with the Faith of Christ For if any man 〈◊〉 thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in an Idols Temple shall not the conscience of him that is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to Idols and through thy knowledge shall thy weak brother perish for whom Christ died by being confirmed in his Idolatry by thy Example 3. Now the Apostle disputes against this practice of the Gnosticks of eating in the Idols Temple two several ways 1. Upon the supposition of the lawfulness of it 2. By proving it unlawful 1. Upon the supposition of the lawfulness of it and this he does in the eighth Chapter He allows that Principle of the Gnosticks That an Idol is nothing in the world and supposes for argument sake that this would justifie those who have this knowledge in eating at an Idols Temple for that the Apostle himself was not of this mind appears from the tenth Chapter of which more presently yet since there were so many professed Christians among them who were still leavened with their Pagan Superstitions and could not presently renounce that kind of Worship which they had been so long accustomed to as some Copies read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indeâ—d of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 7. that some out of custom to the Idol instead of with conscience of the Idol it was very uncharitable by doing the same thing which they did though with very different notions and apprehensions to confirm them in their Idolatrous Practices Though these knowing Gnosticks who believed an Idol to be nothing might eat in the Idols Temple without being guilty of Idolatry yet thâ—y must acknowledge that those who believed these Idols to be Gods and did eat that meat which was offered to them under the notion of Sacrifices were guilty of Idolatry and therefore they were guilty of a very great sin when by doing the same thing though without Idolatry they encouraged those to do so too who were certainly guilty of Idolatry in it And the guilt of this is so much the greater because though they should suppose it lawful to eat at an Idols Temple yet they were under no necessity of doing it if they did not sin in it yet neither did they please God meerly by eating such meats as were offered to Idols for meerly to eat or not to eat any kind of meats is not in it self an acceptable service to God Meat commendeth us not to God for neither if we eat are we the better neither if we eat not are we the worse And therefore certainly we may abstain from it without any other injury than laying some little restraints upon the exercise of our private liberty and this is therefore a proper matter for the exercise of Christian charity as the Apostle had discoursed in the case of the Jews and Gentiles And though the Gnosticks thought that eating in an Idols Temple was a great argument of the perfection of their knowledge yet the Apostle tells them that charity and the care of their Brothers soul was to be preferred before such a vain boast of knowledge Take beed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling-block to them that are weak and through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish for whom Christ died For which reason in the beginning he told them Knowledge puffeth up but charity edifieth This is the sum of the Apostle's reasoning in this eighth Chapter upon a supposition that it were lawful to eat in an Idols Temple Now what affinity is there between this case and that of our Dissenters Those who knew that an Idol was nothing and therefore that it could not pollute the meat which was offered in sacrifice to it might eat in an Idols Temple without Idolatry but yet ought not to do it when their Example though innocent in it self would confirm others in actual Idolatry therefore the Governours of the Church must not prescribe the decent Rites and Ceremonies of Worship because Dissenters will not obey them but turn Schismaticks If our Reconciler be not ashamed to argue at this rate I am ashamed to confute him But it is plain he mistook the case For he says The Apostle grants that it is lawful in it self for Christians to eat of things offered to Idols he should have added in an Idols Temple where it had an immediate relation to the Idol which was the matter in dispute between the Apostle and the Gnosticks because an Idol was nothing in the world But now the Apostle does not grant this but onely at present supposes the lawfulness of it for in the tenth Chapter he professedly confutes it He tells them that to partake of a Sacrifice signifies our communion with that being to whom the Sacrifice is offered Thus it was with the Jewish Sacrifices Behold Israel after the flesh are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar Thus it is in the commemorative Sacrifice of the Lords Supper The cup of blessing which we bless is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ the bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ And thus to eat of the Idols Sacrifice in the Idols Temple is communion with the Idol Well says the Gnostick what communion can there be with that which is not or will you say That an Idol is any thing or that which is offered in sacrifice to Idols is any thing Will you say that there are any such Gods as the Heathens worship Or will you say that that is a Sacrifice or that that meat is polluted which is offered to nothing No says the Apostle I do not say that there are any such Gods as the Heathens worship for they worshipped dead men and women who cannot be present at their Sacrifices to receive their Worship or it may be they worship onely some fanciful and poetick Names and Fictions but this I say that though Iupiter and Bacchus Minerva and Diana and the rest of the poetick Deities are meer fictitious Gods yet wicked Spirits supply their places receive their Worship and attend their Sacrifices and therefore though these Heathen Idolaters be not in communion with those fictitious Gods whom they pretend to worship yet they are in communion with Devils who assume the names of these Gods But I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to Devils and not to God and I would not that ye should have fellowship with Devils Whether this can be reconciled with the lawfulness of eating in an Idols Temple because an Idol is nothing in the world let our Author consider But he proceeds He the Apostle moreover grants that they who out of conscience did abstain from eating of such things had a weak conscience and that their conscience was defiled by eating of such things onely because they wanted knowledge or were not well perswaded of this truth that Christians had a liberty or power to be
of the Cross as a solemn Profession of a crucified Saviour and a suffering Religion as Constantine make the Cross his Banner and Royal Standard and yet would any Christian refuse to fight under a General who bore the Cross in his Banner If you say that this is onely a civil Signe and Ceremony I deny it and affirm that it was as much a religious Ceremony as the signe of the Cross in Baptism unless any man think that there can be no Religion in the Field but onely in the Church That which makes it a religious Ceremony either upon a mans forehead or in the Emperours Standard is that it is done upon a religious account as a publick and visible profession of our Faith in a crucified Saviour and I think the Cross in the Emperours Standard displayed in the open Field in the sight of Pagans is a more publick and visible Profession of the Cross than what is privately transacted in the Church and leaves no visible signe behind it And I cannot imagine why any man should not as much scruple to fight under such a visible Banner of the Cross as to receive an invisible signe of it upon his forehead since the Profession the Ceremony and the Religion of it is the same It is true such Ceremonies as these ought not to be numerous nor too familiarly used nor upon slight occasions for this burdens Religion and makes them degenerate into Superstition or Formality But our Church has retained but one such Ceremony and that used but once in a mans life upon the most solemn occasion in the world at our admission to Baptism and it argues very little understanding in our Reconciler to reproach the Church for this and scornfully to ask Why she rejects crossing of the breast and retains crossing in the forehead why she rejects crossing at the consecration of the Eucharist and the Baptismal Water and retains it at the baptizing of the Infant why she rejects Exorcism Chrysom Vnction Dipping trine Immersion and retains the Cross in Baptism It does not become me to censure the Practice of the ancient Church in any of these Ceremonies but I think if the ancient Church cannot be condemned for these things our Church cannot One Ceremony is more easily justified than twenty and the using of it once upon a very solemn occasion than a too familiar use especially where it cannot so properly be called a professing Signe which is all I undertake for The onely Objection I can think of against the signe of the Cross in Baptism as a professing Signe is this That there is no need of such a Profession as this because we make the very same Profession at our Baptism which represents and signifies our conformity to the Death and Resurrection of Christ and therefore this is a vain and superfluous addition to the Sacrament of Baptism and does tacitly charge that divine Institution with defect I answer The same Objection for the very same reason might have been made against the Love-Feast which was celebrated at the very same time with the Lords Supper to signifie that Brotherly love and charity which was and ought to be among the Disciples of Christ and yet that heavenly Feast of the Lords Supper does not onely signifie our Union to Christ our Head but our Union to each other as Members of the same Body and therefore required the actual exercise of Brotherly love in receiving And yet this is acknowledged on all hands to be an Apostolical Institution observed by the Apostles themselves and all the Apostolical Churches of those days The same Answer then will serve for both That Christian Love and Unity is included in the Supper of our Lord and a patient suffering for the Name of Christ in the Sacrament of Baptism but neither of these Sacraments were instituted to signifie these Duties nor do they signifie them otherwise than collaterally and consequentially The proper use of these Sacraments is not to signifie and represent a Duty but to convey divine Blessings and Vertues to us The Pardon of our sins and the Gift of the holy Spirit in Baptism which incorporates us into the Body of Christ and the continual supplies of Grace and renewals of Pardon in the Lords Supper where we feast on the Sacrifice of Christ and partake in the Merits of it But then as we all feast on the same Sacrifice of Christ eat of the same Bread and drink of the same Cup this consequentially signifies that we are Members of the same Body and that we ought to love one another with the most tender and natural affections But the mutual love and charity of Christians being so great a Duty of the Christian Religion and so proper to be exercised at this time for which reason they used also to kiss each other before receiving and yet not directly and primarily represented in this holy Feast the Apostles did not think it any derogation from the Lords Supper to appoint a common Table for all Christians to eat at as a Testimony and Exercise of mutual love and charity with each other When we feast with any person it is a direct signification that we are in a state of Friendship and Reconciliation with him at whose Table we eat but it does not so immediately signifie that all the Guests who eat at the same Table are Friends to each other It is reasonable indeed that it should be so and God expects and requires that it should be so and none are welcome at Gods Table who do not come in perfect love and charity But I say the Lords Supper considered as a symbolical Rite does not primarily and directly signifie it and therefore the Apostles thought fit to signifie and profess this by a common Table where Christians first eat and drank together as Friends and having thus testified their mutual kindness to each other they were the better prepared to eat together at the Table of their common Lord and Saviour and receive the Tokens and Pledges of his love to them all So that this Love-Feast did not at all intrench upon the Lords Supper it being instituted for a different end though in subserviency to it And thus it is in Baptism It is the Sacrament of our Initiation whereby we are made Members of the Body of Christ and intituled to all the Blessings of the New Covenant but the external Ceremony of Baptism whereby we are said to be implanted into the likeness of Christs death does not primarily signifie our laying down our lives for Christ though that be a necessary Condition of our Discipleship but it signifies our new Birth our spiritual conformity to the death of Christ by dying to sin and walking in newness of life as St. Paul discourses in the 6 Rom. And therefore taking up the Cross being by Christ himself made such an express Condition of our Discipleship the Primitive Christians thought it very fitting to make a visible Profession of this by receiving the signe
of the Cross on their foreheads at the same time that they were received into the Church by Baptism which does no more derogate from the perfection of Baptism than their forms of renouncing the Devil with their faces towards the West and spitting at him Those constant Persecutions which in those days attended Christianity made this a very useful and necessary Ceremony And it may be observed that no Christians in any Age of the Church ever scrupled to receive the signe of the Cross on their foreheads but those who think the Doctrine of the Cross now out of date and can as profanely scoff at a suffering Religion as the Heathens did at a crucified Christ None but those who profess Treasons and Rebellions for Christ and never think it their duty to suffer but when they want â—trength and power to fight for him which â—ives little encouragement to Christian Prinâ—es to part with this symbolical Signe and Ceâ—â—mony of a suffering Religion But there is one Objection which our Reconciler makes against the positive Order and Dcency of these Ceremonies which aâ—e used in the Church of England which is fit to be considered in this place and that is That Christ and his Apostles did not use them and therefore they either worshipt God indecently or the use of them is not necessary to the Decency of Worship Now this is sufficiently answered by what I have already discours'd That though the Decency of publick Worship be a necessary Duty and some decent Rites and Ceremonies be necessary to the external Decency of Worship yet where there is choice of such Ceremonies which are very decent we cannot say that such or such particular Ceremonies are absolutely necessary because the Decency of Worship may be preserved by the use of other decent Rites and therefore Christ and his Apostles might worship very decently without the use of these Ceremonies and the Church of England may worship very decently with them But yet to shew the folly of this Argument we may consider 1. That all the time Christ was upon Earth he never set up any publick Worship distinct from the Jewish Worship He lived in Communion with the Jewish Church anâ— worshipped God with them at the Temple oâ— in their Synagogues And it is as pleasant 〈◊〉 Argument to prove that there is no reason 〈◊〉 using such Ceremonies now because 〈◊〉 did not use them as it would be to proveth tht we must not use such Ceremonies as are proâ—er to the Christian Worship because they wre not used in the Temple or Jewish Synagogâ—es in our Saviours days for he never performed any act of publick Worship any-where else But you will say Christ instituted the Sacrament of his own Body and Bloud but he neither received kneeling himself nor commanded his Apostles to do so Now in answer to this it is not evident to me that Christ received at all himself much less does it appear in what posture he received It is said in St. Matthew and St. Mark that after the institution of this holy Supper when he had blessed the Bread and brake it and divided it among his Disciples and commanded them all to eat of it and had likewise took the Cup and having given thanks commanded them all to drink of it that he added But I say unto you I will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the vine until that day that I drink it new with you â—n my Fathers kingdom From whence some â—ay conclude that he did at that time drink 〈◊〉 the Cup though he tells them it was the 〈◊〉 time he would drink of it But St. Luke 〈◊〉 us that these words were spoke at eating 〈◊〉 Passover before the institution of his last Super and then they are a plain demonstratiâ—â— that he did not drink of the Sacramental Wâ—e and it is not likely that he should feaâ— on the symbols of his own Body and Bloâ— But suppose he had it had been as imprper for him to have received kneeling as it â—s decent in us to do so for this had been â—n act of Worship to himself And though we do not read in what posture the Apostle received yet I am pretty confident they did receive in their ordinary eating posture For it is very improbable that our Saviour would require them to kneel for he exacted no act of Worship from them while he was on Earth they never prayed to him as their great High-Priest and we may as well argue that we must not pray to him now he is in Heaven because he did not command his Apostles to pray to him while he was on Earth as that we must not worship him when we approach his Table nor receive that mysterious Bread and Wine with all humility of Soul and Body now he is in Heaven because at the first institution of this holy Supper while he was still visibly present witâ— them he did not command his Apostles tâ— receive kneeling Nor is it likely the Apostles would do 〈◊〉 of themselves any more than that they 〈◊〉 any other act of religious Worship to Chst on Earth for though they heard the wrds of institution yet at that time they understod nothing of the mystery of it as it is impoâ—ble they should who understood so little oâ— his Death and Passion much less of the merorious Vertue and Expiation of his Bloud 2. As for the Apostles who founed a Christian Church and set up Christian Worship after the Death and Resurrection of our Saviour what particular Rites and Ceremonies of Worship they used we are no certain though that they were careful of the Decency of Worship is evident from this Apostolical Precept That all things be done decotly and in ordâ—r And their Love-Feasts anâ— the holy Kiss are a plain proof that they were not without their religious Rites also And if we may judge of the Apostolical Churches by the succeeding Ages of the Church even while they were under Sufferings and Persecutions there was no Age of the Church till the Reformation so free from Rituals and Ceremonies as the Church of England is at this day Thirdly Let us now consider how our Reconciler states this matter and here I shall once for all examine whatever I can find in his Book pertinent to this Argument I. Now in the first place I observe that our Reconciler agrees with Bishop Taylor That it is for ever necessary that things should be done in the Church decently and in order and that the Rulers of the Church who have the same power as the Apostles had in this must be the perpetual Iudges of it And he adds It cannot therefore rationally be denied that the Rulers of the Church have power to command things which belong unto the positive Order and Decency of the Service of God This is so fair a Concession that methinks we might agree upon it but he immediately undoes all again and says That this Command affords no ground for 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
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
useful themselves and not apt to tempt men to any sin then the Church of England is very charitable though Dissenters should be damned for their wilful and causeless Schism But besides this as far as it is possible to prevent the Cavils of evil-minded men our Church has taken care to explain the meaning of the signe of the Cross in Baptism and kneeling at receiving the Lords Supper to remove all suspicions of any superstitious opinions about them which is an Argument of great charity and great care of the Souls of men But you will say Had it not been greater charity to the Souls of men not to have retained such Ceremonies as needed explication than to explain the meaning of them which may not give satisfaction to all men of the lawfulness of their use This were something to the purpose indeed were there any thing doubtful in their signification but it is not the obscureness of these Ceremonies but the perverseness of men who endeavour to find out some superstition in them which makes such Declarations of the Church more charitable still as being a condescension not to the ignorance but to the frowardness of her Children Though to worship the Cross be Idolatry to use it as a Charm and Spell savour of Superstition yet to use it as a venerable Badge of our Christian Profession is neither and no man can reasonably suspect that it is used otherwise in Baptism To kneel at the Sacrament is a decent posture of receiving and can never be suspected as an act of Worship to the Bread in those who believe that after consecration it is Bread still and not the natural Body of Christ for to worship Bread which we believe to be nothing but Bread would be a more absurd Idolatry than the Papists are guilty of who believe it not to be Bread but the Body of Christ. This reason the Church assigns for it in the second Common-Prayer-Book of Edward the Sixth Although no Order can be so perfectly devised but it may by some either for their ignorance and infirmity or else for malice and obstinacy be misconstrued depraved and interpreted in a wrong part yet because brotherly charity willeth that so much as conveniently may be offences should be taken away therefore we willing to do the same declare that in kneeling at the Sacrament no adoration of the Elements is intended Thus our Reconciler cites this passages and I must trust him at present because I have not the Book by me but this sufficiently proves what I alleadge it for that our Church did not adde this explication as apprehending any necessity of it but to prevent the absurd interpretations of ignorant or malicious Cavillers But what our Reconciler adds Who can tell why this whole Preface in our present Common-Prayer-Book is left out is only a spightful insinuation of I know not what since the same Declaration is as large and full in our Common-Prayer-Book as words can make it But he proceeds and Why that Charity which willeth that as much as conveniently may be offences should be taken away should not will also the taking away or the abatement of unnecessary Ceremonies or alteration of scrupled expressions in our Liturgie I am not bound to answer these trifling Cavils as often as he repeats them but I think every man of sense will see some little difference between making the Rules and Orders of the Church as inoffensive as may be and destroying all decent and orderly Constitutions the first is such a Charity as becomes Governours the second is nothing better than the dissolution of Government But of Scruples more presently Thus our Reconciler observes that the Convocation held An. 1640. speaking of the laudable custom of bowing with the body in token of our reverence of God when we come into the place of publick Worship saith thus In the practice or admission of this Rite we desire the Rule of Charity prescribed by the Apostle may be observed which is That they who use this Rite despise not them who use it not and they who use it not condemn not them who use it Now saith the Author of the mischief of Impositions I would gladly hear a fair reason given why the Apostle should prescribe the Rule of Charity to be observed in this one Rite or Ceremony more than another And our Reconciler very modestly adds The Apostle prescribes a Rule and they will make use of it when and where and in what cases they please and in others where it is as useful lay it by like one of their vacated Canons This is wonderful deference to Authority But however this is another instance of the Churches Charity and moderation at least in this one Rite and methinks it deserved a little more civility than to be turned into an Argument of Reproach But cannot our Reconciler guess at any reason for this difference why she should grant that liberty in this one Rite which she denies in other cases Why then I 'll tell him one Because it is more capable of such an indulgence than other Ceremonies are for it is an act of private Worship though performed in the publick Church and therefore different usages in such matters do not disturb the Order and Decency of publick Worship When we offer up our common Worship to God which is the act of the whole Congregation it is fitting that there should be one Rule and Order observed for Uniformity is necessary to the Decency of Worship and to the Unity of it but there is no necessity that all mens private Devotions should be alike And it is possible to think of another reason too That this bowing the body in reverence to God when we enter into his house is properly a Ritual or Ceremony that is an exteriour action or thing not meerly a circumstance of Worship it is it self an external Rite of Worship not the circumstance of any other act It may be very decent to bow our body in reverence to God when we enter his house but it is not a decent circumstance of religious Worship and therefore there is not the same necessity that the Church should determine it as there is that she should determine the necessary circumstances of action without which the Worship of God cannot be decently performed and it seems to me to be an Argument of great wisdom in the Church that she has not made an uniformity in this Rite as necessary as in the other Ceremonies of Religion since there is not an equal necessity for it And I further adde that the Apostles Rule of Charity not to judge and censure one another upon such different usages does not relate to those Ceremonies which are also the decent circumstances of religious actions and so are necessary to the uniformity of publick Worship which must not be neglected out of a pretence of Charity but it may extend to such Rites as these which shews the great judgment of our Church in applying this Rule
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