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
in which Religion is not concerned and another thing to eat or not to eat out of regard to the Law of Moses which was the Dispute between the Jew and Gentile and which is the case wherein St. Paul exhorts them to the exercise of mutual charity and forbearance Now let our Reconciler speak his conscience freely whether there be any thing alike in these two cases or whether there be the same reason to indulge a Dissenter in his scruples about indifferent things which never were commanded nor forbidden by any divine Law as there was at that time to indulge the Jews in the observation of the Law of Moses which they knew was given by God and had been in all Ages till that day religiously observed by them from the time it was first given and which they thought did â—till as much oblige them as ever The Dispute is not about the lawful use of indifferent things but about the obligation of a divine Law and though it was very reasonable to indulge the Jews for a time in observing the Law till it should be repealed in such an evident manner as to leave no reasonable scruple about it yet it can never be reasonable to indulge men in their scruples about indifferent things because there never was nor never will be any such reason for these scruples as ought to be indulged But our Reconciler in answer to what Dr. Falkner had urged That the Apostle in this Chapter 14 Rom. is not treating about and therefore not against the Rules of Order in the service of God meaning by that expression the imposed Ceremonies adds That still the sequel is firm for the Apostle may dispute upon another subject and yet lay down such Principles and use such Arguments as equally confute the pressing or imposing of those Ceremonies as the Conditions of Communion when such an imposition will silence many able Ministers and involve many Myriads in the guilt of Schism and Separation from the Church Now to this I answer 1. This may be sometimes true but then the subjects must be near of kin and there must be something contained in the Argument which indifferently relates to all other cases which are of a like nature 2. But yet whatever the Argument be it depends wholly upon a parity of Reason and cannot challenge the same authority in any other case as it hath in that to which it is immediately applied The Arguments the Apostle uses to perswade Jews and Gentiles not to judge and censure each other upon account of observing or not observing the Law of Moses are St. Paul's Arguments as applied to that case but are onely our Reconciler's Arguments as applied to the Ceremonies of the Church of England and have no more authority than he has nor any greater strength than his reasoning gives them And therefore he imposes upon his Readers when he pretends to dispute against the Impositions of our Church from the authority of St. Paul and confesses at the same time that St. Paul does not say one word about the matter He ought plainly to declare that there is nothing in Scripture which expresly condemns the Impositions of our Church but there are some Arguments used by Christ and his Apostles upon other occasions which he thinks by a parity of Reason condemns these Impositions But to pretend Scripture against us when he cannot produce any one Scripture which primarily relates to the imposition of indifferent things is to set up his own Reasonings for Scripture though they are generally such as few men will allow to be senâ—e Our Saviour's and St. Paul's Arguments are Scripture when applied to those cases to which they apply them but when they are applied to other purposes though the words are Scripture still yet this new application of them is not and I would desire my Readers to observe this that though our Reconciler has alleadged numerous places of Scripture yet he has not one Scripture-proof against the Church of England the words are Scripture but applied by him to other purposes than the Scripture intended 3. But yet parity of Reason where it is plain and evident is a very good Argument and therefore here I will joyn issue with him and make it appear that the Apostles Arguments in the 14th of the Romans whereby he perswades them to mutual charity and forbearance in reference to the Rites and Ceremonies of the Mosaical Law cannot by any parity of Reason be applied to the Ceremonies of the Church of England Now I observed before that there are two distinct parts in this Chapter and Arguments proper to each and though our Reconciler confounds them I shall consider them distinctly First The first part perswades them not to judge or censure or break Communion with each other for the sake of such different customs Him that is weak in the faith receive that is receive to Communion which the Reconciler himself confesses to be the true sence of it but not to doubtful disputations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without judging of each others differing opinions and perswasions of things For one believeth he may eat all things another who is weak eateth herbs This is the matter about which they differed The Gentile Converts believed that they were free from the Law of Moses which made a difference between clean and unclean meats and therefore might eat any thing the Jew who was weak in the Faith and was not yet perswaded of his freedom from the Mosaical Law abstained from all forbidden meats and fed on herbs Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not Let not the Gentile despise the Jew as ignorant of the Mystery of the Gospel and that liberty which is purchased by Christ and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth let not the Jew condemn and reject the Gentiles as profane and unclean persons with whom they ought not to converse much less to receive them into their Communion because they do not observe the Law of Moses So that the Apostle's designe in these words is to prevent that Schism which was likely to be occasioned between the Jewish and Gentile Converts upon account of the Law of Moses he does not say that either Jews should yield to Gentiles or Gentiles to Jews but each of them retaining their own liberty in these matters they should still own each other as Christian Brethren and live in Christian Communion together which shews how remote this case is from the Dispute between the Church and Dissenters for Jews and Gentiles notwithstanding their Disputes about the obligation of the Law of Moses might joyn together in all the acts of Christian Worship whereas the Dispute between the Church and Dissenters is about the very acts of Worship and therefore while this difference lasts they cannot joyn in one Communion of which more anon Which is a plain proof that nothing of all this relates to our present case But before I consider the Apostles reasons for
superstitious or idolatrous which another thinks a decent Rite of Worship Now is it possible for the Israelites to sacrifice the abomination of the AEgyptians before their eyes and not give offence to them Is it possible for men to joyn as Friends and Brethren in such acts of Worship which they cannot agree to perform in the same manner Is it possible for him that sits at receiving the Lords Supper and believes that kneeling is superstitious and Idolatrous not to censure or deride or despise him that kneels Or is it possible for him who kneels and believes sitting to be a rude and unmannerly posture not to be grieved or offended at him who sits And will you call this worshipping God together when men cannot agree about it but one thinks his Brother idolatrous or superstitious and he in requital thinks him rude or prophane For my part I think it much better they should be parted than spoil each othersDevotion by such mutual antipathies and reciprocal censures No you will say there is no necessity of either that they should judge and censure each other or that they should separate St. Paul gives a better Rule in such cases to bear with each other that the strong should not judge the weak nor the weak despise the strong But what is the meaning of this That he who believes kneeling at the Sacrament to be superstitious should not judge and censure him whom he sees kneel as guilty of Superstition Or that he who believes sitting at the Sacrament to be rude and prophane should not judge him whom he sees to sit as guilty of rudeness and prophaneness This is absolutely impossible and implies a contradiction that we must and must not believe superstition to be superstition nor prophaneness to be prophaneness or that I can readily joyn in acts of Worship with him whom I believe in those very acts of Worship to be either superstitious or prophane I may judge charitably of men whom I believe to be guilty of some errours and mistakes and superstitious customs in matters which do not relate to Christian Worship I may charitably hope that God will not reject men for such mistakes and therefore may think it reasonable to receive them to Christian communion while they comply with the Rules and Orders of it which was the case between the Jews and Gentiles as I have already proved but it is impossible to joyn in communion with such men without judging and censuring those whom I believe in those very acts of Worship in which I joyn with them to be either superstitious or prophane And therefore though such men should worship in the same Church or Religious Assemblies yet they do not worship God in one Communion such men will naturally separate from each other and it is I think more desirable that they should The sum of this Argument is this That though St. Paul required and exhorted the believing Jews and Gentiles to bear with each other in such Disputes as did not concern the Christian Worship it does not hence follow that the Governours of the Church must not prescribe any Rules of Worship for fear of offending any scrupulous and ignorant Christians or that they are bound to alter them as soon as they perceive any such offence which inevitably brings nothing but Confusion and Disorder into the Christian Church 4. Another material difference between the case of the believing Jews and our Dissenters is this That the forbearance the Apostle pleads for was in order to cement Jews and Gentiles into one body and to unite them in one Christian communion to prevent Schisms and Separations between them and therefore he commands them Him that is weak in the faith receive that is into the communion of the Church to worship God together according to the general Rules of Christian Worship For the Disputes between them as I observed before did not concern Christian Worship and therefore a mutual forbearance in other things about which they differed would unite them into one body Thus he exhorts the Philippians Nevertheless whereto we have already attained let us walk by the same rule let us mind the same thing Believing Jews and Gentiles were both agreed as to the truth of Christianity and what concerned Christian Worship though they differed about some Mosaical observances and therefore the Apostle exhorts them notwithstanding their other Disputes to unite in Christian Worship about which they were all agreed This occasioned that Dispute between St. Paul and St. Peter which we have an account of in the Epistle to the Galatians They were both agreed that the Gentile Converts ought not to be circumcised they were agreed also that the Jewish Converts should be indulged in the observation of the Law of Moses and that both Jews and Gentiles should forbear each other in these matters and therefore St. Peter himself at Antioch before some Jewish Brethren came thither did eat with the Gentiles but when some believing Jews came to Antioch for fear of giving offence and scandal to them he separated himself from the believing but uncircumcised Gentiles Now the natural effect of this was to make a Schism between the Jewish and Gentile Converts to make two Churches one of Jewish the other of Gentile Christians This St. Paul could not endure and therefore publickly rebukes Peter for it He was willing to indulge Jewish Converts in their weakness but not to indulge them in a Schism which this very Indulgence was designed to prevent Now indeed mutual forbearance of each other when it tends to unite Christians into one body and communion is a great and necessary Duty but St. Paul never thought it a Duty when it would not prevent a Schism much less when it is likely to prove the foundation of eternal Schisms Now I have already proved that the removal of our Ceremonies and such abatements as our Reconciler pleads for as they are not the occasion so neither would they be the cure of our Schisms to be sure Indulgence in these matters would neither prevent nor heal our Schisms as that forbearance which the Apostle pleads for in this place infallibly would Their Dispute did not concern matters of Christian Worship and therefore if they indulged one another in those things wherein they differed as in eating or not eating those meats which were forbidden by the Law of Moses they might very well agree in those things wherein they were already agreed as they were in all matters of Christian Worship and therefore they might worship God together in Christian Assemblies as one Body and one Church which did effectually prevent a Schism But while Dissenters differ from the Church about the Rites and Modes of Worship it is impossible they should worship God together and to grant Indulgence to such different apprehensions which the Apostle pleads for in the case of the Jews would onely make a legal Schism and to remove these scrupled Ceremonies as I have already proved would
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
as we may suppose from his own Character of himself by a dignified Clergy-man of our Church And that he also who pleads for separation from Communion with us on account of those few scrupled Ceremonies and disputable Expressions of our Liturgie is sinful and unreasonable as well as mischievous doth also speak the words of truth and soberness or that one should not impose these things as the conditions of Communion and the other should not when they are once imposed refuse Communion upon that account i. e. the Church sins in imposing and the Dissenter sins in disobeying such Impositions The Church is in the right as to the lawfulness of what she imposes but sins in the exercise of her Authority in commanding lawful things The Dissenter is in the right in affirming these Impositions to be the sin of the Imposers and yet sins in not obeying them that is the Dissenter judges aright of the duty of his Superiours but is mistaken in his own And if he can reconcile these things it will be one good step towards a Reconciliation Governours indeed may be over-rigorous and severe in the exercise of a just Authority but I dare not say that they always sin when they are so but that they do not act so wisely or so charitably as they might do For the Wisdom and Charity of Government is so nice a thing and subject to so many difficulties that the case of Governours would be very hard should every mistake in such matters be a sin and Government it self must necessarily lose its Sacredness and Authority if every Subject may censure the Wisdom and Charity of lawful Commands and Impositions and vote them to be mischievous and sinful if they do not agree with his Notions of Prudence and Charity All that Subjects are concerned to enquire about the Commands of their Superiours is concerning the lawfulness or unlawfulness of them if they go any farther they make themselves Governours not Subjects and therefore it is not very modest to condemn the Commands otherwise civilly called Impositions of Superiours as sinful and mischievous when it is lawful to obey them And he who thinks Dissenters do ill in refusing Obedience does not well himself in charging the Church with doing what is sinful and mischievous in imposing But then on the other hand if the Church do sin in imposing she either exceeds her Authority and Commission and so imposes without Authority or else she imposes something unlawful and in either of these cases no man can blame Dissenters for refusing Communion with the Church in such matters For no man is bound to communicate in unlawful things nor to obey where there is no Authority to command And therefore our Reconciler can never reconcile these two Propositions That the Church sins in imposing the Dissenter sins in rejecting such Impositions and in refusing Communion where it cannot be had without submitting to â—hem For though we are bound to submit to the Supreme Powers when they act illegally because we are bound never to resist yet we are not bound to yield an Active Obedience to any illegal Commands but the Church considered as a Church or Ecclesiastical Body having no external and compulsory Authority if she commands what she has no Authority to command no man is bound to obey her and if this occasion a Schism she her self is the Schismatick But to shew how ominously our Reconciler stumbles at the threshold let us state the case a little otherwise The great reason he assignes throughout his Book to prove that the Church sins in these Impositions is that there is a great number of men among us who either scruple the lawfulness or positively afsert the unlawfulness of them and this occasions a Schism in the Church To prevent which the Church is bound in charity to the Souls of men not to command such scrupled and unnecessary Ceremonies and sins if she does Now in this case also the sin and guilt can lie but on one side For if the Dissenters notwithstanding this may and ought to conform to such Impositions then there is no necessity upon that account for the Church to alter her Constitutions nor does she sin in imposing if they may not then the Dissenters do not sin in rejecting such Impositions If some particular Governours are acted by ill principles this contracts a personal guilt on themselves but it neither excuses Dissenters nor affects the Government while they command nothing but what the Church has Authority to command and what may be lawfully obeyed but if the meer scruples of Dissenters will make the Commands of the Church sinful when there is no other fault to be found in her Constitutions but that Disfenters will not obey them this overthrows all government in the Church So that our Reconciler who is resolved to prove both these Propositions that the Church sins in imposing and the Dissenter in breaking Communion for such Impositions will have much ado to reconcile his two Books together One part of his Task is certainly needless for if he can but convince the World of the truth of either part he effectually does the businâ—ss If he can convince the Disâ—enter that he ought to conform to these Impositions the Church may impose without sin or if he can perswade our Governours that it is sinful to impose there is no need to deal with Dissenters and therefore methinks it had savoured of more modesty and greater deference to Authority to have tried his skill upon Dissenters first But our Author by over-doing is like to spoil all For it is very probable he will convince Dissenters of what they believed before that the Church cannot impose such things from whence in spight of all his Logick they will conclude that they are not bound to obey and he will convince the Government that the Dissenter ought to conform and sins in not doing it which justifies their Impositions And thus he ends just where he began Nay could he convince the Church that she ought not to impose upon Dissenters while their scruples last and the Dissenters that they ought not to scruple these things nor disobey them when they are commanded we may expect it will take up some time to adjust the dispute after all this between the Church and the Dissenters which of them shall yield for both sides cannot yield unless we will say that the Church must leave off imposing and then the Dissenters must begin to obey that the Church must no longer command and then the Dissenter is bound to obey when no body commands So that could he effectually prove that the Church and the Dissenter are both guilty of sin the one in imposing the other in refusing Obedience yet I do not see what Reconciliation this is like to make For it is not enough to reconcile two contending Parties to prove that they are both in the fault unless you can propose some middle terms of accommodation or prove that though they are both
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
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
this I must a little more particularly examine what he means by receiving the weak for though our Reconciler and I agree that this signifies to receive to Communion yet I find we differ very much about that what is meant by receiving to Communion as will appear from a long Paragraph wherein he opposes Dr. Falkner about this matter which seems to me to be the very perfection and quintessence of Gibberish By receiving one another I understand owning each other as Members of the same Body i. e. of the same Christian Communion a necessary consequence or duty of which is actually to communicate with each other in all acts of Christian Worship or as Dr. Falkner expresses it in other words That they ought to be owned and judged as Christians notwithstanding these different observations He forbiddeth the weaker Iews to condemn the other Iews or Gentiles as if they were not possess'd with the fear of God because they observed not the Law of Moses and prohibiteth those others from despising or disowning these weaker Iews as not having embraced Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 3. signifying here so to despise as withal to reject and disclaim as Mark 9.12 Acts. 4.11 1 Cor. 1.28 because they observed the Rites of Iudaism And therefore he adds That if by a parity of Reason we will apply this to any other case it must be to condemn them who press their own practices or judgments in things unnecessary as being the essential and necessary points of Religion and Christianity and thereupon do undertake to censure all those who differ from them in such lesser things as having no true Religion or inward relation to or communion with Iesus Christ though they live never so conscientiously and act according to the best apprehensions they can attain What now has our Reconciler to say to this why this is not the true sence of receiving them to own them for Christians as Members of the Body of Christ and such as they ought actually to communicate with Why he says This is tacitly presumed in all the Apostle's Arguments and without that concession they are not cogent and of this the miraculous gifts of the Spirit with which both parties were endowed were a sufficient testimony but he declares that they were to be received into communion and that because God had received them He doth not only forbid the strong to disown these weak persons as not having embraced Christ for they who thus conceived most suitably unto that Principle deny what the Apostle here asserts of these weak persons viz. that God had received them that they were Christian Brethren or that Christ died for them or that they were the work of God and so all the Apostles Arguments must be to men of such opinions weak and unconcluding but he declares that they should joyn with them in Christian Fellowship or should admit them into Communion with them as God did with him And having repeated over the same thing again almost in the same words he concludes Therefore the designe of the Apostle in this Chapter plainly is to condemn those persons who for these things did take upon them to despise judge and refuse Communion with those who differed thus in judgment and practice from them The meaning of which is that both Jews and Gentiles did own each other to be very good Christians and Members of the same Church and Body of Christ notwithstanding that one observed the Law of Moses and the other did not but yet they had taken a pique against each other for these different customs and would not receive each other to actual Communion though there was nothing else to hinder this actual Communion but the dispute about the observation of the Law which by their own confession was no hindrance at all since they did believe that those who observed it and those who did not observe it were both of them very good Christians Which is so ridiculous a Comment upon the Text that I could wish it had been spared for the credit of Protestant Reconcilers But the onely way to end this Dispute is by considering the plain matter of fact Now it is evident that the Jews did look upon all persons as unclean who were not circumcised and did not observe the Law For which reason God instructed Peter by a Vision not to call any man common or unclean and the believing Jews retained the same apprehensions even of the believing Gentiles after this matter was determined by the Synod at Ierusalem as is evident from that Contest between St. Peter and St. Paul at Antioch which is generally supposed to be after the Council at Ierusalem The opinion the Jews had about the Law was that the observation of it was necessary to salvation So the Jews taught the Brethren at Antioch Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses ye cannot be saved which occasioned the determination of the Council at Ierusalem Thus it is evident the Jews at Rome to whom the Apostle wrote this Epistle did believe also and therefore the designe of the Epistle is to prove justification by the Faith of Christ without the works of the Mosaical Law Now men of such Perswasions as these could not believe the Gentiles to be perfect Christians because they rejected something w ch they thought as essential as any thing else in Christianity viz. Circumcision and the observation of the Law and for this reason they judged and condemned them as no Members of the Church which they could not be without being incorporated by Circumcision and observing the Law and therefore rejected them from their Communion As for the Gentiles though we do not read that they ever rejected the Communion of the Jews who observed the Law yet this Chapter would perswade us that at this time they were very near it at Rome and therefore the Command to receive the weak seems to be given to the Gentile believers who were most numerous and prevalent at Rome to receive the Jewish Christians into their Communion and not to despise the weak not to reject them out of contempt and scorn as a sort of such imperfect Christians as scarce deserved the name of Christians but were still more the Disciples of Moses than of Christ. So that the reason why both Jews and Gentiles were apt to reject each other from Communion was because those who did so had no opinion of each others Christianity for it is both a contradiction to the account we have of those times and absurd in it self that they should believe one another to be goodChristians and yet refuse to joyn in Christian Communion upon such Disputes as did neither hinder their Communion with each other nor prejudice their Christianity which is as humoursome a Schism as Dissenters themselves are guilty of and such as there is no Example of in the first Ages of the Church But says our Reconciler Were the designes of the Apostle that which
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-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-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
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
Church and State it will necessarily occasion very great inconveniences Well but we must not set these little things in competition with the more weighty duties and concerns of Love and Peace No God forbid we should But does our Reconciler know what a competition between two Laws means I know but of two ways that this can happen either when they contradict each each other or are so contrary in their natures that they can never be both observed or when there is a competition of time that it so happens that we cannot observe both at the same time as when we cannot at the same time go to Church to serve God and stay at home to attend a sick Father or Friend in which cases our Saviour has laid down a general Rule That God prefers Mercy bâ—foâ—e Sacrifice But now upon neither of these accounts can there be any competition pretended between the Rites and Ceremonies of Religion and the great duties of Love and Peace and Unity and Edification For cannot men observe the Orders and Constitutions of the Church as to the external Rites of Worship and love one another and preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church at the same time Indeed can there be a better means to preserve Love and Peace and Unity among Christians and to promote mutual Edification than an Uniformity in Religious Worship since it is evident that nothing breeds greater Dissentions and Emulations and Envyings among Christians than different and contrary Modes of Worship And if this be so then there is no competition between the Ceremonies of Religion and the Love and Peace of Christians and consequently no reason why the Governours of the Church may not command both though the particular Ceremonies of Religion be acknowledged to be small things in comparison with the great duties of Love and Peace Yes you 'll say the imposition of these Ceremonies does come in competition with these great duties of Love and Peace and Unity because there are a great many who quarrel at them and divide the Church upon that account and if these controverted Ceremonies were removed Love and Unity would be restored among us Now supposing this to be true which I have already proved not to be true what is this to the Governours of the Church If they impose nothing which is inconsistent with Love and Peace and Unity then the imposition of these things in it self considered cannot be inconsistent with these great Gospel-duties for if what we command be consistent with Love and Unity then the Command otherwise called the Imposition must be so too It is not the command or imposition of these things which is inconsistent with Love and Unity but refusal of obedience to such lawful Commands which is not the fault of the Governours but of the Subjects not of those who command but of those who will not obey and therefore these are Arguments proper to be urged against Dissenters but not against the Governours of the Church As to give you a familiar instance of this A Master commands his Servant to put on a clean Band to wait at Table the Servant refuses to do it upon this the whole Family is divided some take part with the Master others with the Servant in steps a Reconciler and tells the Master he did very ill to cause such Divisions in his Family that Love and Peace and Unity were more considerable duties than a Servants wearing a clean Band which therefore ought not to come in competition with them Pray Sir says the Master preach this Doctrine to my Servants and not to me I have commanded nothing but what was fit to be done and I will have it done or he and all his Partners shall turn out oâ— my Family Now let one who is a Master judge whether the Master or the Reconciler be in the right The breach of Love and Peace and Unity is not the effect though it be the consequent which our Reconciler I perceive cannot distinguish of the Command or Imposition but of the disobedience and therefore when the Command is fit and reasonable cannot be charged upon him who commands but upon him who disobeys But besides this I observe that Christian Love and Unity and Peace in the Writings of the New Testament signifie the Communion of the Church and how kind soever they may be to each other upon other accounts men do not love like Christians who do not worship God together in the Communion of the same Church wherein they live and there can be no Edification out of the Church Now if there be no way of uniting men in one Communion but by an uniformity of Worship then to prescribe the Rules and Orders and Ceremonies of Worship is as necessary as Christian Love and Peace and Unity is Men who worship God after a different manner must and will worship in different places too and in distinct Communions and those who will not submit to the Injunctions of a just Authority will never consent in any form of Worship and therefore this may multiply Schisms but cannot cure them This is all perfect demonstration from the experience of our late Confusions when the pulling down the Church of England did not lessen our Divisions but increase them But our Reconciler confirms this Argument that the Governours of the Church ought not to insist on such little things when they come in competition with Love and Peace and Unity c. from the example of God himself who was not so much concerned for the ceremonial part of his Worship but that he would permit the violation of what he had prescribed about it upon accounts of lesser moment than these are He instances in the Law of Circumcision which was not observed in the Wilderness because this would hinder the motion of the Camp In the Law of the Passover which was to be observed on the first month and the 14th day of the month but God expresly provided that if any man were unclean or in a journey far off at that time they should observe it on the 14th of the second month in the Sabbatick rest which admitted of works of necessity and mercy which were never forbidden by God in that Law nor intended to be Now are not these admirable proofs That God is not so much concerned for the ceremonial part of his Law but that upon some accounts he would permit the violation of what he had prescribed when it does not appear that he ever did so As for the neglect of Circumcision in the Wilderness I doubt not but God had given express order about it otherwise Moses who was faithful in all his house and a punctual observer of all the divine Laws and Statutes would never have neglected it and this I may say with as much reason as our Reconciler can produce for Gods permission of it without an express Order and somewhat more As for the Passover let our Reconciler consider again whether the observation of
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
A VINDICATION OF The Rights OF Ecclesiastical Authority BEING AN ANSWER To the First Part OF THE Protestant Reconciler By WILL. SHERLOCK D. D. Master of the TEMPLE LONDON Printed for Abel Swalle at the Vnicorn at the West-end of St. Paul's Church-yard 1685. who exclude so many Labourers for things indifferent p. 212 His fourth Argument from our Saviour's command not to scandalize little ones p. 213 What is meant by little ones p. 214 What it is to scandalize them p. 215 His fifth Argument from the Woe denounced against those who shut up the Kingdom of Heaven p. 216 How the Pharisees shut the Kingdom of Heaven ibid. What is meant by heavy burdens p. 218 And what it is our Saviour condemns under that notion p. 219 His sixth Argument that Christ would not suffer his Disciples to forbid that man who wrought miracles in his Name but did not follow him and therefore dissenting Preachers who renounce the Communion of the Church must not be forbid to preach p. 220 His seventh Argument from Christ's laying down his life for his Sheep to prove that the Church must part with her Ceremonies for them p. 223 His last Argument from Christ's Prayer for the Vnity of the Church ibid. CHAP. V. The Answer to our Reconciler's Argument drawn from the 14 of Rom. p. 225 There may be some cases wherein forbearance is reasonable others wherein it is neither prudent nor reasonable ibid. And therefore we cannot argue from the case of the Iews to the case of the Dissenters unless they appear to be the same ibid. St. Paul in the 14 Rom. onely exhorts the Iewish and Gentile Converts to mutual forbearance in such cases which had already been determined by the highest authority in the Church 226 And therefore it is impertinently alleadged to prove that the Governours of the Church must not impose any indifferent Ceremonies which are scrupled by Dissenters 227 The Decree of the Council at Jerusalem the foundation of this Apostolical forbearance ibid. Private charity may be exercised in such cases where publick authority can make no determination in favour of the scrupulous 231 The Dispute between the Church and Dissenters of a different nature from that between the Iews and Gentiles the one concerns indifferent things the other the observation of the Law of Moses 235 No Dispute about the use of indifferent things in Scripture nor any exhortation to forbearance in such matters 236 An Answer to the Reconciler's Argument which he alleadges to make it probable that St. Paul in this Chapter does not refer to the observation of the Law of Moses ibid. So that this Chapter does not concern the Dispute about indifferent things 243 The Apostle did not plead for indulgence to the Iews in the observation of the Law of Moses under the notion of an indifferent thing ibid. The reason of his different treatment of the Churches of Rome and Galatia 244 Whether though the case of the Iews and Dissenters be different yet by a parity of Reason the same indulgence ought to be granted to both 247 The nature of such Arguments from a parity of Reason ibid. That there is no parity of Reason between these two cases 249 The Arguments the Apostle uses in this 14 Chap. very proper to the case of the Iews but not applicable to the case of our Dissenters proved at large ibid. c. What the Apostle means by receiving one another and Dr. Falkner vindicated from the Reconciler's Objections The Apostles first Arg. That God has received them the meaning of it that it is peculiar to that case of Iews and Gentiles and not applicable to Dissenters 257 c. 2 Arg. that they must not judge another mans servant 262 That this Arg. relates onely to such matters as God has determined by his own immediate authority 264 3 Arg. that they acted out of conscience towards God 265 Whether every man must be permitted to act according to his own Conscience 266 God will judge the Consciences of men and therefore grants no such liberty as this 267 Civil Magistrates ought not to regard mens Consciences in making or executing Laws for the publick good 268 Nor is there any obligation on the Governours of the Church to do this 269 What St. Paul means by regarding a day to the Lord 270 To do any thing to the Lord does not meerly signifie a private perswasion that God has commanded or forbid it 272 The Apostles Exhortation not to offend a weak Brother 274 What the scandal was of which the Apostle speaks 275 Who this weak Brother is and whether this be applicable to Dissenters 276 The offence which was given was a supposed violation of an express Law of God 277 The nature of a criminal scandal 279 The danger of offending these weak Iewish Brethren which the Apostle warns them against was lest they should renounce the Christian Faith and fall back into Iudaism 282 The weak in Faith who are to be indulged signifies those who are not well confirmed in the truth of Christianity 284 The same indulgence not to be granted to Schismaticks though ignorant and weak in understanding ibid. The Reasons whereby the Apostle disswades them from giving scandal 287 A Paraphrase on the 14 15 c. verses of the 14 Rom. ibid. These Arguments to avoid scandal concern onely the exercise of every mans private liberty 292 That this compliance must be in such matters wherein Religion and religious Worship is not concerned 293 Meat and Drink does not signifie the Externals of Religious Worship 294 Nor does Righteousness and Peace c. signifie all the Essentials of Religion 296 The mistake of Reconcilers that the Externals of Religion are nothing worth and of small account with God 297 This Apostolical Exhortation to avoid scandal concerns onely such cases wherein we are not bound to make a publick profession of our Faith 298 The meaning of Hast thou Faith have it to thy self 299 What is meant by Him that doubteth 302 How far the Apostle allows that every man must be left to the conduct of his own Conscience This extends onely to such cases where every mans Conscience is his onely Rule not where Conscience it self has a Rule 303 Let every man be fully perswaded in his own mind is a safe and a sure Rule when there is no other Law to govern us 306 This proved to be the meaning of the Apostle ibid. The Case of liberty of Conscience briefly stated 304 A short Recapitulation of this Discourse by comparing the case of the Iews with the case of Dissenters 311 The forbearance St. Paul pleads for had no influence upon Christian Worship it neither destroyed the Vniformity of Worship nor divided the Communion of the Church what the Reconciler pleads for must do one or both 321 Dr. Stillingfleet vindicated 322 The forbearance St. Paul pleads for was in order to prevent Schisms which our Reconciler's forbearance cannot do 333 This indulgence to the Iews was
against her uncharitable Impositions And when he has published a Book against the Constitutions of our Church agreed on by the wisdom of the Convocation and establisht by Act of Parliament when he has already the most mature and deliberate judgment of Church and State it looks like a very hypocritical piece of modesty a downright Challenge to the whole Clergy to cry out as he does Teach me my Reverend Brethren and I will hold my peace cause me to understand wherein I have erred and I will thankfully yea I will publickly retract it Any body I think but a Protestant Reconciler would call this libelling the Church and hectoring and out-braving all his Mothers Children How the rest of my Brethren will digest this outragious Contempt of Church-Authority I cannot tell for my part I cannot bear it but am resolved to do my weak endeavours to vindicate my dear Mother from the rudeness and insolence of her undutiful Son And in order to this I shall consider what it is he contends for wherein we agree and where we part and fairly debate on which side the truth lies The Proposition which he undertakes to prove is contained in these words That things indifferent which may be changed and altered without sin or violation of Gods Laws ought not especially under our present circumstances to be imposed by Superiours as the Conditions of Communion or as Conditions without which none shall minister in sacred things though called to that work and none shall be partakers of the publick Ordinances which Christ hath left to be the ordinary means of Grace and of Salvation to mankind bâ—t shall upon refusal to submit unto them for ever be excluded from the Church and from the Priviledges belonging to the Members of it Where by indifferent things which may be changed and altered without sin or violation of Gods Laws it is plain he means whatever is not expresly commanded by God and so must include all the Externals of Worship Government and Discipline which are not enjoyned by a divine Law That these ought not to be imposed signifies that it is sinful and mischievous to impose them as he expresly asserted before and which all his Arguments are designed to prove viz. that Governours sin in it To impose signifies onely to command and to impose as Conditions of Communion signifies no more than to impose though it sounds bigger For the Church makes such indifferent things the Conditions of Communion in no other sence than as she commands those of her Communion to worship God in such a manner and rejects those which will not which is nothing more than to command as to command is opposed to leaving every one at liberty to worship God as he pleases So that if the Church have not Authority to make these indifferent things the terms of Communion in this sence so as to reject those who will not worship God according to such Prescriptions i. e. who will not obey the Governours of the Church wherein they live then she has no power at all to command And when he adds especially in our present circumstances he refers to those Divisions and Schisms which he says are occasioned by such Impositions Whenever such Ceremonies are doubted and scrupled and made an occasion of Schism then especially it is a sin to impose them but when he says especially he plainly insinuates that it is at all times sinful and unlawful to impose such uncommanded Rites and Modes of Worship though it is a greater sin to do it when there are any who scruple the lawfulness of such Impositions This is the Doctrine of our Protestant Reconciler which I should rather have expected from a profess'd Enemy than from a pretended Advocate of the Church of England He has at once very modestly rejected all Ecclesiastical Authority in indifferent things He has condemned all the Canons and Constitutions of the Church for the orderly performance of Religious Worship from the Apostle days until this time which concern the external Circumstances and Ceremonies of Worship He has plainly renounced one of thoâ—e Articles of Religion to which he has subscribed and declared his Assent if he be a Member of our Church For Art 20. asserts That the Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies And if the Church has power to do this I suppose she may do it without sin and without asking leave of her Inferiours But though our Reconciler has stated this matter so generally as to condemn all Ecclesiastical Authority in indifferent things and has said many things which look that way in several parts of his Book yet his open and avowed designe is onely to prove the sinfulness of such Impositions when they are scrupled and made the occasion of Schisms and Divisions in the Church as he says it is at this day among us And here I shall joyn issue with him and give a particular Answer to every thing which has the least appearance of an Argument which though it will make this Answer larger than I could wish yet is necessary to stop the mouths of such pragmatical Reconcilers who are as troublesome and dangerous to the Government as Dissenters themselves CHAP. 1. Concerning the external Order and Decency of Worship and the Authority of the Church in such matters THat I may give a fair Answer to our Protestant Reconciler I shall first examine some of his Mistakes which run through his whole Book and whereon the whole Argument of his Book is founded the removing of which to men of any competent understanding would supersede the necessity of any farther Answer And they either concern 1. The usefulness of some Rites and Ceremonies of Religious Worship and the Authority of the Church in such matters Or 2. The obligations of charity to the Souls of men with the due measures and extent of it Or 3. That regard which ought to be had to an erroneous or scrupulous Conscience From these Topicks he all-along argues to prove that Church-Governours ought to alter the external Ceremonies of Worship because they are of no value in themselves and therefore charity to the Souls of men requires them in such things to condescend to the errours or scruples or weakness of their Brethren I shall begin with the first which is the fundamental Mistake on which all the rest depend and therefore must stand or fall with it and that concerns the external Order and Decency of Worship or the Authority of the Church in prescribing Rites and Ceremonies for the more decent and orderly performance of Religious Worship Now concerning this matter our Reconciler thinks that the external Ceremonies of Religion are of no account at all for publick Worship may be performed as decently and reverently without the use of those Ceremonies which are in dispute as with them For thus he expresly and dogmatically asserts That the Ceremonies which are imposed by our Church as they have nothing sinful in their nature for which Inferiours
particular Church urge this Rule of the Apostle that all things be done decently and in order in justification of their imposition of some indifferent but decent Rites and Ceremonies in religious Worship which are not commanded by God If any Church may why not the Church of England unless he can prove that our Ceremonies are indecent irreverent and disorderly If they may not then the Apostles Rule signifies nothing for it will not justifie the Governours of the Church in taking care of the Decency and Reverence of Worship And if this Rule will justifie any one Church in appointing decent Rites and Ceremonies of Worship it will equally justifie all the Churches in the World in their Rites and Ceremonies how different soever they be from each other so they be all decent and reverent And yet I suppose should the Advocates of any particular Church as for instance the Commissioners of the Savoy urge this Apostolical Rule in vindication of the Ceremonies of their own Church no man in his wits would hence conclude that they did believe the particular Ceremonies of their Church to be the Command of God and that religious Worship could not be decently or reverently performed without them which would be to condemn all other Churches which did not observe the same Rites and Ceremonies with themselves And thus all the several Churchâ—s in the World which enjoyn nothing but what contributes to the external Decency and Solemnity of Worship may by the Apostles Rule justifie themselves and yet according to this way of arguing cannot justifie themselves without condemning all other Churches which I confess is very hard to my understanding Does not such a general Rule for the Decency of Worship require that there should be some particular Rules of Decency and Order prescribed Does not such a general Rule suppose that there may be several Rules given several Rites and Ceremonies of Worship prescribed differing indeed from each other but all complying with the general Rule of Decency and Order for that is a strange general Rule which contains but one particular under it Does not such a general Rule suppose that the choice of particulars is left to the prudence of Ecclesiastical Governours while they keep themselves within the general Rule And is not the true reason of this general Rule and consequently of those particular Rules and Orders for Worship which are prescribed by vertue of this general Rule to prevent a disorderly irreverent indecent performance of religious Worship And may not Church-Governours then assigne this as a reason why they prescribe these Rules and why they will not alter them because they must not perform the publick Service indecently and irreverently If they may then their saying so does indeed suppose that those Ceremonies which they prescribe are decent and reverent but it does not suppose that there are no other decent or reverent ways of performing religious offices and that whoever does not use those Ceremonies which they institute and command must be guilty of an indecent and irreverent performance of publick Worship For that would be to overthrow the main Principle by which they act which is the authority of a general Rule which does not prescribe the particular Rules of Decency and Order and therefore supposes that there may be several and that every Church has liberty to chuse for her self In short I would desire our Reconciler to consider that if Church-Governours must not prescribe any particular Rites and Ceremonies to prevent the disorders and indecencies of Worship while there are any other Rites and Ceremonies as decent and orderly as those which they prescribe then this Apostolical Rule signifies nothing for it can never be reduced into practice As for instance suppose the French Protestants enjoyn standing at receiving the Lords Supper or at publick Prayers as the Primitive Church did on the Lords days and should assigne this reason for it that they must not suffer the Worship of God to be indecently or irreverently performed and so break that Commandment Let all things be done decently and in order presently our Reconciler has seven Arguments to oppose against them though they may all be reduc'd to one That this makes standing at the Lords Supper not to be an indifferent Ceremony of humane institution but necessary in its own nature and by a divine command antecedent to all humane Authority and that which no humane Authority can alter and therefore a necessary part of Worship For how can they say that they require their Communicants to receive standing in obedience to a divine command and because they must not worship God irreverently and indecently unless they believe that standing at the Lords Supper is not an indifferent Ceremony but such a necessary posture that he who does not stand at receiving breaks the Command of God and receives irreverently and Indecently And thus the French Church is utterly ruined and must no longer enjoyn standing at the holy Communion Well the Church of England requires kneeling for the same reason that the French Church requires standing and therefore the same Arguments are good against her and should any man have the confidence to use the same reason for sitting that they must not worship God irreverently and indecently the same Arguments would hold good against them also So that here is a general Rule given to Church-Governours to take care to preserve Decency and Order in the Worship of God and all the parts of it and yet no Church-Governours can reduce this to practice for a general Rule cannot be reduced to practice but by particular Rules and Orders and yet whoever prescribes any particular Rules of Decency and Order and insists on them to prevent irreverence and indecency in Worship falls undeâ— our Reconcilers censure and is with all humility intreated to answer seven terrible Arguments in his own vindication The plain Answer to our Reconciler then is this That the Governours of every Church are by vertue of this Apostolical Command required to prevent the indecency and irreverence of publick Worship and they have no other way of doing this but by prescribing some particular Rules of Decency and Order And though the constitutions and usages of several Churches may be very various and different from each other yet every constitution which is decent and orderly prevents the indecent and irreverent performance of publick Worship and therefore all Church-Governours may justifie such Impositions as the Commissioners at the Savoy did by saying that they must not break Gods Commandment and therefore must not suffer the publick Service to be indecently and irreverently performed and therefore must prescribe some particular Rules of Order and Decency without either making their own Rites and Ceremonies essential to the Decency of Worship or censuring and condemning the decent usages and customs of other Churches But since great part of this Controversie turns upon this hinge that it is a very trifling and inconsiderable thing to prescribe Rules for Habits
to eat together at a common Table is a civil action and a testimony of civil kindnesses and respects but when this is done upon a religious account as a testimony and expression of Christian Charity it becomes a holy Kiss and a religious Feast These Ceremonies are as acceptable to God as those Duties and Graces are which we exercise and profess in them if we be sincere but they are no parts nor acts of Worship though performed in the time of Worship This short account of the nature of these Ceremonies shews us what a ridiculous pretence it is to charge them with being Sacraments of humane Institution Some tell us that the definition our Church gives of a Sacrament belongs to such Ceremonies as these that it is an outward visible signe of an inward spiritual Grace and here they stop as if this were the full definition of a Sacrament but our Church adds given unto us and ordained by Christ himself as a means whereby we receive the same and as a pledge to assure us thereof So that there can be no such thing as a humane Sacrament because there can be no Sacrament but what is ordained by Christ. True say they but that is the fault of it that when upon other accounts it has the nature of a Sacrament it has not that authority which should make it a divine and therefore it is onely a humane Sacrament These Ceremonies then it seems would be Sacraments if they had the authority of Christ then there is one Sacrament more than they think of viz. washing the Disciples feet which was instituted by Christ himself and is as much an outward visible signe of an inward spiritual Grace as the Cross in Baptism or any other significant Ceremony can be but it wants what our Church adds to make up the nature of a Sacrament that it is ordained as a means whereby we receive this spiritual Grace and as a pledge to assure us thereof Which shews that no Ceremony how symbolical soever it be can be a Sacrament which is not the Seal of a Covenant and Promise and an instituted means for the conveyance of Grace But to let that pass the nature of these Ceremonies does not consist in this That they are outward visible signs of an inward spiritual Grace but that they are the visible Exercise or Profession of some Grace or Duty Their nature does not consist in being signifying signs to teach a Duty but in signifying the actual Exercise or Profession of some Duty and this I suppose does not make them Sacraments Secondly Let us now consider the Decency of such Ceremonies and I cannot imagine what dispute there can be about it For if the Exercise or Profession of such Vertues be decent then the external Rite and Ceremony whereby such a Profession is made if it be used in a grave manner and upon a solemn occasion and be a proper and natural signe of such a Profession must be decent too If it be a decent thing for Christians to express their mutual love and charity to each other when they come together to worship God and to offer up their united Prayers to their common Father or to feast at the Table of their common Lord and Saviour then to kiss one another and to feast at a common Table which are proper and significant expressions of mutual Charity must be decent also at such times And thus they were used by the Primitive Christians they used to kiss each other after Prayers upon which account it is called Signaculum orationis or the Seal of Prayer Thus they kissed each other before their receiving the Lords Supper and began this mysterious Supper with a Love-Feast which was a common Table for the poor and the rich And if it were decent at such times to express their servent charity to each other the external Rite and Ceremony of this must be decent also for inward Charity cannot be expressed but either by words or signs and visible signs which are also the external acts and exercise of Charity are to be preferred before words Thus if it be decent upon some solemn occasions to make a publick profession of our Faith in a crucified Christ and our resolution to follow him even to the Cross and rather to die with him than deny him there cannot be a more solemn occasion for this than at our Baptism when we are received into the Communion of his Church this being an express Condition of our Discipleship to take up our Cross and follow him and therefore also there cannot be a more proper signe and emblem of this Profession than to receive the signe of the Cross in our foreheads for to receive the signe of the Cross is a natural profession of our crucified Lord and a suffering Religion and to receive this signe in our foreheads which are the seat of Modesty and Bashfulness is a visible Profession that we are not and will not be ashamed of the Cross. And as this is decent in it self so it contributes to the Gravity and Solemnity of that religious Administration as all awful grave and solemn Ceremonies do If we consider this as the profession of the Person baptised nothing can be more decent at such a time than to confess a crucified Christ under whose command we then lift our selves and our resolution to fight under the Banner of the Cross. If we consider it as the Profession of the Church who by her publick Ministers solemnly owns the Doctrine of the Cross and declares it as the Condition of our Discipleship when she receives any persons into the Communion of the Church is there any thing unbecoming in this Nay can any thing be more comely and decent than upon such solemn occasions to make such a solemn Profession of the Religion of the Cross Thirdly As for the lawfulness of these Ceremonies I think there is no need to prove that after what I have now discoursed for they being nothing else but the visible Exercise or Profession of some Grace or Duty upon fit and solemn occasions they cannot be unlawful unless the external Acts and visible Profession of a known Duty can be unlawful If it is our duty to make a publick Profession of our Faith in a crucified Saviour no time can be more proper for such a Profession than the time of our Baptism no signe can more naturally signifie this Profession than the signe of the Cross. Now I would gladly hear a wise reason why it should be unlawful to make such a Profession as this at our Baptism or unlawful to do it by signs as well as words I would desire to know why we may not profess our Faith in a crucified Saviour by the signe of the Cross as innocently and decently as make our Appeals to God in an Oath by laying our hand upon the Bible and kissing it Nay I would desire to know why the Church may not as well receive men into her Communion with the signe
of the Cross on their foreheads at the same time that they were received into the Church by Baptism which does no more derogate from the perfection of Baptism than their forms of renouncing the Devil with their faces towards the West and spitting at him Those constant Persecutions which in those days attended Christianity made this a very useful and necessary Ceremony And it may be observed that no Christians in any Age of the Church ever scrupled to receive the signe of the Cross on their foreheads but those who think the Doctrine of the Cross now out of date and can as profanely scoff at a suffering Religion as the Heathens did at a crucified Christ None but those who profess Treasons and Rebellions for Christ and never think it their duty to suffer but when they want â—trength and power to fight for him which â—ives little encouragement to Christian Prinâ—es to part with this symbolical Signe and Ceâ—â—mony of a suffering Religion But there is one Objection which our Reconciler makes against the positive Order and Dcency of these Ceremonies which aâ—e used in the Church of England which is fit to be considered in this place and that is That Christ and his Apostles did not use them and therefore they either worshipt God indecently or the use of them is not necessary to the Decency of Worship Now this is sufficiently answered by what I have already discours'd That though the Decency of publick Worship be a necessary Duty and some decent Rites and Ceremonies be necessary to the external Decency of Worship yet where there is choice of such Ceremonies which are very decent we cannot say that such or such particular Ceremonies are absolutely necessary because the Decency of Worship may be preserved by the use of other decent Rites and therefore Christ and his Apostles might worship very decently without the use of these Ceremonies and the Church of England may worship very decently with them But yet to shew the folly of this Argument we may consider 1. That all the time Christ was upon Earth he never set up any publick Worship distinct from the Jewish Worship He lived in Communion with the Jewish Church anâ— worshipped God with them at the Temple oâ— in their Synagogues And it is as pleasant 〈◊〉 Argument to prove that there is no reason 〈◊〉 using such Ceremonies now because 〈◊〉 did not use them as it would be to proveth tht we must not use such Ceremonies as are proâ—er to the Christian Worship because they wre not used in the Temple or Jewish Synagogâ—es in our Saviours days for he never performed any act of publick Worship any-where else But you will say Christ instituted the Sacrament of his own Body and Bloud but he neither received kneeling himself nor commanded his Apostles to do so Now in answer to this it is not evident to me that Christ received at all himself much less does it appear in what posture he received It is said in St. Matthew and St. Mark that after the institution of this holy Supper when he had blessed the Bread and brake it and divided it among his Disciples and commanded them all to eat of it and had likewise took the Cup and having given thanks commanded them all to drink of it that he added But I say unto you I will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the vine until that day that I drink it new with you â—n my Fathers kingdom From whence some â—ay conclude that he did at that time drink 〈◊〉 the Cup though he tells them it was the 〈◊〉 time he would drink of it But St. Luke 〈◊〉 us that these words were spoke at eating 〈◊〉 Passover before the institution of his last Super and then they are a plain demonstratiâ—â— that he did not drink of the Sacramental Wâ—e and it is not likely that he should feaâ— on the symbols of his own Body and Bloâ— But suppose he had it had been as imprper for him to have received kneeling as it â—s decent in us to do so for this had been â—n act of Worship to himself And though we do not read in what posture the Apostle received yet I am pretty confident they did receive in their ordinary eating posture For it is very improbable that our Saviour would require them to kneel for he exacted no act of Worship from them while he was on Earth they never prayed to him as their great High-Priest and we may as well argue that we must not pray to him now he is in Heaven because he did not command his Apostles to pray to him while he was on Earth as that we must not worship him when we approach his Table nor receive that mysterious Bread and Wine with all humility of Soul and Body now he is in Heaven because at the first institution of this holy Supper while he was still visibly present witâ— them he did not command his Apostles tâ— receive kneeling Nor is it likely the Apostles would do 〈◊〉 of themselves any more than that they 〈◊〉 any other act of religious Worship to Chst on Earth for though they heard the wrds of institution yet at that time they understod nothing of the mystery of it as it is impoâ—ble they should who understood so little oâ— his Death and Passion much less of the merorious Vertue and Expiation of his Bloud 2. As for the Apostles who founed a Christian Church and set up Christian Worship after the Death and Resurrection of our Saviour what particular Rites and Ceremonies of Worship they used we are no certain though that they were careful of the Decency of Worship is evident from this Apostolical Precept That all things be done decotly and in ordâ—r And their Love-Feasts anâ— the holy Kiss are a plain proof that they were not without their religious Rites also And if we may judge of the Apostolical Churches by the succeeding Ages of the Church even while they were under Sufferings and Persecutions there was no Age of the Church till the Reformation so free from Rituals and Ceremonies as the Church of England is at this day Thirdly Let us now consider how our Reconciler states this matter and here I shall once for all examine whatever I can find in his Book pertinent to this Argument I. Now in the first place I observe that our Reconciler agrees with Bishop Taylor That it is for ever necessary that things should be done in the Church decently and in order and that the Rulers of the Church who have the same power as the Apostles had in this must be the perpetual Iudges of it And he adds It cannot therefore rationally be denied that the Rulers of the Church have power to command things which belong unto the positive Order and Decency of the Service of God This is so fair a Concession that methinks we might agree upon it but he immediately undoes all again and says That this Command affords no ground for the
great Sacrifice of the Cross. A great many such things our Reconciler himself has collected in his eighth Chapter which may properly be called the Rituals or Ceremonies or Religion most of which are now out of use in most Churches which formerly used them and none of them are in uâ—e among us But what we call the Ceremonies of the Church of England are not in this sence Rituals or Ceremonies but the decent circumstances of Worship as the Bishop acknowledges excepting the Cross in Baptism which yet is not a meer significant but a professing Signe as I have already discours'd and for such Ceremonies as these which serve for Order and Decency the Bishop tells us There is an Apostolical Precept and a natural Reason and an evident Necessity or a great Convenience In a word when the Bishop speaks of Rituals and Ceremonies he understands by them exterior actions or things something which is like the ceremonial observances of the Jewish Law which were not meer circumstances of action but religious Rites Such were their Sacrifices Washings and Purifications their Phylacteries their Fasts and Festivals new Moons and Sabbaths not considered meerly as circumstances of time but as having such a Sacredness and Religion stamped on them that the very observing them was an act of Religion that the religious Duties observed on them were appointed for the sake of the day not the day meerly for the sake of the Religion Such were the numerous Traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees about making broad their Phylacteries washing their Cups and Platters and their hands before dinner and an infinite number of other superstitious observances Now though some external actions and things wisely chosen and prudently used may be for the service of Religion at least are not unlawful to be used unless we will condemn the whole Christian Church for several Ages which used a great many external Rites yet every one sees what a vast difference there is between such Rites as these and the decent Circumstances of religious Worship And therefore those men mistake the case of the Church of England who lay the Controversie upon Rituals and Ceremonies for there is no such thing in the Church of England according to the true and proper signification of these words Our Fasts and Festivals look most like such Rituals and Ceremonies but are not so for with us they are not religious days but days appointed for the solemn Exercises of Religion which differ as much as a circumstance of time does from an act of Religion as making a day religious which none but God can do differs from appointing a day for the publick Solemnities of Religion which the Governours of the Church and State may do as the Religion of observing a day differs from those acts of Religion which are performed on such a day Now this very observation of the difference between Rituals and Ceremonies and the decent circumstances of Worship will answer most of his Citations which he has impertinently alleadged out of the Bishops Writings and a multitude of Objections which for want of observing this have been very injudiciously made against those which we call the Ceremonies of the Church of England Thus he observes from the Bishop That Ecclesiastical Laws which are meerly such cannot be universal and perpetual But then he should have told us what the Bishop meant by Ecclesiastical Laws meerly such That is saith he those which do not involve a divine Law within their matter And therefore this cannot relate to the decent circumstances of Worship for they all involve a divine Law in the matter of them they are onely the specification of the Law of Decency and include those very acts of Worship to which they belong To kneel at the Lords Supper is a command to receive the Lords Supper kneeling and when the Minister is enjoyn'd to wear theSurplice it signifies that he must perform divine Offices in a Surplice These are but the decent circumstances of necessary Duties and they founded on the Apostolical Rule of Decency Well but the Bishop adds When Christ had made us free from the Law of Ceremonies which God appointed to the Iewish Nation and to which all other Nations were bound if they came into that Communion it would be intolerable that the Churches who rejoyced in their freedom from that Yoke which God had imposed should submit themselves to a Yoke of Ordinances which men should make For though before they could not yet now they may exercise Communion and use the same Religion without communicating in Rites and Ordinances Now does not this make it plain that the Bishop does not speak of the decent circumstances of Worship such as our English Ceremonies are but of such Rituals and Ceremonies as answer to the Jewish Rites and Ordinances which he calls exterior things and actions which are of a different consideration and must be governed by different Rules and Measures And yet our Reconciler is so unfortunate that if the Bishop had meant this of the Ceremonies of our Church it had been nothing to his purpose for he adds in the very next words This does no way concern the Subjects of any Government what Liberty they are to retain and use I shall discourse in the following numbers but it concerns distinct Churches under distinct Governments and it means as it appears plainly by the Context and the whole Analogie of the thing that the Christian Churches must suffer no man to put a Law upon them who is not their Governour For when he says that Ecclesiastical Laws that are meerly such must not be universal he means that they must not be intended to oblige all Christendom except they will be obliged that is do consent That no Church or company of Christians have such authority as to oblige the whole Christian World and all the Churches in it to conform to their Rituals and Ceremonies which he says is contrary to Christian liberty and such an Usurpation as must not be endured which is directly levelled against the Usurpations of the Church of Rome But though one Church cannot impose upon another yet every Church has power over her own Members and they are bound to obey that Authority which is over them And by the way this answers all his Testimonies from Bishop Davenant and Bishop Hall in their Letters to Duraeus about his Pacificatory designe of uniting all the Reformed Churches into one Communion and several others cited in his Preface to the same purpose They discourse upon what terms distinct Churches which have no authority over each other ought to maintain Christian Communion and this he applies to particular Churches with reference to their own Members as if because particular Churches must not usurp authority and dominion over each other nor deny Communion upon every difference of Opinion or different Customs and Usages of Modes of Worship therefore no Church must govern her own Communion nor give Laws to her own Members as if because
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-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-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
of Worship too or is the bare Decency of Worship a Jewish Yoke What correspondence is there between the Ceremonies of the Jewish Law and the decent circumstances of Worship between new and distinct acts and the decent Modes of actions But our Reconciler proceeds Ecclesiastical Laws must not be perpetual that is when they are made they are relative to time and place to persons and occasions subject to all changes c. Now besides that the Bishop stills speaks of such Laws as concern Rituals and external Observances not the decent circumstances of Worship and therefore it is impertinently alleadged in our present Controversie yet suppose it did relate to our Ceremonies what advantage could he make of it They must not be perpetual that is they are alterable when the wisdom of Governours sees fit and who denies it But must every one who believes these Ceremonies alterable presently grant that they must be altered right or wrong This is much like another mangled Testimony which he cites from Rule 12. n. 9. I shall transcribe the whole because our Reconciler has concealed the sence by transcribing onely part of it Excepting those things which the Apostles received from Christ in which they were Ministers to all Ages once for all conveying the mind of Christ to Generations to come in all other things they were but ordinary Ministers to govern the Churches in their own times and left all that ordinary power to their Successors with a power to rule their Churches such as they had and therefore whatever they conveyed as from Christ a part of his Doctrine or any thing of his appointment this was to bind for ever All this our Reconciler leaves out which is a Key to what follows For Christ is our onely Lawgiver and what he said was to bind for ever In all things which he said not the Apostles could not be Lawgivers they had no such authority and therefore whatsoever they ordered by their own wisdom was to abide as long as the reason did abide but still with the same liberty with which they appointed it for of all men in the world they would least put a Snare upon the Disciples or tye Fetters upon Christian liberty To what purpose he cites this he does not say but I suppose it was to insinuate that there is no Authority in the Church to make any Laws which Christ has not made because he is our onely Lawgiver and that to make such Laws is to put a Snare upon the Disciples and to tye Fetters upon Christian Liberty which the Apostles of all men would not do but this is directly contrary to the designe of the Bishop All that he says is no more than this That the Apostles had not authority to make such Laws as should perpetually oblige the Church in all Ages for Christ onely is so our Lawgiver that his Laws are perpetual and unalterable and therefore what they taught as from Christ that was to bind for ever but what Laws they made as ordinary Ministers to govern the Churches in their own times they might be altered when the reason of them ceas'd by the Bishops and Ministers of following Ages who have as much ordinary authority for the government of the Church as the Apostles themselves had So that the Governours of the Church have authority to make Laws though not unalterable ones and therefore it is not making Laws but making perpetual Laws which he calls putting a Snare upon the Disciples and tying Fetters on Christian Liberty for the more unalterable Laws there are the less Liberty the Church enjoys and those Laws which were of excellent use when they were first made yet when their reason and use ceases might prove Snares to Christians if there were no power in the Church to repeal them All his Citations from this excellent Bishop about Ecclesiastical Laws are of the same nature they do not concern the decent circumstances of Worship but Rituals and external Ministeries of Religion and I suppose I need not tell any man how impertinent his Testimonies about Fasts and Evangelical Councils and Subscriptions to Articles c. are to this Controversie This is sufficient to prove that this excellent Bishop is ours and to satisfie all men that this Protestant Reconciler is either a very ignorant and careless Reader of Books or a shameless Impostor in suborning mens words to give testimony against their own protest and avowed Principles and Doctrines There are several other little Arguments which are frequently repeated by our Reconciler and confirmed with great Names and great Authorities though it is probable enough that he has as much abused other great men as he has done the Bishop and I have not leisure nor opportunity to examine all and it is no great matter when the Argument is weak and trifling whose Argument it is They tell us that to impose such Ceremonies and Rites of Worship is to come after Christ and to mend and correct his Laws and to require new terms of Communion which Christ hath not required This is a great fault if the charge be good and just but is the Church of England guilty of any such thing Does she require any new acts of Worship which Christ has not required Has not Christ required that we should worship God decently Has he not made Obedience to our Rulers and Governours a necessary condition of Communion And does the Church of England require any more Has the Church of England imposed any thing upon her People but the Rules of Order and Decency and has not Christ enjoyned this Are the Ceremonies of our Church decent circumstances of Worship or are they not If they be then here are no new terms of Communion here is no mending nor correcting the Laws of Christ but onely a determination of some necessary circumstances which Christ left undetermined and gave authority to his Church to determine But why should church-Church-Communion be suspended upon such terms as are not necessary to Salvation Why is not that sufficient to make a man a Member of a Church which is sufficient to carry him to Heaven No doubt but it is and the Church of England requires no more The Decency of Worship is as necessary to eternal Salvation as publick Worship is which is not Worship if it be not decent Decency is necessary and though such or such particular Modes of Decency be not necessary yet some decent Mode of Worship is and therefore that Church which requires no more than the Decency of Worship requires nothing but what is necessary to Salvation That which confounds and blunders these men and makes them dream of new terms of Communion is this That they distinguish the act of Worship from the manner of performing it and because Christ hath onely instituted and commanded the act but the Church directs and prescribes the manner therefore they say the Church mends Christs Laws and makes new terms of Communion by requiring something more than Christ has
for which a Church may deny her Communion to any persons either because they renounce the terms of her Communion or because they refuse to submit to her Laws and Rules of Worship and therefore it is a ridiculous thing to say that a Church makes every thing a term of her Communion for the refusal of which she denies her Communion to her own Members We may call these if we please the terms of her particular Communion but this is no greater fault for any Church to make such terms of Communion than to make Laws for Government and Discipline for such terms are nothing else To return then to our Argument Since the act of Worship and the necessary circumstanâ—s of Action though they may be distinctly considered yet cannot be separated that Church which commands nothing but a decent performance of those acts of Worship which Christ himself has commanded us to perform cannot be charged with making any additions to the Laws of Christ or with commanding any new thing For the decent manner of doing a thing is included in the command of doing it unless we think our Saviour was indifferent whether we worship God decently or indecently and therefore if the Church onely enjoyn such habits and postures times and places as are necessary to the doing of the action and are decent circumstances of doing it she commands nothing but what Christ has virtually commanded And this is a plain Answer to that other Objection that the Apostles had authority to teach onely such things as Christ had commanded them which if it be opposed to their Authority of Governing the Church which required the exercise of their own Wisdom and Prudence and making occasional Laws in emergent cases is a very trifling Objection but however the Church of England teaches nothing but what Christ taught She teaches all the acts of Worship which Christ commanded and no other and she â—eaches the decent manner of doing this which is involved in the very command of doing it for though the particular decent Rites of Worship are not expressed yet all decent Rites are included in the command of doing it and therefore the Church may take her choice Well but the Apostles gave Laws onely about necessary things as we see in the Council of Ierusalem they would lay no other burden upon the Disciples but what they thought necessary at least for that time 15 Acts 29. Now though there might several Answers be given to this I shall say no more at present but that I take the Decency of Worship to be necessary I am sure St. Paul gives an express Law about it But as for the necessary things which were determined at the Council in Ierusalem they did not concern the circumstances of Worship but some external Rituals and Ceremonies which were matters of burden We have nothing like it in our Church and if ever the Church should undertake to determine such matters it will be seasonable to urge the practice of the Council at Ierusalem to determine onely necessary things These are the most material things our Reconciler has urged against the imposition of the Ceremonies of the Church of England Whether upon the whole it appears that they are so useless and unnecessary that the Church ought not to interpose her Authority in such matters or be justly blameable for doing it I must leave every man to judge CHAP. II. Concerning charity to the Souls of men and how far and in what cases it obliges Church-Governours and what regard Church-Governours ought to have to the Errours and Mistakes and Scruples of PRIVATE CHRISTIANS under their care HAving discours'd thus largely of the usefulness and necessity of the decent Ceremonies and Circumstances of religious Worship in opposition to our Reconciler who affirms them to be useless and unnecessary and to have no positive Order or Decency for which they should be commanded it is time now to consider the other part of his Argument viz. that charity to the Souls of men obliges Church-Governours not to impose any such unnecessary things or to alter and remove them if already imposed when through the mistake and scruples of some Christians about such matters they occasion their sin and fall and hazard their eternal Salvation that is when such Impositions as these which some men believe unlawful and others doubt whether they be lawful or not tempt men to forsake the Communion of the Church and lift themselves in a Schism which is a damning sin I need not point out to any particular place wherein this is said for it is to be found almost in every page of his Book and comes in at the tail of every Argument and therefore I shall once for all consider these Principles also and begin here with charity to the Souls of men which in the method of my Discourse is the second general Principle I promised to examine The Question then is this Secondly What obligation charity to the Souls of men lays upon the Governours of the Church That the Governours of the Church ought to exercise great tenderness and charity to the Souls of men I readily grant for the care of Souls is their proper work and business and our Reconciler could not have pitch'd upon a more popular Argument to declaim upon as he does at large p. 187 c. And indeed I find his Talent lies more in some insinuating Harangues than in c'ose reasoning but though he has made a fine Sâ—ory of this and said things artificially enough to move the Passions of his Readers he has never offered fairly to state the extent and measures of Charity with relation to acts of Government but onely asserted charity to the Souls of men to be the Duty of Governours as well as of private Christians which no body denies that I know of and from thence infers the alteration of our Ceremonies and that Church-Governours act uncharitably if they do not consent to such an alteration Now the alteration of publick Laws and Râ—tes of Worship which some men take an unjust and unreasonable offence at whatever mischief they do to their own Souls by such an unjust offence does not seem to me to be an immediate consequence from the obligations of charity to mens Souls and therefore there should have been something at least offered for the proof of it and I confess I cannot see any thing that looks like an Argument to this purpose Since therefore I have little or nothing to answer upon this Argument which our Reconciler thought better to take for granted than to prove it I shall endeavour to state this matter so plainly as to vindicate our Governours from this spightful and uncharitable Accusation of want of charity to mens Souls And to this end I shall briefly inquire wherein the Charity of Governours must consist and how it must express it self which I shall explain by these two Principles I. That the Charity of Governours is consistent with the Duty and Authority of Government II.
the Laws or to allow of such different postures when mens scruples are removed 2. As the Governours of the Church would neglect their Duty so they would manifestly injure their Authority by such a compliance with the ignorance humour and scruples of men and therefore how charitable soever our Reconciler may think this it is not such a Charity as becomes Governours For private Christians to abridge themselves in the use of their Christian liberty for the sake of others is in many cases highly commendable and a generous act of charity but for Governours to renounce their Authority to gratifie Dissenters is so far from being an act of charity that it is betraying their Trust. Either Christ has committed this power to them to govern religious Assemblies and to prescribe the decent Rules of Worship or he has not if he have as our Reconciler has more than once owned in this very Book then this power is a Trust committed to them and such a Trust as they must give an account of and therefore no pretence of charity can justifie them in renouncing the exercise of it The Reconciler indeed tells us That which is here pleaded for is neither a denial nor a dissembling of their imposing power in Superiours but onely an abatement of the exercise thereof toward some weak Dissenters Which may be done with the asserting of the power and a profession that they do suspend the exercise thereof not through conviction that it may not be lawfully used but out of pure commiseration and howels of compassion towards their weak Brethren But all the Protestations in the World will not salve this matter for the great Dispute about Ceremonies turns upon this hinge whether the Church have authority to command any thing relating to the Worship of God which is not expresly instituted and enjoyned by Christ. Hence all such Rules of Order and Decency are by our modest and peaceable Dissenters opprobriously call'd Will-worship and Humane Inventions and teaching for Doctrines the commandments of men and though they had nothing to say against the lawfulness of the things themselves and indeed all that they have to say is next to nothing yet their not being commanded by God and their being commanded by men though by such men as are invested with Christ's authority to govern his Church is thought a sufficient reason not to submit to them Now when the Authority of the Church is the principal matter in dispute and Ceremonies onely a collateral dispute as depending upon an usurped and illegal Authority I would fain know of our Reconciler how upon these terms they can give up these Ceremonies to the clamours of the Dissenters without giving up their own Authority with them which is the principal thing in question and for the sake of which the Ceremonies are disputed Now let any man judge whether this be an act of charity to part with that Authority which Christ has placed in his Church Is this Authority for the good of the Church or is it not If it be not then it seems Christ has placed such an Authority in his Church as is not for the publick good and this charges our Saviour himself with want of prudence or charity to his own Church in setting such an uncharitable power over it If Church-Authority be for the publick good then it is no act of charity to part with it As to give but one instance of this which our Reconciler is often at He tells us That the Scripture-Exhortations to Peace and Unity are so far from requiring such an Vnity and Vniformity as we plead for that they perfectly confute all those who think it fit to lay the Vnion of the Church upon an uniformity in lesser matters and do impose them as the Conditions of Communion for either we must all submit to some infallible Guide and Iudge of Controversies in order to our Vnion as R. H. thinks it necessary in order to our compliance with these Precepts or else confess 't is morally impossible to comply with them it being visibly impossible to bring all men unto an unity of judgment and of practice in these things and so we must reflect upon the wisdom of our Lord and of his Precepts And grant that Protestants have no sufficient means of Vnity which is the very thing that Papists do so continually upbraid us with or must acknowledge that the way to this desired Vnity is not that of imposing and requiring uniformity in little matters concerning which the minds of men are full of doubts and scruples but that of mutual condescension and forbearance and charity in lesser differences God help that Church which meets with such Reconcilers as these But that which I shall observe here is his own concession and his Dilemma upon it He argues strongly That while men are left to judge for themselves in the Externals of Worship it is impossible to bring them unto an unity of judgment and practice in these things for this he says must be granted unless we own the necessity of an infallible Judge Here indeed the Reconciler and I differ a little about the infallibility of this Judge but we agree upon the main point that without a Judge to determine these matters there can be no Unity and Agreement among Christians which certainly is a demonstration in the Age in which we live how strange soever it might have been thought in the Primitive times of Unity And his Dilemma is a very sore one For either this reflects upon the Wisdom of Christ himself and grants that Protestants have no sufficient means of Unity or that the way to this desired Unity is not requiring uniformity in little matters Now to begin with the last first it is demonstrably true that there is no Church-Unity without Unity in Worship wherein the principal exercise of Christian Communion consists and that there can be no Decency and Order in this which is an Apostolical Precept without Uniformity and no Uniformity without such Impositions What follows then but that we must reflect on the wisdom of Christ in not leaving Authority in his Church sufficient to determine such matters and grant that Protestants have no means of Union These are hard terms but I cannot see how they can be avoided without granting that Christ has given though not an infallible Judge of all Controversies of Faith yet a supreme Authority to his Church to determine all matters of Decency and Order which all Christians are bound to obey in all cases where their Rules and Orders do not contradict some plain and express Law of Christ. And this Principle will quickly make us all of a mind in such matters Now then from hence I thus argue If the wisdom of Christ himself in instituting a Church-Society and commanding all Christians to live in Peace and Unity and Love if the Unity of Christians among themselves and the Decency and Uniformity of Worship are so nearly concerned in the sacredness of
to one case and not to the other and argues great ignorance as well as impudence in our Reconciler to censure it which I shall largely prove when I come to answer his fourth Chapter And because our Reconciler so often mentions not onely the abatement of the Ceremonies but the alteration of some scrupled expressions in the Liturgy without mentioning what those are I can give no other answer to it but to represent that account which is given us of those late alterations which were made in our Liturgy as we find it in the Preface to the Common-Prayer-Book Our general aim therefore in this undertaking was not to gratisie this or that Party in any of their unreasonable demands but to do that which to our best understanding we conceived might most tend to the preservation of peace and unity in the Church the procuring of Reverence and exciting of Piety and Devotion in the publick Worship of God and the cutting off occasion from them that seek occasion of cavil or quarrel against the Liturgie of our Church Most of the alterations were made for the more proper expressing of some words or phrases of ancient usage in terms more suitable to the Language of the present times and the clearer explanation of some other words or phrases which were either of doubtful signification or otherwise liable to misconstruction And what other Rule our Reconciler would have the Church observe in altering scrupled phrases I cannot tell for if she muâ—t alter while some people cease to scruple she must alter it all or rather take it quite away 3. But you will say It is at least a breach of Charity to impose such Rites and Ceremonies as are scrupled by great numbers of Christians and the imposition of which occasions a formidable Schism in the Church As for the Schisms and Divisions which are said to be occasioned by the imposition of these Ceremonies I shall consider that in the next Chapter My designe at present leads me to consider the Mistakes and Scruples of Christians and how far Governours ought to have any regard to them and for the explication of this there are several things to be observed 1. I readily grant that the Church ought not to command any thing which is of a doubtful or suspicious nature for where the thing is doubtful her Authority to command is doubtful too Or rather it is certain that the Church has no Authority in doubtful matters for her Authority can be no larger than her Commission and it is no part of her Commission to teach or command things which are doubtful Thus it may well be doubted whether it be lawful to set up Images in Churches to pray before a Crucifix to excite and quicken our Devotions though we have no intention to pay any religious homage to them For the same reason the Church cannot by her Authority adopt doubtful Propositions into Articles of Faith and require all Christians to believe them as the necessary terms of Communion To this purpose our Reconciler at his usual impertinent rate of Citations alleadges several passages out of Mr. Chillingworth to prove that no doubtful Propositions ought to be made Articles of Faith or necessary terms of Communion in which I perfectly agree with Mr. Chillingworth but can by no means see how it follows from hence that because the Church must not make new Articles of Faith therefore she must not prescribe the necessary Rules of Worship that because she must not impose things which are of a doubtful nature therefore she must not command any thing which some people raise doubts and scruples about But our Reconciler thinks that it is a sufficient evidence that a thing is doubtful and that the peace and unity of the Church ought not to be suspended upon the determination of it when there are a great number of men doubt of it and the thing is disputed and controverted and Arguments produced on both sides and if this be so there is not any Article of our Faith but what is doubtful it is very doubtful whether there be a God and whether Christ were the true Messias or an Importer for we know there are a great many Atheists Jews Turks and Infidels in the world And if it be an Argument against the Ceremonies of the Church of England that Dissenters dispute against them if this prove That the peace and unity of the Church ought not to be suspended upon submission to them and that the decision of the Controversie concerning them was not intended as a necessary means for the peace and unity of the Church of God in these Kingdoms farewell to all certainty in Religion But he proves this by an Argument transcribed from Dr. Stillingfleet's Irenicum a book which certainly did such great service at the time when it was written to draw men on to a calm consideration of things and whose Reverend Author has done such excellent service since to the Church of England by his incomparable Writings both against Papists and Fanaticks that whatever fault there may be in it both the Book and the Author have merited something more than a pardon especially since that Book stands now upon its own legs and can derive no authority from that great Name he having sufficiently declared his dislike and I think sufficiently answered some principal parts of it himself And though I cannot assent to every Proposition in the Irenicum as I am pretty sure the Author himself does not yet I can by no means think that it deserves all that clamour which some men have raised against it I am sure it never can make any man a Dissenter and I think it much more desirable and more for the interest of the Church that men should conform upon the Principles of the Irenicum than that they should continue Dissenters I could not forbear saying this once for all out of that sincere honour I have for that excellent person who has met with very ill usage from some men who either envy his deserved praises or hope to make themselves considerable by being his Rivals But let us hear what the Argument is Where probable Arguments are brought for the maintaining one part of an Opinion as well as another though the Arguments brought be not convincing for the necessary entertaining either part to an unbyassed understanding yet the difference of their Opinions is Argument sufficient that the thing contended for is not so clear as both Parties would make it to be on their own sides and if it be not a thing of necessity to salvation it gives men ground to think that the final decision of the matter in controversie was never intended as a necessary means for the peace and unity of the Church of God Now I confess I see no reason why I may not assent to all this for if the Arguments be onely probable on both sides and such as are not convincing either way to an unbyassed judgment it is a signe the
Church to have rejected those Ceremonies which had been made venerable by ancient use when they would equally or better serve those ends we designe than any new ones This is the very account our Church gives of it Having given the reason why she retained some Ceremonies still as I have already observed she answers that Objection why she has retained some old Ceremonies If they think much that any of the old remain and would rather have all devised new then such men granting some Ceremonies convenient to be had surely where the old may be well used there they cannot reasonably reprove the old onely for their age without bewraying of their own folly For in such a case they ought rather to have reverence to them for their antiquity if they will declare themselves to be more studious of Unity and Concord than of Innovations and new Fangleness which as much as may be with true setting forth of Christ's Religion is always to be eschewed Let our Reconciler consider whether this be Hypocrisie or true and sober reasoning 2. The Dean's second reason is To manifest the justice and equity of the Reformation by letting their Enemies see that they did not break Communion with them for meer indifferent things Or as our Reconciler adds That they left the Church of Rome no farther than she left the ancient Church Which the Dean does not say under that Head nor any thing like it But yet here he takes advantage and says It is manifest that we have left off praying for departed Saints the Vnction of the sick the mixing water with the Sacramental Wine c. with many other things which were retained in the ancient Church and in the Liturgie of Edward the Sixth he should have said the first Liturgy and which are things indifferent retained in the Roman Church But is our Reconciler in good earnest I fear the next Book we shall have from him will be the Roman Catholick Reconciler Are all these things as used in the Roman Church indifferent Is praying for the dead as it is joyned with the Doctrine of Purgatory and Merit in the Church of Rome a thing indifferent Is the Sacrament of Extream Unction an indifferent thing Are their Grossings and Exorcisms and such-like Ceremonies abused by the Church of Rome to the absurdest Superstitions indifferent things Our Reformers at first in veneration to the Primitive Church in which some of these Ceremonies were used did retain the use of them in the first Liturgy of Edward the Sixth but upon more mature deliberation finding how impossible it was to restore them to their primitive use and to purge them from the superstitious abuses of the Church of Rome to which their people were still addicted laid them all aside and for this they are reproached by our Reconciler Some men would have been called Papists in Masquerade for half so much as this But what is this to the Dean's reason That we do not break Communion with them for meer indifferent things For certainly to retain three indifferent Ceremonies though we should reject five hundred more equally indifferent is a sufficient proof that we do not quarrel nor break Communion for indifferent things considered as indifferent which is all that the Dean meant by it But he has a fling at some others besides the Dean though whom he means I cannot well tell but he says Some of our Church senselesly pretend we cannot change these Ceremonies because they have been once received and owned by the Church I suppose he means the Catholick Church and though I think it is too much to say we cannot change what has been once received for the Church of this Age has as much Authority as the Church of former Ages had yet I think what has been received by the Catholick Church ought not but upon very great reasons to be rejected by any particular Church But now had our Reconciler been honest he might have made a great many useful Remarks upon this History of ancient Ceremonies for the conviction of Dissenters He might have observed that even in the Apostles days there were several Ceremonies used of Apostolical institution which yet had not a divine but humane Authority and therefore were afterwards disused or altered by the Church That in all Ages of the Christian Church there have been greater numbers of Ceremonies used and those much more liable to exception than are now retained in the Church of England That the Church has always challenged and exercised this Authority in the Externals of Religion and therefore there has not been any Age of the Church since the Apostles with which our Dissenters could have communicated upon their Principles This had been done like an honest man and a true Reconciler but it is wonderful to me that he who can find so many good words for the Church of Rome can find none for the Church of England 3. It may so happen that some things must be determined by publick Authority which are matter of doubt and scruple to some professed Christians When I say Authority must determine such things I mean if they will do their duty and take care of the publick Decency and Uniformity of Worship without which there can be no Decency This is evident in such an Age as this wherein some men scruple every thing which relates to publick Worship but what they like and fancy themselves To be uncovered at Prayers is as considerable a scruple to some Quakers as to kneel at the Sacrament is to other Dissenters This it seems was a Dispute in the Church of Corinth in St. Paul's days but the Apostle made no scruple of determining that question notwithstanding that and yet praying covered or uncovered are but circumstances of Worship as kneeling or sitting at the â—acrament are and if I had a mind to argue this point with our Reconciler I think I could prove them as indifferent circumstances as the other For the reason the Apostle assigns for the mens praying uncovered and the women covered that one was an Emblem of Authority the other of Subjection which makes it a symbolical Ceremony as our Dissenters speak is quite contrary among us though it were so in the Apostles days and is so still in some Eastern Countries To be uncovered among us is a signe of Subjection and to be covered a signe of Authority and therefore Princes Parents and Masters are covered or have their Hats on while Subjects Children and Servants are uncovered in their presence And therefore in compliance with the Apostles reason men should now pray covered because that is a signe of civil Dignity and Superiority whereas we now pray uncovered in token of a religious Reverence and Subjection to God Now I would ask our Reconciler whether our Church may determine that all men shall pray with their Hats off notwithstanding the scruples of some Quakers for if the Church must have respect to mens scruples why not to the scruples of Quakers
as well as of other Dissenters when one are as reasonable as the other and this may as well be left undetermined as the other for we have the practice of the Apostle for one side of the Question and his reason for the other If our Reconciler can think of an Answer to this so can I too and so I can also for the Objections against kneeling at the Sacrament but still here are scruples on both sides and scruples for ought I see equally reasonable and therefore Governours ought to have an equal regard to them that is none at all if they will discharge their duty in taking care of the Decency of publick Worship Dr. Falkner gave another instance of this in the Dispute about leavened or unleavened Bread in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper where he says The one sort is necessary to be determined before the administration or otherwise the Ordinance it self must be omitted Here our Reconciler is resolved to try his strength because the Argument as managed by that otherwise-ingenious man containeth great mistakes which being rectified will set men right in the decision of the Controversie Here then if ever we may expect that our Reconciler will say something to the purpose because the decision of the Controversie depends on it 1. Then he allows there may be such cases where in genere something is necessary to be determined I see we shall have fine work of it when he begins with tricks and fallacies The Doctor speaks of the determination of a particular circumstance whether the Sacramental Bread shall be leavened or unleavened and he talks of determining some cases in genere that is that it shall be Bread for I know not else what he means by his in genere The Question is Whether any particular thing which is scrupled by some persons may or ought to be determined if it may let him say so plainly and make the best he can of it Well he grants that what is necessary to be determined must be determined but adds that the Dissenters do universally deny that it is necessary to determine any of these scrupled Ceremonies and they have perfect demonstration for the truth of that denial for necessatium est quod non potest aliter se habere that onely is necessary to be done which cannot be left undone I have seldom met with more trifling and sophistry in so few words For 1. Dr. Falkner speaks of a necessity of determining some things which have no antecedent necessity in their own natures such as the use of leavened or unleavened Bread in the Sacrament and our Reconciler grants the Magistrate a power to determine those things which are necessary in their own natures though that be nonsence for what is necessary in its own nature so necessary that it cannot be left undone determines it self without the authority of the Magistrate the Magistrate may command such things but they are determined to his hand Nothing can be determined either way by any Authority but that which is indifferent and undetermined in its own nature and I think it a contradiction that any thing should be indifferent in its own nature and so determinable by humane Authority which has either such a moral or physical necessity that it cannot be otherwise 2. Dr. Falkner proves that there may be a necessity of determining some particular manner of doing a thing before the action can be done because though no particular mode of doing it may be necessary yet it cannot be done without some particular mode of doing it He that will administer the Sacrament must administer it either in leavened or unleaved Bread this is physically necessary that it should be done in one or t'other and this physical necessity infers a moral necessity of determining which way we will do it before we can do it for we cannot at the same time and in the same individual act do it both ways and therefore we must resolve upon one way of doing it or we cannot do it at all To disprove this which is as certain as any demonstration in Euclide our Reconciler says that nothing must be determined but what is necessary in its own nature to the doing or well doing of any action As if so be I could travel into the Country without determining whether I will walk or ride or what way I will go because no one of these is in its own nature so necessary that I cannot travel without it for I may chuse which I will but yet I must chuse some way or other or I must stay at home Now should you ask a man who is taking a journey which way he will go by land or by water on foot or horseback or by Coach and he should tell you it is not necessary to his journey to determine either for they are all equally indifferent would you not think the man mad for though all are indifferent yet some one is necessary to his journey and if he will not determine which way he will go he can never go This is the case here Dr. Falkner says Before we can receive the Lords Supper it must be determined whether we will receive it in leavened or unleavened Bread No says the Reconciler any determination by the Magistrate is here unnecessary because either leavened or unleavened Bread may be received Right and therefore there is no necessity of an universal Law and uniform practice all the world over about this matter but still whoever administers or whoever receives the Sacrament must do it in leavened or unleavened Bread Suppose then in the same Church and Congregation there should be a dispute about this as there was between the Greek and Latin Church and some should scruple to administer or receive in leavened others in unleavened Bread what must be done in this case must the Church determine this matter or not or must there in every Congregation be two Ministers and two Sacraments one of the leavened the other of the unleavened Communion I know not what our Reconciler will say to this but I am sure either this matter must be determined notwithstanding the scruples and differing Opinions about it or there must be a Schismatical disorder and confusion in the same Church in the very act of Christian Communion But how little regard the Apostles themselves whom I suppose our Reconciler will grant to be a good President for Church-Governours had to the mistakes and scruples of Christians when there was a just reason for making any Decrees and Canons is evident from the practice of that first celebrated Council of Ierusalem The Jews did mightily urge the necessity of circumcising the converted Gentiles and made it a great scruple of Conscience so much as to eat or drink with them much less to own them of the same Church and Communion without Circumcision Paul and Barnabas were sent to Ierusalem to consult the other Apostles about this Question The Apostles accordingly met together and after
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
us is on our part And if he were not a Disciple his very working Miracles in Christ's Name was a very likely way to make him and others also the Disciples of Christ and therefore might be permitted by our Lord for that very reason Forbid him not for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name that can lightly speak evil of me But was not our Reconciler asleep when he tells us that this man did not hold Communion with the Disciples What Communion then was he of Was he not a Jew and a Member of the Jewish Church And was he not then in Communion with Christ and his Apostles For did not Christ all the time he was on Earth live in Communion with the Jewish Church Did he set up any distinct Church and Communion of his own But I perceive our Reconciler is of Mr. Baxter's mind that Church-Communion is a presential Communion And because he did not always follow Christ and give his personal attendance on him therefore he could not hold Communion with him And now let our Reconciler try again how from this Example he can prove that Schismaticks must be suffered to preach for the promotion of Christ's Kingdom VII And yet it is wonderful to observe how he turns the Tables in his next Argument and proves from Christ's being the good Shepherd who lays down his life for his Sheep that the Governours of the Church should part with their indifferent things to preserve the Sheep from such Thieves that is Schismatical Preachers those who if his last Argument be good ought not to be forbid to preach though they do not profess Communion with us But I must tell him That for the Church to destroy her Constitution to pull down all her Hedges and Fences is the way to let in these Thieves as he calls them not to keep them out VIII His last Argument is of the same nature That because Christ prays for the unity of the Church therefore to procure this unity and concord we must part with all unnecessary things which do not in the least advance his Kingdom And truly I think so too but if the external Decency of Worship is not so unnecessary a thing nor easily to be parted with if parting with these Ceremonies will not heal our Schisms and Divisions of which I have discours'd largely already there needs no other Answer to be returned to this Argument He concludes this Chapter with retorting some of these Arguments upon the Dissenters I have answered for the Church let the Dissenters now try how they can answer for themselves for he very truly observes that they fall with more weight upon them To prefer some arbitrary Platforms of Worship and Discipline which God has nowhere instituted or commanded before the substantial Duties of Peace and Unity and Obedience to Government looks more like an offence against that Law I will have mercy and not sacrifice than what he charges upon the Church and to forbid the observation of the decent Rites and Ceremonies of Worship as unlawful and superstitious is a much more intolerable yoke and burden than the imposition of them But I shall leave the Dissenters and our Reconcileâ— to adjust this matter among themselves CHAP. V. Containing an Answer to our Reconciler's Arguments drawn from the 14th and 15th Chapters to the Romans THough our Reconciler makes a great flourish with a multitude of Arguments as usually those men do who cannot find one good one yet he seems to put the greatest confidence in those Arguments which are drawn from that condescension and mutual forbearance which St. Paul requires the Jewish and Gentile Converts who differed about the observation of the Mosaical Law to exercise towards each other And this I confess were a very good Argument if it were a parallel Case But I suppose our Reconciler will grant that there are some cases wherein it is very reasonable to exercise such forbearance and yet there may be other cases wherein it is not prudent and reasonable to allow the same Indulgence and therefore it does not follow that because St. Paul required the Jewish and Gentile Christians to forbear each other in their Disputes about the Mosaical Law therefore the Governours of the Church must forbear Dissenters and not prescribe the decent Rites and Ceremonies of Worship nor exact Conformity to them unless it appear that these two cases are the same or so like to each other that we may fairly argue from one to the other That these cases are not alike and that the Apostle's Arguments for mutual forbearance are not applicable to the case of our Dissenters I doubt not but I shall make so plain as to satisfie all impartial Readers And this I hope may pass for an Answer to his fourth Chapter I. Then I observe that St. Paul in the 14th Chapter to the Romans onely exhorts the Jewish and Gentile Christians to mutual forbearance in such cases which had been already decreed and determined by the highest Authority in the Church There is a great Dispute between our Reconciler and Dr. Womack now the Reverend Bishop of St. Davids to whom this Epistle was directed Whether onely to the private Christians at Rome or to Church-Governours also and consequently whether it be the duty onely of private Christians or of Church-Governours also to exercise this forbearance towards Dissenters The Bishop supposes that there was no Presbytery setled at Rome at this time and offers several Arguments to prove it Our Reconciler attempts to answer these Arguments and to prove the contrary that the Church of Rome whose Faith was spoken of throughout the World could not be without a setled Ministry at that time I am not willing to interpose in this Dispute for though it would be of great moment to answer all our Reconciler's Arguments from this Chapter were it certain that St. Paul did not designe these directions for Church-Governours but onely for private Christians as an Expedient to preserve Peace and Unity till these Disputes should be determined by a just Authority yet whatever fair probabilities there may be of this I doubt there is not evidence enough for it to convince a Reconciler or an obstinate Dissenter And indeed upon the principle which I have now laid down there is no need of this for whether these Exhortations to forbear one another and to receive one another and not to judge condemn or despise one another concern private Christians or Church-Governours or equally both yet since this forbearance extends onely to such cases as were determined by Ecclesiastical Authority to be the proper matter for the exercise of this Christian charity and forbearance every one sees how impertinently it is alleadged by our Reconciler to prove that the Governours of the Church must not impose any indifferent Customs and Usages which are scrupled by our Dissenters For what consequence is there in this that because private Christians or Church-Governours must allow the free exercise of
that liberty to each other which the Church has decreed that they should allow to each other therefore the Church it self must not impose the observance of any indifferent Ceremonies on Dissenters or must alter or abate them in compliance with their Scruples This is the plain case here The Council at Ierusalem had decreed that the Gentiles who received the Faith of Christ should not be under a necessity of being circumcised or observing the Law of Moses and left the believing Jews at their liberty to observe the Rites and Ceremonies of their Law still but notwithstanding this determination the believing Gentiles who understood their Christian liberty despised the weakness and superstition of the believing Jews who continued zealous for the Law of Moses and the believing Jews were mightily scandalized and offended at the liberty which the Gentile Converts took and made great scruple of conversing with them or of worshipping God together This Scandal and Offence which the Council easily foresaw would be taken and given on both sides did not hinder them from making a peremptory Decree in this matter as I observed before and when such Scandals as these did arise between the believing Jews and Gentiles in the Church of Rome St. Paul in this Epistle earnestly exhorts them to mutual charity and forbearance to grant that liberty to each other without mutual censures contempt and scandal which the Church had already decreed should be granted for he pleads for no other forbearance than what was expresly decreed by the Council at Ierusalem In such cases wherein the Church allows a latitude and permits different apprehensions and practices certainly it becomes all Christians not to judge or censure offend or scandalize each other which is the onely case the Apostle mentions But will any man in his wits hence infer that the Church must make no Laws nor prescribe any Rules of Worship which are scrupled by private Christians and that if she do she sins against these Laws of Charity and Forbearance which the Apostle exhorts the Romans to observe The Governours of the Church may exercise the same authority which the Apostles did in the Council at Ierusalem they may determine what upon mature deliberation and advice they judge fit or necessary to be determined whatever scruples some Christians have entertained about it and when they have done so it becomes Christian Bishopâ— and Ministers as the Apostle here does to perswade private Christians to obey such Constitutions for the preservation of the Peace and Unity of the Church not to turn Reconcilers and to plead the Cause of Dissenters against Church-Authority which St. Paul never did And it becomes private Christians to submit to such Determinations and those who do not are guilty of the scandal and offence if there be any not those who do The Gentile Converts were guilty of scandal if they despised the Jews for observing the Law of Moses which the Council had still permitted them to observe the Jews were guilty of scandalizing the Gentiles if they judged and censured them and denied Communion to them for not observing the Law of Moses because the Council had delivered the Gentiles from any such necessity but no man can be guilty of any criminal scandal by obeying the lawful Constitutions of the Church whoever is scandalized at it but scandal always lies on the side of disobedience The Christian Jew gave no offence by observing the Law of Moses nor the Christian Gentile by not observing it because they both herein had the authority of the Apostolical Decree to justifie them and therefore St. Paul does not exhort the Jews not to observe the Law of Moses nor the Gentiles to observe it to avoid scandal which had been somewhat like our Reconciler's Address to the Church not to impose and to the Dissenters to obey such Impositions to avoid Schism but he exhorts them both to grant that liberty to each other which the Church had granted and not to judge and censure and despise and separate from each other for the use of this liberty which in both of them would be an express violation of the Apostolical Decree Governours indeed may be guilty of uncharitableness in the exercise of a just Authority as I have already discours'd and vindicated our Church from any such imputation but Subjects can never be guilty of scandal in obeying the lawful commands of a lawful Authority And private Christians may be guilty of scandal in the imprudent use of their just liberties but this can never extend to the authority of Government Thus it was with the Gentile Converts The Council at Ierusalem had delivered them from the necessity of observing the Laws of Moses but yet had not laid a necessity on them to eat Swines flesh or any other meats which were unclean by the Law when a Jew was present and therefore herein it became them to use their liberty without offence and to exercise a generous charity towards the weakness of a believing Jew in such cases as the Apostle argues from the 13th verse to the end of the Chapter and yet it became the Church to allow this liberty to the Gentiles which they might use uncharitably for to have abridged it had been to impose on them the observation of the Mosaical Law The Apostle indeed as the Reconciler observes did plainly assert That the things scrupled by the weak were pure and lawful in themselves that he knew and was perswaded by the Lord Iesus that there was nothing unclean of it self which is the very determination of the Council at Ierusalem and yet he requires the believing Gentiles to exercise great charity in the use of their liberty which is a plain instance of the exercise of a private charity in such cases where publick Authority can make no such determination in favour of the scrupulous The Council at Ierusalem and St. Paul in this Epistle determine against the scruples of the Jews and assert the liberty of the Gentiles and they could not do otherwise and yet St. Paul requires private Christians to use this liberty without offence and to exercise such charity to their Jewish Brethren as the Church it self did not and could not exercise And thus St. Paul falls under our Reconciler's lash as well as Dr. Womack As if Church-Governours were not as much concerned in the reasons laid down as were the common People that is that they were not obliged to receive the weak in Faith and being strong to bear the infirmities of the weak that they might judge another mans servant that they might put a stumbling-block or an occasion to fall in their Brothers way that they might walk uncharitably might grieve and even destroy him with their meat for whom Christ died that they might let their good be evil spoken of and might for meat destroy the work of God and that though it is good for private persons not to eat flesh nor drink wine nor to do any thing
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-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
be said to do what they do to the Lord but onely in such cases where there is a divine positive Law or a divine Indulgence permission or liberty on both sides which was the case between the Jews and Gentiles but has no parallel that I know of Our Dissenters indeed pretend the authority of Scripture to justifie their non-observance of Ecclesiastical Rites and Ceremonies and so did the Jews for putting our Saviour to death so do all Hereticks and Schismaticks and even Rebels themselves and if the Government must take notice of every foolish Reasoner who pretends Scripture it is in as ill a case as if every unscriptural Dream and Fancy must pass for an Oracle This will make no difference before God whether men pervert the Scripture to their own destruction or follow the wild Enthusiasms of their own brains and I see no reason that Governours have to make a difference neither By these Arguments St. Paul perswades the believing Jews and Gentiles at Rome notwithstanding their Disputes about the observation of the Law of Moses to maintain Christian communion with each other and they are very proper to this purpose but can by no parity of Reason be applied to the case of our Dissenters as I hope abundantly appears from what I have already discours'd Secondly The Apostle by these Arguments having perswaded them to receive one another to Christian communion proceeds to perswade the Gentile Converts or those strong Jewish Christians who understood their Christian liberty not to give any needless offence and scandal to the weak by an uncharitable use of their liberty from v. 13. to the end of the Chapter These two to receive into communion and not to give offence and scandal are of a very different consideration though our Reconciler makes no distinction between them and therefore I shall briefly state this matter also and shew how remote it is from the case to which our Reconciler applies it The scandal which he supposes the Church gives to the Dissenters is this That by enjoyning the use of some indifferent Ceremonies in Religion which are scrupled by them or condemned as unlawful she tempts them to separate from her Communion and rather to involve themselves in the guilt of Schism than to submit to such unscriptural Impositions Let us then consider what that Scandal is of which St. Paul speaks and by what Arguments he disswades them from it and how â—ar it is applicable to our case 1. Then I shall consider what this Scandal was 2. By what Arguments he disswades them from giving Offence and Scandal First What this Scandal was Now the persons who were scandalized were the weak that which gave this scandal to them was as they apprehended an open contempt and violation of the Law of God in eating such meats as were on all hands agreed to be forbidden by the Law the danger of this scandal was lest it should tempt them to renounce Christianity Let us then compare this with the case of our Dissenters 1. The weak Jew was scandalized and offended So far you 'll say the Parallel holds good for whatever the Dissenters think of themselves I suppose the Church looks upon them as a sort of weak Christians and it is not what they think but what they are which is to be considered in this case for these Jews did not think themselves weak no more than our Dissenters do and yet the Apostle declares them to be weak and requires the strong to treat them as weak Brethren So far I agree but then we must consider what this weakness was for all weakness is not alike nor equally the object of our charity Some men are weak because they are ignorant and because they will not be instructed others are weak out of prejudice and some vicious inclinations some weakness is to be chastised and corrected not indulged and therefore because St. Paul requires them not to offend the weak Jew it does not follow that the Church must use the same Indulgence to the weak Dissenters unless their weakness be alike pityable Now the weakness of the Jew consisted in this that though they had embraced the Faith of Christ yet they were not convinced that the Law of Moses was out of date and therefore durst not do any thing which was forbidden by that Law nor omit doing what the Law commanded nor could they endure to see others do so so that their weakness consisted in a profound reverence for an express positive Law which all men agâ—eed was given by God but which was not yet repealed in so visible a manner as to satiâ—fie the believing Jews that it was repealed Now this was a very favourable case so favourable that God himself still indulged the Jews in the observation of their Law and therefore there was great reason why the strong Christian should avoid giving offence to the weak by the use of his Christian liberty But now this is such a case as never was before and never can be again Our Dissenters may be weak but not weak as the believing Jews were out of reverence to an express positive Law because there is no such Law which ever did forbid the use of those Ceremonies which they condemn and certainly there cannot be the same pretence to indulge those who foolishly reason themselves into mistakes and scruples as there was to indulge those who could produce a plain positive Law to justifie their dissent The case is so vastly different that I doubt not but St. Paul who pleaded for such Charity and Indulgence to the Jews would himself have censured our Dissenters For both the Governours of the Church and private Christians are in an ill state if they are bound to humour those mistakes and scruples which are owing to mens ignorance folly interest prejudice or unteachable and refractory dispositions 2. These weak Jews took offence at the open violation of an express Law of God For the Gentile Christians did not observe the Law of Moses but acted in direct opposition to it Now this was a just matter of offence to the Jew while he retained such a great veneration for the Law of Moses which at least he had some fair appearance of reason to do It is true the strong Christian in eating those things which were forbidden by the Law of Moses did nothing but what was lawful for him to do but it does not hence follow as our Reconciler infers that the scandal the weak Christian took at the freedom of the strong who used his Christian liberty in eating these things was scandalum acceptum non datum scandal received but not given the action being such as the weak Christian could not justly be offended at For the weak Christian had as much reason to be offended at this as he had to believe that the Law of Moses was still in force and this was the true reason of his offence No man can be justly charged with giving offence or scandal who does
meats is perfectly taken away by the Gospel of our Saviour and therefore if we be well instructed in the nature of our Christian liberty we may eat or not eat just as we please and therefore there is nothing in the nature of the thing to hinder the exercise of our charity because it is wholly at our own choice whether we will eat or not eat And this makes it a great breach of charity to eat with offence to destroy our Brother with our meat for whom Christ died 15 16 v. Which may justly cause our Christian liberty which is a very good and valuable thing in it to be censured and condemned on all hands when it is used so uncharitably to the destruction of our Brother and therefore let not your good be evil spoken of v. 16. And as there is nothing in the nature of the thing to hinder our charity it being equally lawful to eat or not to eat and perfectly at our own choice which we will do so neither is Religion concerned one way or other in it The Christian Religion indeed is concerned in theDispute about the lawfulnessof eating or not eating such things as were forbid by the Law of Moses because this is a point of Christian liberty and the Apostle does not perswade the Gentile Converts to renounce this liberty which the Gospel allows them but bare eating or not eating without respect to our opinions about it is of no consequence in Religion we are neither the better Christians if we do eat nor the worse Christians if we do not For the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink The Gospel of our Saviour prescribes no Laws about the quality of our diet and therefore it is no part of the Christian Religion to eat or to forbear The liberty of eating indifferently of all things is allowed by the Gospel but the act of eating is neither commanded nor forbid and therefore is no duty of Religion But though the Gospel do not give us any direct and positive command about eating or not eating yet there are some duties which are essential to the Gospel wherein the life and spirit of Christianity consists which in some cases may be a collateral restraint upon the exercise of our liberty for the Kingdom of God is righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost And therefore it is an essential duty of Christianity to deal kindly and compassionately with our fellow-Christians to promote the Peace and Unity of the Church and that Spiritual Joy and Delight which Christian Brethren ought to take in each other in the Communion of the same Church and the joynt Worship of their common Father and Saviour These are the things which are most pleasing to our great Master and have so much natural goodness as recommends them to the approbaâ—ion of all men for he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approved of men and therefore in the use of our Christian liberty we must be sure to have this Rule always in our eye To follow after the things which make for peace and things wherewith one may edifie another And therefore though the Gospel has taken away all distinctions of meats and given us free leave to eat of every thing yet since it is not matter of duty in all times and in all places and companies to eat such meats as were formerly forbidden by the Law and since we know that to do so gives great offence and scandal to the weak Jews without serving any end at all in Religion and therefore is directly contrary to those essential Duties of Love and Charity Unity and Peace and mutual Edification let us not so much insist on our Christian liberty in the use of meats as to destroy the work of God for though no meats are now unclean but all things all kind of diet is now pure and lawful yet it is a very evil thing for any man by his eating such meat as his weak Brother thinks unclean to give offence and scandal to him It is good much better neither to eat flesh nor drink wine nor any thing of the like nature whereby thy brother stumbleth or is offended or is made weak discouraged in his Christian course and tempted to apostatize from the Faith of Christ. But besides this as it is purely in our choice to eat or not to eat there being no Law to require either and neither eating nor not eating is in it self considered of any concernment to Religion so it is no injury at all to thy Christian liberty to forbear eating in compliance with the weakness of thy Brother Hast thou Faith Dost thou believe thou mayst eat indifferently of all meats Believe so still and use this liberty privately when it may be done without offence but thou art under no necessity of publishing this belief nor of acting according to it in all companies but have this faith to thy self before God This Faith makes it lawful for thee to eat but then thou must take great care that thou dost not do a lawful thing in such a manner as to make it become sin to thee that is thou must not eat how lawful soever it be in it self with the scandal and offence of thy weak Brother which makes it very unlawful Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth who does not do a good action in so ill a manner as to bring condemnation upon himself But then as thy believing it lawful for thee to eat does not make it necessary to eat nor lawful in all circumstances when it is done with offence and scandal so much less does thy believing it lawful to eat make it lawful for thy weak Brother to eat for if the Jewish Christian who doubteth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who stills makes a distinction between meats and believes it unlawful to eat such meats as are forbidden by the Law of Moses if he notwithstanding this eat such forbidden meats he is damned self-condemned by his own Conscience for doing that which he believes to be unlawful for whatever is not of faith done with a full perswasion of the lawfulness of it is sin and therefore thou oughtest not to judge and cenâ—ure and reproach thy weak Brother in such cases but to bear with him and to avoid giving him any scandal or offence This I take to be the true sence of St. Paul's reasoning in this place to perswade the Gentile Christians not to give offence to the Jewish Converts by eating meats forbidden by the Law and it seems to me to contain the plainest and easiest determination of the case of Scandal which I shall therefore briefly review and inquire how applicable it is to the case of indifferent things in the Worship of God to which our Reconciler applies it 1. First then I observe that the Apostles discourse in this place can be extended no farther than to forbid offering scandal and offence in the exercise
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
was from that of our Dissenters For 3. Another material difference between that Indulgence St. Paul granted to believing Jews with respect to the Law of Moses and that liberty our Reconciler exacts from the Church for Dissenters is this that the first had no influence upon Christian Worship it neither destroyed the uniformity of Worship nor divided the Communion of the Church but the second must do one or t'other or both which is such a liberty or forbearance as St. Paul never did and never would allow The believing Jews thought themselves still obliged to observe that difference of clean and unclean meats which was prescribed by the Law and to celebrate the Jewish Festivals and this liberty might be granted them without dividing the Communion of the Christian Church or disturbing Christian Worship for whatever private rules of Diet they observed believing Jews and Gentiles might all worship God together according to the common Principles of Christianity and therefore the Apostle exhorts the Romans to receive those who were weak in the Faith that is to receive them to Christian Communion to worship God together in Christian Assemblies This account the Learned Dr. Stillingfleet gave of this matter This being matter of Diet and relating to their own Families the Apostle advises them not to censure or judge one another but notwithstanding this difference to joyn together as Christians in the Duties common to them all For the Kingdom of God doth not lie in meats and drinks Let every one order his Family as he thinks fit but that requires innocency and a care not to give disturbance to the Peace of the Church for these matters which he calls Peace and Ioy in the Holy Ghost which is provoked and grieved by the Dissentions of Christians And he saith he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approved of men Let us therefore follow after the things that make for peace and things wherewith we may edifie one another In such cases then the Apostle allows of no separation from the publick Communion of Christians This our Reconciler very gravely smiles at As if the business here discours'd of were onely matter of Diet relating to their own Families and the command of the Apostle Him that is weak in Faith receive did onely signifie Let him dine with you This with submission to that Learned Person I judge a most unlikely thing for what great cause of scandal could their private Dinners give to a weak Brother unless they search'd into their Kitchins or had a Bill of Fare sent in from every Christian Family This is such leud trifling with a Great man and in a serious Cause as I leave to the censure of every sober Christian. For did not the Laws concerning clean and unclean meats respect their ordinary Diet in their own Families Was it not sufficiently known without a Bill of Fare that the Jews did observe these Laws Did not this occasion great Heats and Animosities Judgings and Censurings of one another Did not some both Jews and Gentiles separate from each other upon these accounts and disturb the Peace and divide the Communion of the Church Does not the Dean expound receiving the weak by joyning together as Christians in the Duties common to them all Cannot we expound meats of their ordinary Diet in their private Families without expounding Receive him that is weak by Let him dine with you And yet whereas he says What great cause of scandal could their private Dinners give to a weak Brother unless they search'd into their Kitchins or had a Bill of Fare sent 〈◊〉 from every Christian Family I readily grant they could give none Nor does the Apostâ—e command the Gentile Christians to abstain from such meats in their private Families when no body was preâ—ent who took offence at it but onely not to use this liberty publickly nor in their private Families neither if any believing Jew happened to be present who was offended at it Well but our Reconciler thinks it most probable that the Apostle speaks of eating in the Idol-Temples Suppose this were so it does not alter the state of the case if they did not eat there as an Act of Worship to the Idol but as at a common Feast And whether it be private or publick eating it is all one if it be innocent it has no influence upon Christian Worship and therefore cannot break Church-Communion while men forbear one another in such matters And yet it is evident the Apostle cannot here mean eating at the Idol-Temple but their ordinary Diet. For this whole Epistle to the Romans concerns the Dispute about the obligation of the Law of Moses as I have already observed and as our Reconciler acknowledges to be the general sence of ancient and modern Expositors concerning this very Chapter But our Author proceeds The Apostle does not onely speak of meats but also of observing days v. 6. Now that was not a matter of Diet but of publick Worship taught in the fourth Commandment And so the Dean acknowledges For some Christians went then on Iewish Holy days to the Synagogues others did not but for such things they ought not to divide from each others Communion in the common Acts of Christian Worship Their going to the Synagogues on Jewish Holy days did not hinder their Communion in Christian Worship and therefore they ought not to break Communion on such accounts But now these Controversies about Religious Ceremonies do wholly concern Christian Worship it is not what Clothes men shall ordinarily wear what Diet they shall use or how they shall behave themselves in other matters of a like nature wherein a great latitude and variety may be allowed without any breach of Christian Charity and Communion but how we shall worship God in the publick Assemblies of Christians whether the Minister who officiates shall wear a white Linnen Garment whether the Child that is baptized shall be signed with the sign of the Cross whether Christians who communicate at the Lords Table shall receive the consecrated Bread and Wine kneeling sitting or standing Now I would fain know of our Reconciler how it appears that these two are parallel cases or by what Logick he can fairly argue from one to the other That because the Apostle grants a liberty and indulgence to the Jews in such things as do not concern Christian Worship therefore the same liberty must be granted in the Acts of Worship it self though it must either destroy the Uniformity of Worship or divide the Unity of the Church especially considering that he has not produced and I am sure cannot any one instance of such indulgence granted to private Christians to dissent from the publick Rules of Worship and Constitutions of the Church and if he cannot shew any thing of this nature all his other Scripture-proofs are nothing to our Case And that these cases are so different that we cannot argue from one to the other I shall
prove by these following Considerations First I observe that the Apostle himself makes a plain distinction between an offence offered to private and particular men and that publick offence which is offered to the Church or to the Body and Society of Christians Give none offence neither to the Iews nor to the Gentiles nor to the Church of God Which shews that we are to have a different regard to particular men in their single or private capacity whether they be believing or unbelieving Jews or Gentiles and to the Church or whole Community of Christians For this is an eternal Law in all Societies to prefer the publick good before the interest of any particular man And therefore though we must have a tender regard to the satisfaction of particular men and have a great care lest we offend a weak Brother in such matters as are of a private nature and use yet in all things of a publick nature i. e. in all things which concern Christian Communion we are to have a greater care of offending the Church than particular Christians though their numbers may be great And therefore we cannot argue that because we must grant all reasonable indulgence to weak Brethren in such matters as do not concern church-Church-communion which is the case of the Apostles indulgence to the Jews therefore the publick Constitutions of the Church and Rules of Worship must be made to comply with the private Fancies and Humours of men and submit to unreasonable Scruples Our Reconciler owns this consequence as to Dissenters Seeing the refusal of submission to these things gives great offence unto the Church of God it equally concerneth the Dissenters upon these motives to submit unto them and it concerns them both to be as the Apostle careful to please all men in all things not seeking their own profit but the profit of many that they may be saved But why could not our Reconciler observe that this Rule equally concerns Governours as it does Dissenters not to offend the Church of God when he so earnestly disputes that Church-Governours are as much concerned in all these Rules of charity forbearance avoiding offence and scandal as private Christians and St. Paul urges this Exhortation from his own Example even as I please all men in all things Now if Church-Governours must not offend the Church they can grant a liberty and indulgence to the private scruples and fancies of men onely in such things as do not concern the publick communion of Christians The Rules of Worship and the Methods of Government and Discipline must be fixt and determined according to the general directions of the Gospel and with regard to the publick edification of the Church not to the pleasing and humouring some weak and scrupulous Christians for it is a just offence and scandal to the Church to make some mens private Fancies and groundless Scruples the Rule and Measure of Christian Worship Secondly This will more plainly appear if we consider a very material difference between indulging mens private scruples which concern matters of private use and observance and indulging such scruples as affect the publick Worship of Christians that in the first case Christian communion may be secured Men might worship God together according to the common Principles of Christianity though believing Jews were allowed to abstain from all meats forbidden by the Law of Moses and believing Gentiles indifferently to eat of all but when men differ about the Rules of Christian Worship one of these three things must happen Either 1. That Christians of different Perswasions in these matters must divide communion and separate from each other Or 2. That Christian Worship must be made to comply with the groundless fancies of scrupulous Christians Or 3. That men of differing opinions must be allowed to observe different Modes and Rites of Worship in the same Christian Assemblies each of which are a great offence and scandal to the Church of God 1. That Christians of different Perswasions must divide communion and separate from each other This is the usual effect of such Disputes about the Modes of Worship as our own sad experience witnesseth But this our Reconciler will not plead for and to be sure St. Paul never intended as you shall hear more presently 2. Christian Worship then must be made to comply with the groundless Fancies of scrupulous Christians That is there must be no Rules given for the Decency and Solemnity of publick Worship but what the most ignorant and most humoursome Professor will readily submit to which is both absurd in it self and inconsistent with all Government and makes it impossible to secure the external Decency and Solemnity of Worship which ought to be the principal care of Church-Governours as I have already proved 3. As for the third That men of differing opinions might be allowed to observe different Rites and Modes of Worship in the same Christian Assemblies This is as absurd as the other as sufficiently appears from what I have already discours'd At this rate the Governours of the Church cannot do their duty in taking care of the external Decency of publick Worship for who can foresee what Indecencies will be committed when every man is left to worship God as he pleases Nay this very thing in it self is extremely indecent for what Order what Decency can there be where there is no one Rule of Worship Uniformity in worship is like the proportion and symmetry of parts in the natural body wherein the external grace and beauty of it consists Though there were no difference at all as to external reverence in the several postures of receiving the Lords Supper whether kneeling standing or sitting yet it would be indecent and disorderly in the Communicants who receive together not to observe the same posture for some to kneel others to stand others to sit I am sure we should think it so at any ordinary and common Feast should some of the Guests sit at the Table on Chairs others stand and eat by themselves in a corner others sit on the ground others lean on Couches though there were nothing indecent in any of these postures according to the different Modes and Fashions of different Countries yet such an odd and humoursome variety it self is indecent and disorderly at the same Feast And if it be so at a common Table I think the indecency is much greater and more unpardonable at the Table of our Lord which requires the most universal harmony and consent Nay such a variety as this must needs give mutual offence and scandal to each other in the very act of receiving as I have already observed The onely reason that is or can be pretended why every man should be left to his own liberty to worship God as he thinks best is because men are divided in their Opinions about the Modes and Rites of Worship One thinks that rude and unmannerly which another thinks necessary One thinks that posture or habit c.
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
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
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