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
as we may suppose from his own Character of himself by a dignified Clergy-man of our Church And that he also who pleads for separation from Communion with us on account of those few scrupled Ceremonies and disputable Expressions of our Liturgie is sinful and unreasonable as well as mischievous doth also speak the words of truth and soberness or that one should not impose these things as the conditions of Communion and the other should not when they are once imposed refuse Communion upon that account i. e. the Church sins in imposing and the Dissenter sins in disobeying such Impositions The Church is in the right as to the lawfulness of what she imposes but sins in the exercise of her Authority in commanding lawful things The Dissenter is in the right in affirming these Impositions to be the sin of the Imposers and yet sins in not obeying them that is the Dissenter judges aright of the duty of his Superiours but is mistaken in his own And if he can reconcile these things it will be one good step towards a Reconciliation Governours indeed may be over-rigorous and severe in the exercise of a just Authority but I dare not say that they always sin when they are so but that they do not act so wisely or so charitably as they might do For the Wisdom and Charity of Government is so nice a thing and subject to so many difficulties that the case of Governours would be very hard should every mistake in such matters be a sin and Government it self must necessarily lose its Sacredness and Authority if every Subject may censure the Wisdom and Charity of lawful Commands and Impositions and vote them to be mischievous and sinful if they do not agree with his Notions of Prudence and Charity All that Subjects are concerned to enquire about the Commands of their Superiours is concerning the lawfulness or unlawfulness of them if they go any farther they make themselves Governours not Subjects and therefore it is not very modest to condemn the Commands otherwise civilly called Impositions of Superiours as sinful and mischievous when it is lawful to obey them And he who thinks Dissenters do ill in refusing Obedience does not well himself in charging the Church with doing what is sinful and mischievous in imposing But then on the other hand if the Church do sin in imposing she either exceeds her Authority and Commission and so imposes without Authority or else she imposes something unlawful and in either of these cases no man can blame Dissenters for refusing Communion with the Church in such matters For no man is bound to communicate in unlawful things nor to obey where there is no Authority to command And therefore our Reconciler can never reconcile these two Propositions That the Church sins in imposing the Dissenter sins in rejecting such Impositions and in refusing Communion where it cannot be had without submitting to â—hem For though we are bound to submit to the Supreme Powers when they act illegally because we are bound never to resist yet we are not bound to yield an Active Obedience to any illegal Commands but the Church considered as a Church or Ecclesiastical Body having no external and compulsory Authority if she commands what she has no Authority to command no man is bound to obey her and if this occasion a Schism she her self is the Schismatick But to shew how ominously our Reconciler stumbles at the threshold let us state the case a little otherwise The great reason he assignes throughout his Book to prove that the Church sins in these Impositions is that there is a great number of men among us who either scruple the lawfulness or positively afsert the unlawfulness of them and this occasions a Schism in the Church To prevent which the Church is bound in charity to the Souls of men not to command such scrupled and unnecessary Ceremonies and sins if she does Now in this case also the sin and guilt can lie but on one side For if the Dissenters notwithstanding this may and ought to conform to such Impositions then there is no necessity upon that account for the Church to alter her Constitutions nor does she sin in imposing if they may not then the Dissenters do not sin in rejecting such Impositions If some particular Governours are acted by ill principles this contracts a personal guilt on themselves but it neither excuses Dissenters nor affects the Government while they command nothing but what the Church has Authority to command and what may be lawfully obeyed but if the meer scruples of Dissenters will make the Commands of the Church sinful when there is no other fault to be found in her Constitutions but that Disfenters will not obey them this overthrows all government in the Church So that our Reconciler who is resolved to prove both these Propositions that the Church sins in imposing and the Dissenter in breaking Communion for such Impositions will have much ado to reconcile his two Books together One part of his Task is certainly needless for if he can but convince the World of the truth of either part he effectually does the businâ—ss If he can convince the Disâ—enter that he ought to conform to these Impositions the Church may impose without sin or if he can perswade our Governours that it is sinful to impose there is no need to deal with Dissenters and therefore methinks it had savoured of more modesty and greater deference to Authority to have tried his skill upon Dissenters first But our Author by over-doing is like to spoil all For it is very probable he will convince Dissenters of what they believed before that the Church cannot impose such things from whence in spight of all his Logick they will conclude that they are not bound to obey and he will convince the Government that the Dissenter ought to conform and sins in not doing it which justifies their Impositions And thus he ends just where he began Nay could he convince the Church that she ought not to impose upon Dissenters while their scruples last and the Dissenters that they ought not to scruple these things nor disobey them when they are commanded we may expect it will take up some time to adjust the dispute after all this between the Church and the Dissenters which of them shall yield for both sides cannot yield unless we will say that the Church must leave off imposing and then the Dissenters must begin to obey that the Church must no longer command and then the Dissenter is bound to obey when no body commands So that could he effectually prove that the Church and the Dissenter are both guilty of sin the one in imposing the other in refusing Obedience yet I do not see what Reconciliation this is like to make For it is not enough to reconcile two contending Parties to prove that they are both in the fault unless you can propose some middle terms of accommodation or prove that though they are both
equally in the right and equally in the wrong yet one of them is bound to yield Our Reconciler has not attempted any such thing as this nor indeed can he for there is no medium between the Authority of commanding and the duty and necessity of Obedience wherein Governours and Subjects may unite without either commanding or obeying which destroys the very Relation between Governours and Subjects Nor has he told us which of them must give way first unless we may conclude this from the order of publishing his Books that the Church ought to give place to the Dissenters and then his second Book is useless for there will be no need for Dissenters to obey the Church But our admirable Reconciler has first pelted the Church with the Dissenters Arguments and now serves the Dissenters in the same nature which is an excellent way to revive a Quarrel if it had been ended but bare disputing on both sides was never thought a likely way to reconcile a Quarrel I have premised this to take off the odium of answering the Protestant Reconciler which a man may very honestly do and yet be a great and passionate Friend to the Reconciliation of Protestants for there is not the least offer made towards a Reconciliation in all this Book He onely teaches the Dissenters to cast the sin and mischief of all our Divisions upon the Church and the Church to cast it back upon the Dissenters and so leaves them just at the same distance that he found them unless possibly he have added to the confidence and obstinacy of Dissenters by joyning with them in their lewd and unreasonable Clamours against the Church But let us consider what betrayed him into this mistake which he very honestly and plainly tells us in these words That which chiefly did confirm me in this apprehension was this observation That I found each of the Parties strong and copious upon these two points but elsewhere silent The Pleaders for Conformity still pressing the necessity that men should yield obedience to the things commanded but seldom saying any thing to justifie the exercise of that Authority which laid upon the Subject the burthen of obedience to things unnecessary and whosoever shall peruse the Writings of the learned Dr. St. and his Defenders will find that they have been very silent upon this head and have upon the matter left our Rulers in the lurch And on the other hand I find that our Dissenters are very prone on all occasions to cry out against imposing these things as the conditions of Communion and the excluding all that are not able to submit unto them from the priviledge of Church-Communion but they say little of any weight and moment to shew it is utterly unlawful under the present circumstances to yield submission and obedience to the things imposed Now as for matter of fact this is utterly false For the Dissenters themselves to give every one their due have used great variety of Arguments not onely to prove the unlawfulness of imposing these things but the unlawfulness of the things themselves otherwise what is it that the great Champions of the Church of England ever since the first rise of this Controversie and the Dean and his Defenders of late have answered Did they make Objections for the Dissenters and then answer them or did they answer such Objections as they found made to their hands Whether what they object have any weight or moment is another Question but it seems very unreasonable to charge men with saying nothing because they say nothing to the purpose when they say as much as they can and as much as the cause will bear by the same Figure we may assert that the Protestant Reconciler has said nothing But yet if no Answer had been returned to prove that all he has said is nothing I strongly fancy that he and several others of his Size would have thought that he had said something and so would the Dissenters too had not their something been so often proved to be nothing And he has treated the Advocates of the Church and the Dean and his Defenders with the same civility and honesty for have they indeed said nothing for the lawfulness of imposing these things and is not that a sufficient justification of theAuthority which imposes Did he never read any thing in vindication of Ecclesiastical Authority in commanding indifferent things Could he find nothing in the Dean and his Defenders tending this way I assure him I have found a great deal which he may hear of in a convenient place which may teach him to make more careful observations for the future But if this had been so methinks it had more become a Minister and Son of the Church of England to have tried his skill to have supplied these defects of his Brethren than to have exposed the nakedness of his Mother by tearing off her Vail with his own hands Every honest and prudent man thinks himself bound to obey and to justifie the Rites and Uâ—ages of the Church as far as they are lawful and innocent and to perswade others to do so and though he should observe some things which in his private opinion he judges might be altered for the better yet he does not think it his duty to raise a great Noise and Outcry about this and to call furiously for a Change and Reformation to set the people into a ferment and to alarm the Government with new Models and Platforms of Discipline and Worship A wise man considers what different apprehensions men have of expediency fitness and decency of things and that it properly belongs to Governours to determine these matters but it does not become private Christians when Authority does not ask their opinions and advice to sit in judgment upon the Wisdom of Government for there would be no end of this in â—uch matters wherein mens minds differ as much as their faces do Had our Reconciler been a Member of the Convocation when such matters had been under debate it had become him to have declared his mind freely where his Arguments might either have obtained such a Reformation as he desired or have received a fair Answer without appearing abroad to disturb weak and unstable minds or to confirm and harden men who are already engaged in an actual Schism at least if he be so thoroughly convinced of the truth of what he says if he be as he says so sensible of his own weakness and praneness to mistake in judging and most unwilling to do the least disserâ—ice to the Church or to those Reverend Superiours whom from his heart he honours what necessity was he under of publishing such a Discourse as this Why did he not first ask the opinion of his Brethren and Superiours about it What service did he expect to do to the Church by appealing to the People who certainly are not the best Judges in such matters and have no power to reform but by Mutinies and Seditions
significant Ceremonies of the Church of England as of any other Church But it seems the Bishop did not think so and when the Reconciler alledges the Bishops Authority as well as Arguments against us he ought to have urged his Arguments no farther than he himself did or to have told his Readers what exceptions the Bishop made and left it to him to judge whether the exception was good and reasonable or not And I am apt to think that every ordinary Reader would have made some little difference as the Bishop did between such significant Ceremonies as are withall the necessary circumstances of religious actions and receive their Decency from their signification and such Ceremonies as contribute nothing to the decent performance of religious actions but onely entertain a childish fancy with some Theatrical Shews and arbitrary Images and Figures of things of which the Bishop there speaks And indeed all his other Citations out of the Writings of this excellent Bishop are as little to his purpose because none of them concern the decent circumstances of religious Worship which is our present Dispute and therefore we cannot from thence learn what the Bishop's judgment was in these matters as to take a brief survey of these Arguments as he calls them taken out of Bishop Taylor 's Ductor Dubitantium His first Argument is patcht up of two Sayings at the distance of fifteen pages from each other and yet they are much nearer to each other in the book than they are in their designe and signification He says The Bishop truly saith That 't is not reasonable to think that God would give the Church-Rulers his Authority for trifling and needless purposes This is said in one place and to make up his Argument he tacks another Saying to it Now Rituals saith he and Externals are nothing of the substance of Religion but onely appendages and manner and circumstances a wise man will observe them not that they are pleasing to God but because they are commanded by Laws The first of these Sayings is under the third Rule That the Church hath power to make Laws in all things of necessary Duty by a direct Power and divine Authority So that this does not relate to the circumstances of religious actions but to some necessary Duties The instance the Bishop gives in that place is this That the Bishop hath power to command his Subject or Parishioner to put away his Concubine and if he does not he not onely sins by uncleanness but by disobedience too This sure is remote enough from the Dispute of Ceremonies But then he proves that such men sin by disobeying the Bishop in such cases by this Argument among others That it is not reasonable to think that God would give the Church-Rulers his Authority for trifling and needless purposes For it is a trifling thing to have Authority to command if that Authority have no effect if men may disobey such commands without sin So that these words whereby the Bishop proves the Authority of the Church to command and that those sin who disobey our Reconciler produces to prove that the Church has no Authority to command the decent Ceremonies of Religion because in his opinion they are trifling and needless things The latter part of his Argument is taken from the Bishops sixth Rule which is this Kings and Princes are by the ties of Religion not of Power obliged to keep the Laws of the Church His resolution of which in short is this That such Ecclesiastical Laws which are the Exercises of internal Religion cannot be neglected by Princes without some straining of their duty to God which is by the wisdom and choice of men determined in such an instance to such a specification but in Externals and Rituals they have a greater liberty so that every omission is not a sin in them though it may be in Subjects and his reason is That they are nothing of the substance of Religion but onely appendages and manner and circumstances and therefore a wise man will observe Rituals because they are commanded by Laws not that they are pleasing to God Since therefore these are wholly matter of obedience Kings are free save onely when they become bound collaterally and accidentally So that the Bishop does not here speak one word of Externals and Rituals as such trifling and needless things that the Church has no Authority to command them to which purpose our Reconciler applies it but as such things which being bound on us onely by humane Authority a Soveraign Prince who owns no higher humane Authority than his own is not so strictly obliged by them as his Subjects are but may dispense with himself when he sees fit These are excellent premises for such a conclusion as our Reconciler draws from them But yet it is worth the while to consider what the Bishop means by the Externals or Rituals of Religion Whatever our Reconciler finds said about Ecclesiastical Laws or the Externals and Rituals of Religion he presently applies to the Ceremonies of the Church of England which excepting the Cross are onely decent circumstances without which or such-like the Worship of God cannot be decently or reverently performed that is without which there can be no external Worship which consists in the external expressions of Honour and Devotion It is sufficiently evident what a vast difference the Bishop makes between these two Thus he expresly does in these words To the ceremonial Law of the Iews nothing was to be added and from it nothing was to be substracted and in Christianity we have less reason to adde any thing of Ceremony excepting N. B. the circumstances and advantages of the very Ministry as time and place and vessels and ornaments and necessary appendages But when we speak of Rituals and Ceremonies that is exterior actions or things besides the institution and command of Christ c. Where he expresly distinguishes between the circumstances and advantages of the very Ministry what is necessary or convenient for the decent and orderly performance of the publick acts of Worship from Rituals or Ceremonies whereby he understands exterior actions or things that is such Ceremonies as are not the circumstances of religious actions but are distinct acts themselves either instituted as parts of Worship and then he says they are intolerable or meerly for signification and that is a very little thing and of very inconsiderable use in the fulness and charity of the Revelations Evangelical Such he reckons giving Milk and Honey or a little Wine to persons to be baptized and to present Milk together with Bread and Wine at the Lords Table to signifie nutrition by the Body and Bloud of Christ to let a Pidgeon flie to signifie the coming of the Holy Spirit to light up Candles to represent the Epiphany to dress a Bed to express the secret and ineffable Generation of the Saviour of the World to prepare the figure of the Cross and to bury an Image to describe the
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
useful themselves and not apt to tempt men to any sin then the Church of England is very charitable though Dissenters should be damned for their wilful and causeless Schism But besides this as far as it is possible to prevent the Cavils of evil-minded men our Church has taken care to explain the meaning of the signe of the Cross in Baptism and kneeling at receiving the Lords Supper to remove all suspicions of any superstitious opinions about them which is an Argument of great charity and great care of the Souls of men But you will say Had it not been greater charity to the Souls of men not to have retained such Ceremonies as needed explication than to explain the meaning of them which may not give satisfaction to all men of the lawfulness of their use This were something to the purpose indeed were there any thing doubtful in their signification but it is not the obscureness of these Ceremonies but the perverseness of men who endeavour to find out some superstition in them which makes such Declarations of the Church more charitable still as being a condescension not to the ignorance but to the frowardness of her Children Though to worship the Cross be Idolatry to use it as a Charm and Spell savour of Superstition yet to use it as a venerable Badge of our Christian Profession is neither and no man can reasonably suspect that it is used otherwise in Baptism To kneel at the Sacrament is a decent posture of receiving and can never be suspected as an act of Worship to the Bread in those who believe that after consecration it is Bread still and not the natural Body of Christ for to worship Bread which we believe to be nothing but Bread would be a more absurd Idolatry than the Papists are guilty of who believe it not to be Bread but the Body of Christ. This reason the Church assigns for it in the second Common-Prayer-Book of Edward the Sixth Although no Order can be so perfectly devised but it may by some either for their ignorance and infirmity or else for malice and obstinacy be misconstrued depraved and interpreted in a wrong part yet because brotherly charity willeth that so much as conveniently may be offences should be taken away therefore we willing to do the same declare that in kneeling at the Sacrament no adoration of the Elements is intended Thus our Reconciler cites this passages and I must trust him at present because I have not the Book by me but this sufficiently proves what I alleadge it for that our Church did not adde this explication as apprehending any necessity of it but to prevent the absurd interpretations of ignorant or malicious Cavillers But what our Reconciler adds Who can tell why this whole Preface in our present Common-Prayer-Book is left out is only a spightful insinuation of I know not what since the same Declaration is as large and full in our Common-Prayer-Book as words can make it But he proceeds and Why that Charity which willeth that as much as conveniently may be offences should be taken away should not will also the taking away or the abatement of unnecessary Ceremonies or alteration of scrupled expressions in our Liturgie I am not bound to answer these trifling Cavils as often as he repeats them but I think every man of sense will see some little difference between making the Rules and Orders of the Church as inoffensive as may be and destroying all decent and orderly Constitutions the first is such a Charity as becomes Governours the second is nothing better than the dissolution of Government But of Scruples more presently Thus our Reconciler observes that the Convocation held An. 1640. speaking of the laudable custom of bowing with the body in token of our reverence of God when we come into the place of publick Worship saith thus In the practice or admission of this Rite we desire the Rule of Charity prescribed by the Apostle may be observed which is That they who use this Rite despise not them who use it not and they who use it not condemn not them who use it Now saith the Author of the mischief of Impositions I would gladly hear a fair reason given why the Apostle should prescribe the Rule of Charity to be observed in this one Rite or Ceremony more than another And our Reconciler very modestly adds The Apostle prescribes a Rule and they will make use of it when and where and in what cases they please and in others where it is as useful lay it by like one of their vacated Canons This is wonderful deference to Authority But however this is another instance of the Churches Charity and moderation at least in this one Rite and methinks it deserved a little more civility than to be turned into an Argument of Reproach But cannot our Reconciler guess at any reason for this difference why she should grant that liberty in this one Rite which she denies in other cases Why then I 'll tell him one Because it is more capable of such an indulgence than other Ceremonies are for it is an act of private Worship though performed in the publick Church and therefore different usages in such matters do not disturb the Order and Decency of publick Worship When we offer up our common Worship to God which is the act of the whole Congregation it is fitting that there should be one Rule and Order observed for Uniformity is necessary to the Decency of Worship and to the Unity of it but there is no necessity that all mens private Devotions should be alike And it is possible to think of another reason too That this bowing the body in reverence to God when we enter into his house is properly a Ritual or Ceremony that is an exteriour action or thing not meerly a circumstance of Worship it is it self an external Rite of Worship not the circumstance of any other act It may be very decent to bow our body in reverence to God when we enter his house but it is not a decent circumstance of religious Worship and therefore there is not the same necessity that the Church should determine it as there is that she should determine the necessary circumstances of action without which the Worship of God cannot be decently performed and it seems to me to be an Argument of great wisdom in the Church that she has not made an uniformity in this Rite as necessary as in the other Ceremonies of Religion since there is not an equal necessity for it And I further adde that the Apostles Rule of Charity not to judge and censure one another upon such different usages does not relate to those Ceremonies which are also the decent circumstances of religious actions and so are necessary to the uniformity of publick Worship which must not be neglected out of a pretence of Charity but it may extend to such Rites as these which shews the great judgment of our Church in applying this Rule
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 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
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
very foolish Argument against either The true Argument against the Dissenters is this That they are bound to obey their Superiours in those things which God has not forbidden for where God has not interposed his Authority they are subject to the Authority of their Governours The Argument is not That they are in all cases bound to do what God has not forbid them to do which is ridiculously absurd for what is not unlawful not forbidden by God may either be done or may be let alone without sin unless some other consideration besides its being not forbidden alter the case But the Argument is this That what God has not forbidden Governours may command and Subjects are bound in Conscience to obey Let us see then how he applies this to our Imposers as he modestly calls our Governours in Church and State It is not unlawful as not forbidden by God to leave these Ceremonies indiffâ—rent so far indeed it agrees with the case of the Dissenters that the Ceremonies are not unlawful as not being forbidden by God but now where is the superior Authority over Governours to make it unlawful for them to impose that which it is not unlawful not to impose then the case of Imposers would be exactly parallel with the Dissenters who are under the Authority of their Governours which makes that their duty which God had left indifferent and that unlawful which God had by no express prohibition made unlawful but here the Parallel fails and therefore the Argument is not the same For the supreme Authority of Church and State can have no superiour Authority on Earth to make that unlawful to them which God has not made unlawful All that our Reconciler offers to this purpose is onely this That the avoiding scandal and offence and the preservation of Charity Peace and Vnity in the Church lays as necessary an obligation on Governours to forbear what they may lawfully forbear for the promoting these ends as the Authority of Governours obliges Subjects to obey them in all things wherein they lawfully may that is that Governours are bound not to command any thing which they may lawfully not command when hereby they serve the ends of Charity and Peace Now if this were the case yet so the Argument would not be the same for then we must state the case of Governours thus That they must not do that which is unlawful to be done not that they must not do that which is not unlawful not to be done The Authority of Governours does not alter the intrinsick nature of things and therefore we may very properly say that Subjects must obey their Governours in all things which are not unlawful and that the things commanded are not in their own natures unlawful is a good Argument to oblige them to obey but the end and circumstances of action alters its moral nature and that which in some circumstances is not unlawful in other circumstances becomes absolutely unlawful And if this be the case here that the imposition of these Ceremonies is unlawful when it gives scandal and offence and disturbs the Peace and Unity of the Church then the Argument to disswade Governours from such Impositions is not that it is not unlawful to forbear imposing which is parallel to the Argument used against Dissenters that it is not unlawful to obey but that it is unlawful to impose in such circumstances which differ as much as to perswade men not to do what they lawfully may not do differs from disswading them from doing what is not lawful to be done This I think is abundantly enough to shew that our Reconciler is very much out in his Logick when he makes this Argument against Dissenters and Imposers to be the same as for the Argument it self that it is unlawful for Governours to impose these Ceremonies when it gives offence and scandal to weak Brethren c. I have sufficiently answered that already 3. His next Argument which he says equally holds against the Dissenters and Imposers is taken from the littleness and small importance of the things upon which we are divided and it is in short this That Dissenters ought not to disturb the Peace of the Church by refusing obedience in such little things nor the Governours of the Church by imposing such little things Now I need not concern my self about this Argument which is not likely to have any effect either upon Dissenters or Imposers who if they understand themselves and act honestly it is plain do not think these things so little and inconsiderable that they are not worth contending about That the decent Ceremonies of Religion are not such very contemptible things I have already proved at large in the first Chapter that they are not so little that Governours ought not to impose them I have proved at the beginning of this Chapter and that sufficiently proves that this is no Argument against Governours and if as our Reconciler says it be an unanswerable Argument against Dissenters I am contented to leave it so However our Reconciler is mightily out when he thinks the littleness of a thing to be as good an Argument against the imposition of Governours as against the disobedience of Dissenters for Governours are bound to take care of little as well as of great things because things which are little in themselves may have very great effects either good or bad but there is no excuse for the disobedience of Subjects in such cases for the less the command is the less reason have they to refuse obedience I believe all Parents and Governours in the world think so excepting our Reconcilers In the next place our Reconciler argues from many general Topicks received and owned by all Casuists As 1. Qui non vetat peccare cùm possit jubet Which he translates thus He that being a Superiour a Father a Master of a Family c. doth not what lawfully he may for the prevention of the sin of those who are subject to his government becomes partakers of their sin Now suppose all this what care can be taken to prevent sin which it becomes Governours to take which is neglected by the Church of England Yes says the Reconciler they may abate those Impositions which occasion the Schism But this has been so often answered already that I shall now onely direct my Readers in the Margin where to find the Answer 2. He says Divines concerning the right interpretation of the Ten Commandments and of the Laws of Christ do generally lay down these Rules viz. That when any thing is forbidden by these Laws all those things are forbidden also which follow from that forbidden action and for whose sake it was forbidden Now I think this is a very good Rule and if he can prove that the imposition of these Ceremonies is a forbidden action I will grant that the Schism which is consequent upon it is imputable to the Church but if it be not forbidden if the Church has this
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
pleaded for a weak and ignorant and scrupulous Conscience And I wonder what service our Reconciler could think to do by pleading for the Dissenters under such a character as they will neither own themselves nor their Governours believe of them He takes it for granted that they are guilty of Schism and that their Schism is owing to a weak and ignorant tender and scrupulous Conscience Now Dissenters disown all this they do not think themselves Schismaticks or at least are too wise to own it much less do they think themselves ignorant but the most knowing and understanding Christians the very Gnosticks of the Age nor are they scrupulous but fully assured that they are in the right and their Governours in the wrong and therefore if they be wise they will give him no thanks for his pains And our Governours know indeed that they are Schismaticks and that they are ignorant or worse but do not take them for weak tender-conscienced scrupulous Schismaticks but know the quite contrary that they are proud conceited troublesome factious that they despise Dominions and speak evil of Dignities that they are restless Underminers of the setled Constitutions of Church State wherein they live that they despise instruction and think themselves too wise to learn or receive better information and this they are as certain of as forty years experience can make them So that were our Reconciler's Arguments never so good to perswade Governours to indulge weak and scrupulous and tender Consciences yet they fail in their application to Dissenters and are not so much as an Argument ad hominem because our Governours do not and have no reason to believe our Dissenters to be such persons and I cannot imagine what makes our Dissenters so fond of this Reconciler unless it be that they find so much of their own temper and spirit in him to unsettle the present Constitutions of the Church and to censure and reproach the Wisdom and Charity of his Governours And therefore I would advise Dissenters to act like men and if they are resolved to continue Dissenters to keep their Post and stand upon their defence and not to take Sanctuary in such lame Apologies as no considering man can make for himself without blushing If they are in the right they may justifie themselves against all Imposers without the help of a Reconciler and if they are in the wrong no Reconciler can help them And therefore they are bound in their own defence to answer the Second Part of the Protestant Reconciler as I have done the First in the defence of my dear Mother the Church of England which God Almighty long preserve and defend against all whether Popish or Protestant Dissenters and Reconcilers Amen THE END Reconcil p. 3. Preface p. 2 3 Reconcil p. 4. P. 2. Prot. Recon p. 39. Pref. p. 2. Reconcil p. 39. Reconc p 39 40. See Pract. disc of religious Assembl 6.2 See Defen of Dr. Still Unr. of Separ p. 30. Calvin in 1 Cor. 14.40 1 Mal. 6. v. 14. 1 Cor. 11.4 5 6 7. ch 14.34 35. 1 Tim. 2.11 12. 4 Rev. 4. 7 Rev. 9. 19 Rev. 8. See Defen of Dr. Still Unr. of Separ p. 41 42. 13 Joh. 4 5. 1 Tim. 5.10 P. 297. Prot. Rec. p 38 26 Mat. 29 14 Mark 25. 22 Luke 15 16 17. Prot. Rec. c. 8. p. 313. Ibid. P. 3 4. Duct dubit l. 3. c. 4. R. 20. S. 8. Prot. Recone p. 220 c. Reâ— c. 7. p. 212. Duct Dubit 3 b. 4 c. R. 20. S. 6. Recon p. 214. P. 227 c. Preface p. 53. P. 215. See the Vind. of the Defen of Dr. Stilling p. 427 c. Recon p. 332 333. Of Ceremonies why some abolish'd and some retain'd Pref. to the Com. Pray P. 338. P. 159. P. 323. Rec. p. 31 32. Recon p. 208. P. 247 c. P. 239 240. Irenicum p. 3. Recon p. 109 c. Chap. 8. p. 259. Hist. of Separation p. 16. Recon p. 297. Pref. to the Com. Prayer-book about Ceremonies 1 Cor. 11.3 4 c. Rec. p. 339. 15. Acts. P. 309. Libertas Eccl. p. 429. Recon p. 317. Libertas Eccl. p. 415. P. 318. 5 Joh. 10. 6 Luke 9. 12 Mat. 12. Prot. Rec. c. 1. P. 22. Recon ch 10. p. 326. P. 327. P. 330. See Dr. Still Hist. of Separation p. 4. P. 25. P. 331. Recon ch 2. p. 23. Recon p. 45. P. 46. 6 Hos. 6. 6 Mic. 6 7 8. 12 Mat. 7. 9 Mat. 13. P. 47. 9 Mat. 14 c. P. 49. P. 48. P. 50. P. 51. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys. in locum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 15 16 17 18. â—3 Mat. 13. v. 4. P. 54. v. 2 3. P. 56. 9 Mark 38. 15 Acts. Chap. 2. P. 73. P. 71. P. 79. Ibid. p. 80. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys. in Loc. 21 Acts 24. 21 Acts 21. 5 Gal. 1. 2 Col. 5.8 c. 14 Rom. 14. P. 77. 14 Rom. 1. v. 2. v. 3. P. 83. Libertas Ecclesiastica P. 437. Acts 10. 2 Gal. 11 12. 15 Acts 1. P. 84. P. 79. 14 Rom. 3. 15 Acts 7. P. 85. P. 86. 14 Rom. 4. 4 Jam. 11 12. 14 Rom. 5 6. P. 87 88. 14 Rom. 13. P. 77. 18 Mat. 6 10. 1 Cor. 8.10 ch 15 Acts 29. 14 Rom. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Chrys. in Locum Reconciler p. 88 c. v. 17. v. 18. Prot. Recone p. 59. Prot. Reconc p. 99. 14 Rom. 5. 14 Rom. 1. Unreason of Separation p. 215 216. Recâ—nc p. 81. Ibid. P. 82. 1 Cor. 10.32 Recon p. 154. Vid. Supra ch 2. p. 124. 14 Rom. 14 Rom. 1. 3 Philip. 16. 2 Gal. 11 12 c. Vide Supra ch 2. p. 118. 1 Cor. 11.34 1 Tit. 5. 1 Cor. 11.2 2 Cor. 7.15 1 Thess. 5.12 13. 13 Heb. 17. 2 Thess. 3.14 3 Phil. 15. Argum. 1. P. 122. Argum. 2. Recon p. 123. Vide Supra ch 4. p. 209. Recon p. 127. 1 Cor. 8.2 v. 10. v. 4. v. 7. v. 10 11. v. 8. v. 8 10. v. 1. Prot. Reconc p. 127. 1 Cor. 10. 1 Cor. 10.25 26 27. v. 28. 1 Cor. 8.8 Ibid. v. 13. 1 Cor. 9.20 21 22. Prot. Recon p. 138. 1 Cor. 9. v. 14 v. 12. 2 Cor. 9.1 c. 1 Cor. 9.15 16 18. Prot. Recon p. 138. Prot. Recon p. 166. See chap. 3. See Defence of Dr. Still Separat about Church-unity Recon p. 170. 16 Numb 2 Sam. 6.6 7. 1 Sam. 13.9 10 c. 15 ch 7 8 c. 23 Mat. 23. Recon p. 178. Ibid. 2 Sam. 12. P. 179. 20 Gen. 6. P. 180. 2 Phil. 14 c. Recon p. 182. P. 183. 1 Tim. 6.20 P. 185. Prot. Recon p. 197. P. 198. Prot. Reconc p. 200. See chap. 2. p. 131 c. Recon p. â—02 Vide Supra p. 104. Chap. 2. p. 144 c. Supra p. 105 c. Recon p. 20â— Chap. 1. p. 24 c. See chap. 2. Chap. 1. p. 79 c. p. 109 c. Recon p. 207. Chap. 2. p. 140 141. Preface p. 4. Chap. 1. p. 100 c.