suited to attain the same end as in the case before us the external Decency of Worship is necessary but yet there may be different Rites and Modes of Worship which may be all very decent Now in this case all these Rites and Ceremonies are on different accounts both necessary and indifferent They are necessary considered as to their general nature and use as they are decent Rites and Ceremonies of Worship because the Decency of Worship is necessary they are indifferent considered as such particular Rites and Modes of Worship because there are other decent ways of Worship besides them As to shew this in a parallel case All wholsom Food is necessary to preserve life and health and yet no one particular kind of Food considered as such a particular kind is necessary to our life and health because men may live very healthfully who use very different Diets but yet considered as to its general nature as wholsome Food and so we may say of any particular Diet that it is necessary to our life and health Every particular sort of wholsome Diet has the necessity of a means and cause which can produce the effect though not the necessity of an onely cause without which the effect cannot be produced And this is a true degree of necessity though not an absolute necessity It is sufficient to justifie any man in using any wholsome Diet and to justifie any Church in chusing and determining any decent Rites and Ceremonies of Worship Food is necessary to preserve our lives and external Decency is necessary in religious Worship but no particular sort of Food is so necessary that we cannot live without it nor any particular Ceremonies so necessary that we cannot worship God without them but yet they have the necessity of a cause to produce the effect which is all the necessity things of this nature are capable of the necessity of a means to an end though not of an onely means and therefore they cannot be called indifferent with respect to producing the effect for they have a proper and necessary influence on the effect but they are indifferent onely with respect to other causes which can equally produce the effect But this will be better understood by considering the several kinds of things indifferent Some things are indifferent in their own nature as being neither morally good nor evil or with respect to a divine Law as being neither particularly commanded nor forbid and upon both these accounts the particular Ceremonies of Religion may be called indifferent things But then these indifferent things which considered absolutely in their own nature are neither morally good nor evil nor particularly forbid nor commanded by God yet with respect to some end they are fitted to serve or as they are reducible to some general Law may lose this absolute indifferency of their nature and be capable of being advanced to be the Rites and Ceremonies of religious Worship Thus for instance a white or black or red Garment are all indifferent Habits standing sitting or kneeling are all indifferent Postures the like may be said of times and places but when they come to be applied to Religion they may not all be equally fitted to the Gravity Decency and Solemnity of religious Worship And therefore by vertue of that general Law That all things be done decently and in order some of these Habits or Postures times and places are more proper to be made the Circumstances of Religion and therefore are not wholly indifferent with respect to the Decency of Worship because their natural or instituted signification makes them fitter for the Service and Ministries of Religion than other things are and therefore antecedently to all Laws have so much goodness and necessity in them that they have an aptitude and fitness to serve the external Decency of Worship and by vertue of that Apostolical Precept of Decency and Order some or other of them must be used in publick Worship But then since there may be different Rites and Usages which may equally secure the Decency of Worship all these decent Rites and Modes of Worship may still be called indifferent as considered in particular and as compared with each other for till the particular Circumstances of Religion are determined by a just Authority either of them may be decently used but none of them are indifferent considered in their general nature as decent Rites and Ceremonies and as compared with other Rites and Modes of Worship which are indecent The indifferency is not in the nature of the things considered as decent and as opposed to that which is indecent but the indifferency is onely in our choice occasioned by the variety of decent Rites It is not indifferent whether we will use any decent Ceremonies or none it is not indifferent whether we use decent or indecent Ceremonies but the onely indifferency is in a variety of decent Ceremonies which we will chuse From hence I hope by this time it appears that all decent Rites and Ceremonies have such a goodness in them as makes them fit to be commanded for though they have no inâ—ernal nor necessary goodness considered absolutely in their own natures yet with respect to the acts of Worship they have the goodness of Decency which is commanded by an express law and is essential to publick Worship and therefore they are not absolutely indifferent as things which can neither do good nor hurt which we may use or may let alone but are necessary to the Decency of Worship as means to an end or as a cause is to produce its effect We may safely say in general that decent Rites and Ceremonies are necessary to publick Worship because publick Worship cannot be performed decently without them and the reason why we cannot say this of any particular Ceremonies is not because they are absolutely indifferent in their own nature considered as decent but they are indifferent as to our choice and election when there is a variety of such decent Ceremonies for in this case the Governours of the Church are not confined to any one decent Garb or Posture but may command the use of any one that is decent But yet this is no Argument against any particular Ceremonies that they have not so much goodness or necessity that they ought to be commanded because there are other Rites and Modes of Worship as decent as they for this Argument will hold against all particular Ceremonies considered in particular and so no particular Ceremonies of Decency must be commanded and yet this general notion of the Decency of Worship can never be put in practice but by the use of some particular decent Rites And I cannot but observe by the way that the very name of indifferent things is very unduly and improperly given to those Rites and Ceremonies of Religion which serve the ends of Decency and Order and I doubt not but this has in part occasioned those fierce Disputes and Contentions about them For indeed indifferent things
whereby their Brother stumbleth or is made weak or is offended yet may Church-Governours impose such things although God has declared that their power is only for edification and not for destruction For this is the plain case all these Arguments St. Paul uses to perswade private Christians to mutual forbearance and charity in the exercise of their Christian liberty and yet both the Council at Ierusalem and St. Paul in this Chapter do positively determine that the Gentile Christians should have this liberty though St. Paul perswades them to great charity in the exercise of it So that the case of private Christians and publick Governours is so very different that charity may exact that from private Christians to avoid scandal and offence which no charity can justifie in Governours the Gentile Converts were to deny themselves in the use of their liberty to avoid giving offence to the Jewish â—hristians but a whole Council of Apostles did not think fit to deny this liberty to the Gentiles which might prove an offence and scandal to the Jews For the believing Gentiles might restrain the use of their liberty without injuring their Christian liberty for no man is bound to use all the liberty he has and therefore may suspend the use of it when it will serve the ends of charity but the Apostles could not deny the use of this liberty to the gentile Converts without destroying their Christian liberty And therefore our Reconciler is mightily out in his Argument That Church-Governours in their publick capacity are bound to all those acts of forbearance and charitable condescension which private Christians are bound to when in this very instance from which he argues it appears to be quite otherwise the Church determines for the liberty of the Gentiles to eat all sorts of meats without any regard to the Mosaical distinction between clean and unclean notwithstanding that offence it gave to the believing Jew and yet St. Paul perswades the believing Gentile not to use this liberty to the scandal and offence of their weak Brethren In a word This fourteenth Chapter to the Romans consists of two distinct parts though not so commonly observed which has occasioned very confused apprehensions about it 1. That which equally concerns both Jews and Gentiles viz. not to judge despise or censure each other nor to break Christian Communion upon account of their different apprehensions about the Mosaical Law that one believed he might indifferently eat of all sorts of meat and another eat herbs one preferred one day before another another thought all days alike Now all the indulgence to one another which the Apostle exacts in this case is onely to grant each other that liberty which the Apostolical Synod had granted them that the Jews might still observe the Law of Moses and that the Gentiles might enjoy their liberty not to observe it and therefore the Apostle uses much such Arguments to perswade them to this as were before used by the Council when they made their Decree of which more presently and this part reaches to the 13th verse But how our Reconciler hence infers that Church-Governours must not make any Determinations about things which are scrupled because the Apostle exhorts them to obey such Determinations and not to judge and censure one another for such matters which the Church had determined they might both lawfully do I cannot imagine 2. The second part peculiarly refers to the believing Gentiles to perswade them to exercise great charity and as much as might be to avoid all scandal and offence in the use of their Christian liberty That because their Jewish Brethren were so weak as to take offence at their liberty therefore they should forbear the use of it when it was likely to give offence And to this purpose he urges several Arguments from charity to the end of the Chapter and in the beginning of the 15th Chapter But this you have already heard peculiarly relates to the duty of private Christians in the private exercise of their Christian liberty and can by no means be applied to the Governours of the Church as exercising acts of Government in making publick Decrees and Constitutions for as I have already shewn the Church could not deny that liberty to the Gentiles nor make any Decree in favour of such Jewish scruples but onely exhorted the Gentiles to exercise this liberty charitably and without offence This one thing well considered is a sufficient Answer to our Reconciler's fourth Chapter since it makes it very plain that there is nothing in the 14th of the Romans to restrain the exercise of Ecclesiastical Authority whatever scruples men have entertained about it II. Another very material difference is that the subject of the Dispute between the Church and Dissenters is of a quite different nature from that Dispute which was between the Jewish and Gentile Christians about which the Apostle gave those directions about mutual forbearance and a charitable condescension to each other The Dispute between the Church and Dissenters is about indifferent things between the Jews and Gentiles about the observation of the Law of Moses Now these two are so vastly different that there may be very wise reasons for allowing some indulgence in one case but not in the other By indifferent things I mean such things as are neither morally good nor evil nor are either commanded nor forbidden by any positive Law of God Now if our Reconciler can shew any Dispute about such things in Scripture or any one Precept or Exhortation either to Governours or private Christians about forbearance or the exercise of charity in such matters I will yield him the Cause He has not produced one yet for the Dispute between Jew and Gentile was of another nature This our Reconciler acknowledges That this Discourse is generally thought to have relation to the Iewish Converts who thought it was unlawful to eat of meats forbidden by the Law of Moses and that it was their duty to observe the Iewish Festivals and says That his Discourse will be more firm if the Apostle speaks concerning the observance of the Law of Moses or of the meats and days prescribed by it And in this sence I desire to take it and believe this is the true sence of the words but it may be when he sees that this interpretation of the place will overthrow his whole Hypothesis he will be willing to retreat and therefore I shall briefly examine what he alleadges to prove the Apostle did not refer to the observation of the Law of Moses in this place but that he rather speaks of meats offered to Idols and the observing days of Fasting His Arguments are these 1. Because the weak Brethren did not abstain from Swines-flesh onely and other meats forbidden by the Law of Moses but they abstained from all kinds of flesh Whence saith the Commentator on the Romans in St. Jerom 's Works It may be proved that the Apostle speaketh not of the Iews as some
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