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
should refuse submission to them so have they nothing of real goodness nothing of positive Order Decency or Reverence for which they ought to be commanded Now if he can make this good I am resolved to meddle no farther in this Controversiâ—â— for it is not worth the while to spend Ink and Paper in defence of such Ceremonies as have no positive Order Decency or Reverence for which they ought to be commanded For I am sure no Ceremonies in Religion which do not serve the ends of Orders Decency and Reverence ought to be commanded for that is to trifle in sacred things But let us hear how he explains himself for this is a Proposition which seems to need some explication I call says he that positive Order Decency or Reverence which being done renders the Service more decent reverent and orderly and being undone the Service becomes irreverent indecent and disorderly performed So that my meaning is that if our publick Service were by the Minister performed without the Surplice if Baptism were administred by him without the Cross if the Sacrament of the Lords Supper were administred to such as did not kneel but stand at the receiving of it these actions would not be performed sinfully or with defect of any real goodness which belongs to them nor indecently disorderly or irreverently So that his description of positive Order Reverence and Decency resolves it self into two Propositions That no Ceremonies have any positive Order Decency or Reverence the use of which does not 1 make the Worship more decent reverent and orderly than otherwise it would be i. e. than it would be in the use of any other Ceremonies but those particular Ceremonies about which the Controversie is 〈◊〉 there the fallacy seems to lie And the neglect of which does not 2 make the Worship irreverent indecent and disorderly Now though it is in my nature to be very civil to Reconcilers yet I cannot grant him either of these Propositions As for the first I suppose our Reconciler will grant that it is possible there may be different degrees of Order Decency and Reverence and that religious actions may be performed orderly decently and reverently with some Ceremonies though there may be other Ceremonies more orderly decent and reverent and therefore there may be positive Order Decency and Reverence in those Cemonies the use of which makes the Worship orderly decent and reverent though it does not make it more orderly decent and reverent than otherwise it would be As for the second there may be a less orderly decent and reverent way of performing religious actions which yet cannot strictly be called irreverent indecent or disorderly or there may be several sorts of Ceremonies which may equally contribute to the reverent decent or orderly performance of religious actions and then the neglect of any one sort of Ceremonies may not make the action indecent irreverent or disorderly while we use other Ceremonies equally reverent or decent and therefore it cannot be true as he affirms that no Ceremonies have any positive Order Decency or Reverence which being undone the Service is not irreverently indecently and disorderly performed As to explain this by his own instances The Surplice may be a very decent Garment for Religious Offices and it may be the most decent of any other and yet the Worship may not be performed indecently without the Surplice if the Minister officiate in some other decent Garment but should he leave off the Surplice and put on a Colliers Frock or a Buff-coat I should think It very indecent and irreverent what the Reconciler would think I cannot tell Thus the Cross in Baptism does very much contribute to the gravity and solemnity of the action and yet Baptism is compleat and perfect without it and may be administred very reverently and decently if all other due circumstances be observed Kneeling is a posture very expressive of our Reverence and Devotion and therefore very proper for so sacred an action as receiving the Lords Supper but standing and prostration are expressive of Reverence and Devotion also and therefore those who do not kneel but stand when they receive cannot be charged with irreverence But now will any man in his wits say that there is no positive Order Decency or Reverence in a Surplice or the Cross in Baptism or kneeling at the Lords Supper because it is possible that these religious actions may be performed decently with other decent Ceremonies or Circumstances without them But our Reconciler though he may be a very charitable man yet is not very honest but manifestly puts tricks upon his Readers otherwise why does he oppose standing at the Lords Supper to kneeling and not rather sitting which is the onely posture used by our Dissenters The French Protestants indeed receive standing but what is that to our Dissenters who would no more receive standing than kneeling for the same Objections which they urge against kneeling are as good against standing That it was not the posture used by Christ at the institution of this Sacrament That it is not a Table-posture and therefore not proper at a Feast That it is used as a posture of Worship and therefore they may worship the Host as well standing as kneeling for if it be not used as a posture of Worship it is no more expressive of Reverence than sitting Now why does not our Reconciler say that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper may be received as reverently sitting as kneeling but instâ—ad of sitting which is the case of our Dissenters whose Cause he undertakes puts in standing I can imagine no other reason but onely this That he was very sensible that sitting was no reverend posture nor used by them as a posture of Worship for then it is liable to the same Objections as kneeling is for they might worship the Host as well sitting as kneeling and yet if they do not worship sitting they confess that they do not worship Christ no more than the Host when they approach the Lords Table and therefore he puts in standing which is not kneeling indeed and yet is expressive of Reverence And is not this a plain confession that the onely case wherein decent and reverent Ceremonies may be neglected and yet the Worship not be indecent and irreverent is when other decent and reverent Ceremonies are used in their room but if they lay aside reverent Ceremonies and use irreverent ones the Worship becomes irreverent also The external Decency and Reverence of religious actions consists in the Reverence and Decency of those Circumstances and Ceremonies wherewith they are performed Where there is choice of such decent Modes and Ceremonies of Worship the neglect of any one decent and reverent Mode or Ceremony cannot make the action irreverent or undecent but the neglect of all does Had our Reconciler said that all those Ceremonies had a positive Order Decency and Reverence without some or other of which the Worship would be indecently irreverently or disorderly performed he
Church-Authority that without it the wisdom of Christ is obscured and exposed to censure the Peace and Unity of Christians rendered impracticable Protestants left destitute of any means of Union and occasion given to Papists to cry up the necessity of an infallible Judge that which draws so many fatal consequents after it does not seem to me to be any great act of charity and yet thus it would be should the Governours of the Church in compliance with the frowardness and scruples of Schismaticks give up their authority in the Externals of Worship and leave every man to do as he pleased While the Church maintains her Authority a little Discipline and Government and a few good Arguments may in time cure the Schism and if it will not let Schismaticks answer for it at the last day but if Schismaticks once gain this point and wheedle the Church for peace sake out of her Authority then we must bid an eternal farewel to Peace and Order and Uniformity in Religion for men will never agree in these matters without the determination of Authority There is no other means left in the Church to decide these differences when the Church has parted with her Authority and thus the Wisdom of Christ will be reproached and censured and the Protestant Name and Religion exposed to contempt and this is our Reconciler's Protestant Charity Well but suppose this compliance with Dissenters did not infer a renuntiation of their Power and Authority but onely a suspension of the exercise of it the case is much the same for this forbearance must be for ever unless we could suppose that these men will return to the obedience of the Church when the Church leaves off to command Now it is the same thing for the Church to renounce her Power and to renounce the exercise of it I suppose Christ gave this Power to the Church that she should exercise it and if the Power be necessary to the welfare and unity and edification of the Church to be sure the exercise of it is For Authority is a meer empty name and good for nothing when it doth nothing This I think is sufficient to prove that the charity of Governours does not require them to renounce their Government neither in the authority nor exercise of it And therefore II. The Charity of Governours must consist in the acts and exercise of Government that is as far as it concerns our present Dispute in making and repealing Laws And I dare joyn issue here with our Reconciler and challenge him and all his dissenting Clients to fix the least imputation of uncharitableness upon the Church of England on this account as to discourse this matter a little more particularly to confound all such unjust Defamers of Authority and Government 1. I shall begin with repealing Laws and altering such Rituals and Ceremonies as were either sinful superstitious or inconvenient because here our Reformation began And what Rules our Church ' observed in this we learn from the Preface to the Common-Prayer where the reasons are assigned why some Ceremonies were abolish'd As 1. Becauâ—e some of them which were at first well intended did in time degenerate into vanity and superstition 2. Others were from the beginning the effects of an indiscreet Devotion and such a Zeal as was without knowledge and dayly grew to more and more abuses and they were rejected because they were unprofitable blinded the people hindred them from a right understanding of the true nature of Christian Religion and obscured the glory of God 3. Some were put away because their very numbers were an intolerable burden and made the estate of Christian people in worse case concerning this matter than were the Jews as St. Austin complained in his days when the number of Ceremonies was much less than it was in this Church at the time of Reformation which was a great injury to the Gospel of Christ which is not a Ceremonial Law as much of Moses Law was but a Religion to serve God not in the bondage of the figure or shadow but in the freedom of the Spirit And lastly the most weighty cause of the abolishment of certain Ceremonies was that they were so far abused partly by the superstitious blindness of the ignorant and unlearned and partly by the unsatiable avarice of such as sought more their own lucre than the glory of God that the abuses could not well be taken away the thing remaining still With what grave and mature consideration our Church proceeded in this affair is evident from this account which contains all the wise reasons that can be thought of for the alteration of any publick Constitutions Here is charity to the Souls of men in delivering them from ignorance and superstition to which they were betrayed by the Rituals and Ceremonies of Religion a tender regard to the case and liberty of Christians which was oppressed by such a multitude as were hard to know and to remember and very troublesom to observe and almost impossible to understand which made them wholly useless and unprofitable Here is a great regard to the glory of God which was obscured by these Ceremonies to the purity of the Christian Religion which was transformed by a multitude of Ceremonies into a meer external and figurative Worship And here are the true reasons why any Ceremonies which have been long used in a Church and confirmed by Ecclesiastical Canons or Civil Laws ought notwithstanding that to be removed when either their numbers are excessive or the abuses of them such as cannot be taken away without abolishing the Ceremony it self Several instances of this may be given as to name onely Images in Churches which could not be safely retained at that time without the danger of idolatrous Worship For the generality of people in those days were so superstitiously addicted to the worship of Images that had they been left in Churches though the worship of them had been expresly forbid yet infinite numbers of people would have worshipped them notwithstanding This very reason our Church gives in her Homily against the peril of Idolatry part 3. of the necessity of removing Images out of Churches That as well by the origine and nature of Idols and Images themselves as by the proneness and inclination of mans corrupt nature to Idolatry it is evident that neither Images if they be publickly set up can be separated nor men if they see Images in Temples and Churches can be stayed and kept from Idolatry Wherefore they which thus reason though it be not expedient yet it is lawful to have Images publickly and do prove that lawfulness by a few picked and chosen men if they object that indifferently to all men which a very few can have without hurt and offence they seem to take the multitude for vile Souls of whose loss and safeguard no reputation is to be had for whom Christ yet paid as dearly as for the mightiest Prince or the wisest and best learned of the Earth
â—udge when it is fit to stop and every wise man will think it fit to stop when she has cast every thing out of her Worship which is a just cause of scandal and offence and if she goes further to satisfie unreasonable and clamorous demands she can never have a reason to stop till she has satisfied all Clamours 2. Yes says our Reconciler she may remove things indifferent and unnecessary which is all at present desired No say I she cannot part with all things which are in their own nature indifferent for some such things are necessary to the Order and Decency of Worship which must not be parted with and the Church never owned the contrary She says indeed that her particular Ceremonies are indifferent and alterable that we may exchange one decent Ceremony for another when there is reason for it but the Church ought to alter no Ceremony without reason nor part with all indifferent Ceremonies for the external Decency of Worship for any reason And now we are beholden to him that 3. He grants with some reconciling salvo's that we must not part with our Church-government under the pretence of parting with indifferent things But if we must not part with that we may as well keep all the rest for our Divisions will be the same No party ever separated from the Church for the sake of Ceremonies who did not quarrel with the Order and Authority of Bishops The rest of his Arguments in that Chapter do not concern this business but whatever he would prove by them there are two general Answers will serve for them all 1. That indifferent things which serve the ends of Order Decency are not such unnecessary trifles as to be parted with for no reason which I think I have sufficiently proved above And 2. Tâ—at parting with them will not heal our Divisions and therefore at least upon that account there is no reason to part with them What I have now discours'd about Divisions and Discords is a sufficient Answer to his next long Harangue about the evil of Schism in which I heartily concur with him as believing that Schism it self will shut men out of the Kingdom of Heaven which is as bad a thing as can be said of it and therefore out of love to my Brother's Soul I would not upon any account be guilty of his Schism But how does this prove that Church-Governours must part with the Rites and Ceremonies of Religion Oh! because Dissenters take offence at these things and run into Schism and consequently must be damned for it and therefore Charity obliges to part with such indifferent things to prevent the eternal damnation of so many Souls But now 1. Suppose the imposition of these Ceremonies be neither the cause of the Schism nor the removal of them the cure of it what then Why must the Church part with these Ceremonies which are of good use in Religion to no purpose And yet this is the truth of the case as appears from what I have already discours'd The several Sects of Religion were Schismaticks to each other when there were no Ceremonies to trouble them and would be so again if the Church of England were once more laid in the dust No man separates from the Church of England who has not espoused some Principles of Faith or Government besides the Controversie about Ceremonies contrary to the Faith and Government of the Church and will the removal of Ceremonies make them Orthodox in all other points or are they of such squeamish Consciences that they can submit to an Antichristian Hierarchy and an Antichristian Liturgy but not to Ceremonies 2. The Argument of Schism is the very worst Argument our Reconciler could have used as being directly contrary to the end and designe of it All the Authority the Church has depends on the danger of Schism and the necessity of Christian Communion The onely punishment she can inflict on refractory and disobedient Members is to cast them out of the Church and that is a very terrible punishment too if there be no ordinary means of salvation out of the Communion of the Church and therefore the danger of Schism is a very good Argument to perswade Dissenters to consider well what they do and not to engage themselves in a wilful and unnecessary Schism But it is a pretty odde way to perswade the Governours of the Church out of the exercise of their just Authority for fear some men should turn Schismaticks and be damned for it The reason why the Gospel has threatned such severe punishments against Schism is to make the Authority of the Church sacred and venerable that no man should dare to divide the Communion of the Church or to separate from their Bishops and Pastors without great and necessary reason and our Reconciler would fright the Church out of the exercise of her just Authority for fear men should prove Schismaticks and be damned for it Christ has made Schism a damning sin to give Authority to the Church and our Reconciler would perswade the Church not to exercise her Authority for fear men should be damned for their Schism Now whether our Saviour who thought it better that Schismaticks should be damned than that there should be no Authority in the Church or our Reconciler who thinks it better that there should be no Authority in the Church than that Schismaticks should be damned are persons of the greatest Charity I leave others to judge Indeed the odium of this whole business which is so tragically exaggerated by the Reconciler must at last fall upon our Saviour himself either for instituting such an Authority in his Church or for confirming this Authority by such a severe Sanction as eternal damnation If Christ will at the last day condemn those who separate from the Church for some external Rites and Ceremonies as our Reconciler's Argument supposes he will then it is a signe that Christ approves of what the Church does in taking care of the Decency of Worship and that he thinks it very just that such Schismaticks should be damned and then let our Reconciler if he think fit charge the Saviour of the World with want of Charity to the Souls of men The Church damns no man but does what she believes to be her duty and leaves Schismaticks to the judgment of Christ if he damns them at the last day let our Reconciler plead their Cause then before the proper Tribunal and if Christ can justifie himself in pronouncing the Sentence I suppose he will justifie his Church too in the exercise of her Authority This is certain that if the imposition of these Ceremonies be a just cause of Separation our Dissenters are not Schismaticks and therefore in no danger of damnation upon that score and if it be not a just cause of Separation then the Church does not exceed her Authority in it and therefore is not to be blamed notwithstanding that danger of Schism which men wilfully run themselves into
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
God has not determined by his own Authority whereas the Dispute between Jews and Gentiles was actually determined by God that the Jews should be indulged in the observation of the Law but that it should not be imposed upon the Gentiles and therefore when they judged and censured one another upon this account they exceeded their authority they judged over Gods judgment and judged another mans Servant which the Church cannot be charged with when she judges and censures her own refractory and dissenting Members for their disobedience in such things as are subject to her authority 3. The Apostle perswades both Jews and Gentiles to receive one another to Christian communion because though they differed in their practice yet both of them acted out of reverence to the divine Authority The Jew knew that the Law of Moses was given by God and could not be satisfied that it was repealed and therefore still observed the Law in reverence to the Authority which first gave it The converted Gentiles knew that the Law was never given to them and were assured by the same persons upon whose authority they embraced the Gospel that they were not under the obligation of the Law and therefore they thankfully accept that liberty which Christ had purchased for them And therefore since both of them at that time could truly plead a divine authority for what they did and not meerly some unaccountable humour and prejudice they ought not to judge and censure one another for such different practices One man esteemeth one day above another another esteemeth every day alike let every man be fully perswaded in his own mind He that regardeth a day regardeth it to the Lord and he that regardeth not a day to the Lord he doth not regard it He that eateth eateth to the Lord for he giveth God thanks which would be a profane and impudent mockery of God did he not believe that God had given him liberty to eat indifferently of any thing and he that eateth not to the Lord he eateth not and giveth God thanks Our Reconciler represents the Apostles Argument thus These persons saith the Apostle ought to be received into communion although they differ in practice and in judgment about these matters because it was from conscience towards God and a desire to do what was most pleasing to him that some did eat and others not that some did regard a day and others not If charity therefore will teach us to conclude of such as do observe or do refuse observance of the Constitutions of our Church in these inferiour matters that as they outwardly profess so do they really observe or not observe them out of conscience towards God which they who cannot know mens Consciences but by their own professions cannot well deny then must they both by the Apostles Rule receive each other to communion and not reject each other on the accounts of differences in judgment or in practice in these lesser matters Let us then consider what the consequence of this Doctrine would be if it were true viz. that the Consciences of men are under no Government and when we consider what is usually meant by Conscience viz. mens private Opinions and Judgments of things the plain English of it is that every man must do as he list and thus all the Authority of Government is over-ruled by the more soveraign Authority of Conscience This is so extreamly absurd that it is wonderful to me that men of common understanding should not blush to own it For 1. It is plain that God will judge the Consciences of men and condemn them too if they be erroneous and wicked The Jews crucified our Saviour and persecuted his Apostles out of zeal for God as St. Paul witnesses but God destroyed their City Temple and Nation for it I suppose our Reconciler will not charge all the Heathen Idolaters even after the Empire was turned Christian with being a pack of damned Hypocrites Many of them no doubt very sincerely followed their Consciences and yet were damned not for Hypocrites but for conscientious Idolaters All the Laws of God oblige the Consciences of men whatever their particular Perswasions may be and if mens Consciences will not comply with the Laws of God the Law will judge and condemn them and yet it seems as hard a thing that God should condemn men who act out of conscience and a desire to do what is most pleasing to him as that Earthly Governours should condemn and punish them No you 'll say God is the sole Lord and Judge of Conscience and he alone has authority to give Laws to the Consciences of men which no humane power can but all this is senseless Cant for what is it to be the Lord of Conscience and to give Laws to Conscience Does it signifie any more than a Soveraign Authority to command under the guilt of sin if we disobey And have not all Governours then who have received authority from God to command the government of mens Consciences too as far as their authority reaches But this is not the Question Who has authority to give Laws to Conscience for whoever has authority to make Laws has authority to make Laws for Conscience unless they have authority to make Laws without obliging any body to obey them But the Question is Whether after Laws are made either by God or men every man may equitably challenge a liberty to follow the guidance of his own Conscience though his Conscience mistake its rule Now it is plain that God does not grant this liberty for he punishes such erroneous Consciences and will eternally damn those who do wicked actions out of a mistaken Zeal for his glory and yet if there were any reason or equity in the case it would more oblige God than any Earthly Governours because such misguided Zealots are supposed to intend Gods glory in what they do And if God will not indulge such men in the breach of his Laws though they intend to please him by it what reason have Earthly Governours to do it who receive their authority from God and cannot imitate a better Example in the exercise of it than God himself 2. Civil Magistrates ought to take no notice at all of mens Consciences in making or executing Laws for the good government of the Nation If the Saints should think it their priviledge and prerogative to rob and plunder and murder the ungodly if they should think themselves bound in conscience to pull down earthly Princes to set up King Jesus on his Throne should Magistrates be afraid of hanging such Villains as these as commit such horrid Outrages from a Principle of Conscience Nay if men refuse to give security to the Government or a legal testimony in any civil cause out of a scruple about the lawfulness of Oaths is the Government to take notice or to make any allowance for this If God does not Magistrates have less reason to do it because God knows what mens Consciences
and Unity in the Christian Church for they may entertain and multiply such Disputes for ever with the same reason that they do now And therefore there is always reason to suppress those Scruples which câ—nnot be cured or outworn by time when Indulgence will not cure the Disease nor time remove it it must be stifled and suppressed by Ecclesiastical Authority Whether our Reconciler will think this a sufficient Answer to his fourth Chapter I cannot tell I am sure I do CHAP. VI. Containing an Answer to the fifth Chapter of the Protestant Reconciler or his Arguments taken from St. Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians HAving in the former Chapter so particularly answered our Reconciler's Arguments taken as he pretends from that condescension and forbearance which St. Paul exhorts the believing Jews and Gentiles to exercise towards each other in that great Dispute about the observation of the Law of Moses there seems little occasion to answer the rest of his Arguments from Scripture which every ordinary Reader may do from the Principles already laid down But that our Reconciler may not complain that he is not answered I am willing to undergo the trouble of a needless Answer if my Readers will be pleased to pardon it His first Argument is from St. Paul's discourse 1 Cor. 6. Where he condemneth the Corinthians because they went to law before the heathens which was a blemish to the Christian Faith and ministred scandal to the heathens and made them apt to think that Christians were covetous contentious and prone to injure one another c. Since therefore our Contentions about these lesser matters do minister far greater Scandal to the Atheist the Sceptick c. our Governours should rather suffer themselves to be restrained a little and even injured in the exercise of their just Power about things unnecessary than by their stiffness to assert and to exert it to continue to give occasion to so great a Scandal to the Christian Faith This is an admirable Argument if it be well considered The Christians must not go to law before Heathen Judges therefore the Governours of the Church must not prescribe the decent Rites and Ceremonies of Worship Yes you will say the Argument is good because the reason is the same to avoid Scandal Let us then suppose this was the reason if we will make these two cases parallel it must be thus To go to law with our Christian Brethren is scandalous and therefore must be avoided to prescribe the decent Rites and Ceremonies of Religion is scandalous and therefore Church-Governours must not exercise this Authority Will our Reconciler now stand to this Proposition No that he durst not affirm that the exercise of a just Authority in these matters is scandalous but the contentions about such Rites and Ceremonies are scandalous and therefore Governours must not insist on their Authority to prescribe them But now this way of stating it does not make the case parallel and therefore he cannot argue by any parity of Reason from one to the other St. Paul exhorts the Christians not to go to law before Heathen Judges because it was scandalous to the Christian Profession to do so and therefore if our Reconciler will make a parallel case he must instance onely in something which is scandalous and then by a parity of reason he may prove that to be forbidden also But neither the Authority to prescribe the decent Rites of Worship nor the prudent exercise of it is scandalous and therefore he cannot prove this to be forbid by any parity of Reason But contentions indeed in the Christian Church whatever be the cause of them are very scandalous and therefore all scandalous contentions are forbid as all scandalous going to law is For we must observe that though the Apostle in the seventh verse tells them There is utterly a fault among you because ye go to law one with another yet he does not absolutely forbid going to law as that signifies using some fair and lawful means of righting our selves when we suffer wrong even from our Christian Brethren but onely as it signifies going to law before the Vnbelievers or Heathen Magistrates for he requires and exhorts them to have their Causes heard and tryed before the Saints that is either the Governours of the Church or any other Christians whom by joynt consent they shall make Judges and Arbitrators among them But to go to law in those days did properly signifie to implead one another before the Heathen Tribunals because there were no other Magistrates at that time who had any legal authority and this going to law was scandalous Thus by a parity of Reason it is onely that contention which is scandalous that can be forbid and therefore for the Governours of the Church to assert their own Authority in ordering the Externals of Religion and for private Christians to defend the Authority of the Church though with some vehemence and earnestness is not scandalous for it is what they ought to do but to contend against the Authority of the Church is a very scandalous contention because it is against the Duty which private Christians owe to their Superiours and therefore whatever Scandal is given by such contentions is wholly owing to the scandalous Contenders that is to the Dissenters who scandalously oppose the Authority and Constitutions of the Church And therefore our Reconciler ought to have reproved the Dissenters and exhorted them to leave off their scandalous contentions not to lay a necessity on the Governors of the Church not to exercise their Authority which these men so scandalously oppose as we find the Apostle in this very place turns the edge of his reproof against those who did the wrong and gave occasion to these scandalous contentions Ye do wrong and defraud and that your brethren Contentions either about the Doctrine Discipline or Worship of the Christian Church are very scandalous but is this a good reason not to contend for the Faith not to oppose Heresies and Schisms because these Disputes represent Christianity as a very uncertain thing and give scandal and offence to Atheists and Infidels then the Orthodox Christians did very ill to meet in such frequent Councils to condemn Arianism and other pestilent Heresies Where there is a Scandal onely on one side and Contention is the onely Scandal this is a good reason against such contentious Disputes but when it is more scandalous to suffer Heresies in the Church to see Ecclesiastical Authority despised to permit any indecencies and disorders different customs and practices in Christian Worship than it is to contend for the Truth and for the Order and Uniformity of publick Worship we must not be afraid to contend for these things the onely scandalous contention being to contend against them His second Argument which he draws out to a great length is taken from 1 Cor. 7. where he tells us that the Apostle grants it is good for a man not to touch a wife
it on the second month by those who were unclean or in a journey on the first month was a violation of what God had prescribed when God himself had expresly prescribed it And let him consider once more whether works of necessity and mercy were a violation of the Sabbatick rest when our Saviour himself poves that they were not that God never intended that the rest of the Sabbath should exclude such works I am sure our Reconciler cannot produce any one instance wherein God permitted and allowed the violation of any ceremonial Law according to the true intent and meaning of the Law without express order for it but on the other hand God was very strict and rigorous in exacting the observation of them and did give as signal examples of his Justice and Severity upon such accounts as upon any other whatever Witness the man who gathered Sticks on the Sabbath-day and was stoned to death for it The fate of Corah Dathan and Abiram who quarrelled with Moses and Aaron which is more like the case of our Dissenters and offered Incense the Earth opened her mouth and swallowed them up and a Fire consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered Incense To which we may adde the case of Vzzah who was struck dead upon the place for touching the Ark of God which was not lawful for him to do though he did it with a very pious intention to preserve it from falling Thus Saul's offering Sacrifice in Samuel's absence though he had a very plausible excuse for it and his sparing Agag the King of the Amalakites and the best of the Sheep and Oxen c. cost him his Kingdom This is no Argument that God was so little concerned about the observation of his ceremonial Laws or thought any thing little which he commanded when he so severely revenged the breach of them God indeed did prefer true and real Righteousness before any ceremonial Observances but he did not therefore countenance the breach of his meanest Laws What our Saviour tells the Pharisees Who payed thythe of mint and anise and cummin and neglected the weightier matters of the law judgment mercy and faith is a standing Rule in all these cases These things ought ye to have done and not to leave the other undone they should observe them both the great and the less matters of the Law and not neglect or despise either So that Gods example in theâ—e matters is so far from helping our Reconciler's Cause that it makes against him God did not equal the Ceremonies of the Law with the more weighty duties of Judgment Mercy and Faith no more than the Church equals a Ceremony with the dearer interesâ—s of Love and Peace and Unity but yet God instituted these Ceremonies and commanded the observation of them and punish'd the breach of them even when the whole Congregation mutinied and rebelled upon it as they did in the case of Corah that is when they came as much in competition with Love and Peace and Unity as the Reconciler pretends our Ceremonies at this day do 2. But if this will not do our Reconciler has another way of arguing from the example of God to oblige the Governours of the Church not to impose these Ceremonies when there are so many Dissenters amongst us who will not submit to them As 1. The example of Gods love in sending his Son into the World that we might live through him why then should they who are commanded to be followers of God as dear children and walk in love refuse to part with their unnecessary Ceremonies and to refrain the exercise of their imposing power in things indifferent Now if our Reconciler will give me a reason why they should not I will tell him why they should God has in infinite goodness sent his Son into the World to save sinners but still they must be saved in that method which Christ has appointed To this end Christ has given us his Laws instituted a Church-Society appointed Stewards of his Family and Rulers of his Houshold and given them authority to govern Religious Assemblies to prescribe the Rules of Worship and the Methods of Discipline and all this for the salvation of mens Souls and therefore the Governours of the Church must not renounce this Authority and the exercise of it because in its rank and order it is subservient to the great end for which God sent Christ into the World viz. the salvation of mens Souls and is instituted by Christ for that purpose But you 'll object that the exercise of this Authority in indifferent things is so far from contributing to the salvation of mens Souls especially in such an Age as this that it destroys them What destroys them the use of indifferent things No men may observe these Ceremonies without prejudicing their salvation What then is it the imposition of these things Nor that neither for to command that which will not destroy mens Souls cannot destroy them What is it then an obstinate refusal to obey such Impositions Right for this makes men Schismaticks and will damn them and thus disobedience to any other of Christs Laws will damn men though Christ died for them And thus according to this way of arguing God who did so infinitely love sinners as to send Christ to save them ought to have given them no Laws nor made any Conditions of salvation for fear men should break them and be damned for it For is it not a greater thing to give his Son for sinners than to indulge them in some little Follies and Extravagances Will God who loved sinners so as to give his own Son for them damn them for stealing a shilling or two for playing the Good-fellow sometimes or for some kind and amorous Embraces Sure he is so good that he will repeal all these Soul-destroying Laws and when we see this done it will be time for the Governours of the Church to renounce their Authority too in imitation of the love of God II. His next Argument is That God is so merciful to weak and erring persons as not to judge condemn or exclude them from his favour for any errours of their judgments which are consistent with true love to him and which they did not wilfully embrace nor do persist in against conviction of their Consciences but will upon a general repentance for their unknown sins receive them to his favour though they live and die under such errours and mistakes Why then should we who are commanded to be merciful as our heavenly Father is merciful reject them from Communion whom God will receive why should we not forbear to condemn and censure them whom God will absolve This is so fulsomly ridiculous that I should be ashamed to answer it were it not very fit to expose such popular Cant. For 1. Though the infinite goodness of God does incline us to hope well of those who lived and died in invincible errours yet we know
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
Reverend Bishops once have condescended to these terms of Vnion would they not have rejoyced to have seen the Church restored and themselves readmitted to the execution of their sacred Function upon such terms as the abatement of such trivial things Ans. I judge it very likely they might as a banished Prince would be glad to be restored to his Crown again though he parted with some Jewels out of it But when the providence of God restores them to the exercise of their Function without any such restraints and limitation of their power it is their duty to use their whole power as prudently and charitably as they can The restoring of Episcopacy restored the face of a Church again which was nothing but a Schism without it and no doubt but all good men would be very glad of this though upon hard and disadvantageous terms but surely to restore the Church to its ancient beauty and lustre in a regular and decent administration of all holy Offices is more desirable than nothing but the meer being of a Church still deformed with the marks and ruines of an old Schism and therefore when this can be had it ought to be had and it is a ridiculous thing to imagine that Bishops must use no other authority in the government of the Church when they are in a full possession of their power than barely so much as they would have been contented to have bargained for with Schismaticks when they were thrust out of all power Though whether St. Cyprian would have made any such bargain with Schismaticks as inferred a diminution of the Episcopal Authority I much question Had the Wisdom of the Nation at the happy return of his Majesty to his Throne thought fit to have made any tryal and experiment what some condescensions and abatements would have done the Reverend Bishops no doubt would have acquiesced in it not out of any opinion they had of such methods but to satisfie those who do not see the events of things at a distance by making the experiment But that factious and restless Spirit of Phanaticism which began immediately to work convinced our Prince and Parliament how dangerous such an experiment would be and prevented the tryal of it and now we have such fresh and repeated experiments how dangerous these Factions are both to Church and State our Reconciler would perswade our Governours out of their senses to cherish those men who if they be not suppressed will most infallibly involve this unhappy Church and Kingdom in Bloud and Confusion As for what our Reconciler adds concerning the Rubrick about kneeling at the Sacrament and the Canon about bowing of the body in token of our reverence of God when we come into the place of publick Worship have been sufficiently answered already CHAP. VIII Containing some brief Animadversions on the Authorities produced by our Reconciler in his Preface and the Conclusion of the whole with an Address to the Dissenters THus I have with all plainness and sincerity examined the whole reason of this book for as for the remaining Chapters whatever is of any moment in them I have answered before in the first and second Chapters of this Vindication whether the Answer I have given be satisfactory or not I must leave to others to judge but I can honestly say I have used no tricks and evasions nor have I used any Argument but what is satisfactory to my self All that remains now is a brief examination of those Authorities our Reconciler has produced in his Preface to prove that our own Kings and many famous Doctors of our own Church besides many foreign Divines have pleaded for that condescension for which he pleads in this Book Now I thought it the best way in the first place to examine his Reasons for this condescension for if there be no reason to do this it is no great matter who pleads for it without reason and yet I should be very unwilling to leave such a reproach upon so many great men that they declare their opinions and judgment for a Cause which has no reason to support it And therefore to give a fair account of this also I reviewed his Preface and found there were two ways of answering it either by examining his particular Testimonies we having no reason to believe any thing upon his credit or by taking the Testimonies for granted and shewing that this does not prove that they were of his mind The first of these I had no great stomach to as being a tedious and troublesome work which would swell this Vindication to a great bulk which is grown too big already and the onely end it could serve is to prove that the Protestant Reconciler does not quote his Authors faithfully but I have already given such evidence of this in my Vindication of Bishop Taylor as will spoil his credit with all wary men And therefore I resolved upon the other way of answering him to shew that the Testimonies produced by him as he produces them do not prove what he intended them for But I called to mind that I had a Book written upon this very subject entituled Remarks upon the Preface to the Protestant Reconciler in a Letter to a Friend which I read over and to my great comfort found my work done to my hand for that Author has with great judgment said whatever I can think proper to be said in this Cause and therefore I shall onely give some little hints of what I intended more largely to discourse and refer my Readers to those Remarks for further satisfaction The intention of this Preface our Reconciler tells us p. 3. was to strengthen the designe of his Book by the concurrent suffrages of many worthy Persons both of our own and other Churches who have declared themselves to be of the same judgment and have pursued the same designe which he has done in his Book Now the designe of his Book as I have shewn from his own words in my Introduction p. 13 14. is to prove that it is utterly unlawful for the Governours of the Church to impose the observation of indifferent Rites and Ceremonies in Religion especially when these Ceremonies are scrupled and many professed Christians rather chuse to separate from the Church than submit to them Now to prove this he first alleadges the Authority of three Kings King Iames King Charles the first the Royal Martyr and best of Kings and men as he is pleased to stile him and our present Soveraign and I know not where he could have named three other Kings more averse to his Reconciling designe What King Iames his Judgment was is evident from the Conference at Hampton-court where he so severely determined against Dissenters and kept his word all his reign without granting any liberty to these pretended scruples which is very strange had he been of our Reconciler's mind that it is unlawful to impose these Ceremonies upon a scrupulous Conscience How much King Charles the first suffered