the Credit of Dr. Burnet whose Testimony Valeat quantum valere potest Nay he is brought in as one who declar'd it his Judgement That the only means to heal us was a new Act of Vniformity which should neither leave all at Liberty nor impose any thing but Necessary And this we are told upon the Credit of Mr. Baxter who I doubt may say as the Dr. aforesaid does of himself in the Preface p. 8. to his History of the Rights of Princes I know this will not be the more believed for my saying it Now that 't is not naturally Impossible that such words should be spoken by Judge Hale who can deny but that he did actually declare his judgement in those Terms who can believe that is at all acquainted with the Parts and Intellectuals of that Great Man For sure he had more Wit than to call that an Act for Vniformity which would leave men at Liberty as to the Order Modes Circumstances and Ceremonies of Publick Worship and more Consideration than not to reflect that an Act which imposes nothing but what 's Necessary will certainly leave men to that Liberty and a Person of more Skill in the measures of Government and the needs of Human Society than to propose That as the only means for the healing the breaches of this Nation in matters of Religion which was never yet made use of for the Cementing of any National Society of men or the effecting Union and Concord among them For I dare Challenge this Author if I had the opportunity to shew me where there is or ever was such a Society whose Union Order and Government was conserv'd or design'd to be conserv'd by the imposing on them nothing but necessary things meaning by necessary things such only as God's Word has made so and as are contra-distinguish'd to all things in their own nature Indifferent and so this Prefacer must understand this Testimony if it be pertinent to the design of his Book The 16. 17. and 18. Pages are taken up wiâ—h Dr. Stillingfleet's Opinion touching this Affair which because I had occasion to consider soon after that Book of his the Vnreasonableness of Separation was publish'd I shall now impart to you the result of that consideration which was 1. That if any one should affirm That that Preface of the Doctors had destroyed what he had said for our Church in his Book And 2. That it has effectually destroyed that Church of England which he had taken pains to defend in his Book I did not see how the Doctor could purge himself from the Accusation In the third Part of the Book and twenty sixth Section the Doctor defends our Churches Terms of Communion and proves that there 's no Unlawfulness in them particularly not in the sign of the Cross Kneeling at the Communion the Religious Observation of Holidays the constant Vse of the Lyturgy nor the Vse of God-Fathers and God-Mothers in Baptism The Lawfulness of all which except that of the constant Vse of the Lyturgy which he Acknowledges-done very well to his hand by Dr. Falkner he defends by Answering whatsoever was urg'd against them by his Adversaries Pag. 332 333. c. And yet in the Preface p. 83. he represents it as most adviseable either wholly to take away the Sign of the Cross or to leave it Indifferent as the Parents shall desire or not desire besides which he would have Kneeling at the Sacrament dispensed with as to those that scruple it and several Alterations made in the setled Practice of our Church as to the Use of God-Fathers and God-Mothers in Baptism And to justifie this changing of our Church-Constitutions he makes use of such a Motive and Argument as the truth is if it prove any thing proves those Constitutions unlawful and therefore that they ought to be abolish'd For 1. What less than this can reasonably be inferr'd from these words of his p. 82. I do think it would be a part of Christian Wisdom and Condescension in the Governours of our Church to remove those Barrs that is the matter of the Dissenters scruplings and excepâ—ings against the Sacramental Offices from a freedome in joyning in full Communion with us The most obvious and pertinent meaning of which words is That it is such a part of Wisdome and Condescension as Christianity obliges our Governors to and if they are obliged to it by vertue of the Christian Religion it is certainly their duty to be so Wise and Condescending But 2. in the immediately preceding Lines he urges this Argument for that Condescension viz. because the Vse of Sacraments in a Christian Church ought to be the most free from all Exception and they ought to be so Administred as rather to invite than discourage scrupulous Persons from joyning in them Which Argument if valid will effectually destroy not only the prescription of those Ceremonies but several other things of the like kind which the men of Scruples are or shall be pleased to except against particularly 't will be as valid against the Use of a set Form of words in those and other sacred Administrations because even that discourages abundance of scrupulous Persons from joyning in any of the Publick Services of our Church all which therefore will be effectually destroyed by that Argumentation Besides which he mentions p. 92. several other mutations for the satisfaction of the scrupulous which p. 93. he thinks reasonable to be allowed in order to an Union As the explaining or amending some more doubtful and obscure passages in the common-prayer-Common-Prayer-Book the use of the New Translation of the Psalms in Parochial Churches at least the charging of the Apochrypha-Lessons for portions of Canonical Scripture the leaving at liberty those Expressions in the Office for Burial which suppose the good Estate of the Person buried the restoring the Rubrick about the Salvation of Infants to its former place in the Office of Confirmation and so removing the present exceptions against it by which last I confess I do not well know what he means because I do not discern how the placing it in the Office of Confirmation will remove the present scruples against it those scruples being about its truth and the Proposition contain'd in that Rubrick will certainly be no truer in one Office than in the other Now since 't is plain that the Preface does thus endeavour to undermine and destroy so many of our Church-Constitutions which yet the Book endeavours to uphold and maintain and since he does it by an Argument which if rational and cogent does as plainly infer the continuing those Constitutions especially those of them that belong to the Sacraments to be no part of Christian Wisdom and Condescension in our Governours but inconsistent with it and with that freeness from all exceptions which ought to be the constant Attendant of those Administrations I think 't is evident that the Preface does at least virtually and consequentially destroy and render unlawful what the Book defends
REMARKS ON THE PREFACE TO THE Protestant Reconciler IN A LETTER TO A FRIEND LONDON Printed by J. Wallis for Joanna Brome at the Gun in St. Paul's Church-yard 1683. SIR HAving Read and Consider'd the Preface to The Protestant Reconciler I now send you these Remarks upon it The Author professes Pag. 58. of that Preface That he does from his heart Conform to all that is requir'd by the Church of England and yet a great part of the Preface is employ'd in producing Testimonies against the Lawfulness not only of the Imposition it self but also of the things Impos'd we are told p. 25. out of Beza's Epistle to Bishop Grindal That Men so oft do grievously Sin as they do introduce into the Church of God any Ceremonies significative of Spiritual things and that all Symbolical Rites should be entirely excluded from the Christian Church And this forsooth must have a Hand set over against it in the margin as if it ought to be taken for some very precious and valuable Truth We are told also by the same Divine p. 26. That the Right of Crossing is not to be reckon'd among things Indifferent but as a thing rather to be destroyed than the brazen Serpent of Hezekias That they do best of all who are as diligent in the Abolishing the Rites of Crossing in Baptism and Kneeling at the Sacrament as they would be in Abolishing open Idolatry And this also is thought fit to be Printed in another Character and to be mark'd out with a marginal Hand as if 't were a Maxim of Infallible Truth A great many other Reproaches of our Ceremonies and their Imposition are transcribed into the following Pages as p. 27. That the Imposing our English Ceremonies is a falling back to worse than the Ceremonies of Moses to the Trifles and Refuse of human Traditions That Queen Elizabeth was carry'd with a Zeal not according to Knowledge in Commanding the Vse of them Pag. 28. And that by that Imposition the Fire of Contention was to the incredible offence of the Godly as it were raised from Hell That the white Linen Garments requir'd to be Vsed in Divine Service are at the least signs of Idolatry and Popish Superstition with the Vse whereof Ministers defile themselves and give offence to the Weak by their Example That to retain those Garments is to destroy the whole Body of the Church That they ought not be Imposed Pag. 30. because all things are to be abandon'd which may any way either by themselves or by accident desile Gods Worship because they are contrary to the Purity of the Apostolical Worship and smell of Popish Superstion and are neither available to the Edification of the Godly nor to Order nor for Ornament except that which is Whorish Because all Godly men will be offended with the Decree concerning Apparel And it may much further Vngodliness and at least give occasion of many Evils and very grievous Superstitions and the very Occasions of Evils are to be shun'd because 't is God's Will p. 31. That after the Death of Christ all Garments of Aaron and Levi should be Abolish'd That the Lord himself Commanded that all Vngodly and Vain Ceremonies should be driven away when he charg'd utterly to destroy all things which appertain'd to those who should give Counsel to follow strange Gods and to burn their Garments and all their Stuff with Fire that they might be an execrable thing unto the Lord. Because the Imposing them ministers Offence to the Consciences of Weak Believers which to do is very grievous and distastful to the Holy Spirit and that Paul's Example of resolving always to abstain from Flesh rather than offend his Brother gives a general Rule taken out of the Doctrin of Christ viz. That no Indifferent thing is to be admitted and yielded to much less to be Vrg'd upon others and least of all to be Commanded by Decree if in the Admitting Vrging and Commanding of it the Minds of Good Men and Consciences of the Faithful be Offended Now this Prefacer did either look upon these kind of paultry Argumentations against our Ceremonies and their Imposition and these and a great many other Censorious Reproaches of them as Valid Arguings and Justifiable Reproaches or he did not if he did not to what end has he taken the Pains to Transcribe them unless he had a Fanatick Design of rendring our Church and State-Constitutions odious by so doing But if he does really judge them Valid and Justifiable he is a strange Man that can from his heart Conform to all that is required by the Church of England and yet imagine not only the imposing and requiring the Use of its Ceremonies to be both without and against the Command of God but also the things requir'd and impos'd to be some of them Signs of Idolatry and Popish Superstition that Ministers defile themselves with the use of them that they are only for Whorish Ornament and such as whereat the Minds of Good Men and the Consciences of the Faithful are Offended and that such things ought not for that very reason either to be Imposed or so much as Admitted or Yielded to Besides if he has Transcribed them as Reproaches in his own Opinion justifiable he has by quoting those Passages out of other Writings made them his own And he has too plainly done so in his re-capitulation p. 43. where he expresly Affirms That judicious Beza truly saith that these things viz. Ceremonies required by the Church of England are not only unnecessary but profitable for little if a Man use them aright And as if this were not Reproach enough this Prefacer has no more Wit nor Judgement than to Add and when they Accidentally do minister to Schisnt and all its fatal Consequences and then again to Approve it as truly said by Beza That to impose such Ceremonies is to labour about Hay and Stubble or rather things more vain than they And himself Affirms That sad Experience shews that they bring no Profit but many Evils to the Church and that 't is our Duty to shun the Occasion of those Evils By which Approbation of and Compliance with these Censures of things required and imposed in our Church I humbly conceive he has incurr'd the Penalty of Excommunication which is Decreed by Can. 4. against those who Affirm that the Form of Gods Worship in the Church of England Established by Law and Contained in the Book of Common-Prayer and Administration of Sacraments is a Corrupt Superstitious or Vnlawful Worship of God or Containeth any thing in it that is repugnant to the Scriptures By Can. 6. against those Who Affirm that the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England by Law Established are Wicked Antichristian or Superstitious By Can. 10. Consequentially For that Canon Excommunicated those Separatists from the Church of England who take upon them the Name of another Church and presume to publish that this their pretended Church hath a long time Groaned under the Burden of
as lawful Nay I do not discern what consistency there is between one part of the Preface and another part between the allowing the fore-mentioned mutations as reasonable and necessary Pag. 82. and 93. and this passage Pag. 89. which implies they are neither necessary nor reasonable For there he says we do heartily and sincerely desire Vnion with our Brethren if it may be had on just and reasonable Terms but they must not think that we will give up the Cause of the Church for it so as to condemn its Constitution or make the Ceremonies unlawful which have been hitherto observed and practised in it if any Expedient can be found out for the Ease of other mens Consciences without reflecting on our own if they can be taken in without Reproach or dishonour to the Reformation of the Church I hope no True Son of the Church of England will oppose it Now whether the fore-mention'd dispensings with and Retrenchments of our Church-Orders and Practices upon the fore-mention'd Reason and Argument for the sake of Union with them whom he is pleas'd to call Brethren be not so far a giving up the Cause of the Church as to condemn its Constitution and to make the Ceremonies unlawful which have hitherto been observed and practised in it I leave you to judge as also whether the taking in Dissenters upon such Terms will not necessarily reflect reproach and dishonour upon the Reformation of that Church which at her first Reforming thought fit to retain and impose those Constitutions and Ceremonies as just and reasonable and as such hath ever since continu'd them without imagining that continu'd Imposition inconsistent with Christian Wisdom or with any regard that 's justly due to the Scruples and Exceptions of troublesome men relating to the Administration of Sacraments in a Christian Church To which troublesome Men the Dr. is pleased to give the Title of Brethren more than once in the later end of the Preface which is it self in my Opinion too absurd a contradiction to that Book whose main design is to prove them Schismaticks He tells us Pag. 364. That 't was the great Wisdom of our Church not to make more things necessary as to Practice than were made so at the Settlement of the Reformation but whether there be sufficient reason to alter those Terms of Communion which were then settled for the sake of such whose Scruples are groundless and endless I do not says he take upon me here to determin And I wish he had not taken it upon him in the Preface especially to determin it so much to the Reproach and Dishonour of our Church as to imply she hath hitherto been guilty of Transgressing the Obligation of Christianity in not making those Alterations for the sake of Union with such Persons whose Scruples are groundless and endless and which as himself Affirms p. 372. might be remov'd by a little Impartiality and â—lue consideration there being no depth of Learning no subtilty of Reasoning no endless quotation of Fathers necessary about them but the dispute lies in such a narrow compass that men may see light if they will And why ours or indeed any Church should be Reproached as Defective in Christian Wisdom for not complying with such humersom Persons or not altering her Constitutions for the sake of such wilfully blind and perverse Dissenters I confess I do nor understand Now these Premises being duly consider'd do I think abundantly justifie the first charge and make it too reasonable to adhere to this conclusion that the Doctors Preface hath destroyed what he had said for our Church in his Book And in reference to the other charge that the Preface has effectually destroy'd that Church of England which the Doctor had taken pains to defend in his Book The same premises do really contribute so much to the making it good that for ought I see no more need to be added to that End than the bare application of them to that Censure and to the Doctor 's own Notion of the Church of England For he asserts p. 249. of his Book that the National Church of England diffusive is the whole Body of Christians in this Nation consisting of Pastors and People agreeing in that Faith Government and Worship which are Establish'd by the Laws of this Realm And Pag. 302. All Bishops Ministers and People taken together who profess the Faith so Establish'd and worship God according to the Rules so Appointed make up this National Church of England And this is the Church of England which the Doctor has taken pains to defend in his Book If therefore the Church of England takes its denomination not only from the Profession of that Faith but also from its consent in Worshipping God according to such and such Rules he that would destroy those Rules will consequently destroy that Church which is denominated such and diversified from other Churches by its embracing and adhering to those Rules But it appears from the premises that the Doctor 's Preface would have several considerable Alterations made of those Rules and that upon such an account and for such reasons as do consequentially destroy that Order and those Rules of Worship that are Established by Law and therefore that Preface does effectually destroy that Church of England which he had taken pains to defend in his Book These are all the things says the Dr. which appear to me reasonable to be Allowed in order to an Vnion and which I suppose may be Granted without detriment or dishonour to our Church And says this Writer these are all I plead for in this Book But 1. there is this little difference between these Authors The Reverend Dean supposes they may be Granted but this Author endeavours to prove they ought to be Granted 2. Though that Author mentions only such and such things as appearing to him reasonable to be Allowed yet to make them appear so to others he urges an Argument which will infer it as reasonable to dispense with a great many other things not mention'd And so though this Author pretends that these are all he pleads for in his Book yet the Arguments he makes use of if they prove any thing prove it the duty of our Governours to dispense with a great many more Constitutions even all that enjoyn any Indifferents whereby our Brother is offended Chap. 3. And therefore whereas he adds here As for those who deny the lawfulness of Lyturgy and the right Constitution of our Churches and who would be exempted from the Jurisdiction of their Bishop and set up Congregations separate and independent upon him I know not how to plead for them without pleading for Schism Confusion and Disorder I doubt his Arguments will if they prove any thing prove it as unlawful for Governours to impose a Lyturgy and require Obedience to Episcopal Government as to impose Ceremonies For I am confident he is very sensible that a great many whom he seemed to account weak Brethren are mightily offended
as Christians and Brethren of the same Communion with us is because these differences do not hinder their being real Members of Christ's Body I Answer by denying that to be the true and adequate Reason for the true Reason is because in the Case supposed of two Churches independent one on the other and not subject to any Common Governour the one Church has no Power to impose Rites and Ceremonies on the other and consequently no sufficient ground to quarrel with it meerly for disagreeing from it in matter of Ceremony but if any of the members of one of the Churches refuse to submit to the Rites appointed by their own proper Governours their Agreement in Fundamentals is no sufficient ground why either their own or the other Church should receive them to Sacramental Communion He says indeed that those Differences do not hinder their being real Members of Christs Body But 1. does he hold that every one who is really a member of Christs Body ought eo nomine to be admitted to all the Privileges of Christian Communion if he does he must either deny that any real member of Christs Body can do any notorious wrong to his Neighbour by word or deed or else he must condemn our Church for requiring the Minister of each Parish to repell such a Person from the Communion till either he makes actual recompence for the Injury or declare himself fully resolv'd to do it when conveniently he may If not then the meer consideration that such a man is really a a member of Christs Body does not oblige any in whose Power it is to admit him to all those Privileges 2. Does he hold that meer agreeing in Fundamentals is all that 's required to the being a real member of Christ If not then neither is that sufficient to qualifie a man for all the Privileges of Christian Communion 3. I suppose he will not deny that there are Practical as well as Speculative Fundamentals and I presume he is of Opinion That Obedience to our Lawful Governours in things Lawful is one of the Fundamentals of Practice If he denies the former he contradicts the Doctrin of some of his own Testimonies which affirm That there are Fundamental Articles of Faith without which Christian Faith cannot subsist nor Everlasting Life be obtain'd and That there are also Fundamental Heads of Discipline p. 56. and that those are so which promote and maintain the means of Salvation and without which we cannot live a Christian Life And that whosoever perishes must be separated from the Foundation by some Fundamental Error in Doctrin or in Practice which supposes that there are Fundamentals of Practice as well as Belief As to the latter he confesses pag. 187. of his Book That in those matters which are not apparently forbidden by the clear Word of God men ought to yield Obedience to the Commands of their Superiours and if he will own that they ought to do so on pain of Damnation as I hope he will then 't is a Fundamental Duty even in his own account That Christian therefore that does not think it such a Duty is by this Doctrin guilty of a Fundamental Error in reference to Christian Practice and he who does think it his duty and does not Act accordingly is guilty of a damnable Neglect Now I desire to know of this Author 1. Whether meer agreeing to Fundamentals whether of Belief or Practice that is assenting to them will constitute and continue a man a real member of Christs Body without at least resolving to Act accordingly if there be not time for more and the performance of that Resolution if there be 2. Whether differences in the Fundamentals of Practice will not hinder men from being real members of Christs Body 3. Whether though they agree in the Fundamentals of Practice that is own and assent to them as matter of necessary Duty in order to Salvation yet if they persist in the Neglect of any part of such Duty they ought to be own'd by the Church either as real members of Christ or as Persons to whom belong all the Privileges of Christian Communion If he says they ought I desire to know 4. Why they should be acknowled'gd as Persons rightly qualified for the Privileges of Christianity here or its Rewards hereafter who are either so Ignorant as not to know or so negligent as not to Practise that which Christianity has made Fundamentally necessary to Salvation to be both Known and Practised Particularly I would willingly be inform'd by this man whether account the preservation of the External Unity of the particular Church whether National Diocesan or Parochial of which men are members a Fundamental of Practice or no. If he does how can he account those Persons real members of Christs Body who are so far from preserving that Unity in either of those Churches that they industriously destroy it in all of them not submitting themselves to the Rules of Order and Government appointed for either of them If he does not then why does he 1. expresly Acknowledge That Schisms and Divisions do apparently dissolve the Church-Vnity And 2. by asking those questions pag. 28. of his Book implicitely Acknowledge That Persons become Schismatical by refusing to be One with us in Discipline and by renouncing Communion with us in our Publick Worship supposing there be nothing Evil in it And 3. pronounce all Separate Congregations Schismatical for their not being subject to the Government of our Diocesans p. 59. And then 4. Acknowledge the Sin of Schism to be an heinous destructive and pernicious Evil one of those fleshly works which they who do shall not inherit the Kingdom of God Chap. 2. pag. 24. 25. It must follow therefore from his own Principles and Concessions That they who are guilty of Schism are guilty of Erring in a Fundamental of Practice Now since Schism is by his own Confession so pernicious an Evil since by his own Confession also refusing to be One with the Church of England in Communion with its Publick Worship is a Breach and Dissolution of Church-Unity since also refusing subjection to the Government of our Diocesan Bishops is dissolving the Unity of Discipline and therefore Schismatical and since all separate Congregations in this Nation are in his own Opinion guilty of Schism 't is evident 1. That the members of those Congregations either do Not Agree in all the Fundamentals of Practice or else do Not Act suitably to that Agreement but are so far from it that they persist in Schismatical Practices contrary to the dictate of their Judgement and Conscience 2. That they are not of the same Communion with us and 3. That the Pleas which this Prefacer makes use of in their behalf pag. 58. viz. Their Agreement in Fundamentals and their being real members of Christs Body are very insufficient because by dissolving as much as in them lie the Unity of the Church of England and its Discipline they practically differ in a Fundamental