This is just as if we should charge that good Father who received his prodigal Son with all expressions of joy and made a great entertainment for his return with shutting his eldest Son out of his house because he foolishly and wickedly took offence at his Fathers kindneâ—s to his Brother and would not enter though his Father himself went out to perswade him and invite him in and to satisfie him of the fitness and decency of what he had done I doubt this does more properly belong to those Pharisaical Preachers who are satisfied in the lawfulness of what is required as St. Ierom supposes some of these Pharisees were convinc'd that Jesus was the Messias but to gratifie their own obstinacy pride and revenge will neither do what they know they may lawfully do themselves nor suffer others to do it St. Chrysostom expounds the words much to the same purpose and therefore no wonder if as our Reconciler observes he tells us That these men are called Pests and are diametrically opposed to Teachers their work being to destroy For if the Teachers business be to save what is lost to lose or cause to perish what might be saved is the work of the destroyer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which otherwise would be saved the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those who were entring that is as he expounds it the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those who were prepared and disposed to enter Now I think our Church never shut any out of her Communion who were prepared and disposed to enter But our Reconciler observes that in the same Chapter our Saviour condemns the Scribes and Pharisees for binding heavy burdens upon mens shoulders which they would not move with one of their fingers But what were these heavy burdens and grievous to be born which the Pharisees bound upon mens shoulders were they things burdensom to the Conscience which tempted men to forsake their Communion No such matter men were not so scrupulous in those days and our Saviour in that very place expresly charges his own Disciples not to forsake their Communion The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses seat all therefore that they bid you observe that observe and do And therefore our Saviour could not charge them that by these heavy burdens they frighted men from their Communion and made Schisms in the Church and therefore it is very impertinently alleadged by our Reconciler These heavy burdens did not concern the Rites and Ceremonies of publick Worship which our Saviour never blamed them for but conformed to them himself when he worshipped in their Synagogues But they were some strict and rigorous Expositions of their Law without making such allowances in cases of necessity and mercy as God intended as when they quarrelled with the Disciples for pulling the ears of Corn and eating them as they walked through the fields on the Sabbath-day being hungry or some arbitrary impositions which made a great shew and appearance of Sanctity but were very troublesome to be observed And when our Reconciler can shew any such heavy burdens imposed by the Church of England we will think of some other Answer But did our Saviour condemn the Pharisees meerly for binding these heavy burdens and laying them upon mens shoulders Not that neither The crime our Saviour charges them with was gross Hypocrisie that while they were so strict and severe in their impositions upon other men they were very easie and gentle to themselves They laid heavy burdens on others but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers Our Reconciler observes That St. Chrysostom well notes that our Lord saith not that they cannot but they will not move them Whereby he would have his Readers to understand that by moving them our Saviour meant removing them that they laid on heavy burdens but would not take them off again when they lawfully might as he expresly says â—hat not dispensing with these Traditions upon such great occasions was the sin of the Scribes and Pharisees Which is the fault he charges our Church with that she will not part with her Ceremonies for the sake of Dissenters Whereas St. Ierom and St. Chrysostom and all good Expositors understand no more by it than that they would not practise the least part of these things themselves They were very severe in their injunctions to others but excused themselves from such severities Which saith S. Chrysostom is quite contrary to what becomes a good Governour who will be very rigorous and severe in judging and censuring his own actions but a very kind and favourable judge of those who are under his care And therefore our Saviour urges this as a proof of what he before charged them with But do not ye after their works for they say and do not VI. In the next place he attempts to prove That Dissenters though not of our Communion should not be forbid to preach for the promotion of Christ's Kingdom because Christ would not suffer his Disciples to forbid the man who wrought Miracles in his Name but did not follow them that is says our Reconciler did not hold Communion with them And thus he has fairly altered the state of the Question and unwarily betrayed the secret thoughts of his heart His open and avowed designe all this while has been to plead for the removal of our Ceremonies that Dissenters might joyn in Communion with us and avoid the guilt of Schism which is a damning sin but now it seems it would do as well if not much better if Dissenters had but their liberty to preach in Conventicles for the promotion of Christ's Kingdom But is the Kingdom of Christ then promoted by Schism Will Schism damn men as he asserts and makes the principal foundation of all his Arguments and will the damnation of so many men as are seduced into Schism enlarge Christ's Kingdom Must the Church part with her Ceremonies for fear the occasion mens running into Schism and being damned for it And yet may she suffer Schismaticks to preach and allure men into a Schism I beg our Reconciler to think again of this and reconcile himself to himself But how does it appear that this man who cast out Devils in Christ's Name did preach the Gospel too There is no such thing said in the Text and if it be true what our Reconciler affirms that he was not Christ's Disciple he could not do it If he believed in Christ he was Christ's Disciple if he did not he could not preach the Gospel and I think there is some difference between preaching and working Miracles When our Dissenters can work Miracles I will never oppose their preaching But how does it appear that this man who cast out Devils in Christ's Name was no Disciple Had Christ no Disciples but those who followed him where-ever he went Our Saviour seems to prove that he was a Disciple or in a very good disposition to be one in that saying He that is not against
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
no more than a Prince is to be blamed for making good Laws because some men will break them and be hanged for it 3. He perswades the Governours of the Church out of Charity to the Souls of men not to tempt them to Schism by their Impositions whereas there is no way to prevent Schism but by maintaining and asserting their own Authority When there is no Authority in the Church there will be as many Schisms in it as there will be Factions in the State without some â—upreme Power to whom all must obey And therefore out of Charity to the Souls of men and to prevent their Schism Church-Governours are bound to exercise their Authority and not to give way to ignorant and groundless scruples There is nothing occasions more Schisms than the different Rites and Modes of Worship and therefore if they would prevent Schism they ought to exercise their utmost Authority in maintaining the Decency and Uniformity of Worship which will prevent more Schisms than it can make It will preserve unity among those who have any reverence for the Authority of the Church or any sense of the danger of Schism and those who have not will be Schismaticks notwithstanding The onely way I know of to prevent Schism is by wise Instructions and by a strict Discipline the one to cure their ignorance and their scruples the other to curb their wantonness and petulancy but for Governours to suffer their Authority to be disputed and to give way to the frowardness fullenness or ignorance of men to alter the Laws and Constitutions as often as any man can find any thing to say against them would breed eternal confusion both in Church and State Government is the onely Cement and Bond of Unity and when Governours give the Reins out of their hands every young Phaëton will think himself fit to drive the Chariot of the Sun and no man will be governed when there is none to govern and what Order Unity there can be in the Church without Government or what Government where those who are to be governed must give Laws to their Governours I would desire our Reconciler at his leisure to tell me What follows in this Chapter has already been considered in my first Chapter and thither I refer my Reader CHAP. IV. An Answer to the Reconciler's Arguments from the Words the Doctrine the Deportment of Christ whilst he was here on Earth contained in his third Chapter THere are two main Principles on which all our Reconciler's Arguments are founded 1. That these disputed Ceremonies are wholly useless and unnecessary things 2. That the imposition of them is the cause of our Divisions and Schisms which would be cured by the removal of them which therefore is so great a charity to the Souls of men that Church-Governours ought to consent to and promote such an alteration Now all this being false as I have already proved his other Arguments must fall with it but yet to avoid all Cavils I shall particularly consider the force of what he urges And First He begins with the Doctrine and Deportment of our Saviour which I confess is a very good Topick if he could prove any thing from it and he has no less than eight Arguments to confound all the stiff Imposers of unnecessary things I. That our Lord doth frequently produce that saying of the Prophet Hosea I will have mercy and not sacrifice to justifie himself and his Disciples when for the good of their own bodies or the souls of others they did what was forbidden by the Law of Moses or by the Canons and Traditions of the Scribes â—nd Pharisees who sate in Moses Chair This is what every body will grant and therefore he needed not have troubled himself to prove it And his inference from hence is this That Precepts which contain onely Rituals are to give place to those which do concern the welfare of mens bodies and much more to those which do respect the welfare of our Brother's soul so that when both cannot together be observed we must neglect or violate the former to observe the latter From whence he concludes that therefore we must part with those Ceremonies which being made Conditions of Communion do accidentally afford occasion to such great and fatal evils to the Souls of men Now does not every body see that there is more in the conclusion than there is in the premises For 1. Does our Saviour here speak of abrogating the Laws of Sacrifice for the sake of Mercy How does he then hence conclude any thing about repealing the Laws of Ceremonies and Rituals which neither the Prophet nor our Saviour ever thought on when they said these words Though God prefers Mercy before Sacrifice yet he gave Laws about Sacrifices and Ceremonies and continued those Laws after these words were spoken and so may the Church do also for any thing that is here said to the contrary For 2. Our Saviour neither speaks here of making nor replealing Laws about Sacrifices or Rituals but onely prefers Mercy before Sacrifice when there happens a competition between them he supposes that both may be done and that both ought to be done but if both cannot be done at the same time Mercy must take place of Sacrifice And this Mercy our Church allows as much as any man can desire She is not so severe to exact kneeling at the Sacrament or at Prayers or standing at the Creed if men have any such infirmity on them that they cannot do it without great inconvenience she does not exact Godfathers or Godmothers or the signe of the Cross nor bringing the Child to Church when it is sick and in danger of death she does not impose fasting on weak and crasie persons nor think her Laws so sacred that no punctillo must be neglected when it is done without offence and scandal she will not blame any for staying from Church or going out in the midst of Prayers to quench a fire or to help a sick person And this answers to our Saviour's cases wherein he prefers Mercy before Sacrifice But how does this prove that the Governours of the Church must not exact obedience to wholsom Constitutions because some men scruple them Our Saviour never applies this saying to any such case and I am sure our Reconciler has neither reason nor authority to do it When our Reconciler proves from these words I will have mercy and not sacrifice that the Church must part with her Ceremonies for the sake of those who will separate from her if she do not he must either argue from the Saying it self or from those cases to which it is applied by our Saviour Now this Saying as it was meant by the Prophet Hosea signifies no more than this That God preferred all acts of real and substantial goodness before an external Religion even before Sacrifice it self as the Prophet Micah expresses it more at large but to the very same sence Wherewith shall I come before