Christians to dispute their Authority in such cases And was it thought an act of meekness and gentleness to do so It is strange then that it should never be thought so in after-Ages wherein the Church exercised an absolute and uncontroulable Power in all such matters and no Christian ever pretended to dispute their Authority But the Prophet Isaiah describes our Saviour as one who will not break the bruised reed nor quench the smoaking flax and who will gather his lambs with his arm and carry them in his bosom and shall gently lead those that are with young Well we readily grant that our Saviour was the most kind and gentle Master that ever was but does this signifie that he would give no Laws about Worship Or that if any person scrupled these Laws he would not insist upon it but give them their liberty to worship God as they pleased If Christ was a kind and merciful Lord without this his Ministers also may exercise great lenity and gentleness without prostituting their Authority or the Worship of God to the ignorance or giddiness or frowardness of Professors Christ gave very easie and gentle Laws instructed his Hearers with great mildness and calmness bore their dulness and infidelity their indignities and affronts with admirable patience convers'd even with Publicans and Sinners to gain them to repentance encouraged the least beginnings and cherish'd the first and weak Essays of Faith but if they would be his Disciples he expected they should submit to his Authority and Laws and still expects that they should submit to that Authority he has plac'd in his Church And if Church-Governours use this mildness and gentleness in their Laws and in their behaviour though they assert their own Authority and exact obedience to their Laws they need not fear the censure of the Shepherds of Israel which our Reconciler so charitably threatens them with The diseased have you not strengthned neither have you healed that which was sick neither have you bound up that which was broken neither have you brought again that which was driven away neither have you sought that which was lost III. His next Argument is a wonderful one That Christ took compassion on the Iews as Sheep without a Shepherd that he went about preaching himself that he sent his Disciples to preach that he commands his Disciples to pray that God would send forth more Labourers into his Harvest The Query then is Whether they do conform to this Example or the matter of this Prayer who do exclude so many Servants of the Lord from labouring in his Harvest for a thing indifferent Truly I think they may though they excluded the Reconciler into the bargain for thanks be to God it is not now with us asit was in our Saviour's days at the first preaching of the Gospel God has now sent out numerous Labourers into his Vineyard men of Learning Piety and Diligence more indeed than there is entertainment or employment for And the Christian Church notwithstanding this Prayer of our Saviour never scrupled casting Schismatical Presbyters out of Christ's Vineyard But has our Reconciler the face to say that they are shut out meerly for indifferent things when they themselves give another account of it Renouncing of the Covenant kept them out a great while Reordination Episcopal Government a National Church Liturgies c. and are all these indifferent things But the dissenting Preachers
are which Magistrates can never know Hypocrites may pretend conscience as well as the sincere and Government could never be secure if Justice must be administred not by known and standing Laws but in compliance with every mans Conscience which is or may be no body knows what 3. The onely doubt then is about the Governours of the Church whether they in making Laws and in the exercise of Discipline ought not to have great regard to the Consciences of men Now I would fain know a reason why they are more bound than either God or civil Magistrates to suffer men to do what they please according to their various and different pretensions of Conscience If there be any equity in it that every man should enjoy the liberty of his own Conscience it holds in other matters as well as these I suppose our Reconciler will not say that the Governours of the Church are bound to suffer every man to be of what Religion he pleases to believe what he will to deny the Divinity and Satisfaction of our Saviour to worship an Image or the Host or the Virgin Mary c. and therefore the most considerable things in Religion are not left at liberty and yet of the greater moment any thing is the greater imposition it is upon Conscience I had rather submit to twenty Ceremonies than to be required to subscribe to one new Article of Faith But our Reconciler pretends onely to this Indulgence in inferiour matters Let us then consider his reason for that for certainly the less the things are the less need there is and the less reason to humour mens Consciences about them The onely reason he assigns for it is this That those who do observe or do refuse observance of the Constitutions of our Church in these inferiour matters do really observe them or not observe them out of Conscience towards God And if this be a good reason why every man should be left to the government of his own Conscience it is good in all other cases as well as in such inferiour matters for why should we impose upon men in any thing which they observe or not observe in conscience towards God But you 'll say this is St. Paul's Argument not the Reconciler's No say I it is the Reconciler's Argument not St. Paul's But does not St. Paul say 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 and he that eateth not to the Lord he eateth not and giveth God thanks Yes I grant that these are St. Paul's words And does not this signifie that they who did eat and they who did not eat acted out of conscience towards God Yes I grant that too The converted Gentiles did eat indifferently of all sorts of meats and thanked God for that liberty he had granted them the converted Jews abstained from all meats forbidden by their Law and thanked God for their Law which preserved them from all legal pollutions but this is peculiar to this case and cannot be applied to our Dissenters that they refuse to observe our Ceremonies out of conscience towards God God had given a positive Law to the Jews by the hands of Moses which enjoyned the observation of new Moons and Sabbaths and other Festivals and made a distinction between clean and unclean meats and though this Law was now out of date yet it was not repealed in as publick a manner as it was given and God had no way declared that they should observe this Law no longer and therefore those Jews who embraced the Faith of Christ durst not renounce the Law of Moses out of reverence to the Authority of God who gave it and therefore these believing Jews might well be said to observe days and not to eat to the Lord that is out of reverence to the authority of God who gave that Law The believing Gentiles were never under the obligation of the Law of Moses and therefore were more easily instructed in their Christian liberty which God declared by sending his holy Spirit on them in their uncircumcision and by the Decrees of the Apostolical Synod at Ierusalem and they were very well assured by these divine Testimonies that God had delivered them from the Jewish observation of days and meats and therefore they did eat and they did not observe days to the Lord out of reverence to the divine authority which had delivered them from the Mosaical Law But where there is no positive Law nor any publick Declaration of Gods Will whatever our particular Perswasions and Opinions may be we do not act out of conscience towards God For no man can be said to do any thing to the Lord or out of conscience towards God in such cases wherein God has not interposed his authority And therefore unless our Reconciler can shew any positive Law either against Ecclesiastical Ceremonies in general or against the Cross in Baptism the Surplice or Kneeling at the Sacrament in particular how much soever his beloved Dissenters pretend to Conscience it is absurd to say that they do not observe these things out of conscience towards God nor do Conformists observe them out of conscience towards God any otherwise than as they obey that Authority which God hath set in his Church For there can be no other foundation for Conscience but either the express Laws of God or obedience to that Authority which God hath set over us But you 'll say may not that man also be said to act out of conscience toward God who does or forbears doing any thing out of a perswasion that God has commanded or forbid it though he should be mistaken in it and he can produce no Law of God to that purpose While men designe to please God in what they do surely they may be said to act out of conscience towards God I answer I will not contend about words and phrases with any man but let them call things by what names they please All that I say is this That St. Paul does not use it in this sence nor is any man in Scripture said to do any thing to the Lord who cannot produce a plain Law for what he does Other men may intend Gods glory in what they do but they may miss of their aim when they have no Rule and incur the divine displeasure instead of pleasing God and neither God nor men can grant any Indulgence to such a Conscience as this But when both contending Parties can produce a divine authority for doing or not doing the same thing which never did and never can happen but in this case concerning the obligation of the Law of Moses there is great reason for them to receive one another because they both act out of reverence to the divine Authority In a word two contrary Parties as the Jews and Gentiles were in this Controversie can never both of them
duty but the power of imposing indifferent things as he calls it or the power of prescribing the Rules and Orders and Circumstances of Worship if there be any such power as he grants there is is the power and authority of an Office is a Trust and a Duty the prudent and faithful discharge of which they must give an account of and therefore must not when they please either part with the power or the exercise of it St. Paul was contented to part with the temporal rewards of his Ministry that he might the more successfully discharge the Ministry it self therefore Church-Governours must not exercise their Authority in the discharge of their Ministry to humour Dissenters St. Paul did more than his strict duty required that he might have something to glory in therefore the Governours of the Church must neglect their duty and lose their reward Indeed our Reconciler talks as if the Churches Authority in indifferent things were onely a personal right a Complement to Church-Governours an ornamental power which they may use or may let alone as they please and if this were so I should presently be of our Reconciler's mind but I believe they have no such kind of useless Authority as this Christ has not complemented his Ministers with any power which is not for the use and service of the Church and therefore if they have power in indifferent things this is a useful power and that which they ought to use when there is reason for it whoever be offended at it Another reason why St. Paul preached the Gospsl freely at Corinth he gives us in the 2 Cor. 11. 12 13. What I do that I will do that I may cut off occasion from them that desire occasion that wherein they glory they may be found even as we for such are false Apostles deceitful workers transforming themselves into the Apostles of Christ. The meaning of which is this There were several false Teachers who crept in among them and used all manner of arts to recommend themselves to the Corinthians and among others this seems to be one that they preached the Gospel freely to them onely as they pretended out of love of their Souls which was a very popular art especially to that People and therefore St. Paul resolved to persist in preaching the Gospel freely to them to cut off occasion from them that desire occasion that is to disappoint those arts of deceit whereby these false Teachers endeavoured to recommend themselves that wherein they glory they may be found even as we that whereas they glory in preaching the Gospel freely this may give them no advantage since it is no more than what I my self have all along done and still continue to do Our Reconciler paraphraseth these words thus To cut off occasion from them that desire occasion that is lest his enemies should take occasion from the exercise of this his liberty to charge or to traduce him as one who more consulted his own profit than the glory of God and the propagation of the Gospel But what occasion had there been for this though he had taken Wages of them as he says he did of other Churches to supply his necessities it was sufficiently evident notwithstanding that he did exact nothing from them to serve the ends of covetousness and ambition for certainly a man may desire the supply of his wants without being charged with covetousness but the Apostle would not suffer these false Prophets by a pretended and hypocritical Zeal to outdo him in any thing Now the Apostle's care to give no advantage to false Teachers is a good Example to the Governours of our Church not to do so neither and I am sure they cannot give them greater advantage than to sacrifice all Order and Decency to their pretended Scruples Well but says our Reconciler the Rulers of the Church by the exercise of this power in indifferent things do 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 of poor Souls from damning Schisms and the Church from sad Divisions c. These are very spightful but very foolish Insinuations As for Schisms and Divisions we have already considered where that charge must rest and then how do Ceremonies come in competition with the Souls of men Does the appointment of some Ceremonies for the decent and orderly performance of Religious Worship hinder the salvation of mens Souls Cannot men be saved who observe the Ceremonies of our Church Then indeed our Reconciler might well complain that those who impose such damning Ceremonies have more regard to a Ceremony than to an immortal Soul otherwise there is no competition between Ceremonies and the Souls of men and those who will be Schismaticks for a Ceremony will be Schismaticks without it and will be damned for their Schism whether there be any Ceremonies or not All that remains in this Chapter are his Answers to Meisner's Arguments which I have already considered as much as is necessary to my purpose CHAP. VII Containing an Answer to the Motives to Mutual Condescension urged in the sixth Chapter of the Protestant Reconciler I Find nothing in this Chapter besides some Harangues and Popular Declamations but what has been sufficiently answered already The whole proceeds upon those general Topicks of the smalness of these things the danger mens Souls are in by these Impositions the obligations to Love and Charity which have been particularly discoursed above in the first and second Chapters where the reasons of these things are particularly examined But however I will briefly try whether I cannot give an Answer to all this which may be as popular as his Objections are I. His first Argument or Motive is from considering how small the things are which cause our Discords and Divisions when they are set in competition with the more weighty duties and concerns of Love Peace and the Churches Vnion and Edification and the avoiding the offence and scandal of Iew Gentile and the Church of God which he very pompously proves to be great Gospel-duties Now suppose the things in dispute be never so small if they are of any use in Religion and the Object of Ecclesiastical Authority as our Reconciler owns they are what will he conclude from hence that the observation of such little things must not be enjoyned What not when Christ has given authority to enjoyn them Does Christ then give any authority to his Church which she must not use Must nothing be enjoyned which is little in comparison of Love and Peace and Unity or must they be enjoyned and left indifferent at the same time Must the Church appoint them to be observed but command no body to observe them but those who please In all well-governed Societiâ—s there must be Laws about little as well as about great things and if there be no Authority to determine the least matters both in
A VINDICATION OF The Rights OF Ecclesiastical Authority BEING AN ANSWER To the First Part OF THE Protestant Reconciler By WILL. SHERLOCK D. D. Master of the TEMPLE LONDON Printed for Abel Swalle at the Vnicorn at the West-end of St. Paul's Church-yard 1685. who exclude so many Labourers for things indifferent p. 212 His fourth Argument from our Saviour's command not to scandalize little ones p. 213 What is meant by little ones p. 214 What it is to scandalize them p. 215 His fifth Argument from the Woe denounced against those who shut up the Kingdom of Heaven p. 216 How the Pharisees shut the Kingdom of Heaven ibid. What is meant by heavy burdens p. 218 And what it is our Saviour condemns under that notion p. 219 His sixth Argument that Christ would not suffer his Disciples to forbid that man who wrought miracles in his Name but did not follow him and therefore dissenting Preachers who renounce the Communion of the Church must not be forbid to preach p. 220 His seventh Argument from Christ's laying down his life for his Sheep to prove that the Church must part with her Ceremonies for them p. 223 His last Argument from Christ's Prayer for the Vnity of the Church ibid. CHAP. V. The Answer to our Reconciler's Argument drawn from the 14 of Rom. p. 225 There may be some cases wherein forbearance is reasonable others wherein it is neither prudent nor reasonable ibid. And therefore we cannot argue from the case of the Iews to the case of the Dissenters unless they appear to be the same ibid. St. Paul in the 14 Rom. onely exhorts the Iewish and Gentile Converts to mutual forbearance in such cases which had already been determined by the highest authority in the Church 226 And therefore it is impertinently alleadged to prove that the Governours of the Church must not impose any indifferent Ceremonies which are scrupled by Dissenters 227 The Decree of the Council at Jerusalem the foundation of this Apostolical forbearance ibid. Private charity may be exercised in such cases where publick authority can make no determination in favour of the scrupulous 231 The Dispute between the Church and Dissenters of a different nature from that between the Iews and Gentiles the one concerns indifferent things the other the observation of the Law of Moses 235 No Dispute about the use of indifferent things in Scripture nor any exhortation to forbearance in such matters 236 An Answer to the Reconciler's Argument which he alleadges to make it probable that St. Paul in this Chapter does not refer to the observation of the Law of Moses ibid. So that this Chapter does not concern the Dispute about indifferent things 243 The Apostle did not plead for indulgence to the Iews in the observation of the Law of Moses under the notion of an indifferent thing ibid. The reason of his different treatment of the Churches of Rome and Galatia 244 Whether though the case of the Iews and Dissenters be different yet by a parity of Reason the same indulgence ought to be granted to both 247 The nature of such Arguments from a parity of Reason ibid. That there is no parity of Reason between these two cases 249 The Arguments the Apostle uses in this 14 Chap. very proper to the case of the Iews but not applicable to the case of our Dissenters proved at large ibid. c. What the Apostle means by receiving one another and Dr. Falkner vindicated from the Reconciler's Objections The Apostles first Arg. That God has received them the meaning of it that it is peculiar to that case of Iews and Gentiles and not applicable to Dissenters 257 c. 2 Arg. that they must not judge another mans servant 262 That this Arg. relates onely to such matters as God has determined by his own immediate authority 264 3 Arg. that they acted out of conscience towards God 265 Whether every man must be permitted to act according to his own Conscience 266 God will judge the Consciences of men and therefore grants no such liberty as this 267 Civil Magistrates ought not to regard mens Consciences in making or executing Laws for the publick good 268 Nor is there any obligation on the Governours of the Church to do this 269 What St. Paul means by regarding a day to the Lord 270 To do any thing to the Lord does not meerly signifie a private perswasion that God has commanded or forbid it 272 The Apostles Exhortation not to offend a weak Brother 274 What the scandal was of which the Apostle speaks 275 Who this weak Brother is and whether this be applicable to Dissenters 276 The offence which was given was a supposed violation of an express Law of God 277 The nature of a criminal scandal 279 The danger of offending these weak Iewish Brethren which the Apostle warns them against was lest they should renounce the Christian Faith and fall back into Iudaism 282 The weak in Faith who are to be indulged signifies those who are not well confirmed in the truth of Christianity 284 The same indulgence not to be granted to Schismaticks though ignorant and weak in understanding ibid. The Reasons whereby the Apostle disswades them from giving scandal 287 A Paraphrase on the 14 15 c. verses of the 14 Rom. ibid. These Arguments to avoid scandal concern onely the exercise of every mans private liberty 292 That this compliance must be in such matters wherein Religion and religious Worship is not concerned 293 Meat and Drink does not signifie the Externals of Religious Worship 294 Nor does Righteousness and Peace c. signifie all the Essentials of Religion 296 The mistake of Reconcilers that the Externals of Religion are nothing worth and of small account with God 297 This Apostolical Exhortation to avoid scandal concerns onely such cases wherein we are not bound to make a publick profession of our Faith 298 The meaning of Hast thou Faith have it to thy self 299 What is meant by Him that doubteth 302 How far the Apostle allows that every man must be left to the conduct of his own Conscience This extends onely to such cases where every mans Conscience is his onely Rule not where Conscience it self has a Rule 303 Let every man be fully perswaded in his own mind is a safe and a sure Rule when there is no other Law to govern us 306 This proved to be the meaning of the Apostle ibid. The Case of liberty of Conscience briefly stated 304 A short Recapitulation of this Discourse by comparing the case of the Iews with the case of Dissenters 311 The forbearance St. Paul pleads for had no influence upon Christian Worship it neither destroyed the Vniformity of Worship nor divided the Communion of the Church what the Reconciler pleads for must do one or both 321 Dr. Stillingfleet vindicated 322 The forbearance St. Paul pleads for was in order to prevent Schisms which our Reconciler's forbearance cannot do 333 This indulgence to the Iews was
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
equally in the right and equally in the wrong yet one of them is bound to yield Our Reconciler has not attempted any such thing as this nor indeed can he for there is no medium between the Authority of commanding and the duty and necessity of Obedience wherein Governours and Subjects may unite without either commanding or obeying which destroys the very Relation between Governours and Subjects Nor has he told us which of them must give way first unless we may conclude this from the order of publishing his Books that the Church ought to give place to the Dissenters and then his second Book is useless for there will be no need for Dissenters to obey the Church But our admirable Reconciler has first pelted the Church with the Dissenters Arguments and now serves the Dissenters in the same nature which is an excellent way to revive a Quarrel if it had been ended but bare disputing on both sides was never thought a likely way to reconcile a Quarrel I have premised this to take off the odium of answering the Protestant Reconciler which a man may very honestly do and yet be a great and passionate Friend to the Reconciliation of Protestants for there is not the least offer made towards a Reconciliation in all this Book He onely teaches the Dissenters to cast the sin and mischief of all our Divisions upon the Church and the Church to cast it back upon the Dissenters and so leaves them just at the same distance that he found them unless possibly he have added to the confidence and obstinacy of Dissenters by joyning with them in their lewd and unreasonable Clamours against the Church But let us consider what betrayed him into this mistake which he very honestly and plainly tells us in these words That which chiefly did confirm me in this apprehension was this observation That I found each of the Parties strong and copious upon these two points but elsewhere silent The Pleaders for Conformity still pressing the necessity that men should yield obedience to the things commanded but seldom saying any thing to justifie the exercise of that Authority which laid upon the Subject the burthen of obedience to things unnecessary and whosoever shall peruse the Writings of the learned Dr. St. and his Defenders will find that they have been very silent upon this head and have upon the matter left our Rulers in the lurch And on the other hand I find that our Dissenters are very prone on all occasions to cry out against imposing these things as the conditions of Communion and the excluding all that are not able to submit unto them from the priviledge of Church-Communion but they say little of any weight and moment to shew it is utterly unlawful under the present circumstances to yield submission and obedience to the things imposed Now as for matter of fact this is utterly false For the Dissenters themselves to give every one their due have used great variety of Arguments not onely to prove the unlawfulness of imposing these things but the unlawfulness of the things themselves otherwise what is it that the great Champions of the Church of England ever since the first rise of this Controversie and the Dean and his Defenders of late have answered Did they make Objections for the Dissenters and then answer them or did they answer such Objections as they found made to their hands Whether what they object have any weight or moment is another Question but it seems very unreasonable to charge men with saying nothing because they say nothing to the purpose when they say as much as they can and as much as the cause will bear by the same Figure we may assert that the Protestant Reconciler has said nothing But yet if no Answer had been returned to prove that all he has said is nothing I strongly fancy that he and several others of his Size would have thought that he had said something and so would the Dissenters too had not their something been so often proved to be nothing And he has treated the Advocates of the Church and the Dean and his Defenders with the same civility and honesty for have they indeed said nothing for the lawfulness of imposing these things and is not that a sufficient justification of theAuthority which imposes Did he never read any thing in vindication of Ecclesiastical Authority in commanding indifferent things Could he find nothing in the Dean and his Defenders tending this way I assure him I have found a great deal which he may hear of in a convenient place which may teach him to make more careful observations for the future But if this had been so methinks it had more become a Minister and Son of the Church of England to have tried his skill to have supplied these defects of his Brethren than to have exposed the nakedness of his Mother by tearing off her Vail with his own hands Every honest and prudent man thinks himself bound to obey and to justifie the Rites and Uâ—ages of the Church as far as they are lawful and innocent and to perswade others to do so and though he should observe some things which in his private opinion he judges might be altered for the better yet he does not think it his duty to raise a great Noise and Outcry about this and to call furiously for a Change and Reformation to set the people into a ferment and to alarm the Government with new Models and Platforms of Discipline and Worship A wise man considers what different apprehensions men have of expediency fitness and decency of things and that it properly belongs to Governours to determine these matters but it does not become private Christians when Authority does not ask their opinions and advice to sit in judgment upon the Wisdom of Government for there would be no end of this in â—uch matters wherein mens minds differ as much as their faces do Had our Reconciler been a Member of the Convocation when such matters had been under debate it had become him to have declared his mind freely where his Arguments might either have obtained such a Reformation as he desired or have received a fair Answer without appearing abroad to disturb weak and unstable minds or to confirm and harden men who are already engaged in an actual Schism at least if he be so thoroughly convinced of the truth of what he says if he be as he says so sensible of his own weakness and praneness to mistake in judging and most unwilling to do the least disserâ—ice to the Church or to those Reverend Superiours whom from his heart he honours what necessity was he under of publishing such a Discourse as this Why did he not first ask the opinion of his Brethren and Superiours about it What service did he expect to do to the Church by appealing to the People who certainly are not the best Judges in such matters and have no power to reform but by Mutinies and Seditions
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-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
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
the Church which he has no authority to do But this is not necessary for mens Souls Right and therefore not an absolute and necessary Duty otherwise how does it appear that the Bishops Authority extends onely to Necessaries Why may not the Honour of God and the external Beauty of his Worship be considered in Religion as well as the salvation of mens Souls Why may not spiritual advantages find place in our Worship as well as what is barely necessary But it is no part of spiritual Government Right not to seize mens Estates to adorn the Worship of God By these Reasons he proves that this is more Authority than Christ has given to his Ministers From whence we may easily learn what kind of Authority he means such an absolute Authority to adorn Religion as gives the Bishop authority over mens Estates for such prous uses But Christ has given Authority to his Ministers to take care of the Decency of Worship and therefore their Authority is of equal extent with the Decencies of Religion 3. When that Reverend Bishop says That Rule Let all things be done decently and in order must be limited to such as onely rescue from confusion he must have some larger notion of confusion than the usual signification of that word will justifie for men may avoid all confusion and yet neglect all the natural Decencies of religious Worship The Meetings of Quakers may be very orderly without any confusion and yet without any Decency And the reason the Bishop assigns for this Because the Prelates and spiritual Guides cannot do their Duty unless things be so orderly that there be no confusion is a very good reason against confusion but is no reason at all to prove that the Rule of Decency and Order extends no farther than to rescue from confusion in the common acceptation of the word for there is something more required in religious Assemblies than meerly that the Bishop or Pastor may do his Duty without disturbance and confusion viz. that the People worship God in such a decent manner as becomes the divine Majesty The external Decencies and Solemnities of Worship are an essential part of Religion and therefore naturally belong to the care of Church-Governours whether there had been any Law for it or no much more when they are commanded to do all things decently and in order we may reasonably conclude that their Authority extends to whatever is truly decent in Religion But our Reconciler thinks that this limitation of the words to matters done in confusion and disorder may be plainly gathered from all the instances preceding which gave occasion to the Rule they being instances of great indecencies and disorders committed in the Church of Corinth And from thence he tells us This onely can be certainly collected that when any thing is performed indecently and disorderly in the Service of the Church the Rulers of it should correct them And to the same purpose he urges an Argument of Mr. Ieanes The words of the Apostle Let all things be done decently and in order are not disobeyed unless there be some indecency committed in the Worship and Service of God or some disorder in it for Decency and Indecency Order and Disorder or Ataxy 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 But now by the omission of symbolical Ceremonies of humane institution such as the Cross in Baptism Surplice in Prayer Kneeling when we receive the Sacrament there is committed no indecency in those parts of the Worship 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 I wonder how learned men can impose upon themselves and others with such silly Sophisms as these for let us consider 1. Suppose this Precept to do all things decently and in order were given upon occasion of those disorders and indecencies which were committed in the Church of Corinth how does it hence follow that the Apostle requires no other Decency than just what will remove the indecencies of Worship Is Decency a thing valuable for it self or onely as it is opposed to indecency If the Decency of Worship be a good thing and if it be not Indecency cannot be a fault then it is a ridiculous thing to say that the end of Decency is onely to prevent Indecency as if the end of seeing were onely to prevent blindness or the end of Vertue onely to prevent Vice They tell us that Decency and Indecency are privatively opposite that is I suppose that Indecency is the privation of Decency not that Decency is the privation of Indecency and therefore though the nature of Indecency consists in its opposition to Decency yet the nature of Decency does not consist in its opposition to Indecency Though we should allow that to be decent which is not indecent yet it is not decent meerly because it is not indecent but because it is agreeable to the Laws and Rules of Decency And therefore though the Apostle gave this Precept upon occasion of these Indecencies committed in the Church of Corinth yet the Command extends to any instances and degrees of Decency for he does not command Decency meerly out of opposition to Indecency which is to invert the natural order of things but for its own sake as necessary and essential to publick Worship as he who reproves the Vices of the Age and exhorts men to the contrary Vertues does not mean that they should onely practise so much Vertue as not to be guilty of these popular Vices but that they should aim at the highest degrees and instances of Vertue 2. And therefore those Rites and Ceremonies of Religion may be included in this Apostolical Precept to do all things decently and in order the omission of which is not disorderly and indecent if they be agreeable to the Laws and Rules of Decency because the Decency of our Actions does not consist in its opposition to Indecency but in conformity to the Rules of Decency This is the principal Argument on which our Reconciler and Mr. Ieanes rely to prove that the Ceremonies of the Church of England cannot be included in that Apostolical Precept of doing things decently and in order because the omission of these Ceremonies is not indecent If then says the Reconciler it can appear that praying without a Surplice or receiving the Sacrament without kneeling or baptizing without the Cross is doing these things indecently and disorderly then must it be confess'd that this is a good warrant for the imposition of these things but till this can be made appear it must be vainly pleaded to that end But now says Mr. Ieanes by the omission of symbolical Ceremonies of humane institution such as the Cross in Baptism Surplice in Prayer Kneeling when we receive the Sacrament there is committed no Indecency in those
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
the King of England must not impose the Laws of England on Italy or Spain therefore he must not make Laws for England neither This our Reconciler was aware of and therefore in his Preface to strengthen these Authorities he asks this Question Why that agreement in Fundamentals which is sufficient to preserve Communion betwixt Churches disagreeing in Rites and Ceremonies and Doctrines of inferior moment may not be sufficient also to preserve Communion among those Members of the same Church though disagreeing in like matters For if the reason why Christian Churches which do thus differ should be received and owned as Christians and Brethren of the same Communion with us is because these differences do not hinder their being real Members of Christs Body and therefore Fellow-members of the same Church and Body with us since the same reason proves the Members of any Church whatsoever who differ onely in non-fundamentals capable of being real Christians and so of the same Church and Body with us why should it not oblige us to receive them as Christian Brethren i. e. persons of the same Communion with us if we can do it without sin Now the Answer to this is so obvious that I wonder our Reconciler should miss it For 1. The reason of Communion between distinct Churches can be nothing else but the common Principles of Christianity one Lord one Faith one Hope one Baptism c. that is whatever is essential to Christian Faith and Worship for what is more than this as the particular Rules and Orders of Discipline and Government and Modes of Worship are the Object of Ecclesiastical Authority and since no Church has authority over another they ought not to impose their own Rules of Discipline or Worship upon each other But now no private Christian can live in the Communion of any particular Church without submitting to its Government and Discipline and conforming to its Rules of Worship Though one Church must not usurp Authority over another yet every Church must govern her own Members and direct her own Worship and there can be no Order nor Decency of Worship where there are no Rules of Worship no Uniformity but every man is left to do as he pleases And yet 2. Though the Communion of distinct Churches with each other does not require that they should all observe the same Usages and Rites of Worship in their own Churches yet it requires that the Members of these distinct Churches should communicate with each other and conform to each others Customs where they happen to be present It is a ridiculous thing to talk of two Churches being in Communion with each other who will not as occasion serves communicate together upon the terms of each others Communion For Calvinists to call the Lutherans or Lutherans the Calvinists Brethren but to refuse to joyn in Communion when they happen to be in each others Churches this is not to live in Communion with each other or for a Calvinist to communicate in the Lutheran Church or a Lutheran in the Calvinists but according to the Rites of their own Churches not of the Church in which they communicate this is not to communicate with but publickly to affront each other The onely Principle of Catholick Communion between distinct Churches in such matters as these is so far to allow of each others Rules and Modes of Worship as to conform when occasion serves to such indifferent Customs and Usages though very different from their own rather than divide the Communion of the Church and if this be necessary to the Communion of distinct Churches with each other then certainly it is necessary for the Members of every particular Church to submit to its Authority and conform to its Rules and Orders of Worship For 3. It is ridiculous to imagine that nothing more is necessary to a Christian in Church-Communion than what is absolutely necessary to the State of a Christian out of the visible Communion of any Church as if nothing more were necessary to make a man a Member of the Commonwealth than what is necessary to make him a man The belief of the fundamental Doctrines of Christianity and Obedience to those Laws of Righteousness which have an eternal and immutable goodness in them will make a man a good Christian in a private and single capacity but obedience to Government and conformity to the Rules of Discipline and Worship are as necessary to make a man a good Christian in Church-society as they are essential to the being and constitution of a Church and it is impossible to form a Church-Society onely of the Essentials of Christianity considered as a Systeme of Doctrines and Laws which every private Christian ought to observe for there are the Essentials of Christian-Communion as well as of Christian Religion Christ did not onely publish the Gospel but instituted a Church and the Government and Discipline of the Church is of a distinct consideration from the belief of the Gospel No man can be a Member of the Church without believing the Gospel but Church-Society lays some new obligations upon us beyond what is necessary in a single state out of Church-Society But to return Though this learned Bishop did not urge the abrogation of the Mosaical Law against the imposition of the Ceremonies of the Church of England nor against any other Rituals or Ceremonies neither but only against such usurpt Authority as challenge a power to make Laws for the whole Christian World yet this Argument is frequently alleadged by others and more than once repeated by our Reconciler to this purpose but how trifling it is appears from this distinction between Rituals and Ceremonies and the decent Circumstances of Worship They tell us that Christ removed those burdens which were on the Church and therefore would not impose new ones But does the Church of England lay any new burdens upon men Does she require any thing more than what is necessary Christ requires that we should celebrate his last Supper in remembrance of him that the Minister should perform all the publick Offices of Religion and that this should be done in a decent and reverent manner and does the Church of England require any more Does she institute any Ceremonies excepting the Cross in Baptism which is a professing Signe and relates to no act of Worship though it be thought decent to be done at the time of Baptism but what are decent circumstances of action And is Decency then a new burden which Christ hath not imposed on his Disciples Is Decency an unnecessary or unreasonable thing Did Christ leave it at liberty then whether his Disciples should worship God decently or not Christ hath taken away the Yoke of Jewish Ceremonies and has the Church of England put another Jewish Yoke on the Disciples necks Are there any such Rituals and Ceremonies in the Church of England as have the least affinity with the Jewish Yoke Did Christ when he abrogated the Jewish Law abrogate all Decency
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
instituted and commanded As for instance Christ has instituted his Mystical Supper and commanded us to eat Bread and drink Wine in remembrance of his Body which was broken and of his Bloud which was shed for us but has not commanded us to do this either sitting standing or kneeling though it is absolutely necessary that we should do it in one posture or other Now the Church of England commands us to receive kneeling and will admit none to the Lords Table who will not receive kneeling This say they is to mend the Laws of Christ and to make new terms of Communion Why so Does the Church require any more than Christ hath required Yes say they she requires kneeling which Christ does not require But how does that appear that Christ does not require it Because say they he has not commanded us to receive kneeling No say I that is no Argument at all that Christ does not require it for he who commands us to receive commands us to receive in some posture or other for though we may logically distinguish between the act of receiving and the posture wherein we receive yet these cannot be actually separate for no man can receive but he must receive in some posture and therefore he who commands doing such an act includes whatever is necessary to the doing of it right You will say But yet Christ has not determined what posture we shall receive in but left them all indifferent Suppose this to be true yet the posture must of necessity be determined before we can receive for no man can receive but in some particular posture and therefore either every man must determine himself or the Authority of the Church must determine us which seems to be much more reasonable both because it is most decent and orderly that there should be some uniform posture of receiving and because the Governours of the Church not private Christians have the sole authority in such cases committed to them by Christ himself But now the question is whether to determine what Christ has not determined and yet what must be determined before we can perform that Duty which Christ commands be to come after Christ to correct his Laws and to make new terms of Communion If it be then whoever receives the Lords Supper whatever posture he receives in must of necessity correct the Laws of Christ and make new terms of Communion at least for himself because he must receive in some particular and determined posture whereas Christ has left all postures indifferent and undetermined which shews what a senceless and ridiculous imputation this is No you will say to receive in some particular posture though it be not determined by Christ is no correcting his Laws nor making new terms of Communion because Christ has left all postures indifferent and undetermined and therefore has left it to our liberty to use which we please and when we do so we onely use that liberty which Christ has given us But so to determine any one posture of receiving as not to allow of any other nor to admit any to our Communion who will not use that posture this is to make new terms of Communion which Christ has not made for if he have left all postures undetermined then to be sure he has not said that no man shall be admitted to the Sacrament who will not kneel And though every man may determine for himself or the Church may determine for us all yet it must not be determined so as to destroy the indifferency of the posture which is directly contrary to Christ's Institution who has left all postures indifferent This Objection at a distance I confess seems very plausible and to bear hard upon the Church but when we look more narrowly into it it vanishes into nothing For 1. I readily grant should the Church of England determine against the lawfulness of any other posture but kneeling in receiving the Lords Supper she might be charged with correcting the Laws of Christ and altering the nature of things for this would be to make some things necessary and other things unlawful which Christ had left indifferent 2. Should she refuse to communicate with any other Church which does not kneel at the Sacrament meerly because she does not kneel she might be charged with making new terms of Communion which Christ has not made for she has no authority to prescribe to other Churches in matters of an indifferent and undetermined nature and therefore cannot pretend her authority for such an Imposition but must pretend the nature of the thing that kneeling at the Sacrament is a necessary term of Communion which being no term of Christ's making must be a term of her own making and then she would be guilty of making new terms of Communion and if a Schism followed upon it she would be the Schismatick 3. But yet for the Church to determine for the regulating her own Communion what Christ has not determined but yet what must be determined before that Duty can be performed which Christ has commanded is not to make new terms of Communion though she refuse to admit any to her Communion who will not use the prescribed posture of receiving and my reason for it is this because she neither prescribes kneeling as necessary in it self but onely as a decent posture of receiving nor prescribes it to any but those of her own Communion whom she has authority to govern In such cases the Church does not make new terms of Communion but exercises a just authority in determining what was left undetermined and in prescribing Rules for the Decency of her own Worship But you will say Does not the Church of England make that a term and condition of her Communion without which she will not admit any man to communicate with her I answer No this does not always follow every such thing is a Rule of her Government but not a term of her Communion which are of a very distinct consideration in the constitution of every Church The Laws of Catholick Communion require that she make nothing a term of her Communion but what is necessary for the whole Catholick Church and she can never be charged with making kneeling a term of her Communion while she holds Communion with such Churches who do not kneel at receiving or at least refuses the Communion of no Church upon that account but now the Rules of Government in every Church are very distinct from the terms of her Communion Every Church has authority to make Laws for her self to prescribe the Forms and Rules of Worship and Discipline and though she have not authority to deny Communion to other Churches who will not submit to her private Laws and Rules yet she has authority to deny Communion to her own Members who refuse to obey her Laws or else she has no authority to make Laws if she have no authority to punish the breach of them So that here are two distinct reasons
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.
That the Charity of Governours must express it self in the Acts of Government 1. That the Charity of Governours must be such as is consistent with the Duty and Authority of Government For charity to others cannot dispense with our own duty and therefore if Christ have given authority to his Ministers to govern his Church whatever pretences of charity there be to the contrary they must govern it or they are very uncharitable to themselves in neglecting their own Duty out of pretence of charity to others Nay all private acts of charity must give place to publick charity Now Government is a publick good that is is a publick charity and therefore must not be neglected out of pretence of charity to private Christians Now to apply this to our present purpose If the Governours of the Church could do what our Reconciler desires without neglecting their own Duty or injuring their Authority and Government I think this Plea of Charity would be more specious and plausible but that they cannot do it is as plain to me as a first Principle For 1. It is their duty to direct and govern religious Assemblies and to secure the Order and Decency of publick Worship which they cannot do without prescribing the Rules and determining the decent circumstances of action But you will say Cannot the Bishops govern the Church nor take care of the Decency of Worship unless they command the Minister to officiate in a Surplice and the People to receive kneeling Yes no doubt they may Then these Laws are alterable They are so Then in charity they are bound to alter them according to your own Rules for they may do this without neglecting their duty of governing religious Assemblies I deny the consequence and that for this reason because Charity does not require any man much less Governours to do a foolish thing which serves no good end at all For if they should alter our present Rules and decent Circumstances of Worship they must prescribe some others or else they neglect their Duty for the Decency of publick Worship cannot be preserved without the decent Circumstances of Worship and they cannot be secured especially in such an Age as this wherein so many men think a rude and slovenly Worship to be most pure and spiritual without some fixt and standing Rules of Decency Now whatever change they make they cannot change for the better nor remove any scruple by such a change For most of the Principles upon which our Dissenters dispute against our present Ceremonies will serve as well against any other establish'd Order of Worship and certainly it is not worth the while for Governours to alter Laws meerly to try the humours of People to see whether those who without reason scruple Impositions in one case will without reason submit to other Impositions when the same reasons hold in both It is neither consistent with the prudence nor charity of Government upon such slight pretences as these to make alterations so much for the worse as they must be if ever they alter our present Rules of Worship If this should gratifie some humoursome People it might justly offend and scandalize much better men to see a decent way of Worship changed for that which is less decent No saith our Reconciler this cannot with any truth be pretended Are not things indifferent such as may be imposed or not imposed at pleasure And doth not our Church declare her Ceremonies to be things indifferent Can therefore any regular Son of the Church of England be offended that she doth use her liberty in matters wholly left unto her liberty and by her first Reformers declared to be so Yes why not for all this Must every thing which is alterable be altered for no reason at all May it not justly offend a regular Son of the Church of England to see a more decent way of Worship laid aside and that which is less decent come in the room of it The Church of England I am sure is not of this mind she allows that her Ceremonies may be changed and altered but they ought to be altered onely upon just causes as she expresly determines and though in such cases she allows of some alteration in her Ceremonies yet she judges it necessary that some Ceremonies should be retained since without some Ceremonies it is not possible to keep any Order or quite Discipline in the Church But says our Reconciler they do not desire that the Ceremonies by Law establish'd should be abolished or that Conformists should be forbid to use them but onely that others whose Consciences will not permit them so to do should be dispensed with in their omission of them This would be a greater and more just offence than the other for this must be either in the same or in distinct Assemblies If in the same this introduces nothing but Disorder Confusion and Schismâ— into the Bowels of the Church if in distinct Assemblies this is to establish Schism by a Law and to make them onely legal Conventicles But he says As some sit some stand some kneel at Common-Prayer and Prayer before Sermon and this without confusion so may some sit some kneel some stand at the receiving the Sacrament But does our Reconciler think this variety of posture at Prayer an orderly and decent thing especially for men to sit at Prayers Standing may be sometimes necessary because especially in full Auditories all persons may not have the conveniency of kneeling But is one Irregularity sufficient to justifie another Does not the Church require an uniform posture at Prayer too And is it not more decent and orderly that it should be so And yet there is a great difference between such various postures at Prayers and at receiving the Lords Supper For excepting the rudeness of sitting when men have strength of body to kneel or stand which is an offence to pious and devout minds these variety of postures do not proceed from mens differing judgments and opinions about them and therefore do not occasion mutual scandal and offence censuring and judging one another in the very act of Worship But differing postures in receiving the Lords Supper is matter of Dispute and scruple one thinks kneeling idolatrous and superstitious the other deservedly thinks it rude and unmannerly to sit and this must of necessity occasion mutual Emulations in the very act of receiving than which nothing can be more inconsistent with the nature of that holy Communion And if you say that men must lay aside this judging and censorious humour you must either mean that while men retain these differing apprehensions of things they must not judge one another which is to say that they must not judge of men and things as they think which is ridiculously impossible unless you can teach men not to think as they think or that they must alter their apprehensions of things and look upon all these as indifferent postures and then there will be no reason to alter
to one case and not to the other and argues great ignorance as well as impudence in our Reconciler to censure it which I shall largely prove when I come to answer his fourth Chapter And because our Reconciler so often mentions not onely the abatement of the Ceremonies but the alteration of some scrupled expressions in the Liturgy without mentioning what those are I can give no other answer to it but to represent that account which is given us of those late alterations which were made in our Liturgy as we find it in the Preface to the Common-Prayer-Book Our general aim therefore in this undertaking was not to gratisie this or that Party in any of their unreasonable demands but to do that which to our best understanding we conceived might most tend to the preservation of peace and unity in the Church the procuring of Reverence and exciting of Piety and Devotion in the publick Worship of God and the cutting off occasion from them that seek occasion of cavil or quarrel against the Liturgie of our Church Most of the alterations were made for the more proper expressing of some words or phrases of ancient usage in terms more suitable to the Language of the present times and the clearer explanation of some other words or phrases which were either of doubtful signification or otherwise liable to misconstruction And what other Rule our Reconciler would have the Church observe in altering scrupled phrases I cannot tell for if she muâ—t alter while some people cease to scruple she must alter it all or rather take it quite away 3. But you will say It is at least a breach of Charity to impose such Rites and Ceremonies as are scrupled by great numbers of Christians and the imposition of which occasions a formidable Schism in the Church As for the Schisms and Divisions which are said to be occasioned by the imposition of these Ceremonies I shall consider that in the next Chapter My designe at present leads me to consider the Mistakes and Scruples of Christians and how far Governours ought to have any regard to them and for the explication of this there are several things to be observed 1. I readily grant that the Church ought not to command any thing which is of a doubtful or suspicious nature for where the thing is doubtful her Authority to command is doubtful too Or rather it is certain that the Church has no Authority in doubtful matters for her Authority can be no larger than her Commission and it is no part of her Commission to teach or command things which are doubtful Thus it may well be doubted whether it be lawful to set up Images in Churches to pray before a Crucifix to excite and quicken our Devotions though we have no intention to pay any religious homage to them For the same reason the Church cannot by her Authority adopt doubtful Propositions into Articles of Faith and require all Christians to believe them as the necessary terms of Communion To this purpose our Reconciler at his usual impertinent rate of Citations alleadges several passages out of Mr. Chillingworth to prove that no doubtful Propositions ought to be made Articles of Faith or necessary terms of Communion in which I perfectly agree with Mr. Chillingworth but can by no means see how it follows from hence that because the Church must not make new Articles of Faith therefore she must not prescribe the necessary Rules of Worship that because she must not impose things which are of a doubtful nature therefore she must not command any thing which some people raise doubts and scruples about But our Reconciler thinks that it is a sufficient evidence that a thing is doubtful and that the peace and unity of the Church ought not to be suspended upon the determination of it when there are a great number of men doubt of it and the thing is disputed and controverted and Arguments produced on both sides and if this be so there is not any Article of our Faith but what is doubtful it is very doubtful whether there be a God and whether Christ were the true Messias or an Importer for we know there are a great many Atheists Jews Turks and Infidels in the world And if it be an Argument against the Ceremonies of the Church of England that Dissenters dispute against them if this prove That the peace and unity of the Church ought not to be suspended upon submission to them and that the decision of the Controversie concerning them was not intended as a necessary means for the peace and unity of the Church of God in these Kingdoms farewell to all certainty in Religion But he proves this by an Argument transcribed from Dr. Stillingfleet's Irenicum a book which certainly did such great service at the time when it was written to draw men on to a calm consideration of things and whose Reverend Author has done such excellent service since to the Church of England by his incomparable Writings both against Papists and Fanaticks that whatever fault there may be in it both the Book and the Author have merited something more than a pardon especially since that Book stands now upon its own legs and can derive no authority from that great Name he having sufficiently declared his dislike and I think sufficiently answered some principal parts of it himself And though I cannot assent to every Proposition in the Irenicum as I am pretty sure the Author himself does not yet I can by no means think that it deserves all that clamour which some men have raised against it I am sure it never can make any man a Dissenter and I think it much more desirable and more for the interest of the Church that men should conform upon the Principles of the Irenicum than that they should continue Dissenters I could not forbear saying this once for all out of that sincere honour I have for that excellent person who has met with very ill usage from some men who either envy his deserved praises or hope to make themselves considerable by being his Rivals But let us hear what the Argument is Where probable Arguments are brought for the maintaining one part of an Opinion as well as another though the Arguments brought be not convincing for the necessary entertaining either part to an unbyassed understanding yet the difference of their Opinions is Argument sufficient that the thing contended for is not so clear as both Parties would make it to be on their own sides and if it be not a thing of necessity to salvation it gives men ground to think that the final decision of the matter in controversie was never intended as a necessary means for the peace and unity of the Church of God Now I confess I see no reason why I may not assent to all this for if the Arguments be onely probable on both sides and such as are not convincing either way to an unbyassed judgment it is a signe the
thing is doubtful though some men may be very confident both ways and nothing that is doubtful can be necessary to salvation nor can the final decision of it be necessary to the peace of the Church But if the Arguments on one hand to an unbyassed and disinteressed judgment be plain and certain and the Objections on the other hand nothing but empty and trifling Cavils which is the true case between the Church of England and Dissenters in the dispute of Ceremonies if the dissent of these men shall be thought sufficient to render this matter uncertain we shall be condemned to eternal and unavoidable Scepticism But our Reconciler says Let any man peruse the Arguments of the Dissenters against Conformity to symbolical Ceremonies and he will find them strengthned by the suffrages of many grave and learned Divines both of our own and other Churches As for the grave Divines of other Churches let them mind their own business for their Authority is nothing to us and as for the Divines of our own Church who strengthen the Dissenters Arguments against Ceremonies who they are or how many or how grave and learned they are I cannot tell He has indeed transcribed several Sayings out of some of our Divines to plead for the relaxation of such Impositions but none that I know of to strengthen the Dissenters Arguments which no Divine in our Church can do who honestly conforms himself Well but how does this Passage in the Irenicum countenance this reconciling designe Suppose there be probable reasons on both sides where yet it is necessary to act one way what must be done in this case must every man be left to do as he pleases So says the Reconciler that this is the onely way to peace but the Irenicum says the quite contrary That the way to peace cannot be by leaving an absolutely to follow their own ways for that were to build a Babel instead of Salem Confusion instead of Peace It must be then by convincing men that neither of those ways to peace and order which they contend about is necessary by way of divine command though some be as a means to an end but which particular way or form it must be is wholly left to the prudence of those in whose power and trust it is to see the peace of the Church be secured on lasting foundations Which is a peremptory determination against our Reconciler who very rarely quotes any Author without wresting his words to another sence than what was intended If every thing were doubtful of which some men doubt and nothing must be determined which is thus doubtful it were impossible that there should be any external form and constitution of a Church or any external Worship If it be a good Argument that a thing is doubtful because some men doubt of it methinks it is as good an Argument that that is not doubtful which no body doubts of and thus symbolical Ceremonies as our Reconciler calls them are past all doubt for no Christian ever had any doubt about them for above fifteen hundred years which is time enough in this way to prove the certainty of any thing And though some Christians begin to doubt and to invent Arguments to countenance their doubts after fifteen hundred years yet this is no reason for the Church to doubt also Well but if mens doubting be not an Argument that the thing whereof they doubt is doubtful how shall we know what is doubtful and what not I answer Where there is no positive evidence and the probabilities or difficulties are great on both sides there is sufficient reason for doubting and in such cases I think the Church has not authority to determine either way when the doubt is about the lawfulness or unlawfulness the truth or falshood of things for the authority of the Church cannot alter the nature nor the evidence of things and therefore ought not to determine that to be lawful which it is equally probable may be unlawful nor that to be true which has equal proofs of its being false But this cannot concern the controversie about the lawful use of some Ceremonies in religious Worship for which we have as plain and positive evidence as we can desire for a thing of this nature as I have already shewn and therefore any mens doubting of this makes it no more doubtful than their doubts about any plain and necessary Article of Faith renders that also doubtful and suspicious 2. Though the Church must not command any thing which is of a doubtful nature yet the doubts and scruples or mistakes of Christians ought to have no influence upon acts of Government There cannot be a more unreasonable and senseless Imposition upon Governours than this which makes all Government the most arbitrary and precarious and useless thing in the world If this Rule were allowed what work would it make in Kingdoms and Families when Princes Parents and Masters must command nothing which their Subjects Children or Servants scruple to do That which makes Government necessary is that the generality of mankind do not know how to govern themselves but this Principle makes all men their own Governours and makes it unlawful for any Authority to impose any thing upon their Subjects which they have not a mind to for it is an easie matter to scruple or to pretend to scruple whatever we have no mind to do and yet if we will believe our Reconciler here is no distinction to be made between men who are really weak and scrupulous and those who pretend to it for it is an uncharitable thing it seems whatever evidence we have for it to charge those men with obstinacy malice or perverseness who pretend to Scruples and tender Consciences But to what purpose has God committed any Authority to some certain persons in Church or State if they must not govern according to the best judgment they have of things but must be governed by the mistakes or scruples of those whom they ought to govern If they must not command what is innocent useful and convenient when those whom they ought to command do not think it so This all men will acknowledge to be intolerable in the State and I challenge our Reconciler to shew me any wise reason wâ—â— the Secular Powers must have no regard to mens scruples in making useful Laws and the Governours of the Church must Whoever considers how wild unreasonable and fantastical some mens mistakes and scruples are must needs think it a very ridiculous Constitution of Government which has any regard to them It is in the Government of the Church as it is in the State and as it must of necessity be in all Governments Those who have authority to govern must take care to do it wisely and charitably and those who are subject must obey in all things lawful without cavilling at their Superiours commands where they are not manifestly contrary to some divine Law and if there happens any
hard case as such cases will happen under all Governments God who is our supreme Governour will take care to rectifie it when the Governours of Church or State cannot do it without loosening the Sinews of Government As for instance The Governours of the Church must take care to prescribe Rules for the decent performance of religious Worship and in such an Age of mistakes and scruples as this it is possible some very honest but weak Christians may take offence at the best and most prudent Constitutions and separate from the Church and involve themselves in the guilt of Schism what must the Church do in this case Must she alter her Laws as often as any Christians pretend to scruple them or must she make no Laws about such matters but suffer every Christian to worship God as he pleases This is to renounce their Government because some Christians will not obey or to make Government contemptible and ridiculous when it must yield to mens private fancies and scruples And yet it is very hard that the Government of the Church which is instituted for the care of mens Souls should prove a snare and temptation to them and occasion their eternal ruine and misery But I hope that there is no necessity for either of these Governours must do their duty must take care to make such Laws as are for the advantage of Religion and the edification of the Church and are least liable to any just offence and if after all their care some very honest men may take offence and fall into Schism we must leave them to the mercy of God who will make allowances for all favourable cases The Church can give no relief in such cases without destroying her Authority and Government and giving advantage to Knaves and designing Hypocrites to disturb the best constitutions of things but God can distinguish between honest men and Hypocrites and if men be sincerely honest and do fall into Schism through an innocent mistake God will be merciful to them which secures the final happiness of good men and yet maintains the sacredness and reverence of Authority For when men know that nothing can justifie a Schism and nothing can plead their pardon with God but great honesty and some invincible mistake it will make all honest men careful how they separate from the Church and diligent in the use of all means for their satisfaction without which no man can pass with Almighty God for an honest Separatist and I doubt not but were men convinced of this it would sooner cure our Schisms than the removal of all scrupled Ceremonies But in is so far from being the duty of Church-Governours to take any notice of mens scruples when there is no just occasion for them that they ought not to allow any man to scruple their authority in such matters which weakens Government and opens a gap for eternal Schisms to enter It is very true as our Reconciler has proved at large in a whole Chapter to that purpose that the Church in several Ages has made great alterations in the Externals and Rituals of Religion but how this serves his Cause I cannot tell No body questions but the Church has done this and that she had authority to do it and that she has so still when she sees just occasion to do it but the Question is Whether she must do this as often as every little Reconciler or every scrupulous Christian demands such an alteration The Question is Whether unreasonable scruples and prejudices be a necessary reason for the Church to make such alterations And if he can give any one example in all Antiquity that the Church altered her Constitutions for no other reason but to comply with the scruples of private Christians he will say something to the purpose No in those days private Christians did not use to scruple any Ceremonies which the Governours of the Church thought fit to appoint but Bishops made or repealed Laws about such matters as they thought most expedient for the good government of the Church The Question is Whether they repealed all Laws for the Order and Decency of Worship or renounced their Authority to make such Laws in compliance with those who denied any such Authority to the Church Again the Question is Whether in the same Church they allowed all private Christians to worship God after what manner they pleased according to their own private perswasions and apprehensions of these things that those who are for a May-pole may have a May-pole as our Reconciler very reverently expresses it If he can say any thing to these points I confess it will be to his purpose and therefore I would desire him to consider of it now he knows what he is to prove But though his History of those alterations which the Church in several Ages has made in the Rituals and Ceremonies of Religion would not serve his main designe yet it highly gratified his pride and insolence to trample upon a great man whom he thought he had taken at some advantage The Reverend Dean of St. Pauls assigns some reasons why the Church of England still retains the use of some Ceremonies His first reason is out of a due reverence to Antiquity They would hereby convince the Papists they did put a difference between the gross and intolerable Superstitions of Popery and the innocent Rites and Practices which were observed in the Church before This says our Reconciler is very like Hypocrisie to pretend to retain three Ceremonies of humane institution out of respect to their supposed antiquity whilst we reject as many which were unquestionably of a divine original and therefore sure of an antiquity which more deserveth to be reverenced Truly if our Church has parted with any thing of a divine original I think she has reformed too far but will our Reconciler say that every thing that was an Apostolical Practice is of divine original Bishop Taylor to whom he so often appeals would have taught him otherwise as I have already observed who says that the Apostles in ordering religious Assemblies and in prescribing such Rules of Worship as they did not immediately receive from Christ acted but as ordinary Ministers of the Church and what they prescribed obliged no longer than the reason and expediency of the things and the Governours of the Church in after-Ages had as full and ample Authority as the Apostles themselves in such matters But does the Dean say that these Ceremonies were retained onely for their antiquity then indeed the Reconciler's Objection had been strong that other Ceremonies which are as ancient as they should have been retained also But is it not a just reverence to Antiquity that when our Church had for other reasons determined what number of Ceremonies to retain and for what ends and purposes she chuses to use such Ceremonies as were anciently used in the Christian Church rather than to invent any new ones for it had been an affront to the ancient
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
â—udge when it is fit to stop and every wise man will think it fit to stop when she has cast every thing out of her Worship which is a just cause of scandal and offence and if she goes further to satisfie unreasonable and clamorous demands she can never have a reason to stop till she has satisfied all Clamours 2. Yes says our Reconciler she may remove things indifferent and unnecessary which is all at present desired No say I she cannot part with all things which are in their own nature indifferent for some such things are necessary to the Order and Decency of Worship which must not be parted with and the Church never owned the contrary She says indeed that her particular Ceremonies are indifferent and alterable that we may exchange one decent Ceremony for another when there is reason for it but the Church ought to alter no Ceremony without reason nor part with all indifferent Ceremonies for the external Decency of Worship for any reason And now we are beholden to him that 3. He grants with some reconciling salvo's that we must not part with our Church-government under the pretence of parting with indifferent things But if we must not part with that we may as well keep all the rest for our Divisions will be the same No party ever separated from the Church for the sake of Ceremonies who did not quarrel with the Order and Authority of Bishops The rest of his Arguments in that Chapter do not concern this business but whatever he would prove by them there are two general Answers will serve for them all 1. That indifferent things which serve the ends of Order Decency are not such unnecessary trifles as to be parted with for no reason which I think I have sufficiently proved above And 2. Tâ—at parting with them will not heal our Divisions and therefore at least upon that account there is no reason to part with them What I have now discours'd about Divisions and Discords is a sufficient Answer to his next long Harangue about the evil of Schism in which I heartily concur with him as believing that Schism it self will shut men out of the Kingdom of Heaven which is as bad a thing as can be said of it and therefore out of love to my Brother's Soul I would not upon any account be guilty of his Schism But how does this prove that Church-Governours must part with the Rites and Ceremonies of Religion Oh! because Dissenters take offence at these things and run into Schism and consequently must be damned for it and therefore Charity obliges to part with such indifferent things to prevent the eternal damnation of so many Souls But now 1. Suppose the imposition of these Ceremonies be neither the cause of the Schism nor the removal of them the cure of it what then Why must the Church part with these Ceremonies which are of good use in Religion to no purpose And yet this is the truth of the case as appears from what I have already discours'd The several Sects of Religion were Schismaticks to each other when there were no Ceremonies to trouble them and would be so again if the Church of England were once more laid in the dust No man separates from the Church of England who has not espoused some Principles of Faith or Government besides the Controversie about Ceremonies contrary to the Faith and Government of the Church and will the removal of Ceremonies make them Orthodox in all other points or are they of such squeamish Consciences that they can submit to an Antichristian Hierarchy and an Antichristian Liturgy but not to Ceremonies 2. The Argument of Schism is the very worst Argument our Reconciler could have used as being directly contrary to the end and designe of it All the Authority the Church has depends on the danger of Schism and the necessity of Christian Communion The onely punishment she can inflict on refractory and disobedient Members is to cast them out of the Church and that is a very terrible punishment too if there be no ordinary means of salvation out of the Communion of the Church and therefore the danger of Schism is a very good Argument to perswade Dissenters to consider well what they do and not to engage themselves in a wilful and unnecessary Schism But it is a pretty odde way to perswade the Governours of the Church out of the exercise of their just Authority for fear some men should turn Schismaticks and be damned for it The reason why the Gospel has threatned such severe punishments against Schism is to make the Authority of the Church sacred and venerable that no man should dare to divide the Communion of the Church or to separate from their Bishops and Pastors without great and necessary reason and our Reconciler would fright the Church out of the exercise of her just Authority for fear men should prove Schismaticks and be damned for it Christ has made Schism a damning sin to give Authority to the Church and our Reconciler would perswade the Church not to exercise her Authority for fear men should be damned for their Schism Now whether our Saviour who thought it better that Schismaticks should be damned than that there should be no Authority in the Church or our Reconciler who thinks it better that there should be no Authority in the Church than that Schismaticks should be damned are persons of the greatest Charity I leave others to judge Indeed the odium of this whole business which is so tragically exaggerated by the Reconciler must at last fall upon our Saviour himself either for instituting such an Authority in his Church or for confirming this Authority by such a severe Sanction as eternal damnation If Christ will at the last day condemn those who separate from the Church for some external Rites and Ceremonies as our Reconciler's Argument supposes he will then it is a signe that Christ approves of what the Church does in taking care of the Decency of Worship and that he thinks it very just that such Schismaticks should be damned and then let our Reconciler if he think fit charge the Saviour of the World with want of Charity to the Souls of men The Church damns no man but does what she believes to be her duty and leaves Schismaticks to the judgment of Christ if he damns them at the last day let our Reconciler plead their Cause then before the proper Tribunal and if Christ can justifie himself in pronouncing the Sentence I suppose he will justifie his Church too in the exercise of her Authority This is certain that if the imposition of these Ceremonies be a just cause of Separation our Dissenters are not Schismaticks and therefore in no danger of damnation upon that score and if it be not a just cause of Separation then the Church does not exceed her Authority in it and therefore is not to be blamed notwithstanding that danger of Schism which men wilfully run themselves into
the Lord and bow my self before the high God shall I come before him with burnt-offerings with calves of a year old Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams or with ten thousand rivers of oyl shall I give my first-born for my transgression the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul He hath shewed thee O man what is good and what doth the Lord require of thee but to do justice and to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God Now because God prefers true and real goodness before the externals of Religion does it hence follow that there must be no external Worship or that the Church must make no Laws for the decent or orderly performance of it or must repeal these Laws when any ignorant people refuse to submit to them Just as much as that God did not require them to offer Sacrifice because he preferred Mercy before it Our Reconciler obsâ—rves two Cases to which our Saviour applies this saying 1. To justifie his Disciples who pulled the ears of Corn as they walked through the fields and rubbed them in their hands and eat them on the Sabbath-day which the Pharisees expounded to be a breach of the Sabbatick rest as being a servile work and our Saviour does not dispute with them upon that point but justifies what they did by their present necessity and by this Rule I will have mercy and not sacrifice That God who prefers acts of Kindness and Mercy before Sacrifice when they come in competition with each other is not such a rigorous exacter of obedience to any positive Institutions as to allow no Indulgence to necessity it self and it becomes Church-Governours to imitate the goodness of God in this and our Church does so as I have already observed but how this proves that the Church must make no Laws about Ceremonies or repeal them if men won't obey them I do not understand The next instance is our Saviour's justifying himself against the accusations of the Pharisees for his eating and drinking with Publicans and Sinners which he tells them was onely in order to reform them as a Physician converses with the sick and certainly it was lawful to converse with them upon so charitable a designe since God preferred Mercy before Sacrifice and therefore certainly God will be better pleased with our conversing with Sinners in order to make them good men than with our abstaining from their company though a familiar conversation with them upon other accounts be scandalous And how this proves what our Reconciler would conclude from it I cannot see Well but this is a general Rule which may be applied to more cases than one or two Right But if we will argue from our Saviour's authority and application we must apply it onely to such cases as are parallel to those cases to which our Saviour applies it otherwise we must not pretend the authority of our Saviour but the reason of the thing and let him set aside our Saviour's authority and we shall deal well enough with his Reason All that can be made of this Rule is this That where there happens any such case that there is a temporary competition between two Duties which are both acknowledged to be our duty there the greatest and most necessary duty must take place and particularly that all Rituals must give place to Mercy So that to make this a parallel case our Reconciler must grant that it is the duty of Church-Governours to prescribe Rules for the external Decency and solemnity of Worship what is the other Duty then to which this must give way To the care of mens Souls says our Reconciler No say I there is no inconsistency between the care of mens Souls and the care of publick Worship which is the best way of taking care of mens Souls and therefore there can never be a competition between these two O but some men are ignorant and scrupulous and wilful and if you prescribe any Rules of Worship they will dissent from them and turn Schismaticks and be damned and thus accidentally it affords occasion to these great and fatal evils Let him prove then if he can from these words of our Saviour that the Governours of the Church must never do their duty for fear those men should be damned who will not do theirs Such cases as these if they be truly pitiable must be left to the mercy of God but the Church can take no cognizance of them especially when this cannot be done without destroying the publick Decency and Solemnities of Worship and renouncing her own just Authority the maintaining of which is more for the general good of Souls than her compliance with some scrupulous persons would be I shall onely farther observe his great civility to theChurch and Kingdom of which he is a Member For his third Observation from these words is That they were used by the Prophet upon the occasion of the strictness of the Israelites in the observance and the requiring these Rituals whilst charity and mercy to their Brother was vanished from their hearts there being no truth no mercy nor knowledge of God in the land but killing committing adultery stealing lying and swearing falsly c. Now certainly it was no fault in the Jews at that time to be zealous for the external Worship instituted by the Law of Moses though our Reconciler seems to insinuate that it was for he matters not how he reproaches the Institutions of God himself so he can but reflect some odium on the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church yet they betrayed their Hypocrisie by their Zeal for the Externals of Religion while they neglected the weightier matters of the Law And left any man should be so dull as not to understand the meaning of this Observation he thetorically introduces it with a God forbid Now God forbid that I should say that it is thus in England but he is pleased to put men in mind of it if they please to think so This is true Fanatick Cant and Charity There must be no Rules prescribed for the Worship of God the Church must not take care to reclaim or restrain Schismaticks because our Reconciler thinks the State does not take sufficient care to punish other Vices Certainly there never was any Age of the Church wherein the publick Ministers of Religion took more care to decry this Pharisaical Hypocrisie of an external Religion and to teach men that nothing will recommend them to God without the practice of an universal Righteousness than at this day who will not flatter the greatest men in their Vices nor think any man a Saint because he expresses a great Zeal for the Church when his life and actions proclaim him to be a Devil We leave this good Reconciler to your beloved tender-conscienced Dissenters who can strain at a Gnat and swallow a Camel who cannot see a Surplice without horror but can dispence with Lying and Perjury with Slanders and Revilings and speaking
evil of Dignities with Treasons and Murders of Princes and â—ug the most profligate Villains in their boâ—om and palliate and excuse all their Vices â—f they will but espouse their Interest and Quarrel These are the men who have weakned the Churches Authority and exposed her Censurâ—s to contempt and then reproach her for not using her Authority to correct the Vices of the Age. The Debauchees of our days learn to despise the Censures of the Church by the Example of Dissenters and when they cannot shelter their Vices in our Communion they take Sanctuary in a Conventicle II. His next Argument against the imposition of Ceremonies upon Dissenters is from the kindness and indulgence of our Saviour to his Disciples while he was with them That he would not impose such a burden as fasting on them because they were infirm and weak and therefore might be prejudiced by it that like old Bottles filled with new Wine they might be apt to burst that is by these severities imposed on them they might be discouraged and fall from him and so might perish I confess I have often been troubled what to make of this place not that I ever suspected such inferences from it as our Reconciler has discovered but these words being generally expounded by ancient and modern Writers of Christ's indulgence to the weakness of his Disciples I could never understand what this weakness should be which made them less able to fast than the Disciples of Iohn or of the Pharisees It could not be weakness of body for they were men of mean fortunes who had been used to more hardship than most of the Pharisees and what weakness of mind could they labour under which should make fasting so grievous a burden They were Jews who were to observe the publick Fasts of their Law and therefore fasting was no new thing to them and why should they be compared to old Cloth and old Bottles and fasting to new Cloth and new Wine These are difficulties which I cannot answer and shall be thankful to our Reconciler if he can And therefore I am apt to suspect it is all a mistake from a misapplication of those comparisons which our Saviour brought to illustrate that Answer which he had given to the Question of Iohn's Disciples They ask'd him Why do we and the Pharisees fast often but thy Disciples fast not And Iesus said unto them Can the children of the bride-chamber mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them but the days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken from them and then shall they fast Christ is the Bridegroom the Church his Spouse the Apostles the Children of the Bride-chamber who immediately attended his Person in his greatest privacies and retirements The appearance of Christ on Earth was a time of as great joy to all that knew him as the presence of the Bridegroom and as it would be very indecent and improper for those who attend the Bridegroom to be sorrowful and pensive so would it be for his Disciples to mourn and fast which is an expression of mourning and sorrow while he was present All this refers not to the weakness of his Disciples but the unfitness of the season to fast Now the Question is Whether in what follows our Saviour onely illustrates this Answer or gives a new one And I confess it seems most probable to me that our Saviour onely confirms and illustrates the same answer which he does by two comparisons the first to shew the indecency of the thing the second the impossibility of it The first is this No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment and the rent is made worse At Weddings and Festival Entertainments they used to put on new Cloths at fasting to wear any old â—attered Garments Now says our Saviour mourning and fasting in the presence of the Bridegroom which is a time of joy is as indecent as it would be to patch up a Garment of wedding and fasting Cloth of new and old For the new Cloth is so far from adding to the beauty of the old Garment that the rent is made worse more notorious and visible and exposed to the view and scorn of all men and so indecent would it be for the Children of the Bride-chamber to fast as for men to go to a Wedding in such a patcht Garment The second comparison shews the impossibility of the thing that they should fast while the Bridegroom is with them To fast without mourning is an hypocritical Fast it is better not to fast at all than thus to mock God and yet it is impossible they should mourn whose minds are transported with such new and fermenting joys at the presence of the Bridegroom Neither do men put new wine into old bottles else the bottles break and the wine rumeth out and the bottles perish but they put new wine into new bottles and both are preserved Wine is proper at Festival Entertainments and very aptly signifies the joy and exultancy of the mind For Wine maketh the heart glad and new Wine signifies some new and present transports of joy whiâ—h boil and ferment in the breast as new Wine does upon the Lees and therefore aptly signifies such a joy as is in the presence of the Bridegroom Old Bottles may signifie a mournful sorrowful mind which is as weak and dejected with grief as men usually are with age Now as new Wine when it ferments will burst old Bottles that are weak and crasie so such transports of joy as are occasioned by the presence of the Bridegroom will dispel all sorrow from our minds and run out in all expressions of inward satisfaction and therefore will spoil our mourning and fasting This is the account why the Disciples could not fast while Christ was with them but when he should be taken from them then they should fast If this be the true interpretation of the place as the very aptness of the application perswades me it is then our Reconciler is at a loss for here is not one word of indulging the weakness of his Disciples and it seems very strange to me that any man should think that by old Bottles our Saviour should represent the weakness of his Disciples and forbear putting new Wine into them imposing the severe discipline of fasting upon them for fear of breaking these old Bottles when no man yet ever refused to put new Wine into old Bottles for fear of breaking the Bottle but for fear of losing the Wine which makes the application very absurd But yet let us suppose that our Saviour out of condescention to the weakness of his Disciples did not impose fasting on them what follows hence Why it plainly follows that the Governours of the Church must not impose any Rites and Ceremonies of Worship things much inferiour to this duty of fasting upon Dissenters when they do tend to the ruine and
are not so much beholding to him but the present Clergy are as little to whom he has by very broad signs and intimations applied Theophylact's observation upon the Text That our Lord complained the Labourers were but few because the Scribes and Pharisees the present Labourers not onely did not profit but did hurt the people whereas it is the property of a good Pastor to be merciful-towards them He knew very well this Objection oâ— the paucity of Labourers could not well be applied to us who have such a numerous Clergy and therefore to make room for Dissenters he fairly insinuates that the present Ministers do no good but hurt Such an impudent Calumny as needs no confutation and let others consider what censure it deserves IV. His next Argument is taken from our Saviour's command not to scandalize or despise little ones 18 Mat. where by little ones he understands those who are weak in the Faith or not well instructed in their Duty or mistaken in it though very obstinate and peremptory in their mistake for so he must mean if he will apply it to the case of Dissenters And by scandalizing offending or despising them he understands doing any action which occasions their ruine And thus he tâ—inks Church-Governours fall under this Woe which is denounced against those who offend these little ones when they impose such Ceremonies which they cannot and will not submit to which occasions the Schism and consequently the damnation of their weak Brother No man can possibly want Arguments who has such an admirable faculty not at finding but making them for nothing can be more remote from our Saviour's intention in these words than such an inference as this For 1. It is evident that by little ones our Saviour understands those who are meek and humble and modest who are as void of pride and passion and earthly ambitions as a little Child as is evident both from the occasion of this discourse which was to correct the ambition of his Disciples and from the example of a little Child which he proposes to them for their imitation Thus St. Chrysostom and St. Ierom expound the words though the latter observes also that those who are scandalized are upon that account also little ones for great and strong Christians will not receive scandal That is though they be humble and modest c. yet these Graces and Vertues are not so well rooted and confirmed in them but that the ill usage they meet with from the world may turn them out of their byass and occasion their fall But what is this to our Dissenters who are neither in one sence nor other little ones who neither have the modesty humility and peaceableness of Children nor their soft and ductile nature but are stiff and inflexible and obstinate in their conceits that they will neither hearken to Reason nor yield to Conviction 2. To scandalize or offend these little ones St. Chrysostom tells us is to dishonour to reproach to vilifie them to despise them as it is expressed v. 10. which as he observes is a great temptation and scandal to men of weak minds Our Reconciler observes that St. Ierom says We are said to scandalize when by our actions we give occasion to their ruine I find no such saying in St. Ierom upon the place but however the saying is a very good one if we apply it right to actions of contempt and scorn of which both St. Ierom and St. Chrysostom speak which are apt to spoil this good temper of mind when men see themselves onely scorned and derided for it and exposed to all sorts of violence and injury This is the usual reward of great modesty and humility in this World and therefore our Saviour secures these little ones from contempâ— by denouncing severe woes against those who offer it But what is all this to the Church which offers no contempt to the meanest Christian much less to men of humble and modest and peaceable tempers She is as much concerned for the salvation of the Poor as of the Rich and despises no man who has a soul to be saved and will submit to wise instructions Must the Church be charged with scandalizing little ones because she will not renounce her own Authority nor suffer these little ones to give Laws to her Certainly our Saviour never intended any such thing when in this very Chapter and upon this very occasion he asserts the Authority of the Church even in the point of scandal and commands us not to converse with those men who will not hearken to her Counsels and Reproofs If thy brother shall trespass against thee shall offend and scandalize thee go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone if he shall hear thee thâ—u hast gained thy brother But if he will not hear thee then take with thee one or two more that in the mouth of one or two witnesses every word may be established And if he shall neglect to hear them tell it to the Church but if he neglect to hear the Church let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican Verily I say unto you Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven But of the case of scandal or giving offence our Reconciler has given us occasion to discourse more in another place V. His next Argument is as wise as the rest He tells us Our Lord denounceth woe against the Scribes and Pharisees because they shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men But he should have added the whole verse for ye neither go in your selves neither suffer ye them that are entring to go in St. Ierom expounds this two ways 1. They shut the Kingdom of Heaven against men by hindring their belief in Christ in whom they would neither believe themselves nor suffer others to believe who were prepared and disposed for it which is certainly the true exposition of the words But then he adds 2. That these Teachers and Rabbies may be said to shut up the Kingdom of Heaven who scandalize their Disciples with their wicked lives that is who tempt them to sin by their example But what is this to the Dispute about Ceremonies Does the imposition of Ceremonies in its own nature shut men out of the Kingdom of Heaven Can none be saved then who obey the Laws of the Church about Rituals and Ceremonies as no man could enter into the Kingdom of Heaven who followed the directions of the Scribes and Pharisees Christ condemns the Pharisees for using their utmost endeavour to hinder men from embracing the Christian Faith and entring into the Kingdom of Heaven Our Reconciler draws up the same charge against the Church because some men take unjust offence against the Order and Decency of her Worship and will not enter though she uses all manner of Entreaties and Arguments and wise Arts to perswade them to enter
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
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-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
onely refused to obey the Law themselves but scorned and despised the Jews for doing it and used their Christian liberty in an open contempt and defiance of them and their Law this would have been very apt to have alienated their minds from the Christian religion which the Apostle therefore calls laying a stumbling-block or occasion to fall in our brothers way and destroying him with our meat by tempting him to infidelity and Apostacy for whom Christ died Thus St. Chrysostom expresly tells us that St. Paul was afraid lest this contemptuous usage of the believing Jews should tempt them to renounce the Faith of Christ. But what is this to the case of our Dissenters are they tempted to renounce the Christian Religion by the Ceremonies of the Church of England It is so far from this that they learn to despise their Teachers and to think themselves a more perfect and excellent sort of Christians But you 'll say it makes them Schismaticks and Schism is as dangerous to mens Souls as Infidelity and therefore the same charity which obliges us to prevent the one obliges us also with equal care to prevent the other Now though I think every good Christian will and ought to do what he reasonably can to prevent a Schism yet the difference between the case of Schism and Infidelity in point of scandal is very great While men are weak and unsetled in the Faith and apt to take offence and apostatize from Christ they ought to be treated with all manner of tenderness and condescension because they are not yet capable of being governed they must be humoured for a while as Children are who must be managed by Art not by Rules of Discipline but when men are well rooted and confirmed in the Christian Faith they are no longer to be humoured but governed they must be taught to submit to that Authority which Christ has placed in his Church and to obey not to dispute the commands of their Superiours when there is no plain positive Law of God against them This is the onely way to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Christian Church and if men will take offence at the exercise of a just Authority and turn Schismaticks it is at their own peril And this indeed I take to be the true notion of the weak in the Faith whom the Apostle in this Chapter commands the strong Christians to treat with so much tenderness without giving them the least offence those who are not well confirmed in the truth of the Christian Religion and therefore are apt to take offence at every thing and to renounce the Faith And so his stumbling and being offended and made weak signifies his being shaken and unsetled in the Faith Every one who is an ignorant and uninstructed is not therefore a weak Christian his Understanding may be weak but his Faith may be strong that is he may very firmly and stedfastly believe the truth of the Christian Religion though he do not so well understand the particular Doctrines of it But these two sorts of weak persons are to be used very differently you must have a care of offending those who are weak in Faith but you must instruct and govern those who are weak in Understanding or else you prostitute the Authority of the Church and the truth of Christianity and the just liberties of Christians to every ignorant and yet it may be conceited obstinate and censorious Professor which is a plain demonstration that those directions the Apostle gives in this Chapter not to offend those who are weak in the Faith cannot concern our Dissenters who though they are weak enough as that signifies ignorant yet are not weak in the Faith as that signifies those who are not thoroughly perswaded of Christianity or not well confirmed in that belief and therefore are not to be humoured like Children but trained up to greater attainments by wise Instructions and a prudent Discipline Secondly Having seen what this Scandal and Offence was let us now consider by what Arguments the Apostle perswades those who were strong not to offend the weak Now our Reconciler has turned almost every word into an Argument One Argument is That it is our duty not to judge or lay a stumbling-block before our Brother That it is contrary to charity and evil in it self That it caused Christianity to be blasphâ—med That it is contrary to the concerns of Peace and the edification of the Church c. Now I have no dispute with our Reconciler about this that it is a very ill thing and very contrary to the duty of a Christian to give any just offence or scandal to a weak Brother if we were as well agreed what it is to give offence as that giving this offence is a very evil thing the Dispute were at an end And yet by this artifice he imposes upon his Readers is very copious and rhetorical in his Harangue on this Argument and transcribes several passages out of St. Chrysostom and some other ancient Writers to shew the great evil and manifold aggravations of scandal which every one would grant him to be very good when rightly applied but we deny that the Church of England is guilty of giving offende to the Dissenters in that sence in which St. Paul and other ancient Writers meant it and if our Reconciler had pleased he might have found enough in St. Paul's Arguments to have convinced him that the Apostle spoke of a case very different from ours which because he has been pleased to overlook I shall be so charitable as to mind him of it Now I take the sum of the Apostles Argument to be this That the reason why they were not to offend the Jews by an uncharitable use of their Christian liberty in eating such meats as were forbidden by the Law is because their eating or not eating such meats in it self considered is of no concernment in the Christian Religion and therefore is the proper Sphere for the exercise of charity For when we discourse of offence and scandal the first and most natural inquiry is of what moment and consequence the thing is in which we are required to exercise our charity for there are many things which we must not do nor leave undone out of charity to any man whatever offence be taken at it but if it be of that nature as to admit of a charitable condescension and compliance then all the other Arguments against scandal and giving offence are very seasonably and properly urged And this is the case here as will appear from considering the series of the Apostles Arguments In the 13th verse he perswades them not to put a stumbling-block and occasion to fall in their Brothers way And to inforce this Exhortation he adds in the 14th verse 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 That is all distinction of
I observed before The necessary consequence of which is that in all such cases wherein not Religion but our own liberty is concerned the great Rule we are to observe is to promote the Peace of the Church and the mutual Edification of each other to follow after the things which make for peace and things wherewith one may edifie another Now this is a plain Rule which all men at first hearing will acknowledge to be reasonable not to violate the plain Duties of Religion in contending about such liberties the use and exercise of which are of no account in Religion not to scandalize a weak Brother nor destroy the Peace of the Church and the mutual edification of Christians in love by eating such meats as we may indeed in other cases lawfully eat but the eating of which is at no time and in no case in it self considered an act of Worship or acceptable to God But if we understand these words in our Reconciler's way that the Externals of Religion are of no account and therefore must be sacrificed to the dearer interests of Peace and Charity and mutual Edification I confess the Argument is plain enough but it is neither to the Apostle's purpose nor is it true And yet this is the fundamental Principle of all Reconcilers and of those men who affect the name and character of Moderation that the Externals of Religion are little worth and of small account with God But the great business which Christians ought to mind is Love and Charity and the practice of those moral Vertues wherein they place the life and substance of Religion and therefore it does not become them to quarrel about the external Modes of Worship but an indulgence in such matters becomes the good and benign temper of the Gospel Now how these men come to know that God is so indifferent about his own Worship I cannot guess nor how the Worship of God comes to be a less essential part of Religion than justice and charity to men I am sure under the Law God appeared very jealous of his Honour and Worship and though he rejected all the Worship of bad men and despised those external acts of Worship which were separated from Justice and Charity yet this was no Argument that he undervalued his own Worship because he was not pleased with an empty shew and appearance of it As for his preferring Mercy before Sacrifice I have given some account of it already and may do more in what follows but certainly Religion is properly the Worship of God and therefore that is the greatest thing in it And publick Worship which is the most visible Honour of God consists in external and visible Signs and therefore the Order Decency and Solemnity of Worship is so essential to the notion of publick Worship that there can be no Worship without it for to worship God visibly without publick and visible signs of Honour is a contradiction and therefore it does not seem to me to be so indifferent a thing after what manner God is worshipped and therefore not to be left indifferently to every mans humour upon every slight pretence of Charity and Moderation However it is plain that the Apostle does not speak one word of this here which had been nothing to his purpose and I cannot find any thing to this purpose in all the Scripture 3. This Apostolical Exhortation to avoid scandal concerns onely such cases wherein we are not bound to make a publick profession of our Faith nor to do that in publick in the view of all men which we believe we may very lawfully innocently do Hast thou faith have it to thy self before God that is keep thy Faith to thy self and enjoy thy liberty privately when thou may'st do it without offence Now I suppose our Reconciler will not think this a good Rule in all cases to dissemble our Faith and to keep our Religion to our selves which would effectually undermine the publick profession and practice of Religion in the World For if this were once granted men would find a great many other as good reasons to keep their Faith to themselves as avoiding scandal Indeed this Rule can hold onely in matters of a private nature such as I before observed this case to be for matters of a publick nature require a publick profession and practice For let us consider wherein the force of this Argument consists to perswade the Gentile Christians to exercise this forbearance towards their weak Jewish Brethren not to offend or scandalize them with their meat Hast thou faith have it to thy self before God which includes these two Arguments 1. That they are under no obligation to a publick profession or exercise of their Christian liberty in these matters 2. That though it be some restraint yet it is no injury to their liberty not to do those things publickly which give such offence For their liberty in such matters is maintained as well by a private as by a publick exercise of it For if they may do it at any time their liberty is secure though the exercise of it may be sometimes restrained But now if we apply this to the Rites and Ceremonies of publick Worship what sence is there in this Argument for publick Worship must be publickly profess'd and publickly practised or else it is not publick and therefore there is no place here to avoid publick scandal by keeping our Faith to our selves for then we must not worship God publickly as we think we may and that we ought to worship him for fear of giving offence So that this does not onely restrain but it destroys the Authority of Governours and the Liberty and Obedience of private Christians for what relates to publick Worship cannot be done at all if it must not be done publickly and that is no Authority and no Liberty which cannot be exercised without sin that is without a criminal offence and scandal As for what our Reconciler frequently urges and I have already observed and answered that it is not desired that the Church should renounce her Authority and Worship but onely give liberty to Dissenters to worship God in their own way this plainly shews how vastly different the case of the Jews and of our Dissenters is and how little they are concerned in that forbearance of which the Apostle speaks The Jews were offended not at the restraint of their own liberty for they were indulged in the observation of the Law of Moses but at that liberty which the Gentile believers used in breaking of the Law of Moses our Dissenters it seems are scandalized not so much at what we do as because they cannot do what they would The Apostle exhorts private Christians not to do such things publickly as offended their weak Brethren This great Reconciling Apostle exhorts or rather commands the Church to suffer Dissenters to worship God according to their own way and to do what is right in their own eyes and this would remove the
scandal Now these two do so widely differ that the one is true and proper scandal and the other is not To offend a weak Brother by an uncharitable use of our liberty by doing such things as prove a stumbling-block and occasion of falling to him is scandal in the Apostle's notion of the word and the onely scandal of which he treats in this 14th Chapter to the Romans but thus it seems we do not scandalize the Dissenters who are not concerned not offended in the Apostle's sence at what we do so they might enjoy their own liberty and therefore neither the Church nor Dissenters are concerned in what the Apostle discourses about Scandal in this Chapter And as for that offence and scandal they take at the exercise of Discipline and Government which restrains their wild and fanatick pretences to liberty it is no other offence than what all Criminals take at Laws and publick Government which is so far from being such a scandal as the Governours of the Church ought to avoid that there is not a greater scandal to Religion than the neglect of it But I shall think nothing impossible if our Reconciler can prove out of this Chapter that the Governours of the Church should prescribe no Rules of Worship nor lay any Restraint upon the giddy and enthusiastick fancies of men for fear of giving offence to them 4. The last Argument the Apostle uses to represent the reasonableness of this forbearance is this that though the Gentile Christians without sin or without any injury to their own liberty might comply with their weak Jewish Brethren yet these Jewish Christians who believed it unlawful to eat any meats forbidden by the Law of Moses could not comply with the believing Gentiles without sinning against their own Consciences which brings judgment and condemnation upon them And he that doubteth which does not signifie what we commonly call a scrupulous Conscience for that was not the case of the Jews who did not doubt but certainly believe that it was unlawful for them to eat such meats but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I observed before signifies him who makes a distinction between meats and so believes it unlawful to eat any meats which were forbidden by the Law of Moses he who thus doubteth is damned if he eat because he eateth not of faith for whatever is not of faith is sin Now here our Reconciler thinks he has us fast for if this were a good Argument in the case of the Jewish Christians it must be also in the case of the Dissenters If the Gentile believers were not by any means to compel the believing Jews to eat those meats which they believed unlawful because how lawful soever it was in it self yet it was unlawful for them to do it while they believed it unlawful to be done by the same reason the Governours of the Church must not compel Dissenters to Conformity which they believe unlawful or at least greatly doubt of the lawfulness of it For he that doubteth is damned if he conforms as well as if he eats This looks most like a parallel case of any thing yet and if this fails him I doubt his Cause is desperate and yet I am pretty confident that this will do him no service 1. For first this is not a good Argument in all cases to grant such an indulgence and forbearance that men act according to their Consciences as I have already proved at large for this would subvert all Order and Government in Church and State and supersede the Authority and Obligation of all other Laws but every mans private judgment and opinion of things 2. Let us then consider in what cases this Argument is good for certainly it is good in the case to which the Apostle applies it Now I know of but one general case to which this Argument can be reasonably applied and that is where every man 's own Conscience is his onely Rule not where Conscience it self has a Rule The Laws of God and the Laws of our Superiours when they do not contradict the Laws of God are the Rule of Conscience that Rule whereby all men ought to act and it is a senseless thing to say that when men are under the government of Laws they must have liberty to act according to their own Consciences that is according to their own judgment and opinions of things which is to say that though men are under Laws yet they must be governed by none that Magistrates may make Laws but they must not execute them but must suffer every man when his Conscience serves him to break both the Laws of God and of the Church or Kingdom wherein he lives But where we are under no obligation of divine or humane Laws in such cases every mans own Conscience is his onely Rule and in these cases it is fit to leave every man to the direction and government of his own mind because they concern onely every mans private liberty and have no influence at all upon the Publick And if in such cases any man should fancy himself to be under the obligation of a divine Law when indeed he is not it would be barbarously uncharitable by Censures and Reproaches and such kind of rude and ungentile Arts to force him to a compliance contrary to the sense and judgment of his own mind for when there is no other Rule of our Actions every mans Conscience is his onely Rule and if he does that which he believes to be forbidden by the Law of God though indeed it is not yet he sins in it and if we force him to such a compliance we are very uncharitable in it and are guilty of offending a weak Brother This was the very case of which the Apostle speaks The Law which made a distinction between clean and unclean meats was now out of date and did no longer oblige them and therefore it was lawful both for Jews and Gentiles to eat what meat they pleased but the Jews still thought that Law to be in force and therefore though the Law did not oblige them to abstain from such meats yet their own Consciences which is always a Law when there is no other did still oblige them to abstain and therefore it was very uncharitable in the Gentile Christians to judge and censure and reproach them for this for though they who understood their liberty might use it yet a believing Jew could not do this without sin And there may be a great many cases in â—ome degree parallel to this As suppose a man scruples the use of Lots and consequently all Games which depend upon Lots or thinks it unlawful to drink a Health or to see a Play or apprehends himself obliged to a stricter observation of the Lords day than the Christian Church has in former Ages thought necessary though we should suppose that there were no Law of God about these matters yet this mans Conscience is a Law to him and whiles he thinks any
of these things unlawful they are unlawful to him and it would be very uncharitable by any Arts to force him to do such things as are contrary to the dictates of his own Conscience This is onely a restraint of their own private liberty and therefore they ought to be indulged in it especially while they are so modest as not to censure those who use their innocent liberty innocently In such cases as these there is no other Rule to guide us but what the Apostle gives Let every man be fully perswaded in his own mind which is a safe and a sure Rule when there is no other Law to govern us for this must not be extended to all cases as St. Chrysostom observes upon the place for if in all cases we must suffer every man to act according as he is perswaded in his own mind this would subvert all Laws and Government but this is reasonable in such cases as onely concern mens private liberty and are under the restraint and government of no Laws but what men make or fancy to themselves It is true all men who act upon any Principles will in all cases do as they are fully perswaded in their own minds yet this is not a Rule to be given in all cases It can be a Rule onely in such cases wherein let a mans judgment and opinion be what it will he acts safely while he acts according to his own judgment which can never be where there is any other Law to govern us besides our own judgment of things for though we act with never so full a perswasion of our own minds if we break the divine Laws we sin in it and shall be judged for it And that this is the true sence of the Apostle's Argument appears in this that he urges the danger a weak Brother is in of sin if he should be perswaded or forc'd to act contrary to the judgment of his own mind which supposes that he is in no danger of sin if he follow his own judgment for if there were an equal danger of sin both ways this Argument has no force at all to prove the reasonableness of such an indulgence and forbearance For if this weak Brother will be guilty of as great a sin by following his judgment if we do forbear him as he will by acting contrary to his own judgment if we do not the danger being equal on both sides can be no reason to determine us either way and therefore this must be confined to such cases wherein there is no danger of sinning but onely in acting contrary to our own judgment and perswasions that is onely to such cases where there is no other Law to govern us but onely our own private Consciences And therefore this danger of scandal cannot affect Governours who have authority to command nor extend to such cases which are determined by divine or humane Laws and therefore not to the Rites and Ceremonies of publick Worship for whatever our own Perswasions are if we break the Laws of God or the just Laws of men by following a misguided and erroneous Conscience we sin in it And the same thing appears from this consideration that the Apostle perswades them to exercise this forbearance out of charity to their weak Brother but what charity is it to suffer our Brother to sin in following a misguided Conscience If our Brother sin as much in following a misguided Conscience as in acting contrary to his Conscience he is as uncharitable a man who patiently suffers his Brother to sin in following his Conscience as he who compels him to sin by acting contrary to his Conscience or rather by not suffering him to act according to his Conscience Nay since external force and restraint may and very often does make men consider better of things and help to rectifie their mistates it is a greater act of charity to give check to men than to suffer them to go quietly on in sin And here I shall take occasion to speak my mind very freely and plainly about that perplext Dispute of liberty of Conscience It seems very contrary to the nature of Religion to be matter of force for Religion is a voluntary Worship and Service of God and no man is religious who is religious against his will and therefore no man ought to be compelled to profess himself of any Religion which was plainly the sence of the Primitive Christians when they suffered under Heathen Persecutions as is to be seen in most of their Apologies And yet on the other hand it is monstrously unreasonable that there should be no restraint laid upon the wild fancies of men that every one who pleases may have liberty to corrupt Religion with Enthusiastick Conceits and new-fangled Heresies and to divide the Church with infinite Schisms and Factions The Patrons of Liberty and Indulgence declaim largely on the first of these heads those who are for preserving Order and Government in the Church on the second and if I may speak my mind freely I think they are both in the right and have divided the truth between them No man ought to be forc'd to be of any Religion whether Turk or Jew or Christian though Idolatry was punishable by the Law and that with very good reason for though men may not be forc'd to worship God yet they may and ought to be forc'd not to worship the Devil nor to blaspheme or do any publick dishonour to the true God And this was all the restraint that Christian Emperours laid upon the Pagan Idolaters they demolished their Temples and forbad the publick exercise of their Idolatrous Worship But though no man must be compelled to be a Christian yet if they voluntarily profess themselves Christians they become subject to the Authority and Government of the Christian Church The Bishops and Pastors of the Church have authority from Christ and are bound by vertue of their Office to preserve the Purity of the Faith and the Decency and Uniformity of Christian Worship and if any Member of the Church either corrupt the Faith or Worship of it or prove refractory and disobedient to Ecclesiastical Authority they ought to be censured and cast out of the Communion of the Church which is as reasonable as it is to thrust a Member out of any Society who will not be subject to the Orders and Constitutions of it This distinction St. Paul himself makes between judging those who are without and those who were within the Church They had no authority to force men to be Christians but they had authority over professed Christians to judge and censure them as their actions deserved and this is properly Ecclesiastical Authority to condemn Heresies and Schism and to cast Hereticks and Schismaticks and all disorderly Christians out of the Communion of the Church and no governed Society can subsist without so much authority as this comes to As for temporal restraints and punishments they belong to the Civil Magistrate and if we
will allow that Christian Princes ought to take any care of the Christian Church we must grant them so much authority as is necessary to suppress Heresie and Schism and to punish those who are disobedient to the Censures and Authority of the Church How far this may extend is another Question I think all Protestants with great reason reject sanguinary Laws in this case but whoever grants any authority in these matters to Christian Princes must grant what may reasonably be thought sufficient to attain the end Thus I have as plainly as I could given an account of the Apostle's discourse in this Chapter about Scandal and Offence and proved that it cannot be applied to the case of indifferent things in the Worship of God by any parity of reason I grant St. Chrysostom and some other ancient Writers do accommodate this Doctrine of Scandal to other cases some of which passages our Reconciler has transcribed from them that if we must not scandalize our weak Brother by using our innocent liberty much less by our wicked examples by doing things evil in themselves which aggravates the guilt of the offence And I grant such accommodations as these are very allowable in popular Harangues but I hope our Reconciler does not take them for Arguments and yet if he did he could no more apply them to the case of the Church and Dissenters than he can the case of which St. Paul speaks But because this Discourse has been somewhat long though as plain and methodical as I could contrive it I shall reduce some of the most material things in it into a narrower compass and compare the Apostle's Arguments with the Reasonings of our Reconciler which will enable every ordinary Reader to judge how unlike they are The Case of the believing Iews 14 Rom. THe Dispute between the believing Jews Gentiles was concerning the observation of the Law of Moses not about things acknowledged to be indifferent The weakness of the Jews which occasioned their scruples was the effect of a great reverence for an express Law which was universally acknowledged to be given by God but was not at that time as visibly repealed as it was given The offence the Jews took against the Gentiles was at the breach of a divine Law which they still believed to be in force and so had as much reason to be offended as they had to believe the obligation of their Law which was so much as to render forbearance reasonable That weakness which pleaded for the indulgence of the Jews was their weakness in the Faith that they were not well confirm'd in the truth of Christianity and therefore ought to be tenderly used and indulged as being neither capable at present of better instruction nor severer government For the danger which the believing Jews were in and which St. Paul endeavoured to prevent was lest they should reject Christianity if Christianity rejected the Law of Moses which they certainly knew to be given by God and therefore it was reasonable to expect a while till they were confirmed in the Faith before they gave them any disturbance about such matters as would endanger their Apostacy while they more firmly believed the obligation of the Law of Moses than they did the Faith of Christ. And indeed God himself had by visible signs instructed both believing Jews and Gentiles not to judge and censure each other nor to break Christian Communion upon theâ—e Disputes because he had received the believing Jews and Gentiles into the visible Communion of the same one Catholick Church by the visible effusion of the Holy Spirit on them both though one observed the Law of Moses and the other did not and therefore it became both Jews and Gentiles to receive one another as Christian Brethren and to worship God together in the Communion of the same holy Offices And whoever after this visible determination made by God himself undertake to judge and censure and deprive each other of Communion for such matters usurp an Authority to judge over Gods judgment to reject those whom God receives which is like judging another mans servant over whom we have no authority for we have no authority to judge one another in such cases which God allows who is the supreme Lord and Judge of us all Besides this both Jews and Gentiles in observing and not observing the Law of Moses did it to the Lord acted out of reverence to the divine Authority The Jews observed the Law because God gave them this Law by Moses and had not so visibly repealed it as to remove all just scruples about it The Gentiles never were under the Law of Moses and God had received them into his Church without imposing that burden on them and therefore they did not observe the Law out of reverence and thankfulness to God for that liberty he had granted them And therefore Jews and Gentiles had reason to receive each other since it was not Humour Peevishness or Faction which made them differ but a regard to God and a reverence for his Authority which they both pretended and which at that time they both had And therefore St. Paul exhorts the believing Gentiles not to use their Christian liberty to the scandal and offence of their weak Brethren For this was such a case wherein they might be very kind to their weak Brethren if they pleased it being onely a restraint of their own private liberty wherein no body was concerned but themselves for though the Gospel had taken away the distinction of clean and unclean meats and made it lawful to eat indifferently of every thing yet it had not made it our duty to eat such things as the Law had forbidden but we might abstain if we pleased and therefore this was a proper Sphere for the exercise of a private charity not to destroy him with our meat for whom Christ died Especially considering that the Christian Religion is not at all concerned in our eating or not eating for the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink and therefore they ought not to transgress the Laws of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost of Brotherly love and charity and the peace and unity of the Christian Church which are great and essential Duties of Religion for the sake of eating or not eating such meats which in it self considered is no act of Religion at all Especially the case being such that men may keep their Faith to themselves and enjoy the private exercise of their liberty without offence Whereas the believing Jew who believes it unlawful to eat meats forbidden by the Law could not comply with the Gentile Christians without sin because it is against the judgment and perswasion of his own mind which makes it very reasonable as well as charitable to leave men to the direction of their own minds in the use of their own liberty where they are under the government and restraint of no other Law neither of God nor men for in this
case if they follow the direction of their own minds they do no injury to any body but themselves in an unnecessary restraint of their own liberty but neither offend God by it nor hurt men but if they act contrary to what they believe to be their Duty in compliance with others they sin in it for every mans private Conscience is his onely Rule where there is no other Law to govern him The Case of the Dissenters THe Dispute between Dissenters and the Church of England is concerning the use of indifferent Rites and Ceremonies in Religious Worship The scruples of Dissenters are not grounded on any express Law acknowledged by all Parties to be a divine Law but are occasioned by their ignorance and perverting of the holy Scriptures and obstinacy against better instruction The Dissenters cannot produce any plain positive Law which is oâ— ever was in force against the Ceremonies of our Church and so have no reasonable pretence to be offended The weakness of Dissenters is not a weakness in the Faith for they firmly believe the Christian Religion but at best a weakness of understanding which is not to be indulged but to be rectified by wise Instructions and prudent Restraints unless we think that every ignorant Christian must give Laws to the Church and impose his own ignorant and childish prejudices Whatever offence the Dissenters take at our Ceremonies it is not pretended that the imposition of them tempts them to renounce Christianity but onely is an occasion of their Schism and makes them forsake the Church for a Conventicle But this is no reason at all in it self for any indulgence and forbearance to be sure is vastly different from the case of the Jews for by the same reaâ—on there must be no Authority and Government in the Church or no exercise of it lest those who will not obey should turn Schismaticks But now besides that it is absolutely impossible for those to receive one another to Communion without mutual offence and scandal who observe such different Rites and Modes of Worship of which more anon God has never by any such visible signs declared that Dissenters should be received to Communion notwithstanding their disobedience to the Authority and non-conformity to the Worship of the Church For as for our Reconciler's invisible communion with God which he grants to his beloved Dissenters who refuse the Communion of the Church St. Paul never thought of it and no body can tell how our Reconciler should know it especially if Schism as he asserts be a damning sin for no man in a state of damnation which it seems is the case of Schismaticks can be in Communion with God But when the Church judges and censures and excommunicates those who refuse to conform to her Worship she does nothing but what she has authority to do for all private Christians are subject to the Authority of the Church in such matters as God has not determined by his own Authority But though our Dissenters pretend Conscience as the reason of their non-conformity yet these pretences are vain and not to be allowed of because there is no plain positive Law of God against it and neither Governours nor private Christians are concerned to take notice of or to make any allowance for every mans private Fancies and Opinions especially in matters of publick Worship which would bring eternal confusions and diâ—orders into the Church There is a great difference between mens doing any thing to the Lord and following their own Consciences or private Opinions the first requires a plain and express Law for our Rule which will justifie or excuse what we do both to God and men but mens private Consciences if they misguide them may deserve our pity but cannot challenge our indulgence Our Reconciler exhorts the Governours of the Church not to exercise their Authority in prescribing the Rules of Order and Decency for publick Worship for fear of offending Dissenters But the Dispute between the Church and Dissenters is of a different consideration it does not concern the exercise of a private liberty wherein all Christians ought to be very prudent and charitable but the exercise of publick Government and the publick administration of Religious Offices which must be governed by other measures than a private charity It is not in the power of private Christians to dispense in such matters as these nor absolutely in the power of Church-Governours who are obliged to take care of the Order and Decency of publick Worship whoever takes offence at it And therefore this cannot relate to indulgence and forbearance in the external Rites and Ceremonies of Religion wherein Religion is nearly concerned for though they be not Acts yet they are the Circumstances of Worship wherein the external Decency of Worship consists which is as necessary as external Worship is And therefore cannot refer to the publick Ceremonies of Religion which if they be practised at all must be practised publickly because they concern the publick acts of Worship There is no avoiding offence in this case by dissembling our Faith or by a private exercise of our liberty but Governours must part with their authority and private Christians with their liberty in such matters which the Apostle nowhere requires any man to do no not to avoid offence Now though our Dissenters pretend that it is against their Consciences to conform to the Ceremonies of the Church and our Reconciler pleads this in their behalf as a sufficient reason why they ought to be indulged yet this is not a good Argument in the case of Dissenters though it was in the case of the Jews because their mistakes do not meerly concern the exercise of their private liberty but publick Worship which is not left to the conduct of every mans private Conscience but to the direction and government of the Laws of God and men And though it be reasonable to leave men to the government of their own Consciences where there is no other Law yet there is no reason for it where there is for if they sin in acting contrary to their Consciences which no man can force them to do so they sin also in following an erroneous Conscience which Governours ought to hinder if they can This I take to be a sufficient Answer to all our Reconciler's Arguments from that condescension and forbearance which St. Paul exhorts the believing Jews and Gentiles to exercise towards each other because the case is vastly different from the case of our Dissenters The Dispute between the Jew and Gentile was not concerning the use of indifferent Rites and Ceremonies in the Worship of God but about the observation of the Law of Moses and those Arguments which the Apostle uses and which were very proper Arguments in that case can by no parity of reason be applied to the Dispute about indifferent things But there are several other considerations which I have already hinted at which plainly shew how vastly different the case of the Jews
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
and Unity in the Christian Church for they may entertain and multiply such Disputes for ever with the same reason that they do now And therefore there is always reason to suppress those Scruples which câ—nnot be cured or outworn by time when Indulgence will not cure the Disease nor time remove it it must be stifled and suppressed by Ecclesiastical Authority Whether our Reconciler will think this a sufficient Answer to his fourth Chapter I cannot tell I am sure I do CHAP. VI. Containing an Answer to the fifth Chapter of the Protestant Reconciler or his Arguments taken from St. Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians HAving in the former Chapter so particularly answered our Reconciler's Arguments taken as he pretends from that condescension and forbearance which St. Paul exhorts the believing Jews and Gentiles to exercise towards each other in that great Dispute about the observation of the Law of Moses there seems little occasion to answer the rest of his Arguments from Scripture which every ordinary Reader may do from the Principles already laid down But that our Reconciler may not complain that he is not answered I am willing to undergo the trouble of a needless Answer if my Readers will be pleased to pardon it His first Argument is from St. Paul's discourse 1 Cor. 6. Where he condemneth the Corinthians because they went to law before the heathens which was a blemish to the Christian Faith and ministred scandal to the heathens and made them apt to think that Christians were covetous contentious and prone to injure one another c. Since therefore our Contentions about these lesser matters do minister far greater Scandal to the Atheist the Sceptick c. our Governours should rather suffer themselves to be restrained a little and even injured in the exercise of their just Power about things unnecessary than by their stiffness to assert and to exert it to continue to give occasion to so great a Scandal to the Christian Faith This is an admirable Argument if it be well considered The Christians must not go to law before Heathen Judges therefore the Governours of the Church must not prescribe the decent Rites and Ceremonies of Worship Yes you will say the Argument is good because the reason is the same to avoid Scandal Let us then suppose this was the reason if we will make these two cases parallel it must be thus To go to law with our Christian Brethren is scandalous and therefore must be avoided to prescribe the decent Rites and Ceremonies of Religion is scandalous and therefore Church-Governours must not exercise this Authority Will our Reconciler now stand to this Proposition No that he durst not affirm that the exercise of a just Authority in these matters is scandalous but the contentions about such Rites and Ceremonies are scandalous and therefore Governours must not insist on their Authority to prescribe them But now this way of stating it does not make the case parallel and therefore he cannot argue by any parity of Reason from one to the other St. Paul exhorts the Christians not to go to law before Heathen Judges because it was scandalous to the Christian Profession to do so and therefore if our Reconciler will make a parallel case he must instance onely in something which is scandalous and then by a parity of reason he may prove that to be forbidden also But neither the Authority to prescribe the decent Rites of Worship nor the prudent exercise of it is scandalous and therefore he cannot prove this to be forbid by any parity of Reason But contentions indeed in the Christian Church whatever be the cause of them are very scandalous and therefore all scandalous contentions are forbid as all scandalous going to law is For we must observe that though the Apostle in the seventh verse tells them There is utterly a fault among you because ye go to law one with another yet he does not absolutely forbid going to law as that signifies using some fair and lawful means of righting our selves when we suffer wrong even from our Christian Brethren but onely as it signifies going to law before the Vnbelievers or Heathen Magistrates for he requires and exhorts them to have their Causes heard and tryed before the Saints that is either the Governours of the Church or any other Christians whom by joynt consent they shall make Judges and Arbitrators among them But to go to law in those days did properly signifie to implead one another before the Heathen Tribunals because there were no other Magistrates at that time who had any legal authority and this going to law was scandalous Thus by a parity of Reason it is onely that contention which is scandalous that can be forbid and therefore for the Governours of the Church to assert their own Authority in ordering the Externals of Religion and for private Christians to defend the Authority of the Church though with some vehemence and earnestness is not scandalous for it is what they ought to do but to contend against the Authority of the Church is a very scandalous contention because it is against the Duty which private Christians owe to their Superiours and therefore whatever Scandal is given by such contentions is wholly owing to the scandalous Contenders that is to the Dissenters who scandalously oppose the Authority and Constitutions of the Church And therefore our Reconciler ought to have reproved the Dissenters and exhorted them to leave off their scandalous contentions not to lay a necessity on the Governors of the Church not to exercise their Authority which these men so scandalously oppose as we find the Apostle in this very place turns the edge of his reproof against those who did the wrong and gave occasion to these scandalous contentions Ye do wrong and defraud and that your brethren Contentions either about the Doctrine Discipline or Worship of the Christian Church are very scandalous but is this a good reason not to contend for the Faith not to oppose Heresies and Schisms because these Disputes represent Christianity as a very uncertain thing and give scandal and offence to Atheists and Infidels then the Orthodox Christians did very ill to meet in such frequent Councils to condemn Arianism and other pestilent Heresies Where there is a Scandal onely on one side and Contention is the onely Scandal this is a good reason against such contentious Disputes but when it is more scandalous to suffer Heresies in the Church to see Ecclesiastical Authority despised to permit any indecencies and disorders different customs and practices in Christian Worship than it is to contend for the Truth and for the Order and Uniformity of publick Worship we must not be afraid to contend for these things the onely scandalous contention being to contend against them His second Argument which he draws out to a great length is taken from 1 Cor. 7. where he tells us that the Apostle grants it is good for a man not to touch a wife
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—
it on the second month by those who were unclean or in a journey on the first month was a violation of what God had prescribed when God himself had expresly prescribed it And let him consider once more whether works of necessity and mercy were a violation of the Sabbatick rest when our Saviour himself poves that they were not that God never intended that the rest of the Sabbath should exclude such works I am sure our Reconciler cannot produce any one instance wherein God permitted and allowed the violation of any ceremonial Law according to the true intent and meaning of the Law without express order for it but on the other hand God was very strict and rigorous in exacting the observation of them and did give as signal examples of his Justice and Severity upon such accounts as upon any other whatever Witness the man who gathered Sticks on the Sabbath-day and was stoned to death for it The fate of Corah Dathan and Abiram who quarrelled with Moses and Aaron which is more like the case of our Dissenters and offered Incense the Earth opened her mouth and swallowed them up and a Fire consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered Incense To which we may adde the case of Vzzah who was struck dead upon the place for touching the Ark of God which was not lawful for him to do though he did it with a very pious intention to preserve it from falling Thus Saul's offering Sacrifice in Samuel's absence though he had a very plausible excuse for it and his sparing Agag the King of the Amalakites and the best of the Sheep and Oxen c. cost him his Kingdom This is no Argument that God was so little concerned about the observation of his ceremonial Laws or thought any thing little which he commanded when he so severely revenged the breach of them God indeed did prefer true and real Righteousness before any ceremonial Observances but he did not therefore countenance the breach of his meanest Laws What our Saviour tells the Pharisees Who payed thythe of mint and anise and cummin and neglected the weightier matters of the law judgment mercy and faith is a standing Rule in all these cases These things ought ye to have done and not to leave the other undone they should observe them both the great and the less matters of the Law and not neglect or despise either So that Gods example in theâ—e matters is so far from helping our Reconciler's Cause that it makes against him God did not equal the Ceremonies of the Law with the more weighty duties of Judgment Mercy and Faith no more than the Church equals a Ceremony with the dearer interesâ—s of Love and Peace and Unity but yet God instituted these Ceremonies and commanded the observation of them and punish'd the breach of them even when the whole Congregation mutinied and rebelled upon it as they did in the case of Corah that is when they came as much in competition with Love and Peace and Unity as the Reconciler pretends our Ceremonies at this day do 2. But if this will not do our Reconciler has another way of arguing from the example of God to oblige the Governours of the Church not to impose these Ceremonies when there are so many Dissenters amongst us who will not submit to them As 1. The example of Gods love in sending his Son into the World that we might live through him why then should they who are commanded to be followers of God as dear children and walk in love refuse to part with their unnecessary Ceremonies and to refrain the exercise of their imposing power in things indifferent Now if our Reconciler will give me a reason why they should not I will tell him why they should God has in infinite goodness sent his Son into the World to save sinners but still they must be saved in that method which Christ has appointed To this end Christ has given us his Laws instituted a Church-Society appointed Stewards of his Family and Rulers of his Houshold and given them authority to govern Religious Assemblies to prescribe the Rules of Worship and the Methods of Discipline and all this for the salvation of mens Souls and therefore the Governours of the Church must not renounce this Authority and the exercise of it because in its rank and order it is subservient to the great end for which God sent Christ into the World viz. the salvation of mens Souls and is instituted by Christ for that purpose But you 'll object that the exercise of this Authority in indifferent things is so far from contributing to the salvation of mens Souls especially in such an Age as this that it destroys them What destroys them the use of indifferent things No men may observe these Ceremonies without prejudicing their salvation What then is it the imposition of these things Nor that neither for to command that which will not destroy mens Souls cannot destroy them What is it then an obstinate refusal to obey such Impositions Right for this makes men Schismaticks and will damn them and thus disobedience to any other of Christs Laws will damn men though Christ died for them And thus according to this way of arguing God who did so infinitely love sinners as to send Christ to save them ought to have given them no Laws nor made any Conditions of salvation for fear men should break them and be damned for it For is it not a greater thing to give his Son for sinners than to indulge them in some little Follies and Extravagances Will God who loved sinners so as to give his own Son for them damn them for stealing a shilling or two for playing the Good-fellow sometimes or for some kind and amorous Embraces Sure he is so good that he will repeal all these Soul-destroying Laws and when we see this done it will be time for the Governours of the Church to renounce their Authority too in imitation of the love of God II. His next Argument is That God is so merciful to weak and erring persons as not to judge condemn or exclude them from his favour for any errours of their judgments which are consistent with true love to him and which they did not wilfully embrace nor do persist in against conviction of their Consciences but will upon a general repentance for their unknown sins receive them to his favour though they live and die under such errours and mistakes Why then should we who are commanded to be merciful as our heavenly Father is merciful reject them from Communion whom God will receive why should we not forbear to condemn and censure them whom God will absolve This is so fulsomly ridiculous that I should be ashamed to answer it were it not very fit to expose such popular Cant. For 1. Though the infinite goodness of God does incline us to hope well of those who lived and died in invincible errours yet we know
not certainly how God will deal with them in the other World God has nowhere told us any thing of it and therefore this is not so certain as to make it a President and Example for Governours 2. But suppose this were so as all of us have reason to hope it is yet this is no Example to Governours in Church or State For there is a vast difference between Gods judgements in the other World and acts of Government and Discipline in this The one respects mens personal deserts and determines their final doom the other onely respects the preservation of good order and government in Church or State And therefore the final judgment considers all circumstances which may deserve reward or punishment pity and compassion not onely what was done but who did it with what intention and designe whether knowingly or ignorantly or the like the other considers onely what is done what prejudice it is to the publick and how such an example deserves to be punished and therefore it is very fitting for earthly Governours to punish those sins which God will pardon because they cannot maintain good Government withour it If through ignorance and mistake though so innocent and involuntary that God may see reason to pardon it any men should disturb the Peace and Order of Church or State it would utterly overthrow all Government if these men must not be restrained nor punished Our Reconciler might have considered that God forgives us all our sins which we sincerely repent of though they were never so great and voluntary and methinks he might as well have undertaken the Cause of penitent Thieves and Rebels and Murderers as of impenitent Schismaticks He should do well when he sees the Tears and Sorrows and Agonies of such guilty Wretches and hears their solemn profession of repentance to mind the Judge and the Jury of the mercy and pitifulness of our good God who forgives the sins of all true Penitents and therefore they who are commanded to be followers of God like dear children to be merciful as our Father which is in Heaven is merciful to put on bowels of compassion as the Elect of God should not hang up those poor penitent Wretches but forgive that on Earth which God will forgive in Heaven Now I wonder how a Judge and Jury would gaze upon such a Reconciler as this whether they would think him fittest for Bedlam or Bridewel It is certain that this good and pitiful God whose Example our Reconciler proposes does himself make a difference between this World and the next in executing Judgments he sometimes punishes those sins in this World which he himself forgives in the next and therefore certainly Earthly Governours whether of Church or State may punish those sins in this World which God will pardon in the next Thus it was in the case of David whom the Prophet Nathan upon his repentance assured that God had pardoned him and yet at the same time denounced the Judgments of God against him the rebellion of his Son Absolom and the death of the child begotten in Adultery Thus we have reason to hope that so pious a man as Vzzah though he was struck dead upon the place yet was not eternally damned for touching the Ark. 3. And yet Gods final Judgment is no Rule and Pattern for humane Judicatures because Earthly Governours do not know the hearts and thoughts of men as Gods does He knows when mens ignorance is invincible and involuntary which no man can know and therefore God can make such allowances in his last and final Judgment which no man can or ought God judges the hearts of men but man can onely judge of their actions and therefore an Earthly Governour may and ought in justice to punish that which God may very equitably pardon 4. Especially considering that this last and final Judgment of God is designed to rectifie all the necessary defects as well as miscarriages of humane Judicatures A man who is guilty of some troublesome errour and mistake may and ought for the publick good to suffer for it in this World though it may be hard that he should suffer for it in the next And this very consideration as I have observed before answers all this difficulty Schismaticks how innocent soever their mistake is ought to be cast out of the Church on â—arth or all Ecclesiastical Authority is lost and the Church left without any Government to defend it self but if the case be favourable God will make allowances for it in the other World and he who is guilty of Schism without a schismatical mind we hope may find mercy And therefore this can be no reason for the Church not to pass her censures upon such men if they are visibly guilty of that which deserves a censure A temporal Judge does not intend to damn every man whom he hangs nor an Ecclesiastical Judge to damn those whom he censures they are onely concerned to see that the Judgment and Censure be deserved in this World but they leave the final Judgment to God himself This I think is enough to answer to this Argument though our Reconciler rhetoricates upon it He observes that the Scripture represents God as very pitiful and we believe God to be very pitiful as any earthly Parent can be but not indulgent to the humour or frowardness of children But it is this God of mercy who himself goes into the mountains to save and to bring home the strayed sheep And thus the Governours of the Church ought to do to bring home stray Sheep into their Fold not to indulge them in their wandrings But God provided an Asylum for him who ignorantly committed murder accidentally he means without intending any such thing which is not the errour of the mind but of the hand and therefore does not relate to this business But God remitted the sin of Abimeleck because he did it ignorantly but Abimeleck had been guilty of no sin for he had not touched Sarah Abraham's Wife But he had mercy of St. Paul for the same reason though he persecuted the Church of Christ but the mercy consisted in bringing him to repentance unless the Reconciler will say too that he had mercy on those who crucified Christ because they did it ignorantly and on all those Jews of whom St. Paul witnesses that they had a zeal for God but not according to knowledge And indeed it is worth coâ—sidering that this Argument of the Reconcilâ—r's pleads â—or a Toleration of all Religions especially if we can suppose that there are honest and ignorant men among them such persons will be received by God according to our Reconciler's Principles whatever Religion they be of Jews or Turks or Pagans though he does none the honour of a particular vindication but onely the Papists If Charity teaches us thus to hope saith the most learned Bishop Sanderson of our forefathers who lived and died in the idolatrous acts of Worship why then should we reject
Apostles which made it necessary to reveal the Gospel-mysteries by degrees and to persons well disposed and qualified to receive them but when a Doctrine has been fully published and confirmed by all necessary evidence and universally received as a Christian Doctrine the Governours and Pastors of the Church must continue to preach it whether Dissenters will hear or no for else we may lose all Christian Doctrines by degrees again and return to our Milk which he says is the Doctrine of Christs Humanity and leave off feeding on strong Meat which he says is the Doctrine of Christs Divinity because Jews and Socinians cannot bear it Whatever has been published by Christ and his Apostles as Christian Doctrine is the sacred Depositum which is committed to the Church and which all Bishops as well as Timothy are commanded to keep 5. His next Motive to condescension is from the consideration of that great Rule of Equity which calls upon us to do to others as we would be dealt with Now I confess this is a very good Topick to declaim on as our Reconciler doth for as it is usually managed it contains an Appeal to the Passions and Interests more than to the Reason of mankind It is a sufficient Answer to this to observe that this Rule obliges no man to do any thing but what is in it self just and equitable to be done for what is more than this how passionately soever men desire it is owing to their fondness and partiality to themselves not to a true reason and judgment of things and therefore unless it appear upon other accounts to be in it self reasonable to grant this Indulgence this Rule cannot make it so To discourse the true meaning of this Rule at large would be too great a digression from my present designe and therefore in answer to what our Reconciler says Would we be contented if we were inferiours to be punished imprisoned and banished for Opinions which we cannot help or shut out from the means of Grace for such Opinions Or should we not be glad that others would bear with us in some lesser matters in which we by our judgments are constrained to differ from them and would not pass upon us the sâ—verest censures because we are constrained thus to differ I say in answer to these and such-like Popular Appeals I shall ask him some other Questions as Whether ever any Offender or Criminal is contented to suffer for his fault or does not earnestly desire to be pardoned and to escape Whether it be unreasonable to punish any man because all men are unwilling to be punished Whether every mans love to himself in such cases or that natural pity which all men have for those who suffer be a Rule for the exercise of publick Discipline and Government in Church or State Whether any man in his wits can think it reasonable that mens private Fancies and Opinions should over-rule the Authority of Church and State Whether is the most pitiable sight to see a flourishing and truly Apostolick Church rent and torn in pieces by Factions and Schisms or to see such Schismaticks suffer in the suppression of their Schism Whether it be reasonable for the Civil Powers to punish Schismaticks when their Schism in the Church threatens the State and makes the Thrones of Princes shake and totter The truth is this Rule To do to others as we desire they should do to us may be a good Rule to direct our private Conversation but it does not extend to publick Government and my reason for it is this That this Rule has respect onely to every mans private happiness and supposes an equality between them For that which makes this a Rule of Equity is that equals as all men are considered as men ought to have equal usage and therefore that natural sense which every man has of happiness that natural aversion to suffer wrong and that natural desire to receive good from others should teach every man to deal by others who have the same sense of happiness and aversion to misery as they desire to be dealt with themselves But now publick Government has a greater respect to the Publick than to any mans private good and a mans private and particular good must give place to the publick Welfare and therefore what aversion soever there is in mankind to suffering it is very fit and just that private men when they deserve it should suffer for the publick Good and it is not every mans love to himself or what he is willing to suffer which is the Rule here but a regard to the publick Good And though all wise and good men ought to prefer the publick Good before their own private Interest yet whatever reason there is for this it is certain mens natural love to themselves to which this Rule appeals will never make them willing to suffer especially when the sufferings are great and capital upon any considerations and therefore to do as we would be done by is not our Rule in such cases for then no fault must ever be punished Nor is there an equality between Governours and Subjects either in Church or State Civil Magistrates are invested with the Authority of God who is the supreme Governour of the World and the Governours of the Church with the Authority of Christ who is the supreme Head of the Church and therefore they are not to consider the private passions and affections of men that because they themselves are not willing to suffer when they are in a fault therefore they must not punish others for they act not as private men but as publick Ministers of Justice and Discipline and where there is an inequality this Rule of Equity will not hold Governours and Subjects are equal considered as men but very unequal as Governours are invested with the Authority of God which sets them above other men This I take to be the true reason why the same men pass such different judgments on the same thing when they are Subjects and when they are Governours because when they are Subjects they have a principal regard to a private and particular good and consult the desires and weaknesses and passions of humane nature when they are Governours they have a greater regard to a publick good and consider what their Character and Office and Authority requires them to do Thus we know when some of our Dissenters had got the Power in their hands they were as severe in pressing Conformity to their new Models and Platforms as loud and fierce in their Declamations against Toleration as now they are against Conformity and for a Toleration When they had the Power in their hands they saw plainly what the necessities of Government required now the Power is out of their hands they consider what is necessary to their own preservation which makes them dislike those things when the Government is against them which they saw a necessity of before This is universally true of all
very foolish Argument against either The true Argument against the Dissenters is this That they are bound to obey their Superiours in those things which God has not forbidden for where God has not interposed his Authority they are subject to the Authority of their Governours The Argument is not That they are in all cases bound to do what God has not forbid them to do which is ridiculously absurd for what is not unlawful not forbidden by God may either be done or may be let alone without sin unless some other consideration besides its being not forbidden alter the case But the Argument is this That what God has not forbidden Governours may command and Subjects are bound in Conscience to obey Let us see then how he applies this to our Imposers as he modestly calls our Governours in Church and State It is not unlawful as not forbidden by God to leave these Ceremonies indiffâ—rent so far indeed it agrees with the case of the Dissenters that the Ceremonies are not unlawful as not being forbidden by God but now where is the superior Authority over Governours to make it unlawful for them to impose that which it is not unlawful not to impose then the case of Imposers would be exactly parallel with the Dissenters who are under the Authority of their Governours which makes that their duty which God had left indifferent and that unlawful which God had by no express prohibition made unlawful but here the Parallel fails and therefore the Argument is not the same For the supreme Authority of Church and State can have no superiour Authority on Earth to make that unlawful to them which God has not made unlawful All that our Reconciler offers to this purpose is onely this That the avoiding scandal and offence and the preservation of Charity Peace and Vnity in the Church lays as necessary an obligation on Governours to forbear what they may lawfully forbear for the promoting these ends as the Authority of Governours obliges Subjects to obey them in all things wherein they lawfully may that is that Governours are bound not to command any thing which they may lawfully not command when hereby they serve the ends of Charity and Peace Now if this were the case yet so the Argument would not be the same for then we must state the case of Governours thus That they must not do that which is unlawful to be done not that they must not do that which is not unlawful not to be done The Authority of Governours does not alter the intrinsick nature of things and therefore we may very properly say that Subjects must obey their Governours in all things which are not unlawful and that the things commanded are not in their own natures unlawful is a good Argument to oblige them to obey but the end and circumstances of action alters its moral nature and that which in some circumstances is not unlawful in other circumstances becomes absolutely unlawful And if this be the case here that the imposition of these Ceremonies is unlawful when it gives scandal and offence and disturbs the Peace and Unity of the Church then the Argument to disswade Governours from such Impositions is not that it is not unlawful to forbear imposing which is parallel to the Argument used against Dissenters that it is not unlawful to obey but that it is unlawful to impose in such circumstances which differ as much as to perswade men not to do what they lawfully may not do differs from disswading them from doing what is not lawful to be done This I think is abundantly enough to shew that our Reconciler is very much out in his Logick when he makes this Argument against Dissenters and Imposers to be the same as for the Argument it self that it is unlawful for Governours to impose these Ceremonies when it gives offence and scandal to weak Brethren c. I have sufficiently answered that already 3. His next Argument which he says equally holds against the Dissenters and Imposers is taken from the littleness and small importance of the things upon which we are divided and it is in short this That Dissenters ought not to disturb the Peace of the Church by refusing obedience in such little things nor the Governours of the Church by imposing such little things Now I need not concern my self about this Argument which is not likely to have any effect either upon Dissenters or Imposers who if they understand themselves and act honestly it is plain do not think these things so little and inconsiderable that they are not worth contending about That the decent Ceremonies of Religion are not such very contemptible things I have already proved at large in the first Chapter that they are not so little that Governours ought not to impose them I have proved at the beginning of this Chapter and that sufficiently proves that this is no Argument against Governours and if as our Reconciler says it be an unanswerable Argument against Dissenters I am contented to leave it so However our Reconciler is mightily out when he thinks the littleness of a thing to be as good an Argument against the imposition of Governours as against the disobedience of Dissenters for Governours are bound to take care of little as well as of great things because things which are little in themselves may have very great effects either good or bad but there is no excuse for the disobedience of Subjects in such cases for the less the command is the less reason have they to refuse obedience I believe all Parents and Governours in the world think so excepting our Reconcilers In the next place our Reconciler argues from many general Topicks received and owned by all Casuists As 1. Qui non vetat peccare cùm possit jubet Which he translates thus He that being a Superiour a Father a Master of a Family c. doth not what lawfully he may for the prevention of the sin of those who are subject to his government becomes partakers of their sin Now suppose all this what care can be taken to prevent sin which it becomes Governours to take which is neglected by the Church of England Yes says the Reconciler they may abate those Impositions which occasion the Schism But this has been so often answered already that I shall now onely direct my Readers in the Margin where to find the Answer 2. He says Divines concerning the right interpretation of the Ten Commandments and of the Laws of Christ do generally lay down these Rules viz. That when any thing is forbidden by these Laws all those things are forbidden also which follow from that forbidden action and for whose sake it was forbidden Now I think this is a very good Rule and if he can prove that the imposition of these Ceremonies is a forbidden action I will grant that the Schism which is consequent upon it is imputable to the Church but if it be not forbidden if the Church has this
Authority and ought to take care of the decent circumstances of Worship then the Schism can be charged onely upon the disobeying Schismatick But this I have largely discoursed in the place before cited And now I come to those shrewd Questions which our Reconciler says he has met with in the Books of the Dissenters to which he finds no answer in the Replys of any of their Adversaries and which he entreats the Champions for the Church of England as they respect the credit of our Church-Governours the reputation of the Church and of her Discipline not to pass by without the least notice taken of them as hitherto they have done Now though I do not pretend to the honour and character of a Champion yet I have such a hearty love and reverence for my dear Mother the Church of England that I cannot deny so easie a Request as this the most troublesome task being to transcribe all these Questions Quest. 1. The first Question is Whether they do well that unnecessarily bring Subjects into such a straight by needless Laws for additions in Religion that the Consciences of men fearing God must unavoidably be perplexed between a fear of treason and disobedience against Christ and disobedience to their Prince and Pastors Ans. I answer Such men do certainly very ill in it but then this is not the case of the Church of England for she has made no needless Laws for Laws to direct and determine the external circumstances of Worship according to the Rules of Order and Decency are not needless but necessary as I have already proved Our Reconciler grants that the Church has this Authority and if the exercise of it be needless the Authority is so too and then Christ has given his Church a needless Authority for I suppose he will not own that the Church has any Authority but what she has from Christ. Nor does the Church make any additions in Religion for the decent circumstances of Worship are no additions to external Worship but as necessary to it as Decency is unless our Reconciler thinks that it is an addition to the Law of God which commands us to reverence our Prince and Parents and Superiours to command Children Servants or Subjects to stand bare before them Nor need the Consciences of men fearing God be unavoidably perplexed between a fear of treason and disobedience against Christ and of disobedience to their Prince and Pastors for a great many men who fear God are not thus perplexed and therefore it is not unavoidable I will instance onely in the Reconciler himself if he will give me leave to reckon him among those men who either fear God or reverence their Prince and Pastors And there is another good reason why this is not unavoidable because there is no competition in this case between obedience to Christ and obedience to our Prince and Pastors and therefore no man need to be perplexed about it and if there were a plain competition there were no need of being thus perplexed neither because all men who fear God do or ought to understand that where Christ commands one thing and our Prince another inconsistent with the command of Christ we must obey God rather than men Quest. 2. Whether Rulers may command any indifferent and unnecessary thing which will notably do more harm than good or make an unnecessary necessary thing a means or occasion of excluding the necessary Worship of God or preaching of the Gospel Ans. If by indifferent and unnecessary things he means things wholly useless and by their notably doing more harm than good that they are in their own nature hurtful as well as useless it is certain Governours ought not to command such things but what is this to the Church of England The Ceremonies of our Church though upon some accounts they may be called indifferent yet are very useful as contributing to the Decency of Worship which is as necessary as publick Worship is and are not apt to do any hurt at all and therefore are the proper Object of Ecclesiastical Authority And with what face can our Reconciler pretend that they exclude the necessary Worship of God or preaching of the Gospel when God is still worshipped and the Gospel preached in all the Parish-churches of England unless he thinks that God is not worshipped nor the Gospel preached any where but at a Conventicle Quest. 3. Whether is it more to common good and the interest of Honesty and Conscience that all the Parsons in a Nation be imprisoned banished or silenced that dare not swear say and practise all that is imposed on them than that unnecessary impositions be altered or forborn Now I think I may have the liberty to ask our Reconciler a Question now and then I ask therefore Whether is most for the common good that there should be any setled Order and Government in the Church or that there should be none Whether it is possible to maintain any Order or Government without rejecting and censuring those who will not conform to it Whether is most for the publick good to maintain and encourage a loyal and conformable Clergy when there is no scarcity of such men or to nourish Shism and Schismaticks to say no worse Quest. 4. Had Images been lawfully used in places or exercise of Gods Worship yet whether was it not inhumane and unchristian in those Bishops and Councils who anathematized all that were of a contrary mind and ejected and silenced the Dissenters Ans. The bare lawfulness of any thing does not make it a fit matter for a Law but whatever is both lawful and useful if it be enjoyned by a just Authority ought to be obeyed by the Members of that Church where it is enjoyned and Dissenters ought to be censured according to the nature of the offence for without this there can be no government in the Church But why he particularly instances in Images I cannot tell unless it be to insinuate that the Ceremonies of our Church are of the same nature with them but our Church which retains Ceremonies removed Images as just matters of scandal and offence Quest. 5. Whether Christ who made the Baptismal Covenant the test and standing terms of entrance did set up Pastors over his Church to make new and stricter terms and Laws or to preserve Concord on the terms that he had founded it and to see that men lived in Vnity and Piety according to those terms and when they as Christs Ministers have received men on Christs terms whether they may excommunicate and turn them out of the Church again for want of more or onely for violating these Ans. The Baptismal Covenant is sufficient for our admission into the Church but Church-communion requires our submission to church-Church-authority as I have already shewn and to say that nothing more is required of us in a Society than what is necessary to our admission into it is contrary to the nature of all Societies in the World wherein the
terms of admission are very different from the Rules of Government That a man has served an Apprentiship to a Trade and is made free by his Master is sufficient to make him a Member of such a Corporation but though he understand his Trade very well and behaves himself honestly in it yet if he prove a disobedient and refractory Member to the government of the Society he may be cast out again and I wonder what the Master and Wardens of such a Company would say to the Reconciler should he come and plead in the behalf of such a disobedient Member that they ought not to make any thing necessary to his continuance in and communion with the Society but what was necessary to his first admission The Charter whereon the Society is founded is very different from the particular Laws of the Society whereby it is governed as it must be where there is any power of making Laws committed to the Governours of it and therefore if Christ has committed such a power of making Laws to his Church as our Reconciler himself acknowledges it is a ridiculous thing to say that they must not excommunicate or cast any man out of the Church who believes the Christian Religion and lives a vertuous life which is the sum of the Baptismal Covenant how disobedient soever he be to the Laws and Government of the Church Which is a sufficient Answer to Quest. 6. His sixth Query Whether anathematizing men for doubtful actions or for such faults as consist with true Christianity and continued subjection to Iesus Christ be not a sinful Church-dividing means Onely I shall observe farther that as he has stated this Query it does not concern the Church of England She anathematizes no man for doubtful actions for she commands nothing that is doubtful though some men are pleased to pretend some doubts and scruples about it But I have already shewn that there is a great difference between a doubtful action and an action which some men doubt of the first ought not to be commanded the second may And then our Church excommunicates no man who lives in a continued subjection to Iesus Christ which no Schismatick does whatever pretences he makes to holiness of life for subjection to Christ requires subjection to that Authority which Christ has set in his Church as well as obedience to his other Laws Quest. 7. As for his next Question about imposing heavy burdens and intolerable yokes when Christ came to take them away it has been at large answered already Quest. 8. Whether Christ hath not made Laws sufficient to be the Bond of Vnity to his Church and whether any man should be cut off from it who breaketh no Law of God necessary to Church-unity and communion Ans. Christ has made Laws sufficient to be the Bond of Unity to his Church for he has commanded all Christians to submit to the Authority which he has placed in his Church which is the onely Bond of Union in a particular Church and therefore those who are cut off from the Church for their disobedience to Ecclesiastical Authority while nothing is enjoyned which contradicts the other Laws of our Saviour cannot be said to break no Law of God necessary to Church-unity or communion for they break that Law which is the very Bond of Union and deserve to be cut off though they should be supposed to break no other Law of Christ. Quest. 9. Whether if many of the children of the Church were injudiciously scrupulous when fear of sin and Hell was the cause a tender Pastor would not abate them a Ceremony in such a case when his abating it hath no such danger Ans. A tender Pastor in such cases ought to instruct such children but not to suffer such childish fancies to impose upon Church-authority For to disturb the Peace and Order of the Church and to countenance mens injudicious scruples by such indulgence is a much greater mischief and more unpardonable in a Governour than the severest censures on private persons If a private connivance for a time in some hard cases would do any good it might be thought reasonable and charitable but to alter publick Laws and Constitutions for the sake of such injudicious people is for ever to sacrifice the Peace and Order and good Government of the Church to the humours of children which would not be thought either prudent or charitable in any other Government Quest. 10. If diversity in Religion be such an evil whether should men cause it by their unnecessary Laws and Canons and making Engines to tear the Church in pieces which by the ancient simplicity and commanded mutual forbearance would live in such a measure of Love and Peace as may be here expected Ans. Whoever cause a diversity of Religions by their Laws and Canons or make Engines to tear the Church in pieces are certainly very great Schismaticks but Laws for Unity and Uniformity can never make a diversity of Religions nor occasion it neither unless every thing produces its contrary heat produce cold peace war and love hatred Men may quarrel indeed about Laws of Unity and Uniformity but it is the diversity of Religions or Opinions which men have already espoused not the Laws of Unity which makes the quarrel The plain case then is this Whether when men are divided in their opinions and judgments of things and if they be left to themselves will worship God in different ways according to their own humours and perswasions it be unlawful for Church-Governours to make Laws for Unity and Uniformity because whatever they be some men will quarrel at them Or whether the Church may justly be charged with making a diversity of Religions by making Laws to cure and restrain that diversity of Religions which men have already made to themselves It is certain were men all of a mind the Laws of Unity could not make a difference and therefore these Laws and Canons are not the Engines which tear the Church in pieces but that diversity of opinions which men have wantonly taken up and for the sake of which they tear and divide the Church into a thousand Conventicles But had it not been for these Canons by the ancient simplicity and mutual forbearance they would live in such a measure of love and peace as may be here expected But what ancient simplicity does he mean The Church of England is the best Pattern this day in the World of the Primitive and Apostolick simplicity for a Phanatick simplicity was never known till of late days there never was a Church from the Apostles days without all Rites and Ceremonies of Worship till of late when men pretended to reform Religion by destroying all external Order and Decency of Worship and therefore he is fain to take in a commanded mutual forbearance to patch up Church-unity that is if men be permitted to worship God as they please and are commanded not to quarrel with one another and are not permitted to cut
the coming of his Kingdom is to pray for the enlargement of his Church which was never enlarged yet by the preaching of Schismaticks which divides and lessens the Church but will never enlarge it and therefore those who pray heartily Thy Kingdom come must take care to suppress all Schisms and Schismatical Preachers who are the great Obstacle to the enlargement of Christ's Kingdom Q. 3. Can you or any mortal man prove that others may not be allowed to differ from you in such things wherein you differ from the Apostolick Primitive Church Ans. I dare put the final decision of this Controversie upon this issue whether the Church of England or Dissenters come nearest to the Pattern of the Apostolick Primitive Church But though it should be granted that we do not use all those Ceremonies which were in use in the Apostles times and that we use some which were not then used yet this will not justifie Dissenters for the Church in all Ages has authority to appoint her own Rites and Ceremonies of Worship while they comply with that general Rule of Decency and Order but private Christians have no authority to dissent from the Church while she enjoyns nothing which is contrary to the divine Laws Q. 4. What if the old Liturgie and that new one compiled and presented to the Bishops at the Savoy 1661. had both passed and been allowed for Ministers to use as they judged most convenient might not several Ministers and Congregations in this case have used several Modes of Worship without breach of the Churches Peace or counting each other Schismaticks What if our King and Parliament should make a Law enjoyning Conformists and Nonconformists that agree in the same Faith and Worship for substance to attend peaceably upon their Ministry and serve God and his Church the best they can whether they use the Ceremonies and scrupled expressions of the Liturgie or no without uncharitable reflections or bitter censures upon one another in word or writing where would be the sinfulness of such a Law Ans. This is much like Mr. Humphrey's Project of uniting all Dissenters into one National Church by an Act of Parliament under the King as the accidental Head of the Church which is largely and particularly answered in the Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation The onely fault in short is this That it destroys the Unity of the Church by dividing Christians into distinct and separate Communions and lays a foundation of eternal Schisms and Emulations which no Laws can prevent As for Mr. Baxter's Liturgy I confess I do not see why men may not as well be allowed to pray ex tempore as to use a form of Prayer which was written ex tempore It argued very little modesty in those men to present such crude and indigested stuff to the Commissioners and it argues as little understanding and honesty in our Reconciler to plead for it Q. 5. Dissenters ought for the Peace and Vnity of the Church to yield as far as they can without sinning against God and their own Souls and should not Imposers do the like Were this one Rule agreed on what Peace and Vnity would soon follow And if the obligation to preserve the Churches Peace extend so far as to the Rulers and Governours of the Church there may be as much Schism in their setting up unnecessary Rules which others cannot submit to as in mens varying from such Rules Ans. I wonder what these men mean by the Dissenters yielding as if they stood upon equal terms with the Church and that the Church and Dissenters like two Equals to compose a difference and quarrel should yield and condescend to each other The Dissenters ought not to yield to but to obey the Chuâ—ch the Church ought not to yield to Dissenters but to govern prudently and charitably The Church has done her part as I have already proved and the onely quarrel is that Dissenters will not do theirs But what an admirable Rule is this to make Peace when they do not they cannot tell us how far the Dissenters will yield and what the Church must yield to make Peace but for ought I perceive this is a great secret and like to continue so I suppose the Dissenters aâ—ter all think they can yield nothing and the Church sees no reason to alter any thing and here is an end of this Project Indeed it appears that the designe is to perswade the Church to yield every thing all her unnecessary Rules which others cannot otherwise called will not submit to that is at least all the decent Ceremonies of Worship if not her own Authority too And the onely Argument he uses to prove that the Church ought to yield is because Dissenters ought to yield that is it is the duty of Governours to submit to their Subjects because it is the duty of Subjects to submit to their Governours I do not much care to be an Undertaker and yet I will venture for once to propose this Expedient for Peace Let the Dissenter as in duty bound yield as far as he can without sinning against God and his own Soul and the Church shall yield every thing else that is necessary to this desired Union This is but a reasonable Proposition not onely because Subjects ought first to yield but because the Church knows not what is necessary to be yielded till she sees how far the Dissenter can yield Indeed would the Dissenter yield as far as he can without sinning against God and his own Soul there would be no need for the Churches yielding any thing for the Church enjoyns nothing which is a sin against God or injurious to the Souls of men and there is great reason to believe that the Dissenters themselves do not think she does Both dissenting Preachers and Hearers when it serves a secular interest can hear the Common-Prayer receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper kneeling though the Minister officiate in a Surplice and I am so charitable as to hope that when they do so they do not believe that they sin in it and therefore all this they can yield without sinning against God or their own Souls and therefore this they ought to yield and then there will be little left for the Church to yield His two next Questions Whether the Worship of God cannot be performed decently and in order without these Ceremonies and whether if men must be without the Word and without Sacraments rather than without these Ceremonies which yet there is no necessity of nor is it the intention of the Church that it should be so as you have already heard this do not make them of equal necessity with divine Institutions have been already answered at large in the first Chapter Q. 8. Whether the constitution of the Church should not be set as much as may be for the incompassing of all true Christians and whether the taking of a narrower compass be not a fundamental errour
in its policy and will not always hinder its stability and increase Ans. The plain meaning of which Question is this Whether it be not the best way to sâ—cure the Church against her Popish Adversaries to unite all Protestants of what denomination soever into one body and whether it be not more probable that a little Church which has not many Members nor any worldly strength and interest to support it should be sooner destroyed than a numerous flourishing and potent Church In answer to which we may consider 1. It were very desirable that the Church could be so modelled as to receive all Protestants and Papists also into our Communion that the Christian Church might have no Enemies who call themselves Christians but this is impossible to be done while both of them recede so far from the Principles of Catholick Communion 2. The Unity and Peace of the Church within it self how small soever it be is a better security to it than Schisms and Discords in its own bowels and make the foundation of the Church as large as you please if the building be not closely united in all its parts it will fall with its own weight While men are possess'd with Schismatical Principles it is not enough to make a lasting Union to remove those particular things about which they differ at present for when men are given to quarrel they will never want occasions for it Take away every thing which our Dissenters quarrel at and you leave no remains of a Church of England and thus indeed you may enlarge the Church by pulling it down by plucking up all its Hedges and Fences that it shall be no longer an Inclosure but a Common A Church which makes no new Articles of Faith nor rejects any old one which sets up no idolatrous and superstitious Worship which observes all the Institutions of our Saviour and secures the decency of publick Worship and exercises her Authority for the government of Religious Societies and the acts of Discipline prudently and charitably has laid her foundations as wide as she can and as she lawfully may and those who will not embrace her Communion upon these terms must stay out 3. For at best this is nothing more than carnal Policy to think to secure the Church by our strength and numbers The preservation of the Church is not owing to an arm of flesh but to the protection of Christ. His Flock is but a little Flock but all the united strength and power of the World cannot destroy it the gates of Hell cannot prevail against it 4. When we speak of enlarging the Constitutions of the Church so as to incompass all true Christians we ought to have a principal regard to the Communion of the Catholick Church and those who take any other compass than what is consistent with Catholick Communion though they should inclose a whole Nation of Dissenters they would mightily straiten the foundations of the Church Those who reject all external Rites of Decency and Order as unlawful in Christian Worship and reform and enlarge the Church upon these Principles reject the Communion of all Christian Churches that ever were in the World for 1500 years and of most Churches at this day and if this should enlarge the Church in England the Catholick Church would gain little by it when it unchurches most other Churches in the World The Church of England is modelled by such Principles that she can hold Communion with all sound and Catholick Churches that are now or ever were in the World and all Catholick Churches may have Communion with her which is as large a compass as she ought to take for that Church is a little too large which takes in Schismaticks to her Communion and too narrow which excludes any true Catholick Churches Thus I have answered those Questions which our Reconciler borrowed from Mr. Baxter and Mr. Barret and to these he has added some of his own which I must consider also Q. 9. Whether Baptism being requisite for the new birth of Infants and their regeneration by the Holy Spirit it be not hardship to lay such an unnecessary Condition on the Parents who have power to offer or withold the Child from Baptism which shall cause them to deprive their Infants of so great a benefit may not such Children complain in the language of St. Cyprian Nos parvuli quid fecimus Ans. Now though this may be easily answered by observing that in danger of death Children are allowed to be baptized privately without the signe of the Cross and therefore no Child in ordinary cases can die without Baptism but by the great neglect and carelesness of Parents how scrupulous soever they are of the signe of the Cross yet since it is so much in fashion to ask Questions I know not why I may not ask a few Questions too which I would desire our Reconciler to resolve and they shall be but very short ones As 1. How do Children come to have any right to Baptism is it an original right of their own or in the right of their Parents 2. If Children have a right to Baptism onely in the right of their Parents how do the Children of Schismaticks who though they are baptized themselves yet have renounced the Communion of the Church come to have any right to be received into the Communion of the Church by Baptism 3. How is the Church obliged to receive those children into Communion by Baptism whom she certainly knows if their Parents live will be nurst up in a Schism 4. How is the Church more concerned to alter her Constitutions for the children of Schismaticks than for their Schismatical Parents When he has answered these Questions I will answer his in the mean time I will proceed Q. 10. If men conceive themselves obliged to do all they can for the securing and restoring of the civil Peace when it is once disturbed and would not stick to lay aside a civil if unnecessary Ceremony for the prevention of civil Broils and the effusion of Christian bloud how frivolous soever were the exceptions of the seditious against it must they not be as much obliged to do the like for the prevention of Ecclesiastical Confusions and the effusion of the bloud of precious and immortal Souls Ans. No doubt but they are But as a wise Prince ought not to part with that Power and Authority which is necessary to preserve Peace and to prevent civil Wars and Confusions for the future onely that he may allay and prevent some present Heats and Commotions no more ought the Church to heal a present Schism by laying a foundation for eternal Schisms The example of our late martyred Soveraign will teach all Princes to beware of the one and those infinite Schisms which followed the dissolution of the Church of England will convince any man how impossible it is to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church without the exercise of Ecclesiastical Authority Q. 11. Would not our
Reverend Bishops once have condescended to these terms of Vnion would they not have rejoyced to have seen the Church restored and themselves readmitted to the execution of their sacred Function upon such terms as the abatement of such trivial things Ans. I judge it very likely they might as a banished Prince would be glad to be restored to his Crown again though he parted with some Jewels out of it But when the providence of God restores them to the exercise of their Function without any such restraints and limitation of their power it is their duty to use their whole power as prudently and charitably as they can The restoring of Episcopacy restored the face of a Church again which was nothing but a Schism without it and no doubt but all good men would be very glad of this though upon hard and disadvantageous terms but surely to restore the Church to its ancient beauty and lustre in a regular and decent administration of all holy Offices is more desirable than nothing but the meer being of a Church still deformed with the marks and ruines of an old Schism and therefore when this can be had it ought to be had and it is a ridiculous thing to imagine that Bishops must use no other authority in the government of the Church when they are in a full possession of their power than barely so much as they would have been contented to have bargained for with Schismaticks when they were thrust out of all power Though whether St. Cyprian would have made any such bargain with Schismaticks as inferred a diminution of the Episcopal Authority I much question Had the Wisdom of the Nation at the happy return of his Majesty to his Throne thought fit to have made any tryal and experiment what some condescensions and abatements would have done the Reverend Bishops no doubt would have acquiesced in it not out of any opinion they had of such methods but to satisfie those who do not see the events of things at a distance by making the experiment But that factious and restless Spirit of Phanaticism which began immediately to work convinced our Prince and Parliament how dangerous such an experiment would be and prevented the tryal of it and now we have such fresh and repeated experiments how dangerous these Factions are both to Church and State our Reconciler would perswade our Governours out of their senses to cherish those men who if they be not suppressed will most infallibly involve this unhappy Church and Kingdom in Bloud and Confusion As for what our Reconciler adds concerning the Rubrick about kneeling at the Sacrament and the Canon about bowing of the body in token of our reverence of God when we come into the place of publick Worship have been sufficiently answered already CHAP. VIII Containing some brief Animadversions on the Authorities produced by our Reconciler in his Preface and the Conclusion of the whole with an Address to the Dissenters THus I have with all plainness and sincerity examined the whole reason of this book for as for the remaining Chapters whatever is of any moment in them I have answered before in the first and second Chapters of this Vindication whether the Answer I have given be satisfactory or not I must leave to others to judge but I can honestly say I have used no tricks and evasions nor have I used any Argument but what is satisfactory to my self All that remains now is a brief examination of those Authorities our Reconciler has produced in his Preface to prove that our own Kings and many famous Doctors of our own Church besides many foreign Divines have pleaded for that condescension for which he pleads in this Book Now I thought it the best way in the first place to examine his Reasons for this condescension for if there be no reason to do this it is no great matter who pleads for it without reason and yet I should be very unwilling to leave such a reproach upon so many great men that they declare their opinions and judgment for a Cause which has no reason to support it And therefore to give a fair account of this also I reviewed his Preface and found there were two ways of answering it either by examining his particular Testimonies we having no reason to believe any thing upon his credit or by taking the Testimonies for granted and shewing that this does not prove that they were of his mind The first of these I had no great stomach to as being a tedious and troublesome work which would swell this Vindication to a great bulk which is grown too big already and the onely end it could serve is to prove that the Protestant Reconciler does not quote his Authors faithfully but I have already given such evidence of this in my Vindication of Bishop Taylor as will spoil his credit with all wary men And therefore I resolved upon the other way of answering him to shew that the Testimonies produced by him as he produces them do not prove what he intended them for But I called to mind that I had a Book written upon this very subject entituled Remarks upon the Preface to the Protestant Reconciler in a Letter to a Friend which I read over and to my great comfort found my work done to my hand for that Author has with great judgment said whatever I can think proper to be said in this Cause and therefore I shall onely give some little hints of what I intended more largely to discourse and refer my Readers to those Remarks for further satisfaction The intention of this Preface our Reconciler tells us p. 3. was to strengthen the designe of his Book by the concurrent suffrages of many worthy Persons both of our own and other Churches who have declared themselves to be of the same judgment and have pursued the same designe which he has done in his Book Now the designe of his Book as I have shewn from his own words in my Introduction p. 13 14. is to prove that it is utterly unlawful for the Governours of the Church to impose the observation of indifferent Rites and Ceremonies in Religion especially when these Ceremonies are scrupled and many professed Christians rather chuse to separate from the Church than submit to them Now to prove this he first alleadges the Authority of three Kings King Iames King Charles the first the Royal Martyr and best of Kings and men as he is pleased to stile him and our present Soveraign and I know not where he could have named three other Kings more averse to his Reconciling designe What King Iames his Judgment was is evident from the Conference at Hampton-court where he so severely determined against Dissenters and kept his word all his reign without granting any liberty to these pretended scruples which is very strange had he been of our Reconciler's mind that it is unlawful to impose these Ceremonies upon a scrupulous Conscience How much King Charles the first suffered
for denying this liberty and indulgence is known to all men and it is hard to think then that he was a Reconciler for never any Reconciler was a Martyr for the Church And methinks the Act of Uniformity and the prosecution of Dissenters upon that and former Acts might convince any reasonable man that our present Soveraign is none of his Protestant Reconcilers But if notwithstanding all this he can prove against plain matter of fact and the evidence of sense and the experience and complaints of Dissenters all these to be Reconciling Kings I am resolved I will be a Protestant Reconciler too and I hope I may pass for as good a Reconciler as any of these renowned Kings without recanting this Book Let us hear then how he proves these great Princes to be Reconcilers As for King Iames he proves him to be a Reconciler from Casaubon's Epistle to Cardinal Perroon Now how faithfully Casaubon represented the Kings Judgment is more than our Reconciler can tell onely I am certain he did misrepresent him if he made a Reconciler of him But there is no reason to take Sanctuary in this for whoever considers the occasion of those words may put a very sober construction on them without giving any countenance to our Reconciler for the Dispute did not concern the Rules of Order and Decency in Religious Worship but the unscriptural Innovations of Popery which they imposed upon all Churches as terms of Catholick Communion Now in this Controversie any man may safely say what Casaubon says for the King without being a Protestant Reconciler For there is no nearer way of concord than to separate things necessary from unnecessary to call nothing simply necessary but what the Word of God commandeth to be believed or done or which the ancient Church did gather from the Word of God by necessary consequence that other humane Constitutions whatever antiquity or authority is pretended for them might be changed mollified antiquated and that this may in the general be said of most Ecclesiastical observations introduced without the Word of God Now this does not refer to the decent Circumstances and Ceremonies of Religion but to such Ecclesiastical observations as are in dispute between us and the Church of Rome as the Celibacy of the Clergy Prayers for the Dead Pilgrimages Monastick Vows the Worship of Saints and Angels and Images and the like for which the Church of Rome pretends the Authority of ancient Councils or the ancient practice and usage of the Church Now in these cases I am perfectly of the Kings mind and yet do not take my self to be a Protestant Reconciler in our Authors way Our Royal Martyr when he saw what danger Church and State and his own Royal Person was in from the outrageous zeal of dissenting Protestants who did not now humbly beg for Indulgence and Toleration but contended for Rule and Empire was willing if it were possible to allay these Heats and divert the Storm by yiâ—lding somewhat to their boisterous and threatning importunities and if he had yielded a great deal more at that time than he did I think it had been no argument of his own setled judgment of things The Reconciler might hence prove that the King thought it much better to yield a little at that time than to ruine Church and State by too much stiffness not that he thought it unlawful to impose any thing on his Subjects in matters of Religion which they were pleased to scruple And yet what is it that the King yielded under these necessities For that our Reconciler produces these words As for differences among our selves for matters indifferent in their own nature concerning Religion we shall in tenderness to any number of our loving Subjects very willingly comply with the advice of our Parliament that some Law may be made for the exemption of tender Consciences from punishment or prosecution for such Ceremonies and in such cases which by the judgment of most men are held to be matters indifferent and of some to be absolutely unlawful Does the King in these words promise to alter the Constitutions of the Church to abolish all Ceremonies c By no means he onely says that he will comply with the advice of his Parliament to exempt such tender Consciences from punishment And how can our Reconciler hence conclude that the King believed it unlawful to impose these Ceremonies because at such a critical time he was contented there should be some provision made to secure Dissenters from the execution of the penal Laws And yet that ill usage which so excellent a Prince met with from these dissenting Protestants after such a condescension as this gives no great encouragement to Princes to try this Experiment again Thus he proves our present Soveraign to be of his mind by his Declaration from Breda which he prints at large I suppose for fear People should forget that there had been such a Declaration or what were the contents of it How the present circumstances of affairs at that time might incline his Majesty to such a condescension is not my business to inquire it is sufficient for us to know that the House of Commons presented their Reasons to the King against that Declaration which so far satisfied him that he gave his assent to the Act of Uniformity and therefore I suppose is not of our Reconciler's mind now and indeed never was notwithstanding that Declaration for he never asserted it unlawful to impose scrupled Ceremonies upon Dissenters but thought it expedient at that time to indulge their weakness And while matters were under debate for the re-establishment of the Church of England no wonder that the King and his great Ministers should make Proposals of Accommodation and offer their Reasons and Arguments for it but I always thought that what is said by any person on one side or other while the matter is under debate is not so good an Argument what his judgment and opinion is as what he agrees and consents to when the Reasons on both sides have been heard and scann'd Thus our Kings are our own again and of all men in the world have the least reason to countenance such a designe as this which serves onely to encourage a busie and restless Party among us who first strike at the Church but will never be quiet till they have usurp'd the Throne What the sence of our Church is in this matter is evident from her Articles Canons and Constitutions and this signifies a great deal more to me than the opinion of any private Doctors of what note and eminency soever It is unreasonable to oppose the authority of any particular Doctors to the Judgment of the Church and it would be an endless work to number the Votes and Suffrages of private Doctors on both sides indeed their authority is no greater than their reason is and if any of them be of our Reconciler's mind I am sure they speak without book unless they have something more
to say than our Reconciler has and when we know what it is we will consider it And yet those private Doctors of the Church of England to whose judgment our Reconciler appeals say nothing to his purpose not a man of them affirm that it is unlawful for the Church to impose indifferent things no not when they are scrupled as any one may observe who carefully reads their Testimonies Some of them indeed do think it advisable if it would heal our present Schisms to part with some things of less moment for so good an end And there seems to be two sorts of these men 1. Those who think this might be done were there good evidence and assurance that such abatements would cure the Schism and lay a foundation of a firm and lasting Peace in this Church 2. Those who think this way ought to be tryed whether it will effect the cure or no. 1. As for the first if this were the case that the exchange of a Ceremony or two while the external Order and Decency of publick Worship might be otherwise secured would certainly heal our Schisms God forbid that I should ever be the man who should oppose so good a work But if I may speak my thoughts freely that which I take to be the fault of these great men is this that they trouble themselves and the world in declaring their judgments unasked about an imaginary case which it is demonstrably impossible should over be a real case This is evident not onely from the present temper and complexion of the Schism which even among the most moderote Dissenters is improved far beyond the dispute of a Ceremony but from this very consideration that their Principles whereon they demand such an alteration are schismatical and it is impossible that the Peace of the Church should be built upon Schismatical Principles Though it were possible that the removal of our Ceremonies might for the present quiet our Disputes yet this Peace would last no longer than the men are in a good humour because those very Principles which disturb the Peace of the Church now will also disturb the best Order and Constitution of the Church that can possibly be devised and while the Principles remain the seeds of Discord remain also and there will never want men or Devils to improve them into open Contentions Whoever believes that nothing must be done in the Worship of God but what we have an express divine Law for that things lawful or indifferent in their own natures are sinful when they are commanded though by a lawful Authority that neither the Governours in Church nor State have any authority in indifferent things which are the great Principles on which men oppose the Ceremonies of our Church will as inevitably be Schismaticks under any constitution of things as those who believe that the Soveraign Powers are accountable to the People will be Rebels whenever they are not pleased and have power to resist Take away these Principles and we may keep our Ceremonies and while these Principles last it is to no purpose to part with the least Ceremony 2. As for those who think the Church ought to try this Experiment whether such Abatements and Condescensions will reconcile Dissenting Protestants to the Church it is in my opinion a very dangerous as well as a very unreasonable Experiment All changes and innovations unless they be made on great and urgent necessities and with wonderful wisdom and caution are of very dangerous consequence and the greatest Polititians cannot always foresee what the event will be but to change lightly and wantonly without a certain prospect of a good effect is a reproach to the wisdom and gravity of Government it is onely like the uneasiness of a sick man who seeks for some present relief by changing sides though when he has done he finds himself as uneasie as he was before If such Abatements do not take effect we part with the external Decencies of Worship to no purpose we expose our selves to the scorn and derision of Sectaries make them more bold and clamorous and weaken the Authority and Sinews of Government which loses it due reverence when it is not steady and true to it self Of all persons in the world Governours ought to make the fewest Experiments and to confess the fewest faults and mistakes if there were any much less to seem to confess a fault when there is none for Government ought to maintain its own Reverence and Authority and nothing can maintain the Authority of Government but a great Opinion both of its Power and Wisdom that it can defend it self and direct others whereas all such changes and alterations though they may be called a charitable condescension to the weakness and importunities of others are always expounded as an Argument of the weakness or mistakes of Government that it cannot defend it self against popular Clamours and Oppositions or that they mistake their Rule The first makes their Authority precarious and teaches people not to fear their Governours when they see their Governours are afraid of them the other destroys the Reverence of their Laws and teaches people not to obey but to dispute And of all mistakes the mistakes in Religion are most unpardonable and the greatest blemish to the Wisdom of Government because here is a standing Rule which is plain and certain and does not alter with accidental and mutable events So that if things be well setled at first there is no reason ever to change as may be in all other Laws which must be fitted to times and places and other changeable circumstances but even the external circumstances of Religion must not vary with the unreasonable humours and fancies of men in every Age or if it does Religion it self as well as Ecclesiastical Authority suffers by it Now whatever private Doctors are of another mind it is all one to me for those who assert any thing without Reason assert it without Authority too His next Testimonies are borrowed from some foreign Divines such as Beza Zanchy Iunius and it were easie to oppose other foreign Divines against them if not to answer them out of their own Writings but I do not think this worth the while for it is certain these men are not infallible I will never value those mens judgments about Ceremonies who can be contented to change the Apostolical Order of Bishops for a Presbyterian Parity In the next place he insists at large on those terms of Concord which have been proposed both by our own and by foreign Divines between distinct Churches and hence very wisely concludes that the same liberty is to be granted to the Members of the same Church But this I have considered already and refer my Readers for further satisfaction to the Remarks upon the Preface to the Protestant Reconciler Thus I have done with our Reconciler and shall conclude this Work with a short Address to our Dissenters lest they should not rightly understand how much they are