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
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
â—udge when it is fit to stop and every wise man will think it fit to stop when she has cast every thing out of her Worship which is a just cause of scandal and offence and if she goes further to satisfie unreasonable and clamorous demands she can never have a reason to stop till she has satisfied all Clamours 2. Yes says our Reconciler she may remove things indifferent and unnecessary which is all at present desired No say I she cannot part with all things which are in their own nature indifferent for some such things are necessary to the Order and Decency of Worship which must not be parted with and the Church never owned the contrary She says indeed that her particular Ceremonies are indifferent and alterable that we may exchange one decent Ceremony for another when there is reason for it but the Church ought to alter no Ceremony without reason nor part with all indifferent Ceremonies for the external Decency of Worship for any reason And now we are beholden to him that 3. He grants with some reconciling salvo's that we must not part with our Church-government under the pretence of parting with indifferent things But if we must not part with that we may as well keep all the rest for our Divisions will be the same No party ever separated from the Church for the sake of Ceremonies who did not quarrel with the Order and Authority of Bishops The rest of his Arguments in that Chapter do not concern this business but whatever he would prove by them there are two general Answers will serve for them all 1. That indifferent things which serve the ends of Order Decency are not such unnecessary trifles as to be parted with for no reason which I think I have sufficiently proved above And 2. Tâ—at parting with them will not heal our Divisions and therefore at least upon that account there is no reason to part with them What I have now discours'd about Divisions and Discords is a sufficient Answer to his next long Harangue about the evil of Schism in which I heartily concur with him as believing that Schism it self will shut men out of the Kingdom of Heaven which is as bad a thing as can be said of it and therefore out of love to my Brother's Soul I would not upon any account be guilty of his Schism But how does this prove that Church-Governours must part with the Rites and Ceremonies of Religion Oh! because Dissenters take offence at these things and run into Schism and consequently must be damned for it and therefore Charity obliges to part with such indifferent things to prevent the eternal damnation of so many Souls But now 1. Suppose the imposition of these Ceremonies be neither the cause of the Schism nor the removal of them the cure of it what then Why must the Church part with these Ceremonies which are of good use in Religion to no purpose And yet this is the truth of the case as appears from what I have already discours'd The several Sects of Religion were Schismaticks to each other when there were no Ceremonies to trouble them and would be so again if the Church of England were once more laid in the dust No man separates from the Church of England who has not espoused some Principles of Faith or Government besides the Controversie about Ceremonies contrary to the Faith and Government of the Church and will the removal of Ceremonies make them Orthodox in all other points or are they of such squeamish Consciences that they can submit to an Antichristian Hierarchy and an Antichristian Liturgy but not to Ceremonies 2. The Argument of Schism is the very worst Argument our Reconciler could have used as being directly contrary to the end and designe of it All the Authority the Church has depends on the danger of Schism and the necessity of Christian Communion The onely punishment she can inflict on refractory and disobedient Members is to cast them out of the Church and that is a very terrible punishment too if there be no ordinary means of salvation out of the Communion of the Church and therefore the danger of Schism is a very good Argument to perswade Dissenters to consider well what they do and not to engage themselves in a wilful and unnecessary Schism But it is a pretty odde way to perswade the Governours of the Church out of the exercise of their just Authority for fear some men should turn Schismaticks and be damned for it The reason why the Gospel has threatned such severe punishments against Schism is to make the Authority of the Church sacred and venerable that no man should dare to divide the Communion of the Church or to separate from their Bishops and Pastors without great and necessary reason and our Reconciler would fright the Church out of the exercise of her just Authority for fear men should prove Schismaticks and be damned for it Christ has made Schism a damning sin to give Authority to the Church and our Reconciler would perswade the Church not to exercise her Authority for fear men should be damned for their Schism Now whether our Saviour who thought it better that Schismaticks should be damned than that there should be no Authority in the Church or our Reconciler who thinks it better that there should be no Authority in the Church than that Schismaticks should be damned are persons of the greatest Charity I leave others to judge Indeed the odium of this whole business which is so tragically exaggerated by the Reconciler must at last fall upon our Saviour himself either for instituting such an Authority in his Church or for confirming this Authority by such a severe Sanction as eternal damnation If Christ will at the last day condemn those who separate from the Church for some external Rites and Ceremonies as our Reconciler's Argument supposes he will then it is a signe that Christ approves of what the Church does in taking care of the Decency of Worship and that he thinks it very just that such Schismaticks should be damned and then let our Reconciler if he think fit charge the Saviour of the World with want of Charity to the Souls of men The Church damns no man but does what she believes to be her duty and leaves Schismaticks to the judgment of Christ if he damns them at the last day let our Reconciler plead their Cause then before the proper Tribunal and if Christ can justifie himself in pronouncing the Sentence I suppose he will justifie his Church too in the exercise of her Authority This is certain that if the imposition of these Ceremonies be a just cause of Separation our Dissenters are not Schismaticks and therefore in no danger of damnation upon that score and if it be not a just cause of Separation then the Church does not exceed her Authority in it and therefore is not to be blamed notwithstanding that danger of Schism which men wilfully run themselves into
Dr. Falkner doth imagine that is that when the Apostle commands them to receive the weak he means they should own them for Christian Brethren and as such should receive them to Communion seeing the Schismatick is by the Doctrine of the Church without that Catholick Church in which alone Salvation can be had Since therefore we do censure him as one who hath no inward relation to or communion with Iesus Christ and therefore no relation to his Body since we do think him worthy of exclusion from Communion with the Church it seems not easie to conceive how we shall escape the condemnation of the Apostles Discourse were the designe of it that onely which he doth imagine As if it were the same thing to deny Communion to any persons as wanting something essential to Christianity and so having no right to Church-Communion and to â—hut those men out of our Communion who are disorderly in it or separate themselves from it as if it were the same thing to deny Communion to those who are not or are judged not to be Christians and to cast disorderly and irregular Christians who will not submit to the Rules and Government of the Church out of our Communion The first makes the Dispute upon which we part to be essential to Christianity as the Doctor well observed the second proceeds onely upon this Principle that those who will live in the Communion of any particular Church must be subject to the Rules and Orders of Worship and Discipline establish'd in it Which may instruct our Reconciler in the difference between the Jews and Gentiles not receiving one another upon the Dispute of the Mosaical Law and the Churches rejecting those from her Communion who will not conform to her Rules of Worship which he endeavours to make parallel cases And as for the Reason he assigns why the Apostle cannot by receiving mean that they should own each other as Christian Brethren because the Arguments he uses to perswade them to receive one another do suppose that they did own each other as Christians is plainly false for the Apostle perswades them to receive each other and to own one another for Christian Brethren because God had received them because he owned them for Christians and therefore if God received the weak Jew with all his weakness and the irregular Gentiles as they judged them with all their irregularities certainly both Jews and Gentiles ought to receive each other But this will better appear by considering the Apostles Arguments and shewing how peculiar they were to that case and that they cannot be applied to the case of Dissenters Now there are two or three Arguments which St. Paul uses to this purpose to perswade them to receive one another though our Reconciler has made a great many of them by applying all the Arguments in this Chapter which concern Christian forbearance and condescension and the avoiding scandal to this purpose 1. His first Argument is That God has received them which plainly refers to what is more largely discours'd in the Council at Ierusalem where St. Peter gives an account of the descent of the Holy Ghost upon Cornelius and those who were with him all uncircumcised Gentiles while he preached the Gospel to them which was such a visible demonstration of God's receiving them even in their uncircumcision that he durst not deny Water-baptism when God had already baptized them with the Holy Ghost This was confirmed by Barnabas and Paul who declared what wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them And the same Argument served for the circumcised Jews who still observed the Law that God had owned them also by bestowing his holy Spirit in a visible manner on them Now if either Circumcision or Uncircumcision had signified any thing in this matter God would not have indifferently bestowed his Spirit upon believing but circumcised Jews and uncircumcised Gentiles By sending his Spirit on Jewish and Gentile Converts in such a visible manner God did evidently declare that both circumcised Jews and the uncircumcised Gentiles who believed in Christ should be received into the Communion of Christs Church which is here called Gods receiving them For the gift of the Spirit belonged onely to the Disciples of Christ and therefore God did in a visible manner own all those for the Disciples of Christ on whom he bestowed such visible Gifts But how does this concern our Dissenters Yes says our Reconciler it rationally follows that none should be excluded from Communion with us who will not by our God and Saviour be excluded from Communion with them But he should have said whom God has in such a visible and miraculous manner received into Communion And if our Reconciler can prove that God has determined this Controversie about Ceremonies in as visible a manner as he did the Dispute about Circumcision he will say something to the purpose But this is all a mistake from the beginning to the end For I know no way of judging whether any man be in communion with Christ but by his communion with the Church There is no visible communion with God and Christ but by a visible communion with the Church and as for any communion with Christ which is invisible certainly the Governours of the Church who can see onely what is visible are not concerned about it and it is this visible Church-membership and Church communion of which the Apostle speaks He proves that God had received both Jews and Gentiles into the visible communion of his Church by the visible gifts of his holy Spirit and therefore that they ought not to deny external and visible communion to each other since God had received them both not meerly into an invisible communion with himself but into the visible communion of the Church which gave them a right to all acts of Church-communion And from hence our Reconciler proves that the Church must alter her Constitutions to receive those Dissenters into the Church who are not in the Church and will not communicate with her because God has received them but how does it appear that God has received them into the communion of the Church who shut themselves out of it Yes says the Reconciler the plain result of this first Argument is this That either we without breach of charity may judge of all Dissenters that they are not received into communion by God and that they are no living Members of Christ's Body but a pack of damned Hypocrites worthy to be excluded from the Church of God and to be under a severe Anathema or if we cannot charitably judge so hardly of them that we ought to receive them into communion with us notwithstanding their different conceptions and practice about lesser matters But what have we to do with the judgment of charity in this case for the Apostle speaks not of a judgment of charity but of a visible proof and demonstration of Gods receiving them from the visible signs and effects
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
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
will allow that Christian Princes ought to take any care of the Christian Church we must grant them so much authority as is necessary to suppress Heresie and Schism and to punish those who are disobedient to the Censures and Authority of the Church How far this may extend is another Question I think all Protestants with great reason reject sanguinary Laws in this case but whoever grants any authority in these matters to Christian Princes must grant what may reasonably be thought sufficient to attain the end Thus I have as plainly as I could given an account of the Apostle's discourse in this Chapter about Scandal and Offence and proved that it cannot be applied to the case of indifferent things in the Worship of God by any parity of reason I grant St. Chrysostom and some other ancient Writers do accommodate this Doctrine of Scandal to other cases some of which passages our Reconciler has transcribed from them that if we must not scandalize our weak Brother by using our innocent liberty much less by our wicked examples by doing things evil in themselves which aggravates the guilt of the offence And I grant such accommodations as these are very allowable in popular Harangues but I hope our Reconciler does not take them for Arguments and yet if he did he could no more apply them to the case of the Church and Dissenters than he can the case of which St. Paul speaks But because this Discourse has been somewhat long though as plain and methodical as I could contrive it I shall reduce some of the most material things in it into a narrower compass and compare the Apostle's Arguments with the Reasonings of our Reconciler which will enable every ordinary Reader to judge how unlike they are The Case of the believing Iews 14 Rom. THe Dispute between the believing Jews Gentiles was concerning the observation of the Law of Moses not about things acknowledged to be indifferent The weakness of the Jews which occasioned their scruples was the effect of a great reverence for an express Law which was universally acknowledged to be given by God but was not at that time as visibly repealed as it was given The offence the Jews took against the Gentiles was at the breach of a divine Law which they still believed to be in force and so had as much reason to be offended as they had to believe the obligation of their Law which was so much as to render forbearance reasonable That weakness which pleaded for the indulgence of the Jews was their weakness in the Faith that they were not well confirm'd in the truth of Christianity and therefore ought to be tenderly used and indulged as being neither capable at present of better instruction nor severer government For the danger which the believing Jews were in and which St. Paul endeavoured to prevent was lest they should reject Christianity if Christianity rejected the Law of Moses which they certainly knew to be given by God and therefore it was reasonable to expect a while till they were confirmed in the Faith before they gave them any disturbance about such matters as would endanger their Apostacy while they more firmly believed the obligation of the Law of Moses than they did the Faith of Christ. And indeed God himself had by visible signs instructed both believing Jews and Gentiles not to judge and censure each other nor to break Christian Communion upon theâ—e Disputes because he had received the believing Jews and Gentiles into the visible Communion of the same one Catholick Church by the visible effusion of the Holy Spirit on them both though one observed the Law of Moses and the other did not and therefore it became both Jews and Gentiles to receive one another as Christian Brethren and to worship God together in the Communion of the same holy Offices And whoever after this visible determination made by God himself undertake to judge and censure and deprive each other of Communion for such matters usurp an Authority to judge over Gods judgment to reject those whom God receives which is like judging another mans servant over whom we have no authority for we have no authority to judge one another in such cases which God allows who is the supreme Lord and Judge of us all Besides this both Jews and Gentiles in observing and not observing the Law of Moses did it to the Lord acted out of reverence to the divine Authority The Jews observed the Law because God gave them this Law by Moses and had not so visibly repealed it as to remove all just scruples about it The Gentiles never were under the Law of Moses and God had received them into his Church without imposing that burden on them and therefore they did not observe the Law out of reverence and thankfulness to God for that liberty he had granted them And therefore Jews and Gentiles had reason to receive each other since it was not Humour Peevishness or Faction which made them differ but a regard to God and a reverence for his Authority which they both pretended and which at that time they both had And therefore St. Paul exhorts the believing Gentiles not to use their Christian liberty to the scandal and offence of their weak Brethren For this was such a case wherein they might be very kind to their weak Brethren if they pleased it being onely a restraint of their own private liberty wherein no body was concerned but themselves for though the Gospel had taken away the distinction of clean and unclean meats and made it lawful to eat indifferently of every thing yet it had not made it our duty to eat such things as the Law had forbidden but we might abstain if we pleased and therefore this was a proper Sphere for the exercise of a private charity not to destroy him with our meat for whom Christ died Especially considering that the Christian Religion is not at all concerned in our eating or not eating for the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink and therefore they ought not to transgress the Laws of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost of Brotherly love and charity and the peace and unity of the Christian Church which are great and essential Duties of Religion for the sake of eating or not eating such meats which in it self considered is no act of Religion at all Especially the case being such that men may keep their Faith to themselves and enjoy the private exercise of their liberty without offence Whereas the believing Jew who believes it unlawful to eat meats forbidden by the Law could not comply with the Gentile Christians without sin because it is against the judgment and perswasion of his own mind which makes it very reasonable as well as charitable to leave men to the direction of their own minds in the use of their own liberty where they are under the government and restraint of no other Law neither of God nor men for in this
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
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
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
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
of St. Pauls made some Proposals for the ease of scrupulous persons with reference to these Ceremonies what thanks had he for it How many bitter Invectives were written against him And can we flatter our selves then that the removal of these Ceremonies would cure our Divisions And if it will not why does he urge the evil and mischief of Divisions to perswade the Church to part with these Ceremonies Whatever other reasons there may be to part with these Ceremonies the cure of Divisions can be no reason when we certainly know before-hand that this will not cure them unless he thinks the Church bound to act upon such reasons as he himself and every body else knows to be no reason for nothing can be a reason for doing a thing which cannot be obtained by doing it But because our Reconciler attempts to say something to this in his tenth Chapter I shall follow him thither His first Objection is That the Church will gain little by such an Indulgence and this I verily believe to be true Let us hear then what he has to say to it And 1. he takes it for granted that he has already proved it the duty of Superiours to condescend in matters of this nature rather than to debar men from Communion with the Church of Christ for things unnecessary and which they nowhere are commanded to impose and if so let us do our duty and commit the event to God Now I answer 1. I can by no means grant that he has proved this and have in part already and doubt not to make it appear before I have done that he has not proved it But 2. Suppose he had proved that it is the duty of Superiours to condescend in such matters when they can do any good by their condescension has he proved also that it is their duty to condescend when they know they can do no good by it When these Divisions will not be cured by such condescension which is the present case The gaining of some very few Proselytes would not countervail the mischief of altering publick Constitutions though we should suppose it reasonable to condescend to such alterations when we can propose any great and publick good by doing it II. Our Reconciler answers Suppose that we by yielding in these matters should not reduce one of the Tribe of our dissenting Brethren yet should we take off their most plausible pretences and leave them nothing which could be rationally offered as a ground of Separation or accusation of our proceedings against them I doubt not but our Dissenters despise this Reconciler in their hearts for thinking that they have no plausible pretences nor rational grounds of Separation but the Dispute about Ceremonies What pretences then have the Dissenters in Scotland where none of these things are imposed And are they more quiet and peaceable or less clamorous in their Complaints than our Dissenters in England For whose sake shall the Church make this Experiment with the loss of their own Orders and Constitutions for the sake of Dissenters And what charity is it to them to discover their obstinacy and hypocrisie and render them more inexcusable to God and men Is it to satisfie our selves that the Dissenters are a sort of peevish and obstinate Schismaticks who will make Divisions without any just pretence or reason for it We know this already we know they have no rational grounds for their Separation though these Ceremonies be not removed Or do we think to stop their mouths and escape their reproaches and censures As if any man could stop the mouth of a Schismatick or make him blush Those who are resolved to continue Schismaticks will always find something to say for it and let them talk on the true Sons of the Church will defend her Constitutions with more reason than Dissenters reproach them III. However he says This will intirely stop the mouths of the Layety and if they be gained their Preachers must follow But who told him this I am sure Mr. Baxter often complains that their Layety is so headstrong and stubborn that they cannot govern them and in all my observation I find that they are as fond of Schism as zealous against Liturgies and Bishops as obstinately addicted to the peculiar Opinions and Practices of their Party as their Preachers are though I am of our Reconciler's mind that their Preachers will sooner follow their People to Church than the People their Preachers But with what face can our Reconciler say That these Ceremonies chiefly debar the Layety from full Communion with us when every one knows the contrary They can communicate with us notwithstanding these Ceremonies when they please and when they can serve any interest by it and their Preachers can give them leave to do so and is it not an admirable reason for altering the establish'd Constitutions of a Church to gratifie such humoursome Schismaticks who can conform when they please IV. He adds They who at first dissented from the Constitution of our Church declared they did it purely upon the account of these things i. e. the Ceremonies still used among us This now is a mistake in History for the first dislike that was taken against our Church was for the square Cap and Tippet and some Episcopal habitâ— which are not talked of in our days and some of which were used in the Universities without scruple in the late blessed times of Reformation But the use of these Ceremonies was never scrupled till Queen Elizabeth's days which was the fruit of the former Heats at Francford during the Marian Persecution and these men indeed did dissent as our Reconciler expresses it that is they expressed their dislike of these things but they did not separate upon it The first that made any steps to Separation set up other pretences complained for want of a right Ministry a right Government in the Church according to the Scriptures without which there can be no right Religion which are the pretences of our Separatists at this day Well but suppose what he says to be true what reason is this for altering our Ceremonies at this day Will our Separatists conform now if these Ceremonies are taken away That he dares not say but we shall gain this by it That it will appear that they are not the genuine Off-spring of the old dissenting Protestants As if any man but a Reconciler were to learn that now when it has been so often proved upon them and they themselves scorn and huff at the Argument and will not have the old Puritans made a President for them V. In the Treaty at the Savoy the abatement of the Ceremonies and the alteration of some disputable passages in the Liturgie was all that was contended for That is he means the Dispute went no farther but if they had gained these points we should then have heard more of them I am sure whoever reads their Petition for Peace will find all the Principles of Mr. Baxter's
no more than a Prince is to be blamed for making good Laws because some men will break them and be hanged for it 3. He perswades the Governours of the Church out of Charity to the Souls of men not to tempt them to Schism by their Impositions whereas there is no way to prevent Schism but by maintaining and asserting their own Authority When there is no Authority in the Church there will be as many Schisms in it as there will be Factions in the State without some â—upreme Power to whom all must obey And therefore out of Charity to the Souls of men and to prevent their Schism Church-Governours are bound to exercise their Authority and not to give way to ignorant and groundless scruples There is nothing occasions more Schisms than the different Rites and Modes of Worship and therefore if they would prevent Schism they ought to exercise their utmost Authority in maintaining the Decency and Uniformity of Worship which will prevent more Schisms than it can make It will preserve unity among those who have any reverence for the Authority of the Church or any sense of the danger of Schism and those who have not will be Schismaticks notwithstanding The onely way I know of to prevent Schism is by wise Instructions and by a strict Discipline the one to cure their ignorance and their scruples the other to curb their wantonness and petulancy but for Governours to suffer their Authority to be disputed and to give way to the frowardness fullenness or ignorance of men to alter the Laws and Constitutions as often as any man can find any thing to say against them would breed eternal confusion both in Church and State Government is the onely Cement and Bond of Unity and when Governours give the Reins out of their hands every young Phaëton will think himself fit to drive the Chariot of the Sun and no man will be governed when there is none to govern and what Order Unity there can be in the Church without Government or what Government where those who are to be governed must give Laws to their Governours I would desire our Reconciler at his leisure to tell me What follows in this Chapter has already been considered in my first Chapter and thither I refer my Reader CHAP. IV. An Answer to the Reconciler's Arguments from the Words the Doctrine the Deportment of Christ whilst he was here on Earth contained in his third Chapter THere are two main Principles on which all our Reconciler's Arguments are founded 1. That these disputed Ceremonies are wholly useless and unnecessary things 2. That the imposition of them is the cause of our Divisions and Schisms which would be cured by the removal of them which therefore is so great a charity to the Souls of men that Church-Governours ought to consent to and promote such an alteration Now all this being false as I have already proved his other Arguments must fall with it but yet to avoid all Cavils I shall particularly consider the force of what he urges And First He begins with the Doctrine and Deportment of our Saviour which I confess is a very good Topick if he could prove any thing from it and he has no less than eight Arguments to confound all the stiff Imposers of unnecessary things I. That our Lord doth frequently produce that saying of the Prophet Hosea I will have mercy and not sacrifice to justifie himself and his Disciples when for the good of their own bodies or the souls of others they did what was forbidden by the Law of Moses or by the Canons and Traditions of the Scribes â—nd Pharisees who sate in Moses Chair This is what every body will grant and therefore he needed not have troubled himself to prove it And his inference from hence is this That Precepts which contain onely Rituals are to give place to those which do concern the welfare of mens bodies and much more to those which do respect the welfare of our Brother's soul so that when both cannot together be observed we must neglect or violate the former to observe the latter From whence he concludes that therefore we must part with those Ceremonies which being made Conditions of Communion do accidentally afford occasion to such great and fatal evils to the Souls of men Now does not every body see that there is more in the conclusion than there is in the premises For 1. Does our Saviour here speak of abrogating the Laws of Sacrifice for the sake of Mercy How does he then hence conclude any thing about repealing the Laws of Ceremonies and Rituals which neither the Prophet nor our Saviour ever thought on when they said these words Though God prefers Mercy before Sacrifice yet he gave Laws about Sacrifices and Ceremonies and continued those Laws after these words were spoken and so may the Church do also for any thing that is here said to the contrary For 2. Our Saviour neither speaks here of making nor replealing Laws about Sacrifices or Rituals but onely prefers Mercy before Sacrifice when there happens a competition between them he supposes that both may be done and that both ought to be done but if both cannot be done at the same time Mercy must take place of Sacrifice And this Mercy our Church allows as much as any man can desire She is not so severe to exact kneeling at the Sacrament or at Prayers or standing at the Creed if men have any such infirmity on them that they cannot do it without great inconvenience she does not exact Godfathers or Godmothers or the signe of the Cross nor bringing the Child to Church when it is sick and in danger of death she does not impose fasting on weak and crasie persons nor think her Laws so sacred that no punctillo must be neglected when it is done without offence and scandal she will not blame any for staying from Church or going out in the midst of Prayers to quench a fire or to help a sick person And this answers to our Saviour's cases wherein he prefers Mercy before Sacrifice But how does this prove that the Governours of the Church must not exact obedience to wholsom Constitutions because some men scruple them Our Saviour never applies this saying to any such case and I am sure our Reconciler has neither reason nor authority to do it When our Reconciler proves from these words I will have mercy and not sacrifice that the Church must part with her Ceremonies for the sake of those who will separate from her if she do not he must either argue from the Saying it self or from those cases to which it is applied by our Saviour Now this Saying as it was meant by the Prophet Hosea signifies no more than this That God preferred all acts of real and substantial goodness before an external Religion even before Sacrifice it self as the Prophet Micah expresses it more at large but to the very same sence Wherewith shall I come before
the Lord and bow my self before the high God shall I come before him with burnt-offerings with calves of a year old Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams or with ten thousand rivers of oyl shall I give my first-born for my transgression the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul He hath shewed thee O man what is good and what doth the Lord require of thee but to do justice and to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God Now because God prefers true and real goodness before the externals of Religion does it hence follow that there must be no external Worship or that the Church must make no Laws for the decent or orderly performance of it or must repeal these Laws when any ignorant people refuse to submit to them Just as much as that God did not require them to offer Sacrifice because he preferred Mercy before it Our Reconciler obsâ—rves two Cases to which our Saviour applies this saying 1. To justifie his Disciples who pulled the ears of Corn as they walked through the fields and rubbed them in their hands and eat them on the Sabbath-day which the Pharisees expounded to be a breach of the Sabbatick rest as being a servile work and our Saviour does not dispute with them upon that point but justifies what they did by their present necessity and by this Rule I will have mercy and not sacrifice That God who prefers acts of Kindness and Mercy before Sacrifice when they come in competition with each other is not such a rigorous exacter of obedience to any positive Institutions as to allow no Indulgence to necessity it self and it becomes Church-Governours to imitate the goodness of God in this and our Church does so as I have already observed but how this proves that the Church must make no Laws about Ceremonies or repeal them if men won't obey them I do not understand The next instance is our Saviour's justifying himself against the accusations of the Pharisees for his eating and drinking with Publicans and Sinners which he tells them was onely in order to reform them as a Physician converses with the sick and certainly it was lawful to converse with them upon so charitable a designe since God preferred Mercy before Sacrifice and therefore certainly God will be better pleased with our conversing with Sinners in order to make them good men than with our abstaining from their company though a familiar conversation with them upon other accounts be scandalous And how this proves what our Reconciler would conclude from it I cannot see Well but this is a general Rule which may be applied to more cases than one or two Right But if we will argue from our Saviour's authority and application we must apply it onely to such cases as are parallel to those cases to which our Saviour applies it otherwise we must not pretend the authority of our Saviour but the reason of the thing and let him set aside our Saviour's authority and we shall deal well enough with his Reason All that can be made of this Rule is this That where there happens any such case that there is a temporary competition between two Duties which are both acknowledged to be our duty there the greatest and most necessary duty must take place and particularly that all Rituals must give place to Mercy So that to make this a parallel case our Reconciler must grant that it is the duty of Church-Governours to prescribe Rules for the external Decency and solemnity of Worship what is the other Duty then to which this must give way To the care of mens Souls says our Reconciler No say I there is no inconsistency between the care of mens Souls and the care of publick Worship which is the best way of taking care of mens Souls and therefore there can never be a competition between these two O but some men are ignorant and scrupulous and wilful and if you prescribe any Rules of Worship they will dissent from them and turn Schismaticks and be damned and thus accidentally it affords occasion to these great and fatal evils Let him prove then if he can from these words of our Saviour that the Governours of the Church must never do their duty for fear those men should be damned who will not do theirs Such cases as these if they be truly pitiable must be left to the mercy of God but the Church can take no cognizance of them especially when this cannot be done without destroying the publick Decency and Solemnities of Worship and renouncing her own just Authority the maintaining of which is more for the general good of Souls than her compliance with some scrupulous persons would be I shall onely farther observe his great civility to theChurch and Kingdom of which he is a Member For his third Observation from these words is That they were used by the Prophet upon the occasion of the strictness of the Israelites in the observance and the requiring these Rituals whilst charity and mercy to their Brother was vanished from their hearts there being no truth no mercy nor knowledge of God in the land but killing committing adultery stealing lying and swearing falsly c. Now certainly it was no fault in the Jews at that time to be zealous for the external Worship instituted by the Law of Moses though our Reconciler seems to insinuate that it was for he matters not how he reproaches the Institutions of God himself so he can but reflect some odium on the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church yet they betrayed their Hypocrisie by their Zeal for the Externals of Religion while they neglected the weightier matters of the Law And left any man should be so dull as not to understand the meaning of this Observation he thetorically introduces it with a God forbid Now God forbid that I should say that it is thus in England but he is pleased to put men in mind of it if they please to think so This is true Fanatick Cant and Charity There must be no Rules prescribed for the Worship of God the Church must not take care to reclaim or restrain Schismaticks because our Reconciler thinks the State does not take sufficient care to punish other Vices Certainly there never was any Age of the Church wherein the publick Ministers of Religion took more care to decry this Pharisaical Hypocrisie of an external Religion and to teach men that nothing will recommend them to God without the practice of an universal Righteousness than at this day who will not flatter the greatest men in their Vices nor think any man a Saint because he expresses a great Zeal for the Church when his life and actions proclaim him to be a Devil We leave this good Reconciler to your beloved tender-conscienced Dissenters who can strain at a Gnat and swallow a Camel who cannot see a Surplice without horror but can dispence with Lying and Perjury with Slanders and Revilings and speaking
This is just as if we should charge that good Father who received his prodigal Son with all expressions of joy and made a great entertainment for his return with shutting his eldest Son out of his house because he foolishly and wickedly took offence at his Fathers kindneâ—s to his Brother and would not enter though his Father himself went out to perswade him and invite him in and to satisfie him of the fitness and decency of what he had done I doubt this does more properly belong to those Pharisaical Preachers who are satisfied in the lawfulness of what is required as St. Ierom supposes some of these Pharisees were convinc'd that Jesus was the Messias but to gratifie their own obstinacy pride and revenge will neither do what they know they may lawfully do themselves nor suffer others to do it St. Chrysostom expounds the words much to the same purpose and therefore no wonder if as our Reconciler observes he tells us That these men are called Pests and are diametrically opposed to Teachers their work being to destroy For if the Teachers business be to save what is lost to lose or cause to perish what might be saved is the work of the destroyer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which otherwise would be saved the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those who were entring that is as he expounds it the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those who were prepared and disposed to enter Now I think our Church never shut any out of her Communion who were prepared and disposed to enter But our Reconciler observes that in the same Chapter our Saviour condemns the Scribes and Pharisees for binding heavy burdens upon mens shoulders which they would not move with one of their fingers But what were these heavy burdens and grievous to be born which the Pharisees bound upon mens shoulders were they things burdensom to the Conscience which tempted men to forsake their Communion No such matter men were not so scrupulous in those days and our Saviour in that very place expresly charges his own Disciples not to forsake their Communion The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses seat all therefore that they bid you observe that observe and do And therefore our Saviour could not charge them that by these heavy burdens they frighted men from their Communion and made Schisms in the Church and therefore it is very impertinently alleadged by our Reconciler These heavy burdens did not concern the Rites and Ceremonies of publick Worship which our Saviour never blamed them for but conformed to them himself when he worshipped in their Synagogues But they were some strict and rigorous Expositions of their Law without making such allowances in cases of necessity and mercy as God intended as when they quarrelled with the Disciples for pulling the ears of Corn and eating them as they walked through the fields on the Sabbath-day being hungry or some arbitrary impositions which made a great shew and appearance of Sanctity but were very troublesome to be observed And when our Reconciler can shew any such heavy burdens imposed by the Church of England we will think of some other Answer But did our Saviour condemn the Pharisees meerly for binding these heavy burdens and laying them upon mens shoulders Not that neither The crime our Saviour charges them with was gross Hypocrisie that while they were so strict and severe in their impositions upon other men they were very easie and gentle to themselves They laid heavy burdens on others but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers Our Reconciler observes That St. Chrysostom well notes that our Lord saith not that they cannot but they will not move them Whereby he would have his Readers to understand that by moving them our Saviour meant removing them that they laid on heavy burdens but would not take them off again when they lawfully might as he expresly says â—hat not dispensing with these Traditions upon such great occasions was the sin of the Scribes and Pharisees Which is the fault he charges our Church with that she will not part with her Ceremonies for the sake of Dissenters Whereas St. Ierom and St. Chrysostom and all good Expositors understand no more by it than that they would not practise the least part of these things themselves They were very severe in their injunctions to others but excused themselves from such severities Which saith S. Chrysostom is quite contrary to what becomes a good Governour who will be very rigorous and severe in judging and censuring his own actions but a very kind and favourable judge of those who are under his care And therefore our Saviour urges this as a proof of what he before charged them with But do not ye after their works for they say and do not VI. In the next place he attempts to prove That Dissenters though not of our Communion should not be forbid to preach for the promotion of Christ's Kingdom because Christ would not suffer his Disciples to forbid the man who wrought Miracles in his Name but did not follow them that is says our Reconciler did not hold Communion with them And thus he has fairly altered the state of the Question and unwarily betrayed the secret thoughts of his heart His open and avowed designe all this while has been to plead for the removal of our Ceremonies that Dissenters might joyn in Communion with us and avoid the guilt of Schism which is a damning sin but now it seems it would do as well if not much better if Dissenters had but their liberty to preach in Conventicles for the promotion of Christ's Kingdom But is the Kingdom of Christ then promoted by Schism Will Schism damn men as he asserts and makes the principal foundation of all his Arguments and will the damnation of so many men as are seduced into Schism enlarge Christ's Kingdom Must the Church part with her Ceremonies for fear the occasion mens running into Schism and being damned for it And yet may she suffer Schismaticks to preach and allure men into a Schism I beg our Reconciler to think again of this and reconcile himself to himself But how does it appear that this man who cast out Devils in Christ's Name did preach the Gospel too There is no such thing said in the Text and if it be true what our Reconciler affirms that he was not Christ's Disciple he could not do it If he believed in Christ he was Christ's Disciple if he did not he could not preach the Gospel and I think there is some difference between preaching and working Miracles When our Dissenters can work Miracles I will never oppose their preaching But how does it appear that this man who cast out Devils in Christ's Name was no Disciple Had Christ no Disciples but those who followed him where-ever he went Our Saviour seems to prove that he was a Disciple or in a very good disposition to be one in that saying He that is not against
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
with the Faith of Christ For if any man 〈◊〉 thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in an Idols Temple shall not the conscience of him that is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to Idols and through thy knowledge shall thy weak brother perish for whom Christ died by being confirmed in his Idolatry by thy Example 3. Now the Apostle disputes against this practice of the Gnosticks of eating in the Idols Temple two several ways 1. Upon the supposition of the lawfulness of it 2. By proving it unlawful 1. Upon the supposition of the lawfulness of it and this he does in the eighth Chapter He allows that Principle of the Gnosticks That an Idol is nothing in the world and supposes for argument sake that this would justifie those who have this knowledge in eating at an Idols Temple for that the Apostle himself was not of this mind appears from the tenth Chapter of which more presently yet since there were so many professed Christians among them who were still leavened with their Pagan Superstitions and could not presently renounce that kind of Worship which they had been so long accustomed to as some Copies read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indeâ—d of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 7. that some out of custom to the Idol instead of with conscience of the Idol it was very uncharitable by doing the same thing which they did though with very different notions and apprehensions to confirm them in their Idolatrous Practices Though these knowing Gnosticks who believed an Idol to be nothing might eat in the Idols Temple without being guilty of Idolatry yet thâ—y must acknowledge that those who believed these Idols to be Gods and did eat that meat which was offered to them under the notion of Sacrifices were guilty of Idolatry and therefore they were guilty of a very great sin when by doing the same thing though without Idolatry they encouraged those to do so too who were certainly guilty of Idolatry in it And the guilt of this is so much the greater because though they should suppose it lawful to eat at an Idols Temple yet they were under no necessity of doing it if they did not sin in it yet neither did they please God meerly by eating such meats as were offered to Idols for meerly to eat or not to eat any kind of meats is not in it self an acceptable service to God Meat commendeth us not to God for neither if we eat are we the better neither if we eat not are we the worse And therefore certainly we may abstain from it without any other injury than laying some little restraints upon the exercise of our private liberty and this is therefore a proper matter for the exercise of Christian charity as the Apostle had discoursed in the case of the Jews and Gentiles And though the Gnosticks thought that eating in an Idols Temple was a great argument of the perfection of their knowledge yet the Apostle tells them that charity and the care of their Brothers soul was to be preferred before such a vain boast of knowledge Take beed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling-block to them that are weak and through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish for whom Christ died For which reason in the beginning he told them Knowledge puffeth up but charity edifieth This is the sum of the Apostle's reasoning in this eighth Chapter upon a supposition that it were lawful to eat in an Idols Temple Now what affinity is there between this case and that of our Dissenters Those who knew that an Idol was nothing and therefore that it could not pollute the meat which was offered in sacrifice to it might eat in an Idols Temple without Idolatry but yet ought not to do it when their Example though innocent in it self would confirm others in actual Idolatry therefore the Governours of the Church must not prescribe the decent Rites and Ceremonies of Worship because Dissenters will not obey them but turn Schismaticks If our Reconciler be not ashamed to argue at this rate I am ashamed to confute him But it is plain he mistook the case For he says The Apostle grants that it is lawful in it self for Christians to eat of things offered to Idols he should have added in an Idols Temple where it had an immediate relation to the Idol which was the matter in dispute between the Apostle and the Gnosticks because an Idol was nothing in the world But now the Apostle does not grant this but onely at present supposes the lawfulness of it for in the tenth Chapter he professedly confutes it He tells them that to partake of a Sacrifice signifies our communion with that being to whom the Sacrifice is offered Thus it was with the Jewish Sacrifices Behold Israel after the flesh are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar Thus it is in the commemorative Sacrifice of the Lords Supper The cup of blessing which we bless is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ the bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ And thus to eat of the Idols Sacrifice in the Idols Temple is communion with the Idol Well says the Gnostick what communion can there be with that which is not or will you say That an Idol is any thing or that which is offered in sacrifice to Idols is any thing Will you say that there are any such Gods as the Heathens worship Or will you say that that is a Sacrifice or that that meat is polluted which is offered to nothing No says the Apostle I do not say that there are any such Gods as the Heathens worship for they worshipped dead men and women who cannot be present at their Sacrifices to receive their Worship or it may be they worship onely some fanciful and poetick Names and Fictions but this I say that though Iupiter and Bacchus Minerva and Diana and the rest of the poetick Deities are meer fictitious Gods yet wicked Spirits supply their places receive their Worship and attend their Sacrifices and therefore though these Heathen Idolaters be not in communion with those fictitious Gods whom they pretend to worship yet they are in communion with Devils who assume the names of these Gods But I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to Devils and not to God and I would not that ye should have fellowship with Devils Whether this can be reconciled with the lawfulness of eating in an Idols Temple because an Idol is nothing in the world let our Author consider But he proceeds He the Apostle moreover grants that they who out of conscience did abstain from eating of such things had a weak conscience and that their conscience was defiled by eating of such things onely because they wanted knowledge or were not well perswaded of this truth that Christians had a liberty or power to be
duty but the power of imposing indifferent things as he calls it or the power of prescribing the Rules and Orders and Circumstances of Worship if there be any such power as he grants there is is the power and authority of an Office is a Trust and a Duty the prudent and faithful discharge of which they must give an account of and therefore must not when they please either part with the power or the exercise of it St. Paul was contented to part with the temporal rewards of his Ministry that he might the more successfully discharge the Ministry it self therefore Church-Governours must not exercise their Authority in the discharge of their Ministry to humour Dissenters St. Paul did more than his strict duty required that he might have something to glory in therefore the Governours of the Church must neglect their duty and lose their reward Indeed our Reconciler talks as if the Churches Authority in indifferent things were onely a personal right a Complement to Church-Governours an ornamental power which they may use or may let alone as they please and if this were so I should presently be of our Reconciler's mind but I believe they have no such kind of useless Authority as this Christ has not complemented his Ministers with any power which is not for the use and service of the Church and therefore if they have power in indifferent things this is a useful power and that which they ought to use when there is reason for it whoever be offended at it Another reason why St. Paul preached the Gospsl freely at Corinth he gives us in the 2 Cor. 11. 12 13. What I do that I will do that I may cut off occasion from them that desire occasion that wherein they glory they may be found even as we for such are false Apostles deceitful workers transforming themselves into the Apostles of Christ. The meaning of which is this There were several false Teachers who crept in among them and used all manner of arts to recommend themselves to the Corinthians and among others this seems to be one that they preached the Gospel freely to them onely as they pretended out of love of their Souls which was a very popular art especially to that People and therefore St. Paul resolved to persist in preaching the Gospel freely to them to cut off occasion from them that desire occasion that is to disappoint those arts of deceit whereby these false Teachers endeavoured to recommend themselves that wherein they glory they may be found even as we that whereas they glory in preaching the Gospel freely this may give them no advantage since it is no more than what I my self have all along done and still continue to do Our Reconciler paraphraseth these words thus To cut off occasion from them that desire occasion that is lest his enemies should take occasion from the exercise of this his liberty to charge or to traduce him as one who more consulted his own profit than the glory of God and the propagation of the Gospel But what occasion had there been for this though he had taken Wages of them as he says he did of other Churches to supply his necessities it was sufficiently evident notwithstanding that he did exact nothing from them to serve the ends of covetousness and ambition for certainly a man may desire the supply of his wants without being charged with covetousness but the Apostle would not suffer these false Prophets by a pretended and hypocritical Zeal to outdo him in any thing Now the Apostle's care to give no advantage to false Teachers is a good Example to the Governours of our Church not to do so neither and I am sure they cannot give them greater advantage than to sacrifice all Order and Decency to their pretended Scruples Well but says our Reconciler the Rulers of the Church by the exercise of this power in indifferent things do 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 of poor Souls from damning Schisms and the Church from sad Divisions c. These are very spightful but very foolish Insinuations As for Schisms and Divisions we have already considered where that charge must rest and then how do Ceremonies come in competition with the Souls of men Does the appointment of some Ceremonies for the decent and orderly performance of Religious Worship hinder the salvation of mens Souls Cannot men be saved who observe the Ceremonies of our Church Then indeed our Reconciler might well complain that those who impose such damning Ceremonies have more regard to a Ceremony than to an immortal Soul otherwise there is no competition between Ceremonies and the Souls of men and those who will be Schismaticks for a Ceremony will be Schismaticks without it and will be damned for their Schism whether there be any Ceremonies or not All that remains in this Chapter are his Answers to Meisner's Arguments which I have already considered as much as is necessary to my purpose CHAP. VII Containing an Answer to the Motives to Mutual Condescension urged in the sixth Chapter of the Protestant Reconciler I Find nothing in this Chapter besides some Harangues and Popular Declamations but what has been sufficiently answered already The whole proceeds upon those general Topicks of the smalness of these things the danger mens Souls are in by these Impositions the obligations to Love and Charity which have been particularly discoursed above in the first and second Chapters where the reasons of these things are particularly examined But however I will briefly try whether I cannot give an Answer to all this which may be as popular as his Objections are I. His first Argument or Motive is from considering how small the things are which cause our Discords and Divisions when they are set in competition with the more weighty duties and concerns of Love Peace and the Churches Vnion and Edification and the avoiding the offence and scandal of Iew Gentile and the Church of God which he very pompously proves to be great Gospel-duties Now suppose the things in dispute be never so small if they are of any use in Religion and the Object of Ecclesiastical Authority as our Reconciler owns they are what will he conclude from hence that the observation of such little things must not be enjoyned What not when Christ has given authority to enjoyn them Does Christ then give any authority to his Church which she must not use Must nothing be enjoyned which is little in comparison of Love and Peace and Unity or must they be enjoyned and left indifferent at the same time Must the Church appoint them to be observed but command no body to observe them but those who please In all well-governed Societiâ—s there must be Laws about little as well as about great things and if there be no Authority to determine the least matters both in
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
Apostles which made it necessary to reveal the Gospel-mysteries by degrees and to persons well disposed and qualified to receive them but when a Doctrine has been fully published and confirmed by all necessary evidence and universally received as a Christian Doctrine the Governours and Pastors of the Church must continue to preach it whether Dissenters will hear or no for else we may lose all Christian Doctrines by degrees again and return to our Milk which he says is the Doctrine of Christs Humanity and leave off feeding on strong Meat which he says is the Doctrine of Christs Divinity because Jews and Socinians cannot bear it Whatever has been published by Christ and his Apostles as Christian Doctrine is the sacred Depositum which is committed to the Church and which all Bishops as well as Timothy are commanded to keep 5. His next Motive to condescension is from the consideration of that great Rule of Equity which calls upon us to do to others as we would be dealt with Now I confess this is a very good Topick to declaim on as our Reconciler doth for as it is usually managed it contains an Appeal to the Passions and Interests more than to the Reason of mankind It is a sufficient Answer to this to observe that this Rule obliges no man to do any thing but what is in it self just and equitable to be done for what is more than this how passionately soever men desire it is owing to their fondness and partiality to themselves not to a true reason and judgment of things and therefore unless it appear upon other accounts to be in it self reasonable to grant this Indulgence this Rule cannot make it so To discourse the true meaning of this Rule at large would be too great a digression from my present designe and therefore in answer to what our Reconciler says Would we be contented if we were inferiours to be punished imprisoned and banished for Opinions which we cannot help or shut out from the means of Grace for such Opinions Or should we not be glad that others would bear with us in some lesser matters in which we by our judgments are constrained to differ from them and would not pass upon us the sâ—verest censures because we are constrained thus to differ I say in answer to these and such-like Popular Appeals I shall ask him some other Questions as Whether ever any Offender or Criminal is contented to suffer for his fault or does not earnestly desire to be pardoned and to escape Whether it be unreasonable to punish any man because all men are unwilling to be punished Whether every mans love to himself in such cases or that natural pity which all men have for those who suffer be a Rule for the exercise of publick Discipline and Government in Church or State Whether any man in his wits can think it reasonable that mens private Fancies and Opinions should over-rule the Authority of Church and State Whether is the most pitiable sight to see a flourishing and truly Apostolick Church rent and torn in pieces by Factions and Schisms or to see such Schismaticks suffer in the suppression of their Schism Whether it be reasonable for the Civil Powers to punish Schismaticks when their Schism in the Church threatens the State and makes the Thrones of Princes shake and totter The truth is this Rule To do to others as we desire they should do to us may be a good Rule to direct our private Conversation but it does not extend to publick Government and my reason for it is this That this Rule has respect onely to every mans private happiness and supposes an equality between them For that which makes this a Rule of Equity is that equals as all men are considered as men ought to have equal usage and therefore that natural sense which every man has of happiness that natural aversion to suffer wrong and that natural desire to receive good from others should teach every man to deal by others who have the same sense of happiness and aversion to misery as they desire to be dealt with themselves But now publick Government has a greater respect to the Publick than to any mans private good and a mans private and particular good must give place to the publick Welfare and therefore what aversion soever there is in mankind to suffering it is very fit and just that private men when they deserve it should suffer for the publick Good and it is not every mans love to himself or what he is willing to suffer which is the Rule here but a regard to the publick Good And though all wise and good men ought to prefer the publick Good before their own private Interest yet whatever reason there is for this it is certain mens natural love to themselves to which this Rule appeals will never make them willing to suffer especially when the sufferings are great and capital upon any considerations and therefore to do as we would be done by is not our Rule in such cases for then no fault must ever be punished Nor is there an equality between Governours and Subjects either in Church or State Civil Magistrates are invested with the Authority of God who is the supreme Governour of the World and the Governours of the Church with the Authority of Christ who is the supreme Head of the Church and therefore they are not to consider the private passions and affections of men that because they themselves are not willing to suffer when they are in a fault therefore they must not punish others for they act not as private men but as publick Ministers of Justice and Discipline and where there is an inequality this Rule of Equity will not hold Governours and Subjects are equal considered as men but very unequal as Governours are invested with the Authority of God which sets them above other men This I take to be the true reason why the same men pass such different judgments on the same thing when they are Subjects and when they are Governours because when they are Subjects they have a principal regard to a private and particular good and consult the desires and weaknesses and passions of humane nature when they are Governours they have a greater regard to a publick good and consider what their Character and Office and Authority requires them to do Thus we know when some of our Dissenters had got the Power in their hands they were as severe in pressing Conformity to their new Models and Platforms as loud and fierce in their Declamations against Toleration as now they are against Conformity and for a Toleration When they had the Power in their hands they saw plainly what the necessities of Government required now the Power is out of their hands they consider what is necessary to their own preservation which makes them dislike those things when the Government is against them which they saw a necessity of before This is universally true of all
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
one anothers throats this is such a measure of Love and Peace as may be here expected that is among Schismaticks and Dissenters But this is not such a Love and Peace as makes the Church one for that consists in one Communion which can never be had where men differ in the Rites and Modes of Worship and every man is permitted to worship God as he pleases Quest. 11. If a Patient would not take a Medicine from one mans hand whether would not a good Physician consent that another should give it him whether would the merciful Father let the Infant famish that would take food from none but his Mother And if the People culpably will hear no others but Dissenters is it better to let them hear none at all than that they should preach to them Ans. Now I would ask our Reconciler one Question Why all this will not hold as well in Civil as Ecclesiastical Government If the People culpably will be governed not by a King and Parliament but by some select and trusty Members of a House of Commons or by another Oliver is it better these poor People should be without any Government than that they should be governed by Rebels or a new modelled Commonwealth Now here is an excellent Argument to perswade the King out of great charity to his People to resigne up the Government and let them chuse their own Governours though I am afraid then they would be cantoned into as many little Independent Kingdoms as there are now Independent Pastors But let us consider his comparisons He says If a Patient would not receive a Medicine from one mans hands whether would not a good Physician consent that another man should give it him Yes why not so long as the Physician prescribed the Physick But would such a Physician suffer such a humorsome Patient could he hinder it to go to a Quack or a Mountebank or to take Physick very hurtful and pernicious to him I believe the Colledge of Physicians are of another mind who have been as industrious to suppress such Quacks as the Church has been to silence Dissenters But whether would the merciful Father let the Infant famish that would take food from none but his Mother But suppose he is as fond of a Strumpet as he is of his Mother what would the Father do in that case It is a pretty inâ—inuation this that dissenting Preachers are the true Mother and therefore it is very pardonable in the People to long after them But is not our Reconciler a great Politician who thinks it reasonable that publick Government should humour Subjects as a Physician does a sick Patient or an indulgent Father a froward child that the Hospital or the Nursery should be the best Platform of Government in Church or State But now our Reconciler speaks out and in down-right terms pleads for the toleration of dissenting Preachers that the People may have somebody to hear and it is better to let them hear them than that they should hear none at all But there is no necessity of either that I know of for thanks be to God there are other excellent Preachers to hear though the Dissenters were never to preach more and there is no danger that those People who have such itching ears should ever grow so sullen as to hear none at all when they cannot hear whom they would they will hear whom they can and by hearing wise and honest instructions may in time grow wise themselves which I suspect some men are afraid of whatever our Reconciler be These Queries our Author has borrowed from Mr. Baxter and made them his own by his approbation of them and now he tells us That Mr. Barret hath offered many Questions of the like nature which he being slow of understanding which I believe the Reader by this time will take his word for cannot answer to his own satisfaction and therefore in a great fright crys out passionately for help Men of Israel help And I will endeavour to help him out here too Q. 1. Might not Conformists with a good Conscience have forborn those needless Impositions which they very well knew would be so needless and burdensome to many Was ever Schism made so light a matter of and the Peace and Vnity of Christians valued at so low a rate that for the prevention of the one and the preservation of the other the imposing of things indifferent and not necessary in their own judgment but things doubtful and unlawful in the judgment of others might not be forborn Ans. This I have sufficiently answered already in the vindication of the Savoy-Commissioners and therefore shall onely adde here that it does become the Governours of the Church to secure the external Order and Decency of Worship and the good government of the Church though they know a great many men will be offended at it and turn Schismaticks and when men quarrel with those Ceremonies which have been anciently received and practised in the Church upon such Schismatical Principles as equally overthrow all decent and orderly Constitutions there ought to be no regard had to them nor any alteration made upon their account When these Ceremonies were appointed to be retained in Religious Worship as they were purged from all superstitious uses in the reformation of King Edward the sixth they were scrupled by no body nor could the Governours of the Church foresee that they would be scrupled and as for the happy resettlement of the Church under our present gracious Soveraign whom God long preserve to which I suppose Mr. Barret and our Reconciler refer it was very unreasonable to justifie the late horrid Schism and Rebellion by yielding to the unjust clamours of those men who had by a pretence of Conscience once already overturned both Church and State such Consciences ought to be governed and chastised not indulged Q. 2. Whether they pray as they ought Thy Kingdom come or whether indeed they act not against their own Prayers who endeavour to hinder the preaching of the Gospel by making these unnecessary things the conditions of so doing Let us bring the case before our supreme and final Iudge and bethink your self whether of these two things he will most likely have regard unto the saving of Souls which he bought with his bloud or the preserving inviolate certain humane Institutions and Rules confessed by the devisers of them not to be necessary Ans. As for their being confessed not to be necessary that has been often enough answered already and as for his Appeals to the final Judgment we are very well contented with that as being satisfied that no popular Cant will pass currant there That the imposition of these Ceremonies does not hinder the preaching the Gospel is evident to sense for the Gospel is still preached and I hope to better purpose than in the late days of Rebellion And as for the Kingdom of God in this World it signifies the Christian Church and to pray for
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
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
to say than our Reconciler has and when we know what it is we will consider it And yet those private Doctors of the Church of England to whose judgment our Reconciler appeals say nothing to his purpose not a man of them affirm that it is unlawful for the Church to impose indifferent things no not when they are scrupled as any one may observe who carefully reads their Testimonies Some of them indeed do think it advisable if it would heal our present Schisms to part with some things of less moment for so good an end And there seems to be two sorts of these men 1. Those who think this might be done were there good evidence and assurance that such abatements would cure the Schism and lay a foundation of a firm and lasting Peace in this Church 2. Those who think this way ought to be tryed whether it will effect the cure or no. 1. As for the first if this were the case that the exchange of a Ceremony or two while the external Order and Decency of publick Worship might be otherwise secured would certainly heal our Schisms God forbid that I should ever be the man who should oppose so good a work But if I may speak my thoughts freely that which I take to be the fault of these great men is this that they trouble themselves and the world in declaring their judgments unasked about an imaginary case which it is demonstrably impossible should over be a real case This is evident not onely from the present temper and complexion of the Schism which even among the most moderote Dissenters is improved far beyond the dispute of a Ceremony but from this very consideration that their Principles whereon they demand such an alteration are schismatical and it is impossible that the Peace of the Church should be built upon Schismatical Principles Though it were possible that the removal of our Ceremonies might for the present quiet our Disputes yet this Peace would last no longer than the men are in a good humour because those very Principles which disturb the Peace of the Church now will also disturb the best Order and Constitution of the Church that can possibly be devised and while the Principles remain the seeds of Discord remain also and there will never want men or Devils to improve them into open Contentions Whoever believes that nothing must be done in the Worship of God but what we have an express divine Law for that things lawful or indifferent in their own natures are sinful when they are commanded though by a lawful Authority that neither the Governours in Church nor State have any authority in indifferent things which are the great Principles on which men oppose the Ceremonies of our Church will as inevitably be Schismaticks under any constitution of things as those who believe that the Soveraign Powers are accountable to the People will be Rebels whenever they are not pleased and have power to resist Take away these Principles and we may keep our Ceremonies and while these Principles last it is to no purpose to part with the least Ceremony 2. As for those who think the Church ought to try this Experiment whether such Abatements and Condescensions will reconcile Dissenting Protestants to the Church it is in my opinion a very dangerous as well as a very unreasonable Experiment All changes and innovations unless they be made on great and urgent necessities and with wonderful wisdom and caution are of very dangerous consequence and the greatest Polititians cannot always foresee what the event will be but to change lightly and wantonly without a certain prospect of a good effect is a reproach to the wisdom and gravity of Government it is onely like the uneasiness of a sick man who seeks for some present relief by changing sides though when he has done he finds himself as uneasie as he was before If such Abatements do not take effect we part with the external Decencies of Worship to no purpose we expose our selves to the scorn and derision of Sectaries make them more bold and clamorous and weaken the Authority and Sinews of Government which loses it due reverence when it is not steady and true to it self Of all persons in the world Governours ought to make the fewest Experiments and to confess the fewest faults and mistakes if there were any much less to seem to confess a fault when there is none for Government ought to maintain its own Reverence and Authority and nothing can maintain the Authority of Government but a great Opinion both of its Power and Wisdom that it can defend it self and direct others whereas all such changes and alterations though they may be called a charitable condescension to the weakness and importunities of others are always expounded as an Argument of the weakness or mistakes of Government that it cannot defend it self against popular Clamours and Oppositions or that they mistake their Rule The first makes their Authority precarious and teaches people not to fear their Governours when they see their Governours are afraid of them the other destroys the Reverence of their Laws and teaches people not to obey but to dispute And of all mistakes the mistakes in Religion are most unpardonable and the greatest blemish to the Wisdom of Government because here is a standing Rule which is plain and certain and does not alter with accidental and mutable events So that if things be well setled at first there is no reason ever to change as may be in all other Laws which must be fitted to times and places and other changeable circumstances but even the external circumstances of Religion must not vary with the unreasonable humours and fancies of men in every Age or if it does Religion it self as well as Ecclesiastical Authority suffers by it Now whatever private Doctors are of another mind it is all one to me for those who assert any thing without Reason assert it without Authority too His next Testimonies are borrowed from some foreign Divines such as Beza Zanchy Iunius and it were easie to oppose other foreign Divines against them if not to answer them out of their own Writings but I do not think this worth the while for it is certain these men are not infallible I will never value those mens judgments about Ceremonies who can be contented to change the Apostolical Order of Bishops for a Presbyterian Parity In the next place he insists at large on those terms of Concord which have been proposed both by our own and by foreign Divines between distinct Churches and hence very wisely concludes that the same liberty is to be granted to the Members of the same Church But this I have considered already and refer my Readers for further satisfaction to the Remarks upon the Preface to the Protestant Reconciler Thus I have done with our Reconciler and shall conclude this Work with a short Address to our Dissenters lest they should not rightly understand how much they are
evil of Dignities with Treasons and Murders of Princes and â—ug the most profligate Villains in their boâ—om and palliate and excuse all their Vices â—f they will but espouse their Interest and Quarrel These are the men who have weakned the Churches Authority and exposed her Censurâ—s to contempt and then reproach her for not using her Authority to correct the Vices of the Age. The Debauchees of our days learn to despise the Censures of the Church by the Example of Dissenters and when they cannot shelter their Vices in our Communion they take Sanctuary in a Conventicle II. His next Argument against the imposition of Ceremonies upon Dissenters is from the kindness and indulgence of our Saviour to his Disciples while he was with them That he would not impose such a burden as fasting on them because they were infirm and weak and therefore might be prejudiced by it that like old Bottles filled with new Wine they might be apt to burst that is by these severities imposed on them they might be discouraged and fall from him and so might perish I confess I have often been troubled what to make of this place not that I ever suspected such inferences from it as our Reconciler has discovered but these words being generally expounded by ancient and modern Writers of Christ's indulgence to the weakness of his Disciples I could never understand what this weakness should be which made them less able to fast than the Disciples of Iohn or of the Pharisees It could not be weakness of body for they were men of mean fortunes who had been used to more hardship than most of the Pharisees and what weakness of mind could they labour under which should make fasting so grievous a burden They were Jews who were to observe the publick Fasts of their Law and therefore fasting was no new thing to them and why should they be compared to old Cloth and old Bottles and fasting to new Cloth and new Wine These are difficulties which I cannot answer and shall be thankful to our Reconciler if he can And therefore I am apt to suspect it is all a mistake from a misapplication of those comparisons which our Saviour brought to illustrate that Answer which he had given to the Question of Iohn's Disciples They ask'd him Why do we and the Pharisees fast often but thy Disciples fast not And Iesus said unto them Can the children of the bride-chamber mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them but the days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken from them and then shall they fast Christ is the Bridegroom the Church his Spouse the Apostles the Children of the Bride-chamber who immediately attended his Person in his greatest privacies and retirements The appearance of Christ on Earth was a time of as great joy to all that knew him as the presence of the Bridegroom and as it would be very indecent and improper for those who attend the Bridegroom to be sorrowful and pensive so would it be for his Disciples to mourn and fast which is an expression of mourning and sorrow while he was present All this refers not to the weakness of his Disciples but the unfitness of the season to fast Now the Question is Whether in what follows our Saviour onely illustrates this Answer or gives a new one And I confess it seems most probable to me that our Saviour onely confirms and illustrates the same answer which he does by two comparisons the first to shew the indecency of the thing the second the impossibility of it The first is this No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment and the rent is made worse At Weddings and Festival Entertainments they used to put on new Cloths at fasting to wear any old â—attered Garments Now says our Saviour mourning and fasting in the presence of the Bridegroom which is a time of joy is as indecent as it would be to patch up a Garment of wedding and fasting Cloth of new and old For the new Cloth is so far from adding to the beauty of the old Garment that the rent is made worse more notorious and visible and exposed to the view and scorn of all men and so indecent would it be for the Children of the Bride-chamber to fast as for men to go to a Wedding in such a patcht Garment The second comparison shews the impossibility of the thing that they should fast while the Bridegroom is with them To fast without mourning is an hypocritical Fast it is better not to fast at all than thus to mock God and yet it is impossible they should mourn whose minds are transported with such new and fermenting joys at the presence of the Bridegroom Neither do men put new wine into old bottles else the bottles break and the wine rumeth out and the bottles perish but they put new wine into new bottles and both are preserved Wine is proper at Festival Entertainments and very aptly signifies the joy and exultancy of the mind For Wine maketh the heart glad and new Wine signifies some new and present transports of joy whiâ—h boil and ferment in the breast as new Wine does upon the Lees and therefore aptly signifies such a joy as is in the presence of the Bridegroom Old Bottles may signifie a mournful sorrowful mind which is as weak and dejected with grief as men usually are with age Now as new Wine when it ferments will burst old Bottles that are weak and crasie so such transports of joy as are occasioned by the presence of the Bridegroom will dispel all sorrow from our minds and run out in all expressions of inward satisfaction and therefore will spoil our mourning and fasting This is the account why the Disciples could not fast while Christ was with them but when he should be taken from them then they should fast If this be the true interpretation of the place as the very aptness of the application perswades me it is then our Reconciler is at a loss for here is not one word of indulging the weakness of his Disciples and it seems very strange to me that any man should think that by old Bottles our Saviour should represent the weakness of his Disciples and forbear putting new Wine into them imposing the severe discipline of fasting upon them for fear of breaking these old Bottles when no man yet ever refused to put new Wine into old Bottles for fear of breaking the Bottle but for fear of losing the Wine which makes the application very absurd But yet let us suppose that our Saviour out of condescention to the weakness of his Disciples did not impose fasting on them what follows hence Why it plainly follows that the Governours of the Church must not impose any Rites and Ceremonies of Worship things much inferiour to this duty of fasting upon Dissenters when they do tend to the ruine and
disadvantage of so many Souls as are made Schismaticks upon this account Let us then briefly consider what likeness or affinity there is between these two cases 1. The Fasts of which the Dispute is here are private and voluntary Fasts such as men imposed upon themselves or observed in imitation of their Sect and Party or in obedience to the directions of their several Masters Christ imposed no such Fasts upon his Disciples therefore the Governours of the Church must not prescribe the Rites and Ceremonies of publick Worship though in such matters Christ conformed himself and taught his Disciples to conform to the Rules and Orders of their Synagogues which were all as much of humane institution as our Ceremonies are which is an admirable way of arguing The observing or not observing private and voluntary Fasts though it might offend some superstitious Pharisees was no affront to publick Authority nor made any alteration or confusion in publick Worship and therefore was not of that consequence whatever our Reconciler thinks as dissenting from publick Constitutions This Christ never indulged his Disciples in nor has the Church any reason to do it 2. This Indulgence was but temporary during our Saviour's abode with them on Earth but he tells them when he should be taken from them then they should fast And the ancient Writers look upon this saying to be a kind of Institution of the Quadrigesimal Fast and will our Reconciler argue â—rom a short Indulgence for a year or two granted to the Disciples by Christ to prove a perpetual Indulgence to the end of the World to be granted to Dissenters For if his Arguments are good they will last for ever Christ did not intend that his Disciples should be always Children nor has he imposed upon his Church to indulge such childish weakness and fancies for ever 3. Fasting was a very severe duty very afflictive both to mind and body and therefore there might be some reason for our Saviour to forbear commanding it for some time But what severity is there in the Ceremonies of our Church What mighty trouble is it to kneel at the Sacrament What offence is a white Linnen garment to the eye What disturbance does the signe of the Cross made with the gentle motion of the finger cause But though these Ceremonies are not grievous in themselves yet they are burdensom to the Conscience Let him shew then that our Saviour had any regard in this to a doubtful or scrupulous Conscience and I will grant it a good proof How could any Jew scruple the lawfulness of fasting which was so often commanded and recommended in their Law I am sure all the ancient Writers take notice onely of the severity of the Duty not of its burdensomness to the Conscience as the reason of our Saviour's Indulgence Well but he tells us that Theophylact and St. Chrysostom say That herein Christ gave them a Rule that when they should convert the World they also should condescend and behave themselves towards them with the greatest meekness Whether Christ intended this or not in what he now said to be sure it is a good Rule and that which the Apostles carefully observed they indulged the believing Jews in the observation of the Mosaical Law and bore with many weaknesses and infirmities both in Jews and Gentiles But did this meekness extend to suffer every man to worship God as he pleased Did they prescribe no Rules or Orders or Ceremonies of Worship Or did they prescribe such Rules without exacting obedience to them Did they suffer any Christians to dispute their Authority in such cases And was it thought an act of meekness and gentleness to do so It is strange then that it should never be thought so in after-Ages wherein the Church exercised an absolute and uncontroulable Power in all such matters and no Christian ever pretended to dispute their Authority But the Prophet Isaiah describes our Saviour as one who will not break the bruised reed nor quench the smoaking flax and who will gather his lambs with his arm and carry them in his bosom and shall gently lead those that are with young Well we readily grant that our Saviour was the most kind and gentle Master that ever was but does this signifie that he would give no Laws about Worship Or that if any person scrupled these Laws he would not insist upon it but give them their liberty to worship God as they pleased If Christ was a kind and merciful Lord without this his Ministers also may exercise great lenity and gentleness without prostituting their Authority or the Worship of God to the ignorance or giddiness or frowardness of Professors Christ gave very easie and gentle Laws instructed his Hearers with great mildness and calmness bore their dulness and infidelity their indignities and affronts with admirable patience convers'd even with Publicans and Sinners to gain them to repentance encouraged the least beginnings and cherish'd the first and weak Essays of Faith but if they would be his Disciples he expected they should submit to his Authority and Laws and still expects that they should submit to that Authority he has plac'd in his Church And if Church-Governours use this mildness and gentleness in their Laws and in their behaviour though they assert their own Authority and exact obedience to their Laws they need not fear the censure of the Shepherds of Israel which our Reconciler so charitably threatens them with The diseased have you not strengthned neither have you healed that which was sick neither have you bound up that which was broken neither have you brought again that which was driven away neither have you sought that which was lost III. His next Argument is a wonderful one That Christ took compassion on the Iews as Sheep without a Shepherd that he went about preaching himself that he sent his Disciples to preach that he commands his Disciples to pray that God would send forth more Labourers into his Harvest The Query then is Whether they do conform to this Example or the matter of this Prayer who do exclude so many Servants of the Lord from labouring in his Harvest for a thing indifferent Truly I think they may though they excluded the Reconciler into the bargain for thanks be to God it is not now with us asit was in our Saviour's days at the first preaching of the Gospel God has now sent out numerous Labourers into his Vineyard men of Learning Piety and Diligence more indeed than there is entertainment or employment for And the Christian Church notwithstanding this Prayer of our Saviour never scrupled casting Schismatical Presbyters out of Christ's Vineyard But has our Reconciler the face to say that they are shut out meerly for indifferent things when they themselves give another account of it Renouncing of the Covenant kept them out a great while Reordination Episcopal Government a National Church Liturgies c. and are all these indifferent things But the dissenting Preachers