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
the King of England must not impose the Laws of England on Italy or Spain therefore he must not make Laws for England neither This our Reconciler was aware of and therefore in his Preface to strengthen these Authorities he asks this Question Why that agreement in Fundamentals which is sufficient to preserve Communion betwixt Churches disagreeing in Rites and Ceremonies and Doctrines of inferior moment may not be sufficient also to preserve Communion among those Members of the same Church though disagreeing in like matters For if the reason why Christian Churches which do thus differ should be received and owned as Christians and Brethren of the same Communion with us is because these differences do not hinder their being real Members of Christs Body and therefore Fellow-members of the same Church and Body with us since the same reason proves the Members of any Church whatsoever who differ onely in non-fundamentals capable of being real Christians and so of the same Church and Body with us why should it not oblige us to receive them as Christian Brethren i. e. persons of the same Communion with us if we can do it without sin Now the Answer to this is so obvious that I wonder our Reconciler should miss it For 1. The reason of Communion between distinct Churches can be nothing else but the common Principles of Christianity one Lord one Faith one Hope one Baptism c. that is whatever is essential to Christian Faith and Worship for what is more than this as the particular Rules and Orders of Discipline and Government and Modes of Worship are the Object of Ecclesiastical Authority and since no Church has authority over another they ought not to impose their own Rules of Discipline or Worship upon each other But now no private Christian can live in the Communion of any particular Church without submitting to its Government and Discipline and conforming to its Rules of Worship Though one Church must not usurp Authority over another yet every Church must govern her own Members and direct her own Worship and there can be no Order nor Decency of Worship where there are no Rules of Worship no Uniformity but every man is left to do as he pleases And yet 2. Though the Communion of distinct Churches with each other does not require that they should all observe the same Usages and Rites of Worship in their own Churches yet it requires that the Members of these distinct Churches should communicate with each other and conform to each others Customs where they happen to be present It is a ridiculous thing to talk of two Churches being in Communion with each other who will not as occasion serves communicate together upon the terms of each others Communion For Calvinists to call the Lutherans or Lutherans the Calvinists Brethren but to refuse to joyn in Communion when they happen to be in each others Churches this is not to live in Communion with each other or for a Calvinist to communicate in the Lutheran Church or a Lutheran in the Calvinists but according to the Rites of their own Churches not of the Church in which they communicate this is not to communicate with but publickly to affront each other The onely Principle of Catholick Communion between distinct Churches in such matters as these is so far to allow of each others Rules and Modes of Worship as to conform when occasion serves to such indifferent Customs and Usages though very different from their own rather than divide the Communion of the Church and if this be necessary to the Communion of distinct Churches with each other then certainly it is necessary for the Members of every particular Church to submit to its Authority and conform to its Rules and Orders of Worship For 3. It is ridiculous to imagine that nothing more is necessary to a Christian in Church-Communion than what is absolutely necessary to the State of a Christian out of the visible Communion of any Church as if nothing more were necessary to make a man a Member of the Commonwealth than what is necessary to make him a man The belief of the fundamental Doctrines of Christianity and Obedience to those Laws of Righteousness which have an eternal and immutable goodness in them will make a man a good Christian in a private and single capacity but obedience to Government and conformity to the Rules of Discipline and Worship are as necessary to make a man a good Christian in Church-society as they are essential to the being and constitution of a Church and it is impossible to form a Church-Society onely of the Essentials of Christianity considered as a Systeme of Doctrines and Laws which every private Christian ought to observe for there are the Essentials of Christian-Communion as well as of Christian Religion Christ did not onely publish the Gospel but instituted a Church and the Government and Discipline of the Church is of a distinct consideration from the belief of the Gospel No man can be a Member of the Church without believing the Gospel but Church-Society lays some new obligations upon us beyond what is necessary in a single state out of Church-Society But to return Though this learned Bishop did not urge the abrogation of the Mosaical Law against the imposition of the Ceremonies of the Church of England nor against any other Rituals or Ceremonies neither but only against such usurpt Authority as challenge a power to make Laws for the whole Christian World yet this Argument is frequently alleadged by others and more than once repeated by our Reconciler to this purpose but how trifling it is appears from this distinction between Rituals and Ceremonies and the decent Circumstances of Worship They tell us that Christ removed those burdens which were on the Church and therefore would not impose new ones But does the Church of England lay any new burdens upon men Does she require any thing more than what is necessary Christ requires that we should celebrate his last Supper in remembrance of him that the Minister should perform all the publick Offices of Religion and that this should be done in a decent and reverent manner and does the Church of England require any more Does she institute any Ceremonies excepting the Cross in Baptism which is a professing Signe and relates to no act of Worship though it be thought decent to be done at the time of Baptism but what are decent circumstances of action And is Decency then a new burden which Christ hath not imposed on his Disciples Is Decency an unnecessary or unreasonable thing Did Christ leave it at liberty then whether his Disciples should worship God decently or not Christ hath taken away the Yoke of Jewish Ceremonies and has the Church of England put another Jewish Yoke on the Disciples necks Are there any such Rituals and Ceremonies in the Church of England as have the least affinity with the Jewish Yoke Did Christ when he abrogated the Jewish Law abrogate all Decency
instituted and commanded As for instance Christ has instituted his Mystical Supper and commanded us to eat Bread and drink Wine in remembrance of his Body which was broken and of his Bloud which was shed for us but has not commanded us to do this either sitting standing or kneeling though it is absolutely necessary that we should do it in one posture or other Now the Church of England commands us to receive kneeling and will admit none to the Lords Table who will not receive kneeling This say they is to mend the Laws of Christ and to make new terms of Communion Why so Does the Church require any more than Christ hath required Yes say they she requires kneeling which Christ does not require But how does that appear that Christ does not require it Because say they he has not commanded us to receive kneeling No say I that is no Argument at all that Christ does not require it for he who commands us to receive commands us to receive in some posture or other for though we may logically distinguish between the act of receiving and the posture wherein we receive yet these cannot be actually separate for no man can receive but he must receive in some posture and therefore he who commands doing such an act includes whatever is necessary to the doing of it right You will say But yet Christ has not determined what posture we shall receive in but left them all indifferent Suppose this to be true yet the posture must of necessity be determined before we can receive for no man can receive but in some particular posture and therefore either every man must determine himself or the Authority of the Church must determine us which seems to be much more reasonable both because it is most decent and orderly that there should be some uniform posture of receiving and because the Governours of the Church not private Christians have the sole authority in such cases committed to them by Christ himself But now the question is whether to determine what Christ has not determined and yet what must be determined before we can perform that Duty which Christ commands be to come after Christ to correct his Laws and to make new terms of Communion If it be then whoever receives the Lords Supper whatever posture he receives in must of necessity correct the Laws of Christ and make new terms of Communion at least for himself because he must receive in some particular and determined posture whereas Christ has left all postures indifferent and undetermined which shews what a senceless and ridiculous imputation this is No you will say to receive in some particular posture though it be not determined by Christ is no correcting his Laws nor making new terms of Communion because Christ has left all postures indifferent and undetermined and therefore has left it to our liberty to use which we please and when we do so we onely use that liberty which Christ has given us But so to determine any one posture of receiving as not to allow of any other nor to admit any to our Communion who will not use that posture this is to make new terms of Communion which Christ has not made for if he have left all postures undetermined then to be sure he has not said that no man shall be admitted to the Sacrament who will not kneel And though every man may determine for himself or the Church may determine for us all yet it must not be determined so as to destroy the indifferency of the posture which is directly contrary to Christ's Institution who has left all postures indifferent This Objection at a distance I confess seems very plausible and to bear hard upon the Church but when we look more narrowly into it it vanishes into nothing For 1. I readily grant should the Church of England determine against the lawfulness of any other posture but kneeling in receiving the Lords Supper she might be charged with correcting the Laws of Christ and altering the nature of things for this would be to make some things necessary and other things unlawful which Christ had left indifferent 2. Should she refuse to communicate with any other Church which does not kneel at the Sacrament meerly because she does not kneel she might be charged with making new terms of Communion which Christ has not made for she has no authority to prescribe to other Churches in matters of an indifferent and undetermined nature and therefore cannot pretend her authority for such an Imposition but must pretend the nature of the thing that kneeling at the Sacrament is a necessary term of Communion which being no term of Christ's making must be a term of her own making and then she would be guilty of making new terms of Communion and if a Schism followed upon it she would be the Schismatick 3. But yet for the Church to determine for the regulating her own Communion what Christ has not determined but yet what must be determined before that Duty can be performed which Christ has commanded is not to make new terms of Communion though she refuse to admit any to her Communion who will not use the prescribed posture of receiving and my reason for it is this because she neither prescribes kneeling as necessary in it self but onely as a decent posture of receiving nor prescribes it to any but those of her own Communion whom she has authority to govern In such cases the Church does not make new terms of Communion but exercises a just authority in determining what was left undetermined and in prescribing Rules for the Decency of her own Worship But you will say Does not the Church of England make that a term and condition of her Communion without which she will not admit any man to communicate with her I answer No this does not always follow every such thing is a Rule of her Government but not a term of her Communion which are of a very distinct consideration in the constitution of every Church The Laws of Catholick Communion require that she make nothing a term of her Communion but what is necessary for the whole Catholick Church and she can never be charged with making kneeling a term of her Communion while she holds Communion with such Churches who do not kneel at receiving or at least refuses the Communion of no Church upon that account but now the Rules of Government in every Church are very distinct from the terms of her Communion Every Church has authority to make Laws for her self to prescribe the Forms and Rules of Worship and Discipline and though she have not authority to deny Communion to other Churches who will not submit to her private Laws and Rules yet she has authority to deny Communion to her own Members who refuse to obey her Laws or else she has no authority to make Laws if she have no authority to punish the breach of them So that here are two distinct reasons
of every mans private liberty The Gentile Christians who knew that they were not under the obligation of the Mosaical Law which made a distinction between clean and unclean meats were perfectly at liberty whether they would eat or not eat such meats as were forbid by that Law and this was an instance of their own private liberty wherein no body was directly concerned but themselves neither any other particular man excepting the case of scandal nor the publick state of the Church For what is it to any man what is it to the Church whether I eat such meat or not when I may lawfully do either And therefore this is a proper Sphere for the exercise of a private Charity for Charity of what nature soever it be can be exercised onely in such matters as are perfectly in our power and therefore no private Christian can lawfully extend his charity any farther than his own private liberty extends whatever others are concerned in as well as himself especially whatever the Church of God and the publick state of Religion is concerned in is the object neither of private liberty nor of private charity And yet the Apostle here exhorts them to nothing but what was in the power of every private Christian. And whether we say that this Exhortation concerns onely particular Christians or Church-Governours also yet it is evident it concerns onely the exercise of their own private liberty Now if any such case should happen again which I think cannot possibly be that in the use of our private liberty in our Diet or Clothes or way of living we should give such offence to weak Christians as should make them suspect the truth of Christianity and endanger their final Apostacy this 14th Chap. to the Romans would be an admirable Text to preach on to correct such uncharitable abuses of our liberty but what is this to the use of decent but indifferent Rites and Ceremonies in the Worship of God for the decent Rites of Worship concern the publick exercise of Religion not every Christians private liberty every instance of our private liberty may indeed in some sence be called an indifferent thing as that signifies what we may do or may not do as we please but it is not indifferent as the decent Rites of Worship are indifferent for the Decency of Worship is the matter of an express positive Law and the particular Rites of Worship the Object of Ecclesiastical Prudence and Authority And what a vast difference this makes in the case of Scandal will appear from my second Observation on St. Paul's discourse which is this 2. That this compliance and condescension to a weak Brother must be in such matters wherein Religion and Religious Worship is not concerned For by this Argument St. Paul perswades them to this forbearance because Christian Religion is not at all concerned in it The Kingdom of God is not meat nor drink Their eating or not eating in it self considered was no act nor so much as a circumstance in Religion and it did not become the charity and goodness of the Christian temper to give such great scandal to a weak Brother for things in which Religion is not at all concerned Those who expound meat and drink in this place to signifie all the Externals of Religious Worship especially all such Rites and Circumstances as have not a divine institution and command as our Reconciler plainly does do mightily mistake the Apostles meaning and affix such Doctrines to him as are very absurd and unaccountable When the Apostle says The Kingdom of God is not meat and drink it plainly signifies that the Christian Religion does not consist in eating or not eating such or such meats that no man is the better Christian for eating Swines flesh or other prohibited meats nor the worse Christian meerly for not eating them No man questions whether the Kingdom of God signifies the Christian Religion or the state of the Christian Church and therefore when he says that meat and drink is not the Kingdom of God he must mean not that it is not the whole of Religion which no man ever dreamt of but that it is no part of it no act of Religious Worship as I think I need not prove to the Reconciler himself that though the Gospel gives us leave to eat Swines flesh yet it is no act of Religion to do it And therefore the Externals of Religion the decent Rites and Ceremonies of Worship how mean and indifferent soever they may be thought cannot be comprehended under those general terms of meats and drinks because this meat and drink was no act nor part nor circumstance of Religious Worship nor any thing relating to it but the decent circumstances of Religious Worship are necessary to publick Worship Now when the Apostle exhorts them to exercise forbearance and condescension to a weak Brother in such matters by this very Argument because Religion is not concerned in it our Reconciler will be a very wonderful man if he can prove that we must exercise the same indulgence in such matters as do concern Religious Worship if he can prove that the Governours of the Church must indulge private Christians in the different Rites and Modes of Religious Worship because private Christians must indulge each other in such different practices as do not at all relate to Religion I am resolved never to dispute more with him for I doubt not but he is at the same rate able to make good the greatest Paradoxes in Religion or Philosophy There is very great reason for Christians not to quarrel with each other nor to divide the Unity or disturb the Peace of the Church for such Disputes as do not properly belong to Religion for where it is purely matter of our own liberty there is room for the exercise of Charity and mutual Forbearance And this is the Apostles Argument that the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink But where Religion and the Worship of God is concerned it is of another nature for it is not in our power to do what we please in such matters nor to allow others the liberâ—y of doing what they please and therefore this is not the Object of Indulgence and Forbearance nor is there any one word in all the Scripture to countenance any such liberty which would effectually undermine all Order Decency and Uniformity of publick Worship And therefore when the Apostle adds that the Kingdom of God is righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost this does not signifie neither that this is the whole of Religion or the onely thing that we are to be concerned about as the Reconciler understands it for the external and visible Worship of God is as essential a part of Religion as these but these are plain and acknowledged Duties of Religion and we ought not to violate a plain and necessary Duty for the sake of that which is no Duty at all Which is the sum of the Apostle's Argument as
prove by these following Considerations First I observe that the Apostle himself makes a plain distinction between an offence offered to private and particular men and that publick offence which is offered to the Church or to the Body and Society of Christians Give none offence neither to the Iews nor to the Gentiles nor to the Church of God Which shews that we are to have a different regard to particular men in their single or private capacity whether they be believing or unbelieving Jews or Gentiles and to the Church or whole Community of Christians For this is an eternal Law in all Societies to prefer the publick good before the interest of any particular man And therefore though we must have a tender regard to the satisfaction of particular men and have a great care lest we offend a weak Brother in such matters as are of a private nature and use yet in all things of a publick nature i. e. in all things which concern Christian Communion we are to have a greater care of offending the Church than particular Christians though their numbers may be great And therefore we cannot argue that because we must grant all reasonable indulgence to weak Brethren in such matters as do not concern Church-communion which is the case of the Apostles indulgence to the Jews therefore the publick Constitutions of the Church and Rules of Worship must be made to comply with the private Fancies and Humours of men and submit to unreasonable Scruples Our Reconciler owns this consequence as to Dissenters Seeing the refusal of submission to these things gives great offence unto the Church of God it equally concerneth the Dissenters upon these motives to submit unto them and it concerns them both to be as the Apostle careful to please all men in all things not seeking their own profit but the profit of many that they may be saved But why could not our Reconciler observe that this Rule equally concerns Governours as it does Dissenters not to offend the Church of God when he so earnestly disputes that Church-Governours are as much concerned in all these Rules of charity forbearance avoiding offence and scandal as private Christians and St. Paul urges this Exhortation from his own Example even as I please all men in all things Now if Church-Governours must not offend the Church they can grant a liberty and indulgence to the private scruples and fancies of men onely in such things as do not concern the publick communion of Christians The Rules of Worship and the Methods of Government and Discipline must be fixt and determined according to the general directions of the Gospel and with regard to the publick edification of the Church not to the pleasing and humouring some weak and scrupulous Christians for it is a just offence and scandal to the Church to make some mens private Fancies and groundless Scruples the Rule and Measure of Christian Worship Secondly This will more plainly appear if we consider a very material difference between indulging mens private scruples which concern matters of private use and observance and indulging such scruples as affect the publick Worship of Christians that in the first case Christian communion may be secured Men might worship God together according to the common Principles of Christianity though believing Jews were allowed to abstain from all meats forbidden by the Law of Moses and believing Gentiles indifferently to eat of all but when men differ about the Rules of Christian Worship one of these three things must happen Either 1. That Christians of different Perswasions in these matters must divide communion and separate from each other Or 2. That Christian Worship must be made to comply with the groundless fancies of scrupulous Christians Or 3. That men of differing opinions must be allowed to observe different Modes and Rites of Worship in the same Christian Assemblies each of which are a great offence and scandal to the Church of God 1. That Christians of different Perswasions must divide communion and separate from each other This is the usual effect of such Disputes about the Modes of Worship as our own sad experience witnesseth But this our Reconciler will not plead for and to be sure St. Paul never intended as you shall hear more presently 2. Christian Worship then must be made to comply with the groundless Fancies of scrupulous Christians That is there must be no Rules given for the Decency and Solemnity of publick Worship but what the most ignorant and most humoursome Professor will readily submit to which is both absurd in it self and inconsistent with all Government and makes it impossible to secure the external Decency and Solemnity of Worship which ought to be the principal care of Church-Governours as I have already proved 3. As for the third That men of differing opinions might be allowed to observe different Rites and Modes of Worship in the same Christian Assemblies This is as absurd as the other as sufficiently appears from what I have already discours'd At this rate the Governours of the Church cannot do their duty in taking care of the external Decency of publick Worship for who can foresee what Indecencies will be committed when every man is left to worship God as he pleases Nay this very thing in it self is extremely indecent for what Order what Decency can there be where there is no one Rule of Worship Uniformity in worship is like the proportion and symmetry of parts in the natural body wherein the external grace and beauty of it consists Though there were no difference at all as to external reverence in the several postures of receiving the Lords Supper whether kneeling standing or sitting yet it would be indecent and disorderly in the Communicants who receive together not to observe the same posture for some to kneel others to stand others to sit I am sure we should think it so at any ordinary and common Feast should some of the Guests sit at the Table on Chairs others stand and eat by themselves in a corner others sit on the ground others lean on Couches though there were nothing indecent in any of these postures according to the different Modes and Fashions of different Countries yet such an odd and humoursome variety it self is indecent and disorderly at the same Feast And if it be so at a common Table I think the indecency is much greater and more unpardonable at the Table of our Lord which requires the most universal harmony and consent Nay such a variety as this must needs give mutual offence and scandal to each other in the very act of receiving as I have already observed The onely reason that is or can be pretended why every man should be left to his own liberty to worship God as he thinks best is because men are divided in their Opinions about the Modes and Rites of Worship One thinks that rude and unmannerly which another thinks necessary One thinks that posture or habit c.
very consistent with the Apostolical Authority in governing the Church but an indulgence of Dissenters is not 335 St. Paul always asserted and exercised the Apostolical Authority as much as any Apostle and therefore would not suffer any diminution of it 337 The forbearance St. Paul pleads for was onely temporary 339 CHAP. VI. Containing an Answer to the 5th Chapter of the Protestant Reconciler His 1 Arg. from St. Paul's reproving the Christians for going to Law before the unbelievers 341 His 2 Arg. that St. Paul would not impose Virginity upon the Christians though he owned some advantages in that state above marriage therefore the Church must not impose her Ceremonies though they had the advantages of greater Decency 345 The difference between these two cases plain the Apostle had not authority to impose the one the Church has to impose the other 346 His 3 Arg. is from the Dispute about meats offered to Idols ibid. Those knowing persons who eat in the Idols Temple were the Gnostick Hereticks 347 The weak persons who were offended at this were some Paganizing Christians who still thought it lawful to worship their Country-Gods and were confirmed in this belief by seeing the Gnosticks eat in the Idols Temple 349 In the 1 Cor. 8. the Apostle Disputes against this practice of the Gnosticks upon a supposition of the lawfulness of it because it encouraged these imperfect Christians in Idolatry 350 The Reconciler mistakes the whole case The Apostle does not grant it lawful to eat in an Idols Temple but proves the contrary in chap. 10. 352 The weak Conscience is not a Conscience which did abstain from eating but which did eat 354 Not a scrupulous Conscience which doubted of the lawfulness of eating but a Conscience erroneously perswaded that it might lawfully eat 355 And therefore the Apostle does not plead for indulgence to this weak Conscicnce but warns them against confirming such persons in their mistakes 356 The Apostle's decision of this Controversie that it is not lawful to eat in an Idols Temple but that it is lawful to eat meats offered to Idols when sold in the Shambles or eat at private houses 357 But yet they were to abstain in these cases also when it gave offence 358 For whose sake the Apostle abridges them of this liberty of eating such meats at private houses ibid. Nothing of all this to our Reconciler's purpose 359 This forbearance onely in the exercise of their private liberty 360 His Argument from St. Paul's own example of charity and condescension ibid. St. Paul was an example of no other condescension than what he taught and if that do not plead for Dissenters as I have already proved it does not neither can his example do it 361 His Argument from St. Paul's preaching the Gospel freely at Corinth answered at large 362 c. CHAP. VII An Answer to his Motives for mutual condescension 372 His first Motive from the smalness and littleness of these things which ought not to come in competition with Love and Peace ibid. This inforced from Gods own example who suffered the violation of his Ceremonial Laws upon less accounts than these 377 And gave his own Son to die for us 380 His second Motive that God does not exclude weak and erring persons from his favour for such errours of judgment as â—re consistent with true love to him 382 His third Argument that Christ broke down the middle wall of partition between Iew and Gentile 387 His fourth Motive from the example of Christ and his Apostles in preaching the Gospel who concealed at first many things from their Hearers which they were not then able to bear 390 Mot. 5. from that Rule of Equity to do to others as we would be dealt with 392 6. From the obligations of Charity 397 7. That the same Arguments which are urged to perswade Dissenters to Conformity have equal force against the impositeon of Ceremonies as the terms of Communion The particular Argument considered and answered ibid. His Arguments from many general Topicks which he says are received and owned by all Casuits 404 An Answer to the Dissenters Questions produced by our Reconciler 405 CHAP. VIII Some short Animadversions on the Authorities produced by our Reconciler in his Preface 431 His Testimonies relating to the judgment of King James King Charles the first and our present Soveraign answered 433 Whether those Doctors of the Church of England whose Authority he alleadges were of his mind 438 Concerning the testimonies of foreign Divines 442 And the judgment of our own and foreign Divines about the terms of Concord between different Churches which does not prove that the same liberty is to be granted to the Members of the same Church  A conclusion containing an Address to the Dissenters to let them see how the Reconciler has abused them that they cannot plead for indulgence upon his Principles without confessing themselves to be Schismaticks and weak ignorant humorsome People 443 Errata P. 35. l. 32. for and r. as p. 47. l. 28. f. bind r. bend p. 96. l. 10. f. charity r. clarity A VINDICATION OF The Rights OF Ecclesiastical Authority BEING An ANSWER TO THE Protestant Reconciler The INTRODVCTION THE name of a Reconciler especially of a Protestant Reconciler is very popular at such a time as this and it is a very invidious thing for any man to own himself an Enemy to so Christian a Designe and therefore I do not pretend to answer the Title which is a very good one but to examine how well the Book agrees with the Title and whether our Author has chosen the proper method for such a Reconciliation For this Reconciliation will prove very chargeable to the Church if she must renounce her own Authority to reconcile Dissenters The usual methods taken by Reconcilers have been either to convince men that they do not differ so much as they think they do but that the Controversie is onely about the manner of expressing the same thing or that they are both gone too far into opposite Extremes and have left Truth and Peace in the middle or that the matter in dispute is not of such moment as to contend about it or that the truth of either side of the Question is not certain or that one of the contending Parties is in the wrong and therefore ought to yield to him who is in the right But our Reconciler has taken a new way by himself to prove that both the contending Parties are in the wrong and that both of them are in the right for thus he adjusts the Controversie He who saith that it is sinful and mischievous to impose those unnecessary Ceremonies and to retain those disputable expressions of our Liturgie which may be altered and removed without transgressing of the Law of God saith true And thus the present Constitution of the Church of England in these present circumstances is with great modesty and submission without any dispute pronounced sinful by a professed Member and
parts of the Service of God and therefore the Apostles Precept is not disobeyed by the omission of such Ceremonies and consequently this Precept cannot warrant the imposing of them That the Apostolical Precept is not disobeyed by the omission of these Ceremonies I readily grant but not for his reason that the omission of them is not indecent for this Precept commands the positive Decency of Worship as well as forbids the Indecency of it but because the Decency of Worship may be secured by other decent Rites and Ceremonies though these were omitted but his consequently is a far-fetch'd one The imposing any decent Rites may be warranted by this Precept though the neglect of them be not indecent for every decent Rite excludes Indecency and makes the Worship decent which is the sum of this Apostolical Precept Decent Rites and Ceremonies are not opposed to the Indecency of omitting such Rites but to other indecent Modes of Worship Kneeling at the Sacrament ought not to be opposed to not kneeling nor wearing a Surplice to not wearing a Surplice for they cannot be opposed as doing a thing decently or indecently but as doing or not doing a thing which may be decent or indecent according to the nature of things but they must be opposed to other Postures or Habits in Worship And such Rites as exclude Indecency and have a natural Decency in them are comprehended in this Rule 3. As for his Logick he tells us That Decency and Indecency are privatively opposite and between privative opposites in a capable subject there is no medium and therefore there is Decency sufficient in those actions where is no Indecency This our Reconciler calls a plain Argument which is nothing else but a plain Fallacy For suppose we grant him that Decency and Indecency Reverence and Irreverence are privative Opposites that is opposed to each other as a habit and its privation as sight and blindness how does it hence follow that there is Decency enough where there is no Indecency Sight and blindness are privatively opposite but will you say that man sees well enough who is not blind Though there be no medium between a habit and a total privation yet there are great degrees in habits and no man thinks he sees well enough though he be not stark blind if his eye be weak and tender or short-sighted or wants the assistance of Spectacles or other helps of Art Thus though Indecency were nothing else but the privation of Decency yet there are great degrees of Decency And when the Apostle commands that all things be done decently and in order our Reconciler must prove that he meant onely the lowest degree of Decency which is but one bare remove from Indecency otherwise he must give us leave to conclude that whatever is truly decent is comprehended in this Precept and the more decent any thing is the more agreeable is it to the Apostles designe But besides this Mr. Ieanes and our Reconciler after him are grievously out in their Logick For Decency and Indecency Reverence and Irreverence are not privative opposites for Indecency is not the meer privation of Decency but they are opposed as Vertue and Vice that is as two extreams are opposed to each other which are properly called adversa which are affirmative not negative opposites though the Grammatical Notation of the words Indecency and Irreverence seems to have betrayed him into that mistake And I suppose they will allow that there is a medium between two extreams and let our Reconciler consider how it would sound to say That man is vertuous enough who is not vicious Indecent and not decent do not signifie the same thing no more than unlearned and not learned I have been taught in Logick that homo est indoctus and homo est non doctus are not equipollent Propositions To say A man is learned a man is not learned a man is unlearned signifie very differently and so do these Propositions An action is decent an action is not decent an action is indecent the first signifies a positive Decency the second that there is no positive Decency the third that there is a plain opposition and contrariety to the Laws of Decency Civility and â—udeness in common conversation are opposed as Decency and Indecency are but there is an untutored and undisciplined humour which is neither civil nor rude This I think is sufficient to prove that there may be no Decency nor Reverence in such actions which cannot be strictly charged with Indecency and Irreverence and therefore when the Apostle commands that all things be done decently he requireâ— something more than not to be guilty of aâ—â— Indecency or Irreverence in Worship III. To proceed He observes that the same Reverend Bishop proves That beyond commanding that which hath a necessary relation to the express command of God or is so requisite for the doing of it that it cannot be well done without it by any other instrument or by it self alone the Bishops can give no Laws which properly and immediately bind the transgressors under sin I confess I do not certainly understand what this learned man refers to he having given us no particular instances which has given advantage to our Reconciler to apply it as he pleases But let us consider his Reasons and by that we may guess how far we are concerned 1. Because we never find the Apostles using their Coertion upon any man but the express breakers of a divine Commandment or the publick disturbers of the peace of the Church and the establisht necessary Order Thus far the Bishop To which the Reconciler adds Men must not therefore first make unnecessary Orders and when men cannot conscientiously submit unto them and therefore do not so cry out that they disturb the Churches peace These words he represents as the Bishops also though they are his own which is one of his pious frauds But as for the Argument I think it is evident it does not relate to our Dispute who pretend no other authority but to censure those who disturb the peace of the Church and the establisht necessary Order for such the Rules of Order and Decency are But how the Apostles censured such persons we cannot tell neither for we never read that any Christians in those days disputed the Apostolical authority in such matters or refused to obey their Canons and Injunctions and therefore there was no occasion to exercise such censures 2. Because even in those things which were so convenient that they had power to use Injunctions yet the Apostles were very backward to use their authority of commanding much less would they use severity but entreaty It was St. Paul 's case to Philemon before-mentioned Though I might be much bold in Christ to enjoyn that which is convenient yet for loves sake I rather entreat thee But this does not concern us neither for what is this to the Rules and Orders of Worship that he would not take Philemon's servant Onesimus from
great Sacrifice of the Cross. A great many such things our Reconciler himself has collected in his eighth Chapter which may properly be called the Rituals or Ceremonies or Religion most of which are now out of use in most Churches which formerly used them and none of them are in uâ—e among us But what we call the Ceremonies of the Church of England are not in this sence Rituals or Ceremonies but the decent circumstances of Worship as the Bishop acknowledges excepting the Cross in Baptism which yet is not a meer significant but a professing Signe as I have already discours'd and for such Ceremonies as these which serve for Order and Decency the Bishop tells us There is an Apostolical Precept and a natural Reason and an evident Necessity or a great Convenience In a word when the Bishop speaks of Rituals and Ceremonies he understands by them exterior actions or things something which is like the ceremonial observances of the Jewish Law which were not meer circumstances of action but religious Rites Such were their Sacrifices Washings and Purifications their Phylacteries their Fasts and Festivals new Moons and Sabbaths not considered meerly as circumstances of time but as having such a Sacredness and Religion stamped on them that the very observing them was an act of Religion that the religious Duties observed on them were appointed for the sake of the day not the day meerly for the sake of the Religion Such were the numerous Traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees about making broad their Phylacteries washing their Cups and Platters and their hands before dinner and an infinite number of other superstitious observances Now though some external actions and things wisely chosen and prudently used may be for the service of Religion at least are not unlawful to be used unless we will condemn the whole Christian Church for several Ages which used a great many external Rites yet every one sees what a vast difference there is between such Rites as these and the decent Circumstances of religious Worship And therefore those men mistake the case of the Church of England who lay the Controversie upon Rituals and Ceremonies for there is no such thing in the Church of England according to the true and proper signification of these words Our Fasts and Festivals look most like such Rituals and Ceremonies but are not so for with us they are not religious days but days appointed for the solemn Exercises of Religion which differ as much as a circumstance of time does from an act of Religion as making a day religious which none but God can do differs from appointing a day for the publick Solemnities of Religion which the Governours of the Church and State may do as the Religion of observing a day differs from those acts of Religion which are performed on such a day Now this very observation of the difference between Rituals and Ceremonies and the decent circumstances of Worship will answer most of his Citations which he has impertinently alleadged out of the Bishops Writings and a multitude of Objections which for want of observing this have been very injudiciously made against those which we call the Ceremonies of the Church of England Thus he observes from the Bishop That Ecclesiastical Laws which are meerly such cannot be universal and perpetual But then he should have told us what the Bishop meant by Ecclesiastical Laws meerly such That is saith he those which do not involve a divine Law within their matter And therefore this cannot relate to the decent circumstances of Worship for they all involve a divine Law in the matter of them they are onely the specification of the Law of Decency and include those very acts of Worship to which they belong To kneel at the Lords Supper is a command to receive the Lords Supper kneeling and when the Minister is enjoyn'd to wear theSurplice it signifies that he must perform divine Offices in a Surplice These are but the decent circumstances of necessary Duties and they founded on the Apostolical Rule of Decency Well but the Bishop adds When Christ had made us free from the Law of Ceremonies which God appointed to the Iewish Nation and to which all other Nations were bound if they came into that Communion it would be intolerable that the Churches who rejoyced in their freedom from that Yoke which God had imposed should submit themselves to a Yoke of Ordinances which men should make For though before they could not yet now they may exercise Communion and use the same Religion without communicating in Rites and Ordinances Now does not this make it plain that the Bishop does not speak of the decent circumstances of Worship such as our English Ceremonies are but of such Rituals and Ceremonies as answer to the Jewish Rites and Ordinances which he calls exterior things and actions which are of a different consideration and must be governed by different Rules and Measures And yet our Reconciler is so unfortunate that if the Bishop had meant this of the Ceremonies of our Church it had been nothing to his purpose for he adds in the very next words This does no way concern the Subjects of any Government what Liberty they are to retain and use I shall discourse in the following numbers but it concerns distinct Churches under distinct Governments and it means as it appears plainly by the Context and the whole Analogie of the thing that the Christian Churches must suffer no man to put a Law upon them who is not their Governour For when he says that Ecclesiastical Laws that are meerly such must not be universal he means that they must not be intended to oblige all Christendom except they will be obliged that is do consent That no Church or company of Christians have such authority as to oblige the whole Christian World and all the Churches in it to conform to their Rituals and Ceremonies which he says is contrary to Christian liberty and such an Usurpation as must not be endured which is directly levelled against the Usurpations of the Church of Rome But though one Church cannot impose upon another yet every Church has power over her own Members and they are bound to obey that Authority which is over them And by the way this answers all his Testimonies from Bishop Davenant and Bishop Hall in their Letters to Duraeus about his Pacificatory designe of uniting all the Reformed Churches into one Communion and several others cited in his Preface to the same purpose They discourse upon what terms distinct Churches which have no authority over each other ought to maintain Christian Communion and this he applies to particular Churches with reference to their own Members as if because particular Churches must not usurp authority and dominion over each other nor deny Communion upon every difference of Opinion or different Customs and Usages of Modes of Worship therefore no Church must govern her own Communion nor give Laws to her own Members as if because
of Worship too or is the bare Decency of Worship a Jewish Yoke What correspondence is there between the Ceremonies of the Jewish Law and the decent circumstances of Worship between new and distinct acts and the decent Modes of actions But our Reconciler proceeds Ecclesiastical Laws must not be perpetual that is when they are made they are relative to time and place to persons and occasions subject to all changes c. Now besides that the Bishop stills speaks of such Laws as concern Rituals and external Observances not the decent circumstances of Worship and therefore it is impertinently alleadged in our present Controversie yet suppose it did relate to our Ceremonies what advantage could he make of it They must not be perpetual that is they are alterable when the wisdom of Governours sees fit and who denies it But must every one who believes these Ceremonies alterable presently grant that they must be altered right or wrong This is much like another mangled Testimony which he cites from Rule 12. n. 9. I shall transcribe the whole because our Reconciler has concealed the sence by transcribing onely part of it Excepting those things which the Apostles received from Christ in which they were Ministers to all Ages once for all conveying the mind of Christ to Generations to come in all other things they were but ordinary Ministers to govern the Churches in their own times and left all that ordinary power to their Successors with a power to rule their Churches such as they had and therefore whatever they conveyed as from Christ a part of his Doctrine or any thing of his appointment this was to bind for ever All this our Reconciler leaves out which is a Key to what follows For Christ is our onely Lawgiver and what he said was to bind for ever In all things which he said not the Apostles could not be Lawgivers they had no such authority and therefore whatsoever they ordered by their own wisdom was to abide as long as the reason did abide but still with the same liberty with which they appointed it for of all men in the world they would least put a Snare upon the Disciples or tye Fetters upon Christian liberty To what purpose he cites this he does not say but I suppose it was to insinuate that there is no Authority in the Church to make any Laws which Christ has not made because he is our onely Lawgiver and that to make such Laws is to put a Snare upon the Disciples and to tye Fetters upon Christian Liberty which the Apostles of all men would not do but this is directly contrary to the designe of the Bishop All that he says is no more than this That the Apostles had not authority to make such Laws as should perpetually oblige the Church in all Ages for Christ onely is so our Lawgiver that his Laws are perpetual and unalterable and therefore what they taught as from Christ that was to bind for ever but what Laws they made as ordinary Ministers to govern the Churches in their own times they might be altered when the reason of them ceas'd by the Bishops and Ministers of following Ages who have as much ordinary authority for the government of the Church as the Apostles themselves had So that the Governours of the Church have authority to make Laws though not unalterable ones and therefore it is not making Laws but making perpetual Laws which he calls putting a Snare upon the Disciples and tying Fetters on Christian Liberty for the more unalterable Laws there are the less Liberty the Church enjoys and those Laws which were of excellent use when they were first made yet when their reason and use ceases might prove Snares to Christians if there were no power in the Church to repeal them All his Citations from this excellent Bishop about Ecclesiastical Laws are of the same nature they do not concern the decent circumstances of Worship but Rituals and external Ministeries of Religion and I suppose I need not tell any man how impertinent his Testimonies about Fasts and Evangelical Councils and Subscriptions to Articles c. are to this Controversie This is sufficient to prove that this excellent Bishop is ours and to satisfie all men that this Protestant Reconciler is either a very ignorant and careless Reader of Books or a shameless Impostor in suborning mens words to give testimony against their own protest and avowed Principles and Doctrines There are several other little Arguments which are frequently repeated by our Reconciler and confirmed with great Names and great Authorities though it is probable enough that he has as much abused other great men as he has done the Bishop and I have not leisure nor opportunity to examine all and it is no great matter when the Argument is weak and trifling whose Argument it is They tell us that to impose such Ceremonies and Rites of Worship is to come after Christ and to mend and correct his Laws and to require new terms of Communion which Christ hath not required This is a great fault if the charge be good and just but is the Church of England guilty of any such thing Does she require any new acts of Worship which Christ has not required Has not Christ required that we should worship God decently Has he not made Obedience to our Rulers and Governours a necessary condition of Communion And does the Church of England require any more Has the Church of England imposed any thing upon her People but the Rules of Order and Decency and has not Christ enjoyned this Are the Ceremonies of our Church decent circumstances of Worship or are they not If they be then here are no new terms of Communion here is no mending nor correcting the Laws of Christ but onely a determination of some necessary circumstances which Christ left undetermined and gave authority to his Church to determine But why should Church-Communion be suspended upon such terms as are not necessary to Salvation Why is not that sufficient to make a man a Member of a Church which is sufficient to carry him to Heaven No doubt but it is and the Church of England requires no more The Decency of Worship is as necessary to eternal Salvation as publick Worship is which is not Worship if it be not decent Decency is necessary and though such or such particular Modes of Decency be not necessary yet some decent Mode of Worship is and therefore that Church which requires no more than the Decency of Worship requires nothing but what is necessary to Salvation That which confounds and blunders these men and makes them dream of new terms of Communion is this That they distinguish the act of Worship from the manner of performing it and because Christ hath onely instituted and commanded the act but the Church directs and prescribes the manner therefore they say the Church mends Christs Laws and makes new terms of Communion by requiring something more than Christ has
the Laws or to allow of such different postures when mens scruples are removed 2. As the Governours of the Church would neglect their Duty so they would manifestly injure their Authority by such a compliance with the ignorance humour and scruples of men and therefore how charitable soever our Reconciler may think this it is not such a Charity as becomes Governours For private Christians to abridge themselves in the use of their Christian liberty for the sake of others is in many cases highly commendable and a generous act of charity but for Governours to renounce their Authority to gratifie Dissenters is so far from being an act of charity that it is betraying their Trust. Either Christ has committed this power to them to govern religious Assemblies and to prescribe the decent Rules of Worship or he has not if he have as our Reconciler has more than once owned in this very Book then this power is a Trust committed to them and such a Trust as they must give an account of and therefore no pretence of charity can justifie them in renouncing the exercise of it The Reconciler indeed tells us That which is here pleaded for is neither a denial nor a dissembling of their imposing power in Superiours but onely an abatement of the exercise thereof toward some weak Dissenters Which may be done with the asserting of the power and a profession that they do suspend the exercise thereof not through conviction that it may not be lawfully used but out of pure commiseration and howels of compassion towards their weak Brethren But all the Protestations in the World will not salve this matter for the great Dispute about Ceremonies turns upon this hinge whether the Church have authority to command any thing relating to the Worship of God which is not expresly instituted and enjoyned by Christ. Hence all such Rules of Order and Decency are by our modest and peaceable Dissenters opprobriously call'd Will-worship and Humane Inventions and teaching for Doctrines the commandments of men and though they had nothing to say against the lawfulness of the things themselves and indeed all that they have to say is next to nothing yet their not being commanded by God and their being commanded by men though by such men as are invested with Christ's authority to govern his Church is thought a sufficient reason not to submit to them Now when the Authority of the Church is the principal matter in dispute and Ceremonies onely a collateral dispute as depending upon an usurped and illegal Authority I would fain know of our Reconciler how upon these terms they can give up these Ceremonies to the clamours of the Dissenters without giving up their own Authority with them which is the principal thing in question and for the sake of which the Ceremonies are disputed Now let any man judge whether this be an act of charity to part with that Authority which Christ has placed in his Church Is this Authority for the good of the Church or is it not If it be not then it seems Christ has placed such an Authority in his Church as is not for the publick good and this charges our Saviour himself with want of prudence or charity to his own Church in setting such an uncharitable power over it If Church-Authority be for the publick good then it is no act of charity to part with it As to give but one instance of this which our Reconciler is often at He tells us That the Scripture-Exhortations to Peace and Unity are so far from requiring such an Vnity and Vniformity as we plead for that they perfectly confute all those who think it fit to lay the Vnion of the Church upon an uniformity in lesser matters and do impose them as the Conditions of Communion for either we must all submit to some infallible Guide and Iudge of Controversies in order to our Vnion as R. H. thinks it necessary in order to our compliance with these Precepts or else confess 't is morally impossible to comply with them it being visibly impossible to bring all men unto an unity of judgment and of practice in these things and so we must reflect upon the wisdom of our Lord and of his Precepts And grant that Protestants have no sufficient means of Vnity which is the very thing that Papists do so continually upbraid us with or must acknowledge that the way to this desired Vnity is not that of imposing and requiring uniformity in little matters concerning which the minds of men are full of doubts and scruples but that of mutual condescension and forbearance and charity in lesser differences God help that Church which meets with such Reconcilers as these But that which I shall observe here is his own concession and his Dilemma upon it He argues strongly That while men are left to judge for themselves in the Externals of Worship it is impossible to bring them unto an unity of judgment and practice in these things for this he says must be granted unless we own the necessity of an infallible Judge Here indeed the Reconciler and I differ a little about the infallibility of this Judge but we agree upon the main point that without a Judge to determine these matters there can be no Unity and Agreement among Christians which certainly is a demonstration in the Age in which we live how strange soever it might have been thought in the Primitive times of Unity And his Dilemma is a very sore one For either this reflects upon the Wisdom of Christ himself and grants that Protestants have no sufficient means of Unity or that the way to this desired Unity is not requiring uniformity in little matters Now to begin with the last first it is demonstrably true that there is no Church-Unity without Unity in Worship wherein the principal exercise of Christian Communion consists and that there can be no Decency and Order in this which is an Apostolical Precept without Uniformity and no Uniformity without such Impositions What follows then but that we must reflect on the wisdom of Christ in not leaving Authority in his Church sufficient to determine such matters and grant that Protestants have no means of Union These are hard terms but I cannot see how they can be avoided without granting that Christ has given though not an infallible Judge of all Controversies of Faith yet a supreme Authority to his Church to determine all matters of Decency and Order which all Christians are bound to obey in all cases where their Rules and Orders do not contradict some plain and express Law of Christ. And this Principle will quickly make us all of a mind in such matters Now then from hence I thus argue If the wisdom of Christ himself in instituting a Church-Society and commanding all Christians to live in Peace and Unity and Love if the Unity of Christians among themselves and the Decency and Uniformity of Worship are so nearly concerned in the sacredness of
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
to one case and not to the other and argues great ignorance as well as impudence in our Reconciler to censure it which I shall largely prove when I come to answer his fourth Chapter And because our Reconciler so often mentions not onely the abatement of the Ceremonies but the alteration of some scrupled expressions in the Liturgy without mentioning what those are I can give no other answer to it but to represent that account which is given us of those late alterations which were made in our Liturgy as we find it in the Preface to the Common-Prayer-Book Our general aim therefore in this undertaking was not to gratisie this or that Party in any of their unreasonable demands but to do that which to our best understanding we conceived might most tend to the preservation of peace and unity in the Church the procuring of Reverence and exciting of Piety and Devotion in the publick Worship of God and the cutting off occasion from them that seek occasion of cavil or quarrel against the Liturgie of our Church Most of the alterations were made for the more proper expressing of some words or phrases of ancient usage in terms more suitable to the Language of the present times and the clearer explanation of some other words or phrases which were either of doubtful signification or otherwise liable to misconstruction And what other Rule our Reconciler would have the Church observe in altering scrupled phrases I cannot tell for if she muâ—t alter while some people cease to scruple she must alter it all or rather take it quite away 3. But you will say It is at least a breach of Charity to impose such Rites and Ceremonies as are scrupled by great numbers of Christians and the imposition of which occasions a formidable Schism in the Church As for the Schisms and Divisions which are said to be occasioned by the imposition of these Ceremonies I shall consider that in the next Chapter My designe at present leads me to consider the Mistakes and Scruples of Christians and how far Governours ought to have any regard to them and for the explication of this there are several things to be observed 1. I readily grant that the Church ought not to command any thing which is of a doubtful or suspicious nature for where the thing is doubtful her Authority to command is doubtful too Or rather it is certain that the Church has no Authority in doubtful matters for her Authority can be no larger than her Commission and it is no part of her Commission to teach or command things which are doubtful Thus it may well be doubted whether it be lawful to set up Images in Churches to pray before a Crucifix to excite and quicken our Devotions though we have no intention to pay any religious homage to them For the same reason the Church cannot by her Authority adopt doubtful Propositions into Articles of Faith and require all Christians to believe them as the necessary terms of Communion To this purpose our Reconciler at his usual impertinent rate of Citations alleadges several passages out of Mr. Chillingworth to prove that no doubtful Propositions ought to be made Articles of Faith or necessary terms of Communion in which I perfectly agree with Mr. Chillingworth but can by no means see how it follows from hence that because the Church must not make new Articles of Faith therefore she must not prescribe the necessary Rules of Worship that because she must not impose things which are of a doubtful nature therefore she must not command any thing which some people raise doubts and scruples about But our Reconciler thinks that it is a sufficient evidence that a thing is doubtful and that the peace and unity of the Church ought not to be suspended upon the determination of it when there are a great number of men doubt of it and the thing is disputed and controverted and Arguments produced on both sides and if this be so there is not any Article of our Faith but what is doubtful it is very doubtful whether there be a God and whether Christ were the true Messias or an Importer for we know there are a great many Atheists Jews Turks and Infidels in the world And if it be an Argument against the Ceremonies of the Church of England that Dissenters dispute against them if this prove That the peace and unity of the Church ought not to be suspended upon submission to them and that the decision of the Controversie concerning them was not intended as a necessary means for the peace and unity of the Church of God in these Kingdoms farewell to all certainty in Religion But he proves this by an Argument transcribed from Dr. Stillingfleet's Irenicum a book which certainly did such great service at the time when it was written to draw men on to a calm consideration of things and whose Reverend Author has done such excellent service since to the Church of England by his incomparable Writings both against Papists and Fanaticks that whatever fault there may be in it both the Book and the Author have merited something more than a pardon especially since that Book stands now upon its own legs and can derive no authority from that great Name he having sufficiently declared his dislike and I think sufficiently answered some principal parts of it himself And though I cannot assent to every Proposition in the Irenicum as I am pretty sure the Author himself does not yet I can by no means think that it deserves all that clamour which some men have raised against it I am sure it never can make any man a Dissenter and I think it much more desirable and more for the interest of the Church that men should conform upon the Principles of the Irenicum than that they should continue Dissenters I could not forbear saying this once for all out of that sincere honour I have for that excellent person who has met with very ill usage from some men who either envy his deserved praises or hope to make themselves considerable by being his Rivals But let us hear what the Argument is Where probable Arguments are brought for the maintaining one part of an Opinion as well as another though the Arguments brought be not convincing for the necessary entertaining either part to an unbyassed understanding yet the difference of their Opinions is Argument sufficient that the thing contended for is not so clear as both Parties would make it to be on their own sides and if it be not a thing of necessity to salvation it gives men ground to think that the final decision of the matter in controversie was never intended as a necessary means for the peace and unity of the Church of God Now I confess I see no reason why I may not assent to all this for if the Arguments be onely probable on both sides and such as are not convincing either way to an unbyassed judgment it is a signe the
thing is doubtful though some men may be very confident both ways and nothing that is doubtful can be necessary to salvation nor can the final decision of it be necessary to the peace of the Church But if the Arguments on one hand to an unbyassed and disinteressed judgment be plain and certain and the Objections on the other hand nothing but empty and trifling Cavils which is the true case between the Church of England and Dissenters in the dispute of Ceremonies if the dissent of these men shall be thought sufficient to render this matter uncertain we shall be condemned to eternal and unavoidable Scepticism But our Reconciler says Let any man peruse the Arguments of the Dissenters against Conformity to symbolical Ceremonies and he will find them strengthned by the suffrages of many grave and learned Divines both of our own and other Churches As for the grave Divines of other Churches let them mind their own business for their Authority is nothing to us and as for the Divines of our own Church who strengthen the Dissenters Arguments against Ceremonies who they are or how many or how grave and learned they are I cannot tell He has indeed transcribed several Sayings out of some of our Divines to plead for the relaxation of such Impositions but none that I know of to strengthen the Dissenters Arguments which no Divine in our Church can do who honestly conforms himself Well but how does this Passage in the Irenicum countenance this reconciling designe Suppose there be probable reasons on both sides where yet it is necessary to act one way what must be done in this case must every man be left to do as he pleases So says the Reconciler that this is the onely way to peace but the Irenicum says the quite contrary That the way to peace cannot be by leaving an absolutely to follow their own ways for that were to build a Babel instead of Salem Confusion instead of Peace It must be then by convincing men that neither of those ways to peace and order which they contend about is necessary by way of divine command though some be as a means to an end but which particular way or form it must be is wholly left to the prudence of those in whose power and trust it is to see the peace of the Church be secured on lasting foundations Which is a peremptory determination against our Reconciler who very rarely quotes any Author without wresting his words to another sence than what was intended If every thing were doubtful of which some men doubt and nothing must be determined which is thus doubtful it were impossible that there should be any external form and constitution of a Church or any external Worship If it be a good Argument that a thing is doubtful because some men doubt of it methinks it is as good an Argument that that is not doubtful which no body doubts of and thus symbolical Ceremonies as our Reconciler calls them are past all doubt for no Christian ever had any doubt about them for above fifteen hundred years which is time enough in this way to prove the certainty of any thing And though some Christians begin to doubt and to invent Arguments to countenance their doubts after fifteen hundred years yet this is no reason for the Church to doubt also Well but if mens doubting be not an Argument that the thing whereof they doubt is doubtful how shall we know what is doubtful and what not I answer Where there is no positive evidence and the probabilities or difficulties are great on both sides there is sufficient reason for doubting and in such cases I think the Church has not authority to determine either way when the doubt is about the lawfulness or unlawfulness the truth or falshood of things for the authority of the Church cannot alter the nature nor the evidence of things and therefore ought not to determine that to be lawful which it is equally probable may be unlawful nor that to be true which has equal proofs of its being false But this cannot concern the controversie about the lawful use of some Ceremonies in religious Worship for which we have as plain and positive evidence as we can desire for a thing of this nature as I have already shewn and therefore any mens doubting of this makes it no more doubtful than their doubts about any plain and necessary Article of Faith renders that also doubtful and suspicious 2. Though the Church must not command any thing which is of a doubtful nature yet the doubts and scruples or mistakes of Christians ought to have no influence upon acts of Government There cannot be a more unreasonable and senseless Imposition upon Governours than this which makes all Government the most arbitrary and precarious and useless thing in the world If this Rule were allowed what work would it make in Kingdoms and Families when Princes Parents and Masters must command nothing which their Subjects Children or Servants scruple to do That which makes Government necessary is that the generality of mankind do not know how to govern themselves but this Principle makes all men their own Governours and makes it unlawful for any Authority to impose any thing upon their Subjects which they have not a mind to for it is an easie matter to scruple or to pretend to scruple whatever we have no mind to do and yet if we will believe our Reconciler here is no distinction to be made between men who are really weak and scrupulous and those who pretend to it for it is an uncharitable thing it seems whatever evidence we have for it to charge those men with obstinacy malice or perverseness who pretend to Scruples and tender Consciences But to what purpose has God committed any Authority to some certain persons in Church or State if they must not govern according to the best judgment they have of things but must be governed by the mistakes or scruples of those whom they ought to govern If they must not command what is innocent useful and convenient when those whom they ought to command do not think it so This all men will acknowledge to be intolerable in the State and I challenge our Reconciler to shew me any wise reason wâ—â— the Secular Powers must have no regard to mens scruples in making useful Laws and the Governours of the Church must Whoever considers how wild unreasonable and fantastical some mens mistakes and scruples are must needs think it a very ridiculous Constitution of Government which has any regard to them It is in the Government of the Church as it is in the State and as it must of necessity be in all Governments Those who have authority to govern must take care to do it wisely and charitably and those who are subject must obey in all things lawful without cavilling at their Superiours commands where they are not manifestly contrary to some divine Law and if there happens any
hard case as such cases will happen under all Governments God who is our supreme Governour will take care to rectifie it when the Governours of Church or State cannot do it without loosening the Sinews of Government As for instance The Governours of the Church must take care to prescribe Rules for the decent performance of religious Worship and in such an Age of mistakes and scruples as this it is possible some very honest but weak Christians may take offence at the best and most prudent Constitutions and separate from the Church and involve themselves in the guilt of Schism what must the Church do in this case Must she alter her Laws as often as any Christians pretend to scruple them or must she make no Laws about such matters but suffer every Christian to worship God as he pleases This is to renounce their Government because some Christians will not obey or to make Government contemptible and ridiculous when it must yield to mens private fancies and scruples And yet it is very hard that the Government of the Church which is instituted for the care of mens Souls should prove a snare and temptation to them and occasion their eternal ruine and misery But I hope that there is no necessity for either of these Governours must do their duty must take care to make such Laws as are for the advantage of Religion and the edification of the Church and are least liable to any just offence and if after all their care some very honest men may take offence and fall into Schism we must leave them to the mercy of God who will make allowances for all favourable cases The Church can give no relief in such cases without destroying her Authority and Government and giving advantage to Knaves and designing Hypocrites to disturb the best constitutions of things but God can distinguish between honest men and Hypocrites and if men be sincerely honest and do fall into Schism through an innocent mistake God will be merciful to them which secures the final happiness of good men and yet maintains the sacredness and reverence of Authority For when men know that nothing can justifie a Schism and nothing can plead their pardon with God but great honesty and some invincible mistake it will make all honest men careful how they separate from the Church and diligent in the use of all means for their satisfaction without which no man can pass with Almighty God for an honest Separatist and I doubt not but were men convinced of this it would sooner cure our Schisms than the removal of all scrupled Ceremonies But in is so far from being the duty of Church-Governours to take any notice of mens scruples when there is no just occasion for them that they ought not to allow any man to scruple their authority in such matters which weakens Government and opens a gap for eternal Schisms to enter It is very true as our Reconciler has proved at large in a whole Chapter to that purpose that the Church in several Ages has made great alterations in the Externals and Rituals of Religion but how this serves his Cause I cannot tell No body questions but the Church has done this and that she had authority to do it and that she has so still when she sees just occasion to do it but the Question is Whether she must do this as often as every little Reconciler or every scrupulous Christian demands such an alteration The Question is Whether unreasonable scruples and prejudices be a necessary reason for the Church to make such alterations And if he can give any one example in all Antiquity that the Church altered her Constitutions for no other reason but to comply with the scruples of private Christians he will say something to the purpose No in those days private Christians did not use to scruple any Ceremonies which the Governours of the Church thought fit to appoint but Bishops made or repealed Laws about such matters as they thought most expedient for the good government of the Church The Question is Whether they repealed all Laws for the Order and Decency of Worship or renounced their Authority to make such Laws in compliance with those who denied any such Authority to the Church Again the Question is Whether in the same Church they allowed all private Christians to worship God after what manner they pleased according to their own private perswasions and apprehensions of these things that those who are for a May-pole may have a May-pole as our Reconciler very reverently expresses it If he can say any thing to these points I confess it will be to his purpose and therefore I would desire him to consider of it now he knows what he is to prove But though his History of those alterations which the Church in several Ages has made in the Rituals and Ceremonies of Religion would not serve his main designe yet it highly gratified his pride and insolence to trample upon a great man whom he thought he had taken at some advantage The Reverend Dean of St. Pauls assigns some reasons why the Church of England still retains the use of some Ceremonies His first reason is out of a due reverence to Antiquity They would hereby convince the Papists they did put a difference between the gross and intolerable Superstitions of Popery and the innocent Rites and Practices which were observed in the Church before This says our Reconciler is very like Hypocrisie to pretend to retain three Ceremonies of humane institution out of respect to their supposed antiquity whilst we reject as many which were unquestionably of a divine original and therefore sure of an antiquity which more deserveth to be reverenced Truly if our Church has parted with any thing of a divine original I think she has reformed too far but will our Reconciler say that every thing that was an Apostolical Practice is of divine original Bishop Taylor to whom he so often appeals would have taught him otherwise as I have already observed who says that the Apostles in ordering religious Assemblies and in prescribing such Rules of Worship as they did not immediately receive from Christ acted but as ordinary Ministers of the Church and what they prescribed obliged no longer than the reason and expediency of the things and the Governours of the Church in after-Ages had as full and ample Authority as the Apostles themselves in such matters But does the Dean say that these Ceremonies were retained onely for their antiquity then indeed the Reconciler's Objection had been strong that other Ceremonies which are as ancient as they should have been retained also But is it not a just reverence to Antiquity that when our Church had for other reasons determined what number of Ceremonies to retain and for what ends and purposes she chuses to use such Ceremonies as were anciently used in the Christian Church rather than to invent any new ones for it had been an affront to the ancient
Church to have rejected those Ceremonies which had been made venerable by ancient use when they would equally or better serve those ends we designe than any new ones This is the very account our Church gives of it Having given the reason why she retained some Ceremonies still as I have already observed she answers that Objection why she has retained some old Ceremonies If they think much that any of the old remain and would rather have all devised new then such men granting some Ceremonies convenient to be had surely where the old may be well used there they cannot reasonably reprove the old onely for their age without bewraying of their own folly For in such a case they ought rather to have reverence to them for their antiquity if they will declare themselves to be more studious of Unity and Concord than of Innovations and new Fangleness which as much as may be with true setting forth of Christ's Religion is always to be eschewed Let our Reconciler consider whether this be Hypocrisie or true and sober reasoning 2. The Dean's second reason is To manifest the justice and equity of the Reformation by letting their Enemies see that they did not break Communion with them for meer indifferent things Or as our Reconciler adds That they left the Church of Rome no farther than she left the ancient Church Which the Dean does not say under that Head nor any thing like it But yet here he takes advantage and says It is manifest that we have left off praying for departed Saints the Vnction of the sick the mixing water with the Sacramental Wine c. with many other things which were retained in the ancient Church and in the Liturgie of Edward the Sixth he should have said the first Liturgy and which are things indifferent retained in the Roman Church But is our Reconciler in good earnest I fear the next Book we shall have from him will be the Roman Catholick Reconciler Are all these things as used in the Roman Church indifferent Is praying for the dead as it is joyned with the Doctrine of Purgatory and Merit in the Church of Rome a thing indifferent Is the Sacrament of Extream Unction an indifferent thing Are their Grossings and Exorcisms and such-like Ceremonies abused by the Church of Rome to the absurdest Superstitions indifferent things Our Reformers at first in veneration to the Primitive Church in which some of these Ceremonies were used did retain the use of them in the first Liturgy of Edward the Sixth but upon more mature deliberation finding how impossible it was to restore them to their primitive use and to purge them from the superstitious abuses of the Church of Rome to which their people were still addicted laid them all aside and for this they are reproached by our Reconciler Some men would have been called Papists in Masquerade for half so much as this But what is this to the Dean's reason That we do not break Communion with them for meer indifferent things For certainly to retain three indifferent Ceremonies though we should reject five hundred more equally indifferent is a sufficient proof that we do not quarrel nor break Communion for indifferent things considered as indifferent which is all that the Dean meant by it But he has a fling at some others besides the Dean though whom he means I cannot well tell but he says Some of our Church senselesly pretend we cannot change these Ceremonies because they have been once received and owned by the Church I suppose he means the Catholick Church and though I think it is too much to say we cannot change what has been once received for the Church of this Age has as much Authority as the Church of former Ages had yet I think what has been received by the Catholick Church ought not but upon very great reasons to be rejected by any particular Church But now had our Reconciler been honest he might have made a great many useful Remarks upon this History of ancient Ceremonies for the conviction of Dissenters He might have observed that even in the Apostles days there were several Ceremonies used of Apostolical institution which yet had not a divine but humane Authority and therefore were afterwards disused or altered by the Church That in all Ages of the Christian Church there have been greater numbers of Ceremonies used and those much more liable to exception than are now retained in the Church of England That the Church has always challenged and exercised this Authority in the Externals of Religion and therefore there has not been any Age of the Church since the Apostles with which our Dissenters could have communicated upon their Principles This had been done like an honest man and a true Reconciler but it is wonderful to me that he who can find so many good words for the Church of Rome can find none for the Church of England 3. It may so happen that some things must be determined by publick Authority which are matter of doubt and scruple to some professed Christians When I say Authority must determine such things I mean if they will do their duty and take care of the publick Decency and Uniformity of Worship without which there can be no Decency This is evident in such an Age as this wherein some men scruple every thing which relates to publick Worship but what they like and fancy themselves To be uncovered at Prayers is as considerable a scruple to some Quakers as to kneel at the Sacrament is to other Dissenters This it seems was a Dispute in the Church of Corinth in St. Paul's days but the Apostle made no scruple of determining that question notwithstanding that and yet praying covered or uncovered are but circumstances of Worship as kneeling or sitting at the â—acrament are and if I had a mind to argue this point with our Reconciler I think I could prove them as indifferent circumstances as the other For the reason the Apostle assigns for the mens praying uncovered and the women covered that one was an Emblem of Authority the other of Subjection which makes it a symbolical Ceremony as our Dissenters speak is quite contrary among us though it were so in the Apostles days and is so still in some Eastern Countries To be uncovered among us is a signe of Subjection and to be covered a signe of Authority and therefore Princes Parents and Masters are covered or have their Hats on while Subjects Children and Servants are uncovered in their presence And therefore in compliance with the Apostles reason men should now pray covered because that is a signe of civil Dignity and Superiority whereas we now pray uncovered in token of a religious Reverence and Subjection to God Now I would ask our Reconciler whether our Church may determine that all men shall pray with their Hats off notwithstanding the scruples of some Quakers for if the Church must have respect to mens scruples why not to the scruples of Quakers
as well as of other Dissenters when one are as reasonable as the other and this may as well be left undetermined as the other for we have the practice of the Apostle for one side of the Question and his reason for the other If our Reconciler can think of an Answer to this so can I too and so I can also for the Objections against kneeling at the Sacrament but still here are scruples on both sides and scruples for ought I see equally reasonable and therefore Governours ought to have an equal regard to them that is none at all if they will discharge their duty in taking care of the Decency of publick Worship Dr. Falkner gave another instance of this in the Dispute about leavened or unleavened Bread in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper where he says The one sort is necessary to be determined before the administration or otherwise the Ordinance it self must be omitted Here our Reconciler is resolved to try his strength because the Argument as managed by that otherwise-ingenious man containeth great mistakes which being rectified will set men right in the decision of the Controversie Here then if ever we may expect that our Reconciler will say something to the purpose because the decision of the Controversie depends on it 1. Then he allows there may be such cases where in genere something is necessary to be determined I see we shall have fine work of it when he begins with tricks and fallacies The Doctor speaks of the determination of a particular circumstance whether the Sacramental Bread shall be leavened or unleavened and he talks of determining some cases in genere that is that it shall be Bread for I know not else what he means by his in genere The Question is Whether any particular thing which is scrupled by some persons may or ought to be determined if it may let him say so plainly and make the best he can of it Well he grants that what is necessary to be determined must be determined but adds that the Dissenters do universally deny that it is necessary to determine any of these scrupled Ceremonies and they have perfect demonstration for the truth of that denial for necessatium est quod non potest aliter se habere that onely is necessary to be done which cannot be left undone I have seldom met with more trifling and sophistry in so few words For 1. Dr. Falkner speaks of a necessity of determining some things which have no antecedent necessity in their own natures such as the use of leavened or unleavened Bread in the Sacrament and our Reconciler grants the Magistrate a power to determine those things which are necessary in their own natures though that be nonsence for what is necessary in its own nature so necessary that it cannot be left undone determines it self without the authority of the Magistrate the Magistrate may command such things but they are determined to his hand Nothing can be determined either way by any Authority but that which is indifferent and undetermined in its own nature and I think it a contradiction that any thing should be indifferent in its own nature and so determinable by humane Authority which has either such a moral or physical necessity that it cannot be otherwise 2. Dr. Falkner proves that there may be a necessity of determining some particular manner of doing a thing before the action can be done because though no particular mode of doing it may be necessary yet it cannot be done without some particular mode of doing it He that will administer the Sacrament must administer it either in leavened or unleaved Bread this is physically necessary that it should be done in one or t'other and this physical necessity infers a moral necessity of determining which way we will do it before we can do it for we cannot at the same time and in the same individual act do it both ways and therefore we must resolve upon one way of doing it or we cannot do it at all To disprove this which is as certain as any demonstration in Euclide our Reconciler says that nothing must be determined but what is necessary in its own nature to the doing or well doing of any action As if so be I could travel into the Country without determining whether I will walk or ride or what way I will go because no one of these is in its own nature so necessary that I cannot travel without it for I may chuse which I will but yet I must chuse some way or other or I must stay at home Now should you ask a man who is taking a journey which way he will go by land or by water on foot or horseback or by Coach and he should tell you it is not necessary to his journey to determine either for they are all equally indifferent would you not think the man mad for though all are indifferent yet some one is necessary to his journey and if he will not determine which way he will go he can never go This is the case here Dr. Falkner says Before we can receive the Lords Supper it must be determined whether we will receive it in leavened or unleavened Bread No says the Reconciler any determination by the Magistrate is here unnecessary because either leavened or unleavened Bread may be received Right and therefore there is no necessity of an universal Law and uniform practice all the world over about this matter but still whoever administers or whoever receives the Sacrament must do it in leavened or unleavened Bread Suppose then in the same Church and Congregation there should be a dispute about this as there was between the Greek and Latin Church and some should scruple to administer or receive in leavened others in unleavened Bread what must be done in this case must the Church determine this matter or not or must there in every Congregation be two Ministers and two Sacraments one of the leavened the other of the unleavened Communion I know not what our Reconciler will say to this but I am sure either this matter must be determined notwithstanding the scruples and differing Opinions about it or there must be a Schismatical disorder and confusion in the same Church in the very act of Christian Communion But how little regard the Apostles themselves whom I suppose our Reconciler will grant to be a good President for Church-Governours had to the mistakes and scruples of Christians when there was a just reason for making any Decrees and Canons is evident from the practice of that first celebrated Council of Ierusalem The Jews did mightily urge the necessity of circumcising the converted Gentiles and made it a great scruple of Conscience so much as to eat or drink with them much less to own them of the same Church and Communion without Circumcision Paul and Barnabas were sent to Ierusalem to consult the other Apostles about this Question The Apostles accordingly met together and after
are not so much beholding to him but the present Clergy are as little to whom he has by very broad signs and intimations applied Theophylact's observation upon the Text That our Lord complained the Labourers were but few because the Scribes and Pharisees the present Labourers not onely did not profit but did hurt the people whereas it is the property of a good Pastor to be merciful-towards them He knew very well this Objection oâ— the paucity of Labourers could not well be applied to us who have such a numerous Clergy and therefore to make room for Dissenters he fairly insinuates that the present Ministers do no good but hurt Such an impudent Calumny as needs no confutation and let others consider what censure it deserves IV. His next Argument is taken from our Saviour's command not to scandalize or despise little ones 18 Mat. where by little ones he understands those who are weak in the Faith or not well instructed in their Duty or mistaken in it though very obstinate and peremptory in their mistake for so he must mean if he will apply it to the case of Dissenters And by scandalizing offending or despising them he understands doing any action which occasions their ruine And thus he tâ—inks Church-Governours fall under this Woe which is denounced against those who offend these little ones when they impose such Ceremonies which they cannot and will not submit to which occasions the Schism and consequently the damnation of their weak Brother No man can possibly want Arguments who has such an admirable faculty not at finding but making them for nothing can be more remote from our Saviour's intention in these words than such an inference as this For 1. It is evident that by little ones our Saviour understands those who are meek and humble and modest who are as void of pride and passion and earthly ambitions as a little Child as is evident both from the occasion of this discourse which was to correct the ambition of his Disciples and from the example of a little Child which he proposes to them for their imitation Thus St. Chrysostom and St. Ierom expound the words though the latter observes also that those who are scandalized are upon that account also little ones for great and strong Christians will not receive scandal That is though they be humble and modest c. yet these Graces and Vertues are not so well rooted and confirmed in them but that the ill usage they meet with from the world may turn them out of their byass and occasion their fall But what is this to our Dissenters who are neither in one sence nor other little ones who neither have the modesty humility and peaceableness of Children nor their soft and ductile nature but are stiff and inflexible and obstinate in their conceits that they will neither hearken to Reason nor yield to Conviction 2. To scandalize or offend these little ones St. Chrysostom tells us is to dishonour to reproach to vilifie them to despise them as it is expressed v. 10. which as he observes is a great temptation and scandal to men of weak minds Our Reconciler observes that St. Ierom says We are said to scandalize when by our actions we give occasion to their ruine I find no such saying in St. Ierom upon the place but however the saying is a very good one if we apply it right to actions of contempt and scorn of which both St. Ierom and St. Chrysostom speak which are apt to spoil this good temper of mind when men see themselves onely scorned and derided for it and exposed to all sorts of violence and injury This is the usual reward of great modesty and humility in this World and therefore our Saviour secures these little ones from contempâ— by denouncing severe woes against those who offer it But what is all this to the Church which offers no contempt to the meanest Christian much less to men of humble and modest and peaceable tempers She is as much concerned for the salvation of the Poor as of the Rich and despises no man who has a soul to be saved and will submit to wise instructions Must the Church be charged with scandalizing little ones because she will not renounce her own Authority nor suffer these little ones to give Laws to her Certainly our Saviour never intended any such thing when in this very Chapter and upon this very occasion he asserts the Authority of the Church even in the point of scandal and commands us not to converse with those men who will not hearken to her Counsels and Reproofs If thy brother shall trespass against thee shall offend and scandalize thee go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone if he shall hear thee thâ—u hast gained thy brother But if he will not hear thee then take with thee one or two more that in the mouth of one or two witnesses every word may be established And if he shall neglect to hear them tell it to the Church but if he neglect to hear the Church let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican Verily I say unto you Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven But of the case of scandal or giving offence our Reconciler has given us occasion to discourse more in another place V. His next Argument is as wise as the rest He tells us Our Lord denounceth woe against the Scribes and Pharisees because they shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men But he should have added the whole verse for ye neither go in your selves neither suffer ye them that are entring to go in St. Ierom expounds this two ways 1. They shut the Kingdom of Heaven against men by hindring their belief in Christ in whom they would neither believe themselves nor suffer others to believe who were prepared and disposed for it which is certainly the true exposition of the words But then he adds 2. That these Teachers and Rabbies may be said to shut up the Kingdom of Heaven who scandalize their Disciples with their wicked lives that is who tempt them to sin by their example But what is this to the Dispute about Ceremonies Does the imposition of Ceremonies in its own nature shut men out of the Kingdom of Heaven Can none be saved then who obey the Laws of the Church about Rituals and Ceremonies as no man could enter into the Kingdom of Heaven who followed the directions of the Scribes and Pharisees Christ condemns the Pharisees for using their utmost endeavour to hinder men from embracing the Christian Faith and entring into the Kingdom of Heaven Our Reconciler draws up the same charge against the Church because some men take unjust offence against the Order and Decency of her Worship and will not enter though she uses all manner of Entreaties and Arguments and wise Arts to perswade them to enter
us is on our part And if he were not a Disciple his very working Miracles in Christ's Name was a very likely way to make him and others also the Disciples of Christ and therefore might be permitted by our Lord for that very reason Forbid him not for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name that can lightly speak evil of me But was not our Reconciler asleep when he tells us that this man did not hold Communion with the Disciples What Communion then was he of Was he not a Jew and a Member of the Jewish Church And was he not then in Communion with Christ and his Apostles For did not Christ all the time he was on Earth live in Communion with the Jewish Church Did he set up any distinct Church and Communion of his own But I perceive our Reconciler is of Mr. Baxter's mind that Church-Communion is a presential Communion And because he did not always follow Christ and give his personal attendance on him therefore he could not hold Communion with him And now let our Reconciler try again how from this Example he can prove that Schismaticks must be suffered to preach for the promotion of Christ's Kingdom VII And yet it is wonderful to observe how he turns the Tables in his next Argument and proves from Christ's being the good Shepherd who lays down his life for his Sheep that the Governours of the Church should part with their indifferent things to preserve the Sheep from such Thieves that is Schismatical Preachers those who if his last Argument be good ought not to be forbid to preach though they do not profess Communion with us But I must tell him That for the Church to destroy her Constitution to pull down all her Hedges and Fences is the way to let in these Thieves as he calls them not to keep them out VIII His last Argument is of the same nature That because Christ prays for the unity of the Church therefore to procure this unity and concord we must part with all unnecessary things which do not in the least advance his Kingdom And truly I think so too but if the external Decency of Worship is not so unnecessary a thing nor easily to be parted with if parting with these Ceremonies will not heal our Schisms and Divisions of which I have discours'd largely already there needs no other Answer to be returned to this Argument He concludes this Chapter with retorting some of these Arguments upon the Dissenters I have answered for the Church let the Dissenters now try how they can answer for themselves for he very truly observes that they fall with more weight upon them To prefer some arbitrary Platforms of Worship and Discipline which God has nowhere instituted or commanded before the substantial Duties of Peace and Unity and Obedience to Government looks more like an offence against that Law I will have mercy and not sacrifice than what he charges upon the Church and to forbid the observation of the decent Rites and Ceremonies of Worship as unlawful and superstitious is a much more intolerable yoke and burden than the imposition of them But I shall leave the Dissenters and our Reconcileâ— to adjust this matter among themselves CHAP. V. Containing an Answer to our Reconciler's Arguments drawn from the 14th and 15th Chapters to the Romans THough our Reconciler makes a great flourish with a multitude of Arguments as usually those men do who cannot find one good one yet he seems to put the greatest confidence in those Arguments which are drawn from that condescension and mutual forbearance which St. Paul requires the Jewish and Gentile Converts who differed about the observation of the Mosaical Law to exercise towards each other And this I confess were a very good Argument if it were a parallel Case But I suppose our Reconciler will grant that there are some cases wherein it is very reasonable to exercise such forbearance and yet there may be other cases wherein it is not prudent and reasonable to allow the same Indulgence and therefore it does not follow that because St. Paul required the Jewish and Gentile Christians to forbear each other in their Disputes about the Mosaical Law therefore the Governours of the Church must forbear Dissenters and not prescribe the decent Rites and Ceremonies of Worship nor exact Conformity to them unless it appear that these two cases are the same or so like to each other that we may fairly argue from one to the other That these cases are not alike and that the Apostle's Arguments for mutual forbearance are not applicable to the case of our Dissenters I doubt not but I shall make so plain as to satisfie all impartial Readers And this I hope may pass for an Answer to his fourth Chapter I. Then I observe that St. Paul in the 14th Chapter to the Romans onely exhorts the Jewish and Gentile Christians to mutual forbearance in such cases which had been already decreed and determined by the highest Authority in the Church There is a great Dispute between our Reconciler and Dr. Womack now the Reverend Bishop of St. Davids to whom this Epistle was directed Whether onely to the private Christians at Rome or to Church-Governours also and consequently whether it be the duty onely of private Christians or of Church-Governours also to exercise this forbearance towards Dissenters The Bishop supposes that there was no Presbytery setled at Rome at this time and offers several Arguments to prove it Our Reconciler attempts to answer these Arguments and to prove the contrary that the Church of Rome whose Faith was spoken of throughout the World could not be without a setled Ministry at that time I am not willing to interpose in this Dispute for though it would be of great moment to answer all our Reconciler's Arguments from this Chapter were it certain that St. Paul did not designe these directions for Church-Governours but onely for private Christians as an Expedient to preserve Peace and Unity till these Disputes should be determined by a just Authority yet whatever fair probabilities there may be of this I doubt there is not evidence enough for it to convince a Reconciler or an obstinate Dissenter And indeed upon the principle which I have now laid down there is no need of this for whether these Exhortations to forbear one another and to receive one another and not to judge condemn or despise one another concern private Christians or Church-Governours or equally both yet since this forbearance extends onely to such cases as were determined by Ecclesiastical Authority to be the proper matter for the exercise of this Christian charity and forbearance every one sees how impertinently it is alleadged by our Reconciler to prove that the Governours of the Church must not impose any indifferent Customs and Usages which are scrupled by our Dissenters For what consequence is there in this that because private Christians or Church-Governours must allow the free exercise of
that liberty to each other which the Church has decreed that they should allow to each other therefore the Church it self must not impose the observance of any indifferent Ceremonies on Dissenters or must alter or abate them in compliance with their Scruples This is the plain case here The Council at Ierusalem had decreed that the Gentiles who received the Faith of Christ should not be under a necessity of being circumcised or observing the Law of Moses and left the believing Jews at their liberty to observe the Rites and Ceremonies of their Law still but notwithstanding this determination the believing Gentiles who understood their Christian liberty despised the weakness and superstition of the believing Jews who continued zealous for the Law of Moses and the believing Jews were mightily scandalized and offended at the liberty which the Gentile Converts took and made great scruple of conversing with them or of worshipping God together This Scandal and Offence which the Council easily foresaw would be taken and given on both sides did not hinder them from making a peremptory Decree in this matter as I observed before and when such Scandals as these did arise between the believing Jews and Gentiles in the Church of Rome St. Paul in this Epistle earnestly exhorts them to mutual charity and forbearance to grant that liberty to each other without mutual censures contempt and scandal which the Church had already decreed should be granted for he pleads for no other forbearance than what was expresly decreed by the Council at Ierusalem In such cases wherein the Church allows a latitude and permits different apprehensions and practices certainly it becomes all Christians not to judge or censure offend or scandalize each other which is the onely case the Apostle mentions But will any man in his wits hence infer that the Church must make no Laws nor prescribe any Rules of Worship which are scrupled by private Christians and that if she do she sins against these Laws of Charity and Forbearance which the Apostle exhorts the Romans to observe The Governours of the Church may exercise the same authority which the Apostles did in the Council at Ierusalem they may determine what upon mature deliberation and advice they judge fit or necessary to be determined whatever scruples some Christians have entertained about it and when they have done so it becomes Christian Bishopâ— and Ministers as the Apostle here does to perswade private Christians to obey such Constitutions for the preservation of the Peace and Unity of the Church not to turn Reconcilers and to plead the Cause of Dissenters against Church-Authority which St. Paul never did And it becomes private Christians to submit to such Determinations and those who do not are guilty of the scandal and offence if there be any not those who do The Gentile Converts were guilty of scandal if they despised the Jews for observing the Law of Moses which the Council had still permitted them to observe the Jews were guilty of scandalizing the Gentiles if they judged and censured them and denied Communion to them for not observing the Law of Moses because the Council had delivered the Gentiles from any such necessity but no man can be guilty of any criminal scandal by obeying the lawful Constitutions of the Church whoever is scandalized at it but scandal always lies on the side of disobedience The Christian Jew gave no offence by observing the Law of Moses nor the Christian Gentile by not observing it because they both herein had the authority of the Apostolical Decree to justifie them and therefore St. Paul does not exhort the Jews not to observe the Law of Moses nor the Gentiles to observe it to avoid scandal which had been somewhat like our Reconciler's Address to the Church not to impose and to the Dissenters to obey such Impositions to avoid Schism but he exhorts them both to grant that liberty to each other which the Church had granted and not to judge and censure and despise and separate from each other for the use of this liberty which in both of them would be an express violation of the Apostolical Decree Governours indeed may be guilty of uncharitableness in the exercise of a just Authority as I have already discours'd and vindicated our Church from any such imputation but Subjects can never be guilty of scandal in obeying the lawful commands of a lawful Authority And private Christians may be guilty of scandal in the imprudent use of their just liberties but this can never extend to the authority of Government Thus it was with the Gentile Converts The Council at Ierusalem had delivered them from the necessity of observing the Laws of Moses but yet had not laid a necessity on them to eat Swines flesh or any other meats which were unclean by the Law when a Jew was present and therefore herein it became them to use their liberty without offence and to exercise a generous charity towards the weakness of a believing Jew in such cases as the Apostle argues from the 13th verse to the end of the Chapter and yet it became the Church to allow this liberty to the Gentiles which they might use uncharitably for to have abridged it had been to impose on them the observation of the Mosaical Law The Apostle indeed as the Reconciler observes did plainly assert That the things scrupled by the weak were pure and lawful in themselves that he knew and was perswaded by the Lord Iesus that there was nothing unclean of it self which is the very determination of the Council at Ierusalem and yet he requires the believing Gentiles to exercise great charity in the use of their liberty which is a plain instance of the exercise of a private charity in such cases where publick Authority can make no such determination in favour of the scrupulous The Council at Ierusalem and St. Paul in this Epistle determine against the scruples of the Jews and assert the liberty of the Gentiles and they could not do otherwise and yet St. Paul requires private Christians to use this liberty without offence and to exercise such charity to their Jewish Brethren as the Church it self did not and could not exercise And thus St. Paul falls under our Reconciler's lash as well as Dr. Womack As if Church-Governours were not as much concerned in the reasons laid down as were the common People that is that they were not obliged to receive the weak in Faith and being strong to bear the infirmities of the weak that they might judge another mans servant that they might put a stumbling-block or an occasion to fall in their Brothers way that they might walk uncharitably might grieve and even destroy him with their meat for whom Christ died that they might let their good be evil spoken of and might for meat destroy the work of God and that though it is good for private persons not to eat flesh nor drink wine nor to do any thing
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
of it viz. the miraculous effusions of the holy Spirit What have we to do to pass any judgment at all concerning those mens internal communion with God and Christ who forsake the external and visible communion of the Church since the Apostle speaks here of Gods receiving them into visible Church-communion Must the Church alter the most prudent and wholsome Constitutions for the sake of every one whom she does not believe a damned Hypocrite May we not hope charitably that God will be merciful to the prejudices and mistakes of some well-meaning men without destroying all Order in the Church and all the Decency of Worship to let such men into our Communion When God shall as visibly declare that he receives all those into the communion of the Church who dissent from the Constitutions of it and will not conform to its Worship Discipline or Government as he did that he had received both Jews and Gentiles into the visible communion of the Church then the Reconciler's Argument may be worth considering but till then it is nothing to the purpose And I cannot but observe what dreadful apprehensions our Reconciler has of the evil and guilt of Schism who believes that such Schismaticks as wilfully separate from the communion of the Church may still be in communion with God and Christ. This his present Argument necessarily supposes for otherwise it does no way appear that God has received them and then it does not follow that the Church must receive them and yet certainly Schism cannot be so damning a sin as at other times he pretends it is if such Schismaticks are still in communion with God and Christ. So that great part of his Book is nothing but putting tricks upon the Church And when he declaims mostt ragically about involving so many precious Souls in the guilt of a damning Schism and destroying those with our Ceremonies for whom Christ died he secretly laughs in his sleeve at those silly people who are so credulous as to believe it for he believes no such matter himself but thinks it want of charity to believe that Schismaticks are not in communion with God nor living Members of Christs Body So that whatever strength those may conceive to be in his Book who believe Schism to be a damning sin it is plain he cannot think there is any strength in it himself for upon this supposition that a man may be saved as well in a Schism as in Church-communion as certainly all those shall who are in communion with God and Christ it is not worth disputing about these matters The Church may keep her Constitutions and Schismaticks may divide and subdivide into infinite Factions and no great hurt done but that it makes Protestant Reconcilers of no use It had been a much more honourable undertaking in him to have convinc'd the Church of her mistake about the damning nature of Schism and to have satisfied Dissenters that they might continue in their Schism without any danger than to scare them both with panick fears and to pelt them with such Arguments as are not worth half a farthing if this Argument be worth any thing for if God and Christ have received such Schismaticks into communion I know no reason they have to be concerned about the communion of the Church 2. The next Argument the Apostle uses or rather a continuation of the former Argument is contained in the fourth verse Who are thou that judgest another mans servant to his own master he standeth or falleth yea he shall be holden up for God is able to make him stand To the same purpose v. 10 12. But why dost thou judge thy brother that is whom God hath made thy Brother and declared him to be so by visible effects though thou refusest to own him for such or why dost thou set at nought thy brother for we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God This Argument our Reconciler thought fit to pass over for though it was very much to the Apostles purpose it was nothing to his For what is the meaning of judging another mans servant Are not private Christians subject to the Authority of the Church and liable to be judged and censured by their Governours No doubt of it if Christ have establish'd any Government in his Church And yet it seems this was such a matter as no man had any authority to judge in but was reserved wholly to the judgment of God For the plain case was this God had publickly declared his Will by the visible effusion of the holy Spirit both on Jews and Gentiles that he indulged the believing Jews at that time in the observation of the Law of Moses but would not impose that Yoke on the believing Gentiles Now when God had so visibly determined this Controversie neither private Christians nor Church-Governours had authority to determine it otherwise or to judge or censure or deny communion to each other upon that account for God may accept Jews and Gentiles upon what terms he pleases and to judge and reject the Jews for observing the Law of Moses when God is pleased to indulge them in it or to judge and reject the Gentiles for not observing the Law when God has so manifestly declared that he receives them without it is as if we should judge another mans Servant for doing or not doing what his own Master either allows or permits In such cases as these as St. Iames speaks He that speaketh evil of his brother and judgeth his brother speaketh evil of the Law and judgeth the Law but if thou judge the Law thou art not a doer of the Law but a judge There is one Law-giver who is able to save and to destroy who art thou that judgest another That is when we judge and condemn our Brother for doing or not doing such things which God has by a positive Law or some other publick declaration of his Will allowed them to do or to omit we are not doers of the Law that is do not behave our selves as those who are to receive Laws and to obey them but as judges as those who have authority to make Laws or to censure and controul them So that this Argument against judging another mans Servant relates onely to such matters which God has determined by his own authority and therefore cannot concern the case of our Dissenters unless our Reconciler can prove that God has plainly determined that the Church shall not prescribe the Rules of Order and Decency in publick Worship What God has left to the authority of the Church in such cases the Church may judge and censure and reject the disobedient because private Christians in all such cases are subject to Church-authority and the Church does not exceed her authority in judging them And this is the Dispute between the Church and Dissenters Whether they should obey the Authority of the Church in such matters which
be said to do what they do to the Lord but onely in such cases where there is a divine positive Law or a divine Indulgence permission or liberty on both sides which was the case between the Jews and Gentiles but has no parallel that I know of Our Dissenters indeed pretend the authority of Scripture to justifie their non-observance of Ecclesiastical Rites and Ceremonies and so did the Jews for putting our Saviour to death so do all Hereticks and Schismaticks and even Rebels themselves and if the Government must take notice of every foolish Reasoner who pretends Scripture it is in as ill a case as if every unscriptural Dream and Fancy must pass for an Oracle This will make no difference before God whether men pervert the Scripture to their own destruction or follow the wild Enthusiasms of their own brains and I see no reason that Governours have to make a difference neither By these Arguments St. Paul perswades the believing Jews and Gentiles at Rome notwithstanding their Disputes about the observation of the Law of Moses to maintain Christian communion with each other and they are very proper to this purpose but can by no parity of Reason be applied to the case of our Dissenters as I hope abundantly appears from what I have already discours'd Secondly The Apostle by these Arguments having perswaded them to receive one another to Christian communion proceeds to perswade the Gentile Converts or those strong Jewish Christians who understood their Christian liberty not to give any needless offence and scandal to the weak by an uncharitable use of their liberty from v. 13. to the end of the Chapter These two to receive into communion and not to give offence and scandal are of a very different consideration though our Reconciler makes no distinction between them and therefore I shall briefly state this matter also and shew how remote it is from the case to which our Reconciler applies it The scandal which he supposes the Church gives to the Dissenters is this That by enjoyning the use of some indifferent Ceremonies in Religion which are scrupled by them or condemned as unlawful she tempts them to separate from her Communion and rather to involve themselves in the guilt of Schism than to submit to such unscriptural Impositions Let us then consider what that Scandal is of which St. Paul speaks and by what Arguments he disswades them from it and how â—ar it is applicable to our case 1. Then I shall consider what this Scandal was 2. By what Arguments he disswades them from giving Offence and Scandal First What this Scandal was Now the persons who were scandalized were the weak that which gave this scandal to them was as they apprehended an open contempt and violation of the Law of God in eating such meats as were on all hands agreed to be forbidden by the Law the danger of this scandal was lest it should tempt them to renounce Christianity Let us then compare this with the case of our Dissenters 1. The weak Jew was scandalized and offended So far you 'll say the Parallel holds good for whatever the Dissenters think of themselves I suppose the Church looks upon them as a sort of weak Christians and it is not what they think but what they are which is to be considered in this case for these Jews did not think themselves weak no more than our Dissenters do and yet the Apostle declares them to be weak and requires the strong to treat them as weak Brethren So far I agree but then we must consider what this weakness was for all weakness is not alike nor equally the object of our charity Some men are weak because they are ignorant and because they will not be instructed others are weak out of prejudice and some vicious inclinations some weakness is to be chastised and corrected not indulged and therefore because St. Paul requires them not to offend the weak Jew it does not follow that the Church must use the same Indulgence to the weak Dissenters unless their weakness be alike pityable Now the weakness of the Jew consisted in this that though they had embraced the Faith of Christ yet they were not convinced that the Law of Moses was out of date and therefore durst not do any thing which was forbidden by that Law nor omit doing what the Law commanded nor could they endure to see others do so so that their weakness consisted in a profound reverence for an express positive Law which all men agâ—eed was given by God but which was not yet repealed in so visible a manner as to satiâ—fie the believing Jews that it was repealed Now this was a very favourable case so favourable that God himself still indulged the Jews in the observation of their Law and therefore there was great reason why the strong Christian should avoid giving offence to the weak by the use of his Christian liberty But now this is such a case as never was before and never can be again Our Dissenters may be weak but not weak as the believing Jews were out of reverence to an express positive Law because there is no such Law which ever did forbid the use of those Ceremonies which they condemn and certainly there cannot be the same pretence to indulge those who foolishly reason themselves into mistakes and scruples as there was to indulge those who could produce a plain positive Law to justifie their dissent The case is so vastly different that I doubt not but St. Paul who pleaded for such Charity and Indulgence to the Jews would himself have censured our Dissenters For both the Governours of the Church and private Christians are in an ill state if they are bound to humour those mistakes and scruples which are owing to mens ignorance folly interest prejudice or unteachable and refractory dispositions 2. These weak Jews took offence at the open violation of an express Law of God For the Gentile Christians did not observe the Law of Moses but acted in direct opposition to it Now this was a just matter of offence to the Jew while he retained such a great veneration for the Law of Moses which at least he had some fair appearance of reason to do It is true the strong Christian in eating those things which were forbidden by the Law of Moses did nothing but what was lawful for him to do but it does not hence follow as our Reconciler infers that the scandal the weak Christian took at the freedom of the strong who used his Christian liberty in eating these things was scandalum acceptum non datum scandal received but not given the action being such as the weak Christian could not justly be offended at For the weak Christian had as much reason to be offended at this as he had to believe that the Law of Moses was still in force and this was the true reason of his offence No man can be justly charged with giving offence or scandal who does
onely refused to obey the Law themselves but scorned and despised the Jews for doing it and used their Christian liberty in an open contempt and defiance of them and their Law this would have been very apt to have alienated their minds from the Christian religion which the Apostle therefore calls laying a stumbling-block or occasion to fall in our brothers way and destroying him with our meat by tempting him to infidelity and Apostacy for whom Christ died Thus St. Chrysostom expresly tells us that St. Paul was afraid lest this contemptuous usage of the believing Jews should tempt them to renounce the Faith of Christ. But what is this to the case of our Dissenters are they tempted to renounce the Christian Religion by the Ceremonies of the Church of England It is so far from this that they learn to despise their Teachers and to think themselves a more perfect and excellent sort of Christians But you 'll say it makes them Schismaticks and Schism is as dangerous to mens Souls as Infidelity and therefore the same charity which obliges us to prevent the one obliges us also with equal care to prevent the other Now though I think every good Christian will and ought to do what he reasonably can to prevent a Schism yet the difference between the case of Schism and Infidelity in point of scandal is very great While men are weak and unsetled in the Faith and apt to take offence and apostatize from Christ they ought to be treated with all manner of tenderness and condescension because they are not yet capable of being governed they must be humoured for a while as Children are who must be managed by Art not by Rules of Discipline but when men are well rooted and confirmed in the Christian Faith they are no longer to be humoured but governed they must be taught to submit to that Authority which Christ has placed in his Church and to obey not to dispute the commands of their Superiours when there is no plain positive Law of God against them This is the onely way to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Christian Church and if men will take offence at the exercise of a just Authority and turn Schismaticks it is at their own peril And this indeed I take to be the true notion of the weak in the Faith whom the Apostle in this Chapter commands the strong Christians to treat with so much tenderness without giving them the least offence those who are not well confirmed in the truth of the Christian Religion and therefore are apt to take offence at every thing and to renounce the Faith And so his stumbling and being offended and made weak signifies his being shaken and unsetled in the Faith Every one who is an ignorant and uninstructed is not therefore a weak Christian his Understanding may be weak but his Faith may be strong that is he may very firmly and stedfastly believe the truth of the Christian Religion though he do not so well understand the particular Doctrines of it But these two sorts of weak persons are to be used very differently you must have a care of offending those who are weak in Faith but you must instruct and govern those who are weak in Understanding or else you prostitute the Authority of the Church and the truth of Christianity and the just liberties of Christians to every ignorant and yet it may be conceited obstinate and censorious Professor which is a plain demonstration that those directions the Apostle gives in this Chapter not to offend those who are weak in the Faith cannot concern our Dissenters who though they are weak enough as that signifies ignorant yet are not weak in the Faith as that signifies those who are not thoroughly perswaded of Christianity or not well confirmed in that belief and therefore are not to be humoured like Children but trained up to greater attainments by wise Instructions and a prudent Discipline Secondly Having seen what this Scandal and Offence was let us now consider by what Arguments the Apostle perswades those who were strong not to offend the weak Now our Reconciler has turned almost every word into an Argument One Argument is That it is our duty not to judge or lay a stumbling-block before our Brother That it is contrary to charity and evil in it self That it caused Christianity to be blasphâ—med That it is contrary to the concerns of Peace and the edification of the Church c. Now I have no dispute with our Reconciler about this that it is a very ill thing and very contrary to the duty of a Christian to give any just offence or scandal to a weak Brother if we were as well agreed what it is to give offence as that giving this offence is a very evil thing the Dispute were at an end And yet by this artifice he imposes upon his Readers is very copious and rhetorical in his Harangue on this Argument and transcribes several passages out of St. Chrysostom and some other ancient Writers to shew the great evil and manifold aggravations of scandal which every one would grant him to be very good when rightly applied but we deny that the Church of England is guilty of giving offende to the Dissenters in that sence in which St. Paul and other ancient Writers meant it and if our Reconciler had pleased he might have found enough in St. Paul's Arguments to have convinced him that the Apostle spoke of a case very different from ours which because he has been pleased to overlook I shall be so charitable as to mind him of it Now I take the sum of the Apostles Argument to be this That the reason why they were not to offend the Jews by an uncharitable use of their Christian liberty in eating such meats as were forbidden by the Law is because their eating or not eating such meats in it self considered is of no concernment in the Christian Religion and therefore is the proper Sphere for the exercise of charity For when we discourse of offence and scandal the first and most natural inquiry is of what moment and consequence the thing is in which we are required to exercise our charity for there are many things which we must not do nor leave undone out of charity to any man whatever offence be taken at it but if it be of that nature as to admit of a charitable condescension and compliance then all the other Arguments against scandal and giving offence are very seasonably and properly urged And this is the case here as will appear from considering the series of the Apostles Arguments In the 13th verse he perswades them not to put a stumbling-block and occasion to fall in their Brothers way And to inforce this Exhortation he adds in the 14th verse I know and am perswaded by the Lord Iesus that there is nothing unclean of it self but to him that esteemeth any thing unclean to him it is unclean That is all distinction of
meats is perfectly taken away by the Gospel of our Saviour and therefore if we be well instructed in the nature of our Christian liberty we may eat or not eat just as we please and therefore there is nothing in the nature of the thing to hinder the exercise of our charity because it is wholly at our own choice whether we will eat or not eat And this makes it a great breach of charity to eat with offence to destroy our Brother with our meat for whom Christ died 15 16 v. Which may justly cause our Christian liberty which is a very good and valuable thing in it to be censured and condemned on all hands when it is used so uncharitably to the destruction of our Brother and therefore let not your good be evil spoken of v. 16. And as there is nothing in the nature of the thing to hinder our charity it being equally lawful to eat or not to eat and perfectly at our own choice which we will do so neither is Religion concerned one way or other in it The Christian Religion indeed is concerned in theDispute about the lawfulnessof eating or not eating such things as were forbid by the Law of Moses because this is a point of Christian liberty and the Apostle does not perswade the Gentile Converts to renounce this liberty which the Gospel allows them but bare eating or not eating without respect to our opinions about it is of no consequence in Religion we are neither the better Christians if we do eat nor the worse Christians if we do not For the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink The Gospel of our Saviour prescribes no Laws about the quality of our diet and therefore it is no part of the Christian Religion to eat or to forbear The liberty of eating indifferently of all things is allowed by the Gospel but the act of eating is neither commanded nor forbid and therefore is no duty of Religion But though the Gospel do not give us any direct and positive command about eating or not eating yet there are some duties which are essential to the Gospel wherein the life and spirit of Christianity consists which in some cases may be a collateral restraint upon the exercise of our liberty for the Kingdom of God is righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost And therefore it is an essential duty of Christianity to deal kindly and compassionately with our fellow-Christians to promote the Peace and Unity of the Church and that Spiritual Joy and Delight which Christian Brethren ought to take in each other in the Communion of the same Church and the joynt Worship of their common Father and Saviour These are the things which are most pleasing to our great Master and have so much natural goodness as recommends them to the approbaâ—ion of all men for he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approved of men and therefore in the use of our Christian liberty we must be sure to have this Rule always in our eye To follow after the things which make for peace and things wherewith one may edifie another And therefore though the Gospel has taken away all distinctions of meats and given us free leave to eat of every thing yet since it is not matter of duty in all times and in all places and companies to eat such meats as were formerly forbidden by the Law and since we know that to do so gives great offence and scandal to the weak Jews without serving any end at all in Religion and therefore is directly contrary to those essential Duties of Love and Charity Unity and Peace and mutual Edification let us not so much insist on our Christian liberty in the use of meats as to destroy the work of God for though no meats are now unclean but all things all kind of diet is now pure and lawful yet it is a very evil thing for any man by his eating such meat as his weak Brother thinks unclean to give offence and scandal to him It is good much better neither to eat flesh nor drink wine nor any thing of the like nature whereby thy brother stumbleth or is offended or is made weak discouraged in his Christian course and tempted to apostatize from the Faith of Christ. But besides this as it is purely in our choice to eat or not to eat there being no Law to require either and neither eating nor not eating is in it self considered of any concernment to Religion so it is no injury at all to thy Christian liberty to forbear eating in compliance with the weakness of thy Brother Hast thou Faith Dost thou believe thou mayst eat indifferently of all meats Believe so still and use this liberty privately when it may be done without offence but thou art under no necessity of publishing this belief nor of acting according to it in all companies but have this faith to thy self before God This Faith makes it lawful for thee to eat but then thou must take great care that thou dost not do a lawful thing in such a manner as to make it become sin to thee that is thou must not eat how lawful soever it be in it self with the scandal and offence of thy weak Brother which makes it very unlawful Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth who does not do a good action in so ill a manner as to bring condemnation upon himself But then as thy believing it lawful for thee to eat does not make it necessary to eat nor lawful in all circumstances when it is done with offence and scandal so much less does thy believing it lawful to eat make it lawful for thy weak Brother to eat for if the Jewish Christian who doubteth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who stills makes a distinction between meats and believes it unlawful to eat such meats as are forbidden by the Law of Moses if he notwithstanding this eat such forbidden meats he is damned self-condemned by his own Conscience for doing that which he believes to be unlawful for whatever is not of faith done with a full perswasion of the lawfulness of it is sin and therefore thou oughtest not to judge and cenâ—ure and reproach thy weak Brother in such cases but to bear with him and to avoid giving him any scandal or offence This I take to be the true sence of St. Paul's reasoning in this place to perswade the Gentile Christians not to give offence to the Jewish Converts by eating meats forbidden by the Law and it seems to me to contain the plainest and easiest determination of the case of Scandal which I shall therefore briefly review and inquire how applicable it is to the case of indifferent things in the Worship of God to which our Reconciler applies it 1. First then I observe that the Apostles discourse in this place can be extended no farther than to forbid offering scandal and offence in the exercise
I observed before The necessary consequence of which is that in all such cases wherein not Religion but our own liberty is concerned the great Rule we are to observe is to promote the Peace of the Church and the mutual Edification of each other to follow after the things which make for peace and things wherewith one may edifie another Now this is a plain Rule which all men at first hearing will acknowledge to be reasonable not to violate the plain Duties of Religion in contending about such liberties the use and exercise of which are of no account in Religion not to scandalize a weak Brother nor destroy the Peace of the Church and the mutual edification of Christians in love by eating such meats as we may indeed in other cases lawfully eat but the eating of which is at no time and in no case in it self considered an act of Worship or acceptable to God But if we understand these words in our Reconciler's way that the Externals of Religion are of no account and therefore must be sacrificed to the dearer interests of Peace and Charity and mutual Edification I confess the Argument is plain enough but it is neither to the Apostle's purpose nor is it true And yet this is the fundamental Principle of all Reconcilers and of those men who affect the name and character of Moderation that the Externals of Religion are little worth and of small account with God But the great business which Christians ought to mind is Love and Charity and the practice of those moral Vertues wherein they place the life and substance of Religion and therefore it does not become them to quarrel about the external Modes of Worship but an indulgence in such matters becomes the good and benign temper of the Gospel Now how these men come to know that God is so indifferent about his own Worship I cannot guess nor how the Worship of God comes to be a less essential part of Religion than justice and charity to men I am sure under the Law God appeared very jealous of his Honour and Worship and though he rejected all the Worship of bad men and despised those external acts of Worship which were separated from Justice and Charity yet this was no Argument that he undervalued his own Worship because he was not pleased with an empty shew and appearance of it As for his preferring Mercy before Sacrifice I have given some account of it already and may do more in what follows but certainly Religion is properly the Worship of God and therefore that is the greatest thing in it And publick Worship which is the most visible Honour of God consists in external and visible Signs and therefore the Order Decency and Solemnity of Worship is so essential to the notion of publick Worship that there can be no Worship without it for to worship God visibly without publick and visible signs of Honour is a contradiction and therefore it does not seem to me to be so indifferent a thing after what manner God is worshipped and therefore not to be left indifferently to every mans humour upon every slight pretence of Charity and Moderation However it is plain that the Apostle does not speak one word of this here which had been nothing to his purpose and I cannot find any thing to this purpose in all the Scripture 3. This Apostolical Exhortation to avoid scandal concerns onely such cases wherein we are not bound to make a publick profession of our Faith nor to do that in publick in the view of all men which we believe we may very lawfully innocently do Hast thou faith have it to thy self before God that is keep thy Faith to thy self and enjoy thy liberty privately when thou may'st do it without offence Now I suppose our Reconciler will not think this a good Rule in all cases to dissemble our Faith and to keep our Religion to our selves which would effectually undermine the publick profession and practice of Religion in the World For if this were once granted men would find a great many other as good reasons to keep their Faith to themselves as avoiding scandal Indeed this Rule can hold onely in matters of a private nature such as I before observed this case to be for matters of a publick nature require a publick profession and practice For let us consider wherein the force of this Argument consists to perswade the Gentile Christians to exercise this forbearance towards their weak Jewish Brethren not to offend or scandalize them with their meat Hast thou faith have it to thy self before God which includes these two Arguments 1. That they are under no obligation to a publick profession or exercise of their Christian liberty in these matters 2. That though it be some restraint yet it is no injury to their liberty not to do those things publickly which give such offence For their liberty in such matters is maintained as well by a private as by a publick exercise of it For if they may do it at any time their liberty is secure though the exercise of it may be sometimes restrained But now if we apply this to the Rites and Ceremonies of publick Worship what sence is there in this Argument for publick Worship must be publickly profess'd and publickly practised or else it is not publick and therefore there is no place here to avoid publick scandal by keeping our Faith to our selves for then we must not worship God publickly as we think we may and that we ought to worship him for fear of giving offence So that this does not onely restrain but it destroys the Authority of Governours and the Liberty and Obedience of private Christians for what relates to publick Worship cannot be done at all if it must not be done publickly and that is no Authority and no Liberty which cannot be exercised without sin that is without a criminal offence and scandal As for what our Reconciler frequently urges and I have already observed and answered that it is not desired that the Church should renounce her Authority and Worship but onely give liberty to Dissenters to worship God in their own way this plainly shews how vastly different the case of the Jews and of our Dissenters is and how little they are concerned in that forbearance of which the Apostle speaks The Jews were offended not at the restraint of their own liberty for they were indulged in the observation of the Law of Moses but at that liberty which the Gentile believers used in breaking of the Law of Moses our Dissenters it seems are scandalized not so much at what we do as because they cannot do what they would The Apostle exhorts private Christians not to do such things publickly as offended their weak Brethren This great Reconciling Apostle exhorts or rather commands the Church to suffer Dissenters to worship God according to their own way and to do what is right in their own eyes and this would remove the
scandal Now these two do so widely differ that the one is true and proper scandal and the other is not To offend a weak Brother by an uncharitable use of our liberty by doing such things as prove a stumbling-block and occasion of falling to him is scandal in the Apostle's notion of the word and the onely scandal of which he treats in this 14th Chapter to the Romans but thus it seems we do not scandalize the Dissenters who are not concerned not offended in the Apostle's sence at what we do so they might enjoy their own liberty and therefore neither the Church nor Dissenters are concerned in what the Apostle discourses about Scandal in this Chapter And as for that offence and scandal they take at the exercise of Discipline and Government which restrains their wild and fanatick pretences to liberty it is no other offence than what all Criminals take at Laws and publick Government which is so far from being such a scandal as the Governours of the Church ought to avoid that there is not a greater scandal to Religion than the neglect of it But I shall think nothing impossible if our Reconciler can prove out of this Chapter that the Governours of the Church should prescribe no Rules of Worship nor lay any Restraint upon the giddy and enthusiastick fancies of men for fear of giving offence to them 4. The last Argument the Apostle uses to represent the reasonableness of this forbearance is this that though the Gentile Christians without sin or without any injury to their own liberty might comply with their weak Jewish Brethren yet these Jewish Christians who believed it unlawful to eat any meats forbidden by the Law of Moses could not comply with the believing Gentiles without sinning against their own Consciences which brings judgment and condemnation upon them And he that doubteth which does not signifie what we commonly call a scrupulous Conscience for that was not the case of the Jews who did not doubt but certainly believe that it was unlawful for them to eat such meats but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I observed before signifies him who makes a distinction between meats and so believes it unlawful to eat any meats which were forbidden by the Law of Moses he who thus doubteth is damned if he eat because he eateth not of faith for whatever is not of faith is sin Now here our Reconciler thinks he has us fast for if this were a good Argument in the case of the Jewish Christians it must be also in the case of the Dissenters If the Gentile believers were not by any means to compel the believing Jews to eat those meats which they believed unlawful because how lawful soever it was in it self yet it was unlawful for them to do it while they believed it unlawful to be done by the same reason the Governours of the Church must not compel Dissenters to Conformity which they believe unlawful or at least greatly doubt of the lawfulness of it For he that doubteth is damned if he conforms as well as if he eats This looks most like a parallel case of any thing yet and if this fails him I doubt his Cause is desperate and yet I am pretty confident that this will do him no service 1. For first this is not a good Argument in all cases to grant such an indulgence and forbearance that men act according to their Consciences as I have already proved at large for this would subvert all Order and Government in Church and State and supersede the Authority and Obligation of all other Laws but every mans private judgment and opinion of things 2. Let us then consider in what cases this Argument is good for certainly it is good in the case to which the Apostle applies it Now I know of but one general case to which this Argument can be reasonably applied and that is where every man 's own Conscience is his onely Rule not where Conscience it self has a Rule The Laws of God and the Laws of our Superiours when they do not contradict the Laws of God are the Rule of Conscience that Rule whereby all men ought to act and it is a senseless thing to say that when men are under the government of Laws they must have liberty to act according to their own Consciences that is according to their own judgment and opinions of things which is to say that though men are under Laws yet they must be governed by none that Magistrates may make Laws but they must not execute them but must suffer every man when his Conscience serves him to break both the Laws of God and of the Church or Kingdom wherein he lives But where we are under no obligation of divine or humane Laws in such cases every mans own Conscience is his onely Rule and in these cases it is fit to leave every man to the direction and government of his own mind because they concern onely every mans private liberty and have no influence at all upon the Publick And if in such cases any man should fancy himself to be under the obligation of a divine Law when indeed he is not it would be barbarously uncharitable by Censures and Reproaches and such kind of rude and ungentile Arts to force him to a compliance contrary to the sense and judgment of his own mind for when there is no other Rule of our Actions every mans Conscience is his onely Rule and if he does that which he believes to be forbidden by the Law of God though indeed it is not yet he sins in it and if we force him to such a compliance we are very uncharitable in it and are guilty of offending a weak Brother This was the very case of which the Apostle speaks The Law which made a distinction between clean and unclean meats was now out of date and did no longer oblige them and therefore it was lawful both for Jews and Gentiles to eat what meat they pleased but the Jews still thought that Law to be in force and therefore though the Law did not oblige them to abstain from such meats yet their own Consciences which is always a Law when there is no other did still oblige them to abstain and therefore it was very uncharitable in the Gentile Christians to judge and censure and reproach them for this for though they who understood their liberty might use it yet a believing Jew could not do this without sin And there may be a great many cases in â—ome degree parallel to this As suppose a man scruples the use of Lots and consequently all Games which depend upon Lots or thinks it unlawful to drink a Health or to see a Play or apprehends himself obliged to a stricter observation of the Lords day than the Christian Church has in former Ages thought necessary though we should suppose that there were no Law of God about these matters yet this mans Conscience is a Law to him and whiles he thinks any
of these things unlawful they are unlawful to him and it would be very uncharitable by any Arts to force him to do such things as are contrary to the dictates of his own Conscience This is onely a restraint of their own private liberty and therefore they ought to be indulged in it especially while they are so modest as not to censure those who use their innocent liberty innocently In such cases as these there is no other Rule to guide us but what the Apostle gives Let every man be fully perswaded in his own mind which is a safe and a sure Rule when there is no other Law to govern us for this must not be extended to all cases as St. Chrysostom observes upon the place for if in all cases we must suffer every man to act according as he is perswaded in his own mind this would subvert all Laws and Government but this is reasonable in such cases as onely concern mens private liberty and are under the restraint and government of no Laws but what men make or fancy to themselves It is true all men who act upon any Principles will in all cases do as they are fully perswaded in their own minds yet this is not a Rule to be given in all cases It can be a Rule onely in such cases wherein let a mans judgment and opinion be what it will he acts safely while he acts according to his own judgment which can never be where there is any other Law to govern us besides our own judgment of things for though we act with never so full a perswasion of our own minds if we break the divine Laws we sin in it and shall be judged for it And that this is the true sence of the Apostle's Argument appears in this that he urges the danger a weak Brother is in of sin if he should be perswaded or forc'd to act contrary to the judgment of his own mind which supposes that he is in no danger of sin if he follow his own judgment for if there were an equal danger of sin both ways this Argument has no force at all to prove the reasonableness of such an indulgence and forbearance For if this weak Brother will be guilty of as great a sin by following his judgment if we do forbear him as he will by acting contrary to his own judgment if we do not the danger being equal on both sides can be no reason to determine us either way and therefore this must be confined to such cases wherein there is no danger of sinning but onely in acting contrary to our own judgment and perswasions that is onely to such cases where there is no other Law to govern us but onely our own private Consciences And therefore this danger of scandal cannot affect Governours who have authority to command nor extend to such cases which are determined by divine or humane Laws and therefore not to the Rites and Ceremonies of publick Worship for whatever our own Perswasions are if we break the Laws of God or the just Laws of men by following a misguided and erroneous Conscience we sin in it And the same thing appears from this consideration that the Apostle perswades them to exercise this forbearance out of charity to their weak Brother but what charity is it to suffer our Brother to sin in following a misguided Conscience If our Brother sin as much in following a misguided Conscience as in acting contrary to his Conscience he is as uncharitable a man who patiently suffers his Brother to sin in following his Conscience as he who compels him to sin by acting contrary to his Conscience or rather by not suffering him to act according to his Conscience Nay since external force and restraint may and very often does make men consider better of things and help to rectifie their mistates it is a greater act of charity to give check to men than to suffer them to go quietly on in sin And here I shall take occasion to speak my mind very freely and plainly about that perplext Dispute of liberty of Conscience It seems very contrary to the nature of Religion to be matter of force for Religion is a voluntary Worship and Service of God and no man is religious who is religious against his will and therefore no man ought to be compelled to profess himself of any Religion which was plainly the sence of the Primitive Christians when they suffered under Heathen Persecutions as is to be seen in most of their Apologies And yet on the other hand it is monstrously unreasonable that there should be no restraint laid upon the wild fancies of men that every one who pleases may have liberty to corrupt Religion with Enthusiastick Conceits and new-fangled Heresies and to divide the Church with infinite Schisms and Factions The Patrons of Liberty and Indulgence declaim largely on the first of these heads those who are for preserving Order and Government in the Church on the second and if I may speak my mind freely I think they are both in the right and have divided the truth between them No man ought to be forc'd to be of any Religion whether Turk or Jew or Christian though Idolatry was punishable by the Law and that with very good reason for though men may not be forc'd to worship God yet they may and ought to be forc'd not to worship the Devil nor to blaspheme or do any publick dishonour to the true God And this was all the restraint that Christian Emperours laid upon the Pagan Idolaters they demolished their Temples and forbad the publick exercise of their Idolatrous Worship But though no man must be compelled to be a Christian yet if they voluntarily profess themselves Christians they become subject to the Authority and Government of the Christian Church The Bishops and Pastors of the Church have authority from Christ and are bound by vertue of their Office to preserve the Purity of the Faith and the Decency and Uniformity of Christian Worship and if any Member of the Church either corrupt the Faith or Worship of it or prove refractory and disobedient to Ecclesiastical Authority they ought to be censured and cast out of the Communion of the Church which is as reasonable as it is to thrust a Member out of any Society who will not be subject to the Orders and Constitutions of it This distinction St. Paul himself makes between judging those who are without and those who were within the Church They had no authority to force men to be Christians but they had authority over professed Christians to judge and censure them as their actions deserved and this is properly Ecclesiastical Authority to condemn Heresies and Schism and to cast Hereticks and Schismaticks and all disorderly Christians out of the Communion of the Church and no governed Society can subsist without so much authority as this comes to As for temporal restraints and punishments they belong to the Civil Magistrate and if we
case if they follow the direction of their own minds they do no injury to any body but themselves in an unnecessary restraint of their own liberty but neither offend God by it nor hurt men but if they act contrary to what they believe to be their Duty in compliance with others they sin in it for every mans private Conscience is his onely Rule where there is no other Law to govern him The Case of the Dissenters THe Dispute between Dissenters and the Church of England is concerning the use of indifferent Rites and Ceremonies in Religious Worship The scruples of Dissenters are not grounded on any express Law acknowledged by all Parties to be a divine Law but are occasioned by their ignorance and perverting of the holy Scriptures and obstinacy against better instruction The Dissenters cannot produce any plain positive Law which is oâ— ever was in force against the Ceremonies of our Church and so have no reasonable pretence to be offended The weakness of Dissenters is not a weakness in the Faith for they firmly believe the Christian Religion but at best a weakness of understanding which is not to be indulged but to be rectified by wise Instructions and prudent Restraints unless we think that every ignorant Christian must give Laws to the Church and impose his own ignorant and childish prejudices Whatever offence the Dissenters take at our Ceremonies it is not pretended that the imposition of them tempts them to renounce Christianity but onely is an occasion of their Schism and makes them forsake the Church for a Conventicle But this is no reason at all in it self for any indulgence and forbearance to be sure is vastly different from the case of the Jews for by the same reaâ—on there must be no Authority and Government in the Church or no exercise of it lest those who will not obey should turn Schismaticks But now besides that it is absolutely impossible for those to receive one another to Communion without mutual offence and scandal who observe such different Rites and Modes of Worship of which more anon God has never by any such visible signs declared that Dissenters should be received to Communion notwithstanding their disobedience to the Authority and non-conformity to the Worship of the Church For as for our Reconciler's invisible communion with God which he grants to his beloved Dissenters who refuse the Communion of the Church St. Paul never thought of it and no body can tell how our Reconciler should know it especially if Schism as he asserts be a damning sin for no man in a state of damnation which it seems is the case of Schismaticks can be in Communion with God But when the Church judges and censures and excommunicates those who refuse to conform to her Worship she does nothing but what she has authority to do for all private Christians are subject to the Authority of the Church in such matters as God has not determined by his own Authority But though our Dissenters pretend Conscience as the reason of their non-conformity yet these pretences are vain and not to be allowed of because there is no plain positive Law of God against it and neither Governours nor private Christians are concerned to take notice of or to make any allowance for every mans private Fancies and Opinions especially in matters of publick Worship which would bring eternal confusions and diâ—orders into the Church There is a great difference between mens doing any thing to the Lord and following their own Consciences or private Opinions the first requires a plain and express Law for our Rule which will justifie or excuse what we do both to God and men but mens private Consciences if they misguide them may deserve our pity but cannot challenge our indulgence Our Reconciler exhorts the Governours of the Church not to exercise their Authority in prescribing the Rules of Order and Decency for publick Worship for fear of offending Dissenters But the Dispute between the Church and Dissenters is of a different consideration it does not concern the exercise of a private liberty wherein all Christians ought to be very prudent and charitable but the exercise of publick Government and the publick administration of Religious Offices which must be governed by other measures than a private charity It is not in the power of private Christians to dispense in such matters as these nor absolutely in the power of Church-Governours who are obliged to take care of the Order and Decency of publick Worship whoever takes offence at it And therefore this cannot relate to indulgence and forbearance in the external Rites and Ceremonies of Religion wherein Religion is nearly concerned for though they be not Acts yet they are the Circumstances of Worship wherein the external Decency of Worship consists which is as necessary as external Worship is And therefore cannot refer to the publick Ceremonies of Religion which if they be practised at all must be practised publickly because they concern the publick acts of Worship There is no avoiding offence in this case by dissembling our Faith or by a private exercise of our liberty but Governours must part with their authority and private Christians with their liberty in such matters which the Apostle nowhere requires any man to do no not to avoid offence Now though our Dissenters pretend that it is against their Consciences to conform to the Ceremonies of the Church and our Reconciler pleads this in their behalf as a sufficient reason why they ought to be indulged yet this is not a good Argument in the case of Dissenters though it was in the case of the Jews because their mistakes do not meerly concern the exercise of their private liberty but publick Worship which is not left to the conduct of every mans private Conscience but to the direction and government of the Laws of God and men And though it be reasonable to leave men to the government of their own Consciences where there is no other Law yet there is no reason for it where there is for if they sin in acting contrary to their Consciences which no man can force them to do so they sin also in following an erroneous Conscience which Governours ought to hinder if they can This I take to be a sufficient Answer to all our Reconciler's Arguments from that condescension and forbearance which St. Paul exhorts the believing Jews and Gentiles to exercise towards each other because the case is vastly different from the case of our Dissenters The Dispute between the Jew and Gentile was not concerning the use of indifferent Rites and Ceremonies in the Worship of God but about the observation of the Law of Moses and those Arguments which the Apostle uses and which were very proper Arguments in that case can by no parity of reason be applied to the Dispute about indifferent things But there are several other considerations which I have already hinted at which plainly shew how vastly different the case of the Jews
was from that of our Dissenters For 3. Another material difference between that Indulgence St. Paul granted to believing Jews with respect to the Law of Moses and that liberty our Reconciler exacts from the Church for Dissenters is this that the first had no influence upon Christian Worship it neither destroyed the uniformity of Worship nor divided the Communion of the Church but the second must do one or t'other or both which is such a liberty or forbearance as St. Paul never did and never would allow The believing Jews thought themselves still obliged to observe that difference of clean and unclean meats which was prescribed by the Law and to celebrate the Jewish Festivals and this liberty might be granted them without dividing the Communion of the Christian Church or disturbing Christian Worship for whatever private rules of Diet they observed believing Jews and Gentiles might all worship God together according to the common Principles of Christianity and therefore the Apostle exhorts the Romans to receive those who were weak in the Faith that is to receive them to Christian Communion to worship God together in Christian Assemblies This account the Learned Dr. Stillingfleet gave of this matter This being matter of Diet and relating to their own Families the Apostle advises them not to censure or judge one another but notwithstanding this difference to joyn together as Christians in the Duties common to them all For the Kingdom of God doth not lie in meats and drinks Let every one order his Family as he thinks fit but that requires innocency and a care not to give disturbance to the Peace of the Church for these matters which he calls Peace and Ioy in the Holy Ghost which is provoked and grieved by the Dissentions of Christians And he saith he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approved of men Let us therefore follow after the things that make for peace and things wherewith we may edifie one another In such cases then the Apostle allows of no separation from the publick Communion of Christians This our Reconciler very gravely smiles at As if the business here discours'd of were onely matter of Diet relating to their own Families and the command of the Apostle Him that is weak in Faith receive did onely signifie Let him dine with you This with submission to that Learned Person I judge a most unlikely thing for what great cause of scandal could their private Dinners give to a weak Brother unless they search'd into their Kitchins or had a Bill of Fare sent in from every Christian Family This is such leud trifling with a Great man and in a serious Cause as I leave to the censure of every sober Christian. For did not the Laws concerning clean and unclean meats respect their ordinary Diet in their own Families Was it not sufficiently known without a Bill of Fare that the Jews did observe these Laws Did not this occasion great Heats and Animosities Judgings and Censurings of one another Did not some both Jews and Gentiles separate from each other upon these accounts and disturb the Peace and divide the Communion of the Church Does not the Dean expound receiving the weak by joyning together as Christians in the Duties common to them all Cannot we expound meats of their ordinary Diet in their private Families without expounding Receive him that is weak by Let him dine with you And yet whereas he says What great cause of scandal could their private Dinners give to a weak Brother unless they search'd into their Kitchins or had a Bill of Fare sent 〈◊〉 from every Christian Family I readily grant they could give none Nor does the Apostâ—e command the Gentile Christians to abstain from such meats in their private Families when no body was preâ—ent who took offence at it but onely not to use this liberty publickly nor in their private Families neither if any believing Jew happened to be present who was offended at it Well but our Reconciler thinks it most probable that the Apostle speaks of eating in the Idol-Temples Suppose this were so it does not alter the state of the case if they did not eat there as an Act of Worship to the Idol but as at a common Feast And whether it be private or publick eating it is all one if it be innocent it has no influence upon Christian Worship and therefore cannot break Church-Communion while men forbear one another in such matters And yet it is evident the Apostle cannot here mean eating at the Idol-Temple but their ordinary Diet. For this whole Epistle to the Romans concerns the Dispute about the obligation of the Law of Moses as I have already observed and as our Reconciler acknowledges to be the general sence of ancient and modern Expositors concerning this very Chapter But our Author proceeds The Apostle does not onely speak of meats but also of observing days v. 6. Now that was not a matter of Diet but of publick Worship taught in the fourth Commandment And so the Dean acknowledges For some Christians went then on Iewish Holy days to the Synagogues others did not but for such things they ought not to divide from each others Communion in the common Acts of Christian Worship Their going to the Synagogues on Jewish Holy days did not hinder their Communion in Christian Worship and therefore they ought not to break Communion on such accounts But now these Controversies about Religious Ceremonies do wholly concern Christian Worship it is not what Clothes men shall ordinarily wear what Diet they shall use or how they shall behave themselves in other matters of a like nature wherein a great latitude and variety may be allowed without any breach of Christian Charity and Communion but how we shall worship God in the publick Assemblies of Christians whether the Minister who officiates shall wear a white Linnen Garment whether the Child that is baptized shall be signed with the sign of the Cross whether Christians who communicate at the Lords Table shall receive the consecrated Bread and Wine kneeling sitting or standing Now I would fain know of our Reconciler how it appears that these two are parallel cases or by what Logick he can fairly argue from one to the other That because the Apostle grants a liberty and indulgence to the Jews in such things as do not concern Christian Worship therefore the same liberty must be granted in the Acts of Worship it self though it must either destroy the Uniformity of Worship or divide the Unity of the Church especially considering that he has not produced and I am sure cannot any one instance of such indulgence granted to private Christians to dissent from the publick Rules of Worship and Constitutions of the Church and if he cannot shew any thing of this nature all his other Scripture-proofs are nothing to our Case And that these cases are so different that we cannot argue from one to the other I shall
superstitious or idolatrous which another thinks a decent Rite of Worship Now is it possible for the Israelites to sacrifice the abomination of the AEgyptians before their eyes and not give offence to them Is it possible for men to joyn as Friends and Brethren in such acts of Worship which they cannot agree to perform in the same manner Is it possible for him that sits at receiving the Lords Supper and believes that kneeling is superstitious and Idolatrous not to censure or deride or despise him that kneels Or is it possible for him who kneels and believes sitting to be a rude and unmannerly posture not to be grieved or offended at him who sits And will you call this worshipping God together when men cannot agree about it but one thinks his Brother idolatrous or superstitious and he in requital thinks him rude or prophane For my part I think it much better they should be parted than spoil each othersDevotion by such mutual antipathies and reciprocal censures No you will say there is no necessity of either that they should judge and censure each other or that they should separate St. Paul gives a better Rule in such cases to bear with each other that the strong should not judge the weak nor the weak despise the strong But what is the meaning of this That he who believes kneeling at the Sacrament to be superstitious should not judge and censure him whom he sees kneel as guilty of Superstition Or that he who believes sitting at the Sacrament to be rude and prophane should not judge him whom he sees to sit as guilty of rudeness and prophaneness This is absolutely impossible and implies a contradiction that we must and must not believe superstition to be superstition nor prophaneness to be prophaneness or that I can readily joyn in acts of Worship with him whom I believe in those very acts of Worship to be either superstitious or prophane I may judge charitably of men whom I believe to be guilty of some errours and mistakes and superstitious customs in matters which do not relate to Christian Worship I may charitably hope that God will not reject men for such mistakes and therefore may think it reasonable to receive them to Christian communion while they comply with the Rules and Orders of it which was the case between the Jews and Gentiles as I have already proved but it is impossible to joyn in communion with such men without judging and censuring those whom I believe in those very acts of Worship in which I joyn with them to be either superstitious or prophane And therefore though such men should worship in the same Church or Religious Assemblies yet they do not worship God in one Communion such men will naturally separate from each other and it is I think more desirable that they should The sum of this Argument is this That though St. Paul required and exhorted the believing Jews and Gentiles to bear with each other in such Disputes as did not concern the Christian Worship it does not hence follow that the Governours of the Church must not prescribe any Rules of Worship for fear of offending any scrupulous and ignorant Christians or that they are bound to alter them as soon as they perceive any such offence which inevitably brings nothing but Confusion and Disorder into the Christian Church 4. Another material difference between the case of the believing Jews and our Dissenters is this That the forbearance the Apostle pleads for was in order to cement Jews and Gentiles into one body and to unite them in one Christian communion to prevent Schisms and Separations between them and therefore he commands them Him that is weak in the faith receive that is into the communion of the Church to worship God together according to the general Rules of Christian Worship For the Disputes between them as I observed before did not concern Christian Worship and therefore a mutual forbearance in other things about which they differed would unite them into one body Thus he exhorts the Philippians Nevertheless whereto we have already attained let us walk by the same rule let us mind the same thing Believing Jews and Gentiles were both agreed as to the truth of Christianity and what concerned Christian Worship though they differed about some Mosaical observances and therefore the Apostle exhorts them notwithstanding their other Disputes to unite in Christian Worship about which they were all agreed This occasioned that Dispute between St. Paul and St. Peter which we have an account of in the Epistle to the Galatians They were both agreed that the Gentile Converts ought not to be circumcised they were agreed also that the Jewish Converts should be indulged in the observation of the Law of Moses and that both Jews and Gentiles should forbear each other in these matters and therefore St. Peter himself at Antioch before some Jewish Brethren came thither did eat with the Gentiles but when some believing Jews came to Antioch for fear of giving offence and scandal to them he separated himself from the believing but uncircumcised Gentiles Now the natural effect of this was to make a Schism between the Jewish and Gentile Converts to make two Churches one of Jewish the other of Gentile Christians This St. Paul could not endure and therefore publickly rebukes Peter for it He was willing to indulge Jewish Converts in their weakness but not to indulge them in a Schism which this very Indulgence was designed to prevent Now indeed mutual forbearance of each other when it tends to unite Christians into one body and communion is a great and necessary Duty but St. Paul never thought it a Duty when it would not prevent a Schism much less when it is likely to prove the foundation of eternal Schisms Now I have already proved that the removal of our Ceremonies and such abatements as our Reconciler pleads for as they are not the occasion so neither would they be the cure of our Schisms to be sure Indulgence in these matters would neither prevent nor heal our Schisms as that forbearance which the Apostle pleads for in this place infallibly would Their Dispute did not concern matters of Christian Worship and therefore if they indulged one another in those things wherein they differed as in eating or not eating those meats which were forbidden by the Law of Moses they might very well agree in those things wherein they were already agreed as they were in all matters of Christian Worship and therefore they might worship God together in Christian Assemblies as one Body and one Church which did effectually prevent a Schism But while Dissenters differ from the Church about the Rites and Modes of Worship it is impossible they should worship God together and to grant Indulgence to such different apprehensions which the Apostle pleads for in the case of the Jews would onely make a legal Schism and to remove these scrupled Ceremonies as I have already proved would
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
The Apostle says Not to touch a woman And why our Reconciler says wife instead of woman I cannot tell I am sure it is a corruption of the Text and contrary to the Apostolical command Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence and likewise also the wife unto the husband v. 3. But to let that pass his Argument in short is this The Apostle declares that a single life has many advantages in it as to the purposes of Religion especially in that afflicted and persecuted state of the Ghuach above Marriage and therefore he recommends a single life to them But knowing as our Saviour had before declared that every one could not receive this saying he does not impose it upon them and therefore the Governours of the Church should not impose our Ceremonies though it could be proved that there is like profit decency or tendence to perform Gods service better as the Apostle says there was under the present circumstances in keeping their virginity Now I would onely ask our Reconciler whether the Apostle had any authority to impose Virginity on the Christians of those days or to forbid them to marry If he had not as I think our Reconciler will not say that he had then his Argument runs thus The Apostle would not impose that upon the Christians which he had no authority to impose therefore the Governours of the Church must not impose that which they have authority to impose Some things may have great profit and advantage in them which yet are instances of so perfect a Vertue as is above the common attainments of Christians and therefore not fit to be made a standing Law they may be proper matter for an Exhortation but not for a Command But what a wide difference is there between the instances of a raised and perfect Vertue and the decent Rites and Ceremonies of Worship It is too severe an imposition to command the one but there is no difficulty in observing the other But the difference between Laws of burden and Ecclesiastical Ceremonies has been already observâ—d Thirdly His next head of Arguments for condescension to Dissenters is taken from that Dispute about eating of those meats which were offered to Idols 1 Cor. 8. 10. Now there is no need of any other Answer to this but to state this case right which will convince every ordinary Reader how unapplicable any thing which the Apostle here discourses is to the case of our Dissenters And to do this plainly and briefly we must consider 1. Who those were who out of a pretence of extraordinary knowledge went to the Idol-Temples and eat of those meats which were offered in sacrifice to Idols 2. Who the weak were who were offended with this and what the scandal and offence was 3. How the Apostle reasons about this matter 1. Who these knowing Persons were who eat in the Idols Temples Now it is very plain that the Apostle in this place taxes the Gnostick Hereticks who had occasioned that first Schism â—n the Church of Corinth and taught the People to despise St. Paul as very ignorant of the Mysteries of the Gospel and what the just extent of Christian liberty was For 1. it is plain that he here taxes a vain and arrogant pretence of knowledge v. 2. If any man think that he knoweth any thing he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know which is purposely to warn the Christians against those men who boasted so much of their knowledge assuring them that they were very ignorant notwithstanding all their brags of knowledge 2. It is evident that these men out of pretence of greater knowledge did eat in the Idols Temple If any man see thee which hast knowledge who dost so much boast of thy knowledge sit at meat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in an Idols Temple Now this St. Paul in the tenth Chapter absolutely condemns not onely as sinful upon account of scandal but as sinful in it self as partaking with Devils by eating of their Sacrifices No true Orthodox Christian ever did this but the Gnostick Hereticks did partly out of luxury to partake in these splendid Entertainments and to defile themselves with those impure lusts which were part of their Mysteries as the Apostle insinuates ch 10.6 7 8. v. These things are our examples to the intent we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted neither be ye idolaters as were some of them as it is written The people sate down to eat and drink and rose up to play neither let us commit fornication as some of them committed and partly out of fear of persecution against which the Apostle warns and encourages the sincere Christians v. 13. There has no temptation no tryal by sufferings and persecutions taken you but what is common to men but God is faithful who will not suffer you to be tempted above what you are able but will with the temptation also make a way to escape that ye may be able to bear it And to justifie this practice of theirs in eating at an Idols Temple they pretended that an Idol is nothing in the world that the Gods whom the Heathen worshipped were not Gods but dead men or according to the Mythology of the Stoicks which prevailed in that Age among the Philosophical Idolaters and therefore most probably was embraced by the Gnosticks were onely the names of some divine Powers and Attributes of the one eternal God which the errour and superstition of these People had formed into several distinct Dâ—â—ies and therefore an Idol being nothing it could not pollute the meat which was offered in sacrifice to it but it was as lawful to eat of that as of any other ordinary Feast 2. Let us consider who these weak persons were who were offended and scandalized at this liberty which the Gnosticks took Now it is as plain that these were a sort of very imperfect Christians who together with the Faith of Christ retained many of their old Pagan Superstitions as the Jews did the observation of the Mosaical Law This appears from that account St. Paul gives of them that they were men who did not understand that an Idol is nothing but look'd upon them at least as some inferiour Gods and frequented their Temples and eat of the meat offered to them under the notion of Sacrifices and thereby did defile and pollute themselves with Idolatrous Worship Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge for some with conscience of the Idol to this hour eat it as a thing offered unto Idols and their conscience being weak a sick misinformed corrupt conscience is defiled with Idolatry And therefore the scandal which was given to these men was this that when they saw those who pretended to such perfect knowledge in the Mystery of Christianity eat of the Sacrifice in the Idols Temple this confirmed them in their errour and Idolatry and made them conclude that such Pagan Superstitions as these were reconcilablâ—
the Idols Temple and then the sound Christian was to forbear for fear of encouraging such weak Christians in their Idolatry for they might apprehend it as lawful to sacrifice to an Idol as to eat of the Sacrifice and as lawful to eat of the Sacrifice in the Idols Temple as in a private house And thus the use of their innocent liberty in eating what is set before them without scruple might confirm such men in their Idolatrous practices and for that reason they were to forbear And it is probable enough that St. Paul might have respect to all these from what he adds v. 32. Give none offence neither to the Iew nor to the Gentile nor to the Church of God Not to the Jew who had a great abhorrence of Idolatry by doing any thing which should make them suspect you of the least approach to Idolatry which would confirm them in their aversion to Christianity not to the Gentile by confirming them in their Idolatry not to the Church of God by scandalizing either weak or scrupulous Christians much less by scandalizing the Christian Profession as the Gnosticks did by eating in the Idols Temple But how any thing of all this makes to our Reconciler's purpose I cannot see that which comes nearest the business is if we suppose that the Apostle commands them to abstain for the sake of those who scrupled the lawfulness of such meats but then this forbearance was only in the exercise of their private liberty in eating or not eating wherein Religion is not immediately concerned for though it were lawful to eat of such meats yet it was not their duty to do it their eating in it self considered did not please God though they eat without scandal much less when their eating was an offence to weak Christians Meat commendeth us not to God for neither if we eat are we the better neither if we eat not are we the worse as he had before told the Romans The Kingdom of God is not meat and drink and therefore in such cases it became them to exercise great charity in the use of their liberty But how little this makes to our Reconciler's purpose I have already shewn at large in the fifth Chapter and our Reconciler has offered nothing new here to deserve a new Answer All that remains to be considered in this Chapter is the Example of St. Paul himself which may be answered in a very few words He exercised great charity and forbearance both towards Jews and Gentiles and therefore being so great an Apostle ought to be an Example of the like forbearance to all succeeding Bishops and Pastors of the Church Now if our Reconciler can prove from the Example of St. Paul that the Governours of the Church ought not to prescribe the decent Rites and Ceremonies of Religion or ought to alter and abolish them in charity and condescension to Dissenters I will yield the Cause Let us then consider what St. Paul's condescension was and I observe in general that he was an Example of the same condescension and forbearance which he perswaded other private Christians to exercise and therefore if that charity and forbearance which he exhorts the Christians to exercise towards each other does not overthrow Ecclesiastical Authority nor plead for the Indulgence and Toleration of Dissenters then St. Paul's Example cannot do this neither This will appear from considering particulars In this Epistle to the Corinthians he perswades them not to eat meats offered to Idols especially in an Idols Temple for fear of offending and scandalizing weak Christians and this he tells them he would observe himself Wherefore if meat make my brother to offend I will eat no flesh while the world standeth lest I make my brother to offend In the Epistle to the Romans he perswades believing Jews and Gentiles to receive each other and not to judge and censure and scandalize one another about the observation or non-observation of the Law of Moses and this condescension both â—o Jews and Gentiles he exercised himself Vnto the Iew I became as a Iew that I might gain the Iews to them that are under the Law as under the Law that I might gain them that are under the Law to them that are withouâ— the Law as without Law that I might gain them that are without Law That is when he was among the Jews he lived as a Jew observed the Law of Moses as they did when he was among the Gentiles who had no regard to the Law of Moses he did not observe it neither he complied with the weakness and mistakes both of Jews and Gentiles he became all things to all men that he might by all means gain some that is he practised that condescension and forbearance which he taught others to practise And if that did not concern the case of our Dissenters nor plead for the like Indulgence and Toleration for them as I have already proved at large it does not neither can the Apostle's Example prove any such thing All this condescension of the Apostle was not in the exercise of his Apostolical Authority but in the use of his private liberty which he was very willing to restrain to make his Ministry the more effectual but he never parted with his Authority to govern the Church and to prescribe the Rules and Orders of Worship for the sake of any Dissenters as I have already proved But there is one instance more of St. Paul's condescension which our Reconciler takes notice of and indeed it is a very notable one viz. that though St. Paul asserts his right to live upon the Churches stock as well as other Ministers yet he maintained himself by his own labour that he might preach the Gospel to the Corinthians without charge for it is plain that he did receive Contributions from other Churches and this he did lest he should hinder the Gospel of Christ and to cut off occasion from them that desire occasion From whence our Reconciler thus argues Wherefore although the Rulers of the Church have certainly a right to impose things indifferent yet with submission to them I conceive they should not exercise that power in like circumstances viz. when by the exercise thereof they give occasion to them that desire occasion to traduce them as men who more regard a Ceremony than an immortal Soul the exercise of their commanding power than the preserving poor Souls from damning Schisms and the Church from sad Divisions when it hinders the preaching of the Gospel to their Flock as this imposing seems to do Ad Populum phalerae Now I shall briefly consider the Case and then I will consider our Reconciler's Application The Case is this St. Paul had a right to live on the Gospel by Gods own appointment and ordination as the Priests under the Law who ministred in holy things lived of the things of the Temple and they which wait at the Altar are partakers of the Altar have their portion
Church and State it will necessarily occasion very great inconveniences Well but we must not set these little things in competition with the more weighty duties and concerns of Love and Peace No God forbid we should But does our Reconciler know what a competition between two Laws means I know but of two ways that this can happen either when they contradict each each other or are so contrary in their natures that they can never be both observed or when there is a competition of time that it so happens that we cannot observe both at the same time as when we cannot at the same time go to Church to serve God and stay at home to attend a sick Father or Friend in which cases our Saviour has laid down a general Rule That God prefers Mercy bâ—foâ—e Sacrifice But now upon neither of these accounts can there be any competition pretended between the Rites and Ceremonies of Religion and the great duties of Love and Peace and Unity and Edification For cannot men observe the Orders and Constitutions of the Church as to the external Rites of Worship and love one another and preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church at the same time Indeed can there be a better means to preserve Love and Peace and Unity among Christians and to promote mutual Edification than an Uniformity in Religious Worship since it is evident that nothing breeds greater Dissentions and Emulations and Envyings among Christians than different and contrary Modes of Worship And if this be so then there is no competition between the Ceremonies of Religion and the Love and Peace of Christians and consequently no reason why the Governours of the Church may not command both though the particular Ceremonies of Religion be acknowledged to be small things in comparison with the great duties of Love and Peace Yes you 'll say the imposition of these Ceremonies does come in competition with these great duties of Love and Peace and Unity because there are a great many who quarrel at them and divide the Church upon that account and if these controverted Ceremonies were removed Love and Unity would be restored among us Now supposing this to be true which I have already proved not to be true what is this to the Governours of the Church If they impose nothing which is inconsistent with Love and Peace and Unity then the imposition of these things in it self considered cannot be inconsistent with these great Gospel-duties for if what we command be consistent with Love and Unity then the Command otherwise called the Imposition must be so too It is not the command or imposition of these things which is inconsistent with Love and Unity but refusal of obedience to such lawful Commands which is not the fault of the Governours but of the Subjects not of those who command but of those who will not obey and therefore these are Arguments proper to be urged against Dissenters but not against the Governours of the Church As to give you a familiar instance of this A Master commands his Servant to put on a clean Band to wait at Table the Servant refuses to do it upon this the whole Family is divided some take part with the Master others with the Servant in steps a Reconciler and tells the Master he did very ill to cause such Divisions in his Family that Love and Peace and Unity were more considerable duties than a Servants wearing a clean Band which therefore ought not to come in competition with them Pray Sir says the Master preach this Doctrine to my Servants and not to me I have commanded nothing but what was fit to be done and I will have it done or he and all his Partners shall turn out oâ— my Family Now let one who is a Master judge whether the Master or the Reconciler be in the right The breach of Love and Peace and Unity is not the effect though it be the consequent which our Reconciler I perceive cannot distinguish of the Command or Imposition but of the disobedience and therefore when the Command is fit and reasonable cannot be charged upon him who commands but upon him who disobeys But besides this I observe that Christian Love and Unity and Peace in the Writings of the New Testament signifie the Communion of the Church and how kind soever they may be to each other upon other accounts men do not love like Christians who do not worship God together in the Communion of the same Church wherein they live and there can be no Edification out of the Church Now if there be no way of uniting men in one Communion but by an uniformity of Worship then to prescribe the Rules and Orders and Ceremonies of Worship is as necessary as Christian Love and Peace and Unity is Men who worship God after a different manner must and will worship in different places too and in distinct Communions and those who will not submit to the Injunctions of a just Authority will never consent in any form of Worship and therefore this may multiply Schisms but cannot cure them This is all perfect demonstration from the experience of our late Confusions when the pulling down the Church of England did not lessen our Divisions but increase them But our Reconciler confirms this Argument that the Governours of the Church ought not to insist on such little things when they come in competition with Love and Peace and Unity c. from the example of God himself who was not so much concerned for the ceremonial part of his Worship but that he would permit the violation of what he had prescribed about it upon accounts of lesser moment than these are He instances in the Law of Circumcision which was not observed in the Wilderness because this would hinder the motion of the Camp In the Law of the Passover which was to be observed on the first month and the 14th day of the month but God expresly provided that if any man were unclean or in a journey far off at that time they should observe it on the 14th of the second month in the Sabbatick rest which admitted of works of necessity and mercy which were never forbidden by God in that Law nor intended to be Now are not these admirable proofs That God is not so much concerned for the ceremonial part of his Law but that upon some accounts he would permit the violation of what he had prescribed when it does not appear that he ever did so As for the neglect of Circumcision in the Wilderness I doubt not but God had given express order about it otherwise Moses who was faithful in all his house and a punctual observer of all the divine Laws and Statutes would never have neglected it and this I may say with as much reason as our Reconciler can produce for Gods permission of it without an express Order and somewhat more As for the Passover let our Reconciler consider again whether the observation of
them from Communion whom God will receive So that the poor Church of England must receive Papists into her Communion as well as the Phanaticks where we must observe the Charity is Bishop Sanderson's the Inference and Application the Reconciler's III. His next Argument is from one great purpose of Christ's Advent and the effusion of his precious bloud to make both Iew and Gentile one by breaking down the middle wall of partition that was between them and abolishing the Law of Commandments contained in Ordinances Now the conceit of it is this He supposes the Ceremonies of the Church of England to be such a Partition-wall between Conformists and Nonconformists as the Mosaical Law was between Jews and Gentiles and therefore as Christ has broken down one Partition-wall and made Jew and Gentile one Church so our Governours ought to break down the other Partition-wall to make Conformists and Nonconformists one Body and Church which is such a dull conceit and argues such stupid ignorance in the Mysteries of Christianity that I do not wonder he is so zealous an Advocate for Ignorance and Errour The Partition-wall is an Allusion to that Partition in the Temple which divided the Court where the Jews worshipped from the Court of the Gentiles and that which made this Partition was Gods Covenant with Abraham when he chose his carnal Seed and Posterity for his peculiar People and separated them from the rest of the World and the more effectually to separate them from other Nations gave them a peculiar Law which was to last as long as this distinction did For God did not intend for ever to confine his Church to one Nation but when the promised Messias came to enlarge the borders of his Church to all mankind And therefore this Law was so contrived as to typifie the Messias and to receive its full completion in the perfect Sacrifice and Expiation of his Death which put an end to the former Dispensation and sealed a Covenant of Grace and Mercy with all mankind Thus Christ by his death broke down the Partition-wall because he put an end to the Mosaical Covenant which was made onely with the Jews and to that external and â—ypical Religion which was peculiar to the Mosaical Dispensation and made a distinction and separation between Jew and Gentile that is as Christ made a Covenant now with all mankind so he put an end to all marks of distinction between Jew and Gentile and to that typical and ceremonial Worship which was peculiar to the Jews as a distinct and separate People Now indeed any such Partition-wall as this which confines the Covenant and Promises of God to any particular People or Nation and excludes all others is directly contrary to the end and designe of Christs death and ought immediately to be pulled down but must there therefore be no Partion to distinguish between the Church of Christ and Infidels and Hereticks and Schismaticks Must there be no Walls and Fences about the Church this Vineyard and Fold of Christ Must there be no Laws made for the government of Religious Assemblies and the Decency and Order of Christian Worship for fear of keeping those out of the Church who will not be orderly in it How come the Ceremonies of our Church to be a Wall of partition the Church never made them so for she onely designed them for Rules and decent Circumstances of Worship which it is her duty to take care of Let those then who set up this Wall of partition pull it down again that is let those who separate from the Church and make these Ceremonies a Wall of partition return to the Communion of the Church which no body keeps them from but themselves As for his modest insinuations that our Ceremonies are carnal Ordinances weak and beggarly Elements and therefore ought to be removed for their weakness and unprofitableness as the Mosaick Ceremonies were I have already largely shewn the difference between a Ritual and Ceremonial Religion and those Ceremonies which are for the Decency of Religious Worship which are as necessary and must continue as long as External Worship which requires external Signs of Decency and Honour does IV. His next Motive to Condescension is from the Example of Christ and his Apostles in preaching the Gospel which in short is this That when Christ was on Earth he did not instruct his Disciples in such Doctrines as they were not capable of understanding till after his Resurrection and therefore left the revelation of such matters to the Ministry of his Holy Spirit whom after his Ascension into Heaven he sent to them And the Apostles when they converted Jews and Gentiles to the Faith of Christ did not immediately tell them all that was to be known and believed but instructed them in the plainest matters first and allowed some time to wear off their Jewish and Pagan prejudices therefore the Governours of the Church should forbear imposing of some practices at which our Flocks by reason of their prejudice and weakness will be apt to stumble and take offence But how this follows I confess I cannot understand if it proves any thing it proves that the Governours of the Church must not instruct their People in any thing which they are not willing to learn that our Reconciler should never have published his second part to convince Dissenters that they may lawfully and therefore in duty ought to conform to the Ceremonies of the Church when they are imposed for if notwithstanding the Example of our Saviour and his Apostles we may instruct our People in such things we may require their obedience too otherwise we had as good never instruct them But did Christ and his Apostles then intend that Christians should be always children Did not St. Paul testifie that he had declared the whole Will of God to them And when the Gospel has been fully published to the World for above sixteen hundred years must the Church return again to her state of infancy and childhood to humour Dissâ—nters But indeed is the duty of obedience to Governours in all things which Christ has not forbid such a sublime and mysterious Doctrine that it ought to be concealed as too difficult to be understood Is it not a pretty way of reasoning that Euclid's Elements is too difficult a book for a young child to learn therefore his Master must not teach him to obâ—y his Parents neither I am sure this was one of the first Lessons which the Apostles taught their Disciples whatever else they concealed from them for there can be no Church founded without Government and there can be no Government where Subjects must not be taught Obedience But however there is a great difference between the first publication of any Doctrine and the preaching of it after it is published The first requires great prudence in the choice of a fit time to do it in and of fit persons to communicate it to which was the case of Christ and his
the coming of his Kingdom is to pray for the enlargement of his Church which was never enlarged yet by the preaching of Schismaticks which divides and lessens the Church but will never enlarge it and therefore those who pray heartily Thy Kingdom come must take care to suppress all Schisms and Schismatical Preachers who are the great Obstacle to the enlargement of Christ's Kingdom Q. 3. Can you or any mortal man prove that others may not be allowed to differ from you in such things wherein you differ from the Apostolick Primitive Church Ans. I dare put the final decision of this Controversie upon this issue whether the Church of England or Dissenters come nearest to the Pattern of the Apostolick Primitive Church But though it should be granted that we do not use all those Ceremonies which were in use in the Apostles times and that we use some which were not then used yet this will not justifie Dissenters for the Church in all Ages has authority to appoint her own Rites and Ceremonies of Worship while they comply with that general Rule of Decency and Order but private Christians have no authority to dissent from the Church while she enjoyns nothing which is contrary to the divine Laws Q. 4. What if the old Liturgie and that new one compiled and presented to the Bishops at the Savoy 1661. had both passed and been allowed for Ministers to use as they judged most convenient might not several Ministers and Congregations in this case have used several Modes of Worship without breach of the Churches Peace or counting each other Schismaticks What if our King and Parliament should make a Law enjoyning Conformists and Nonconformists that agree in the same Faith and Worship for substance to attend peaceably upon their Ministry and serve God and his Church the best they can whether they use the Ceremonies and scrupled expressions of the Liturgie or no without uncharitable reflections or bitter censures upon one another in word or writing where would be the sinfulness of such a Law Ans. This is much like Mr. Humphrey's Project of uniting all Dissenters into one National Church by an Act of Parliament under the King as the accidental Head of the Church which is largely and particularly answered in the Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation The onely fault in short is this That it destroys the Unity of the Church by dividing Christians into distinct and separate Communions and lays a foundation of eternal Schisms and Emulations which no Laws can prevent As for Mr. Baxter's Liturgy I confess I do not see why men may not as well be allowed to pray ex tempore as to use a form of Prayer which was written ex tempore It argued very little modesty in those men to present such crude and indigested stuff to the Commissioners and it argues as little understanding and honesty in our Reconciler to plead for it Q. 5. Dissenters ought for the Peace and Vnity of the Church to yield as far as they can without sinning against God and their own Souls and should not Imposers do the like Were this one Rule agreed on what Peace and Vnity would soon follow And if the obligation to preserve the Churches Peace extend so far as to the Rulers and Governours of the Church there may be as much Schism in their setting up unnecessary Rules which others cannot submit to as in mens varying from such Rules Ans. I wonder what these men mean by the Dissenters yielding as if they stood upon equal terms with the Church and that the Church and Dissenters like two Equals to compose a difference and quarrel should yield and condescend to each other The Dissenters ought not to yield to but to obey the Chuâ—ch the Church ought not to yield to Dissenters but to govern prudently and charitably The Church has done her part as I have already proved and the onely quarrel is that Dissenters will not do theirs But what an admirable Rule is this to make Peace when they do not they cannot tell us how far the Dissenters will yield and what the Church must yield to make Peace but for ought I perceive this is a great secret and like to continue so I suppose the Dissenters aâ—ter all think they can yield nothing and the Church sees no reason to alter any thing and here is an end of this Project Indeed it appears that the designe is to perswade the Church to yield every thing all her unnecessary Rules which others cannot otherwise called will not submit to that is at least all the decent Ceremonies of Worship if not her own Authority too And the onely Argument he uses to prove that the Church ought to yield is because Dissenters ought to yield that is it is the duty of Governours to submit to their Subjects because it is the duty of Subjects to submit to their Governours I do not much care to be an Undertaker and yet I will venture for once to propose this Expedient for Peace Let the Dissenter as in duty bound yield as far as he can without sinning against God and his own Soul and the Church shall yield every thing else that is necessary to this desired Union This is but a reasonable Proposition not onely because Subjects ought first to yield but because the Church knows not what is necessary to be yielded till she sees how far the Dissenter can yield Indeed would the Dissenter yield as far as he can without sinning against God and his own Soul there would be no need for the Churches yielding any thing for the Church enjoyns nothing which is a sin against God or injurious to the Souls of men and there is great reason to believe that the Dissenters themselves do not think she does Both dissenting Preachers and Hearers when it serves a secular interest can hear the Common-Prayer receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper kneeling though the Minister officiate in a Surplice and I am so charitable as to hope that when they do so they do not believe that they sin in it and therefore all this they can yield without sinning against God or their own Souls and therefore this they ought to yield and then there will be little left for the Church to yield His two next Questions Whether the Worship of God cannot be performed decently and in order without these Ceremonies and whether if men must be without the Word and without Sacraments rather than without these Ceremonies which yet there is no necessity of nor is it the intention of the Church that it should be so as you have already heard this do not make them of equal necessity with divine Institutions have been already answered at large in the first Chapter Q. 8. Whether the constitution of the Church should not be set as much as may be for the incompassing of all true Christians and whether the taking of a narrower compass be not a fundamental errour
in its policy and will not always hinder its stability and increase Ans. The plain meaning of which Question is this Whether it be not the best way to sâ—cure the Church against her Popish Adversaries to unite all Protestants of what denomination soever into one body and whether it be not more probable that a little Church which has not many Members nor any worldly strength and interest to support it should be sooner destroyed than a numerous flourishing and potent Church In answer to which we may consider 1. It were very desirable that the Church could be so modelled as to receive all Protestants and Papists also into our Communion that the Christian Church might have no Enemies who call themselves Christians but this is impossible to be done while both of them recede so far from the Principles of Catholick Communion 2. The Unity and Peace of the Church within it self how small soever it be is a better security to it than Schisms and Discords in its own bowels and make the foundation of the Church as large as you please if the building be not closely united in all its parts it will fall with its own weight While men are possess'd with Schismatical Principles it is not enough to make a lasting Union to remove those particular things about which they differ at present for when men are given to quarrel they will never want occasions for it Take away every thing which our Dissenters quarrel at and you leave no remains of a Church of England and thus indeed you may enlarge the Church by pulling it down by plucking up all its Hedges and Fences that it shall be no longer an Inclosure but a Common A Church which makes no new Articles of Faith nor rejects any old one which sets up no idolatrous and superstitious Worship which observes all the Institutions of our Saviour and secures the decency of publick Worship and exercises her Authority for the government of Religious Societies and the acts of Discipline prudently and charitably has laid her foundations as wide as she can and as she lawfully may and those who will not embrace her Communion upon these terms must stay out 3. For at best this is nothing more than carnal Policy to think to secure the Church by our strength and numbers The preservation of the Church is not owing to an arm of flesh but to the protection of Christ. His Flock is but a little Flock but all the united strength and power of the World cannot destroy it the gates of Hell cannot prevail against it 4. When we speak of enlarging the Constitutions of the Church so as to incompass all true Christians we ought to have a principal regard to the Communion of the Catholick Church and those who take any other compass than what is consistent with Catholick Communion though they should inclose a whole Nation of Dissenters they would mightily straiten the foundations of the Church Those who reject all external Rites of Decency and Order as unlawful in Christian Worship and reform and enlarge the Church upon these Principles reject the Communion of all Christian Churches that ever were in the World for 1500 years and of most Churches at this day and if this should enlarge the Church in England the Catholick Church would gain little by it when it unchurches most other Churches in the World The Church of England is modelled by such Principles that she can hold Communion with all sound and Catholick Churches that are now or ever were in the World and all Catholick Churches may have Communion with her which is as large a compass as she ought to take for that Church is a little too large which takes in Schismaticks to her Communion and too narrow which excludes any true Catholick Churches Thus I have answered those Questions which our Reconciler borrowed from Mr. Baxter and Mr. Barret and to these he has added some of his own which I must consider also Q. 9. Whether Baptism being requisite for the new birth of Infants and their regeneration by the Holy Spirit it be not hardship to lay such an unnecessary Condition on the Parents who have power to offer or withold the Child from Baptism which shall cause them to deprive their Infants of so great a benefit may not such Children complain in the language of St. Cyprian Nos parvuli quid fecimus Ans. Now though this may be easily answered by observing that in danger of death Children are allowed to be baptized privately without the signe of the Cross and therefore no Child in ordinary cases can die without Baptism but by the great neglect and carelesness of Parents how scrupulous soever they are of the signe of the Cross yet since it is so much in fashion to ask Questions I know not why I may not ask a few Questions too which I would desire our Reconciler to resolve and they shall be but very short ones As 1. How do Children come to have any right to Baptism is it an original right of their own or in the right of their Parents 2. If Children have a right to Baptism onely in the right of their Parents how do the Children of Schismaticks who though they are baptized themselves yet have renounced the Communion of the Church come to have any right to be received into the Communion of the Church by Baptism 3. How is the Church obliged to receive those children into Communion by Baptism whom she certainly knows if their Parents live will be nurst up in a Schism 4. How is the Church more concerned to alter her Constitutions for the children of Schismaticks than for their Schismatical Parents When he has answered these Questions I will answer his in the mean time I will proceed Q. 10. If men conceive themselves obliged to do all they can for the securing and restoring of the civil Peace when it is once disturbed and would not stick to lay aside a civil if unnecessary Ceremony for the prevention of civil Broils and the effusion of Christian bloud how frivolous soever were the exceptions of the seditious against it must they not be as much obliged to do the like for the prevention of Ecclesiastical Confusions and the effusion of the bloud of precious and immortal Souls Ans. No doubt but they are But as a wise Prince ought not to part with that Power and Authority which is necessary to preserve Peace and to prevent civil Wars and Confusions for the future onely that he may allay and prevent some present Heats and Commotions no more ought the Church to heal a present Schism by laying a foundation for eternal Schisms The example of our late martyred Soveraign will teach all Princes to beware of the one and those infinite Schisms which followed the dissolution of the Church of England will convince any man how impossible it is to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church without the exercise of Ecclesiastical Authority Q. 11. Would not our
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