are not so much beholding to him but the present Clergy are as little to whom he has by very broad signs and intimations applied Theophylact's observation upon the Text That our Lord complained the Labourers were but few because the Scribes and Pharisees the present Labourers not onely did not profit but did hurt the people whereas it is the property of a good Pastor to be merciful-towards them He knew very well this Objection oâ— the paucity of Labourers could not well be applied to us who have such a numerous Clergy and therefore to make room for Dissenters he fairly insinuates that the present Ministers do no good but hurt Such an impudent Calumny as needs no confutation and let others consider what censure it deserves IV. His next Argument is taken from our Saviour's command not to scandalize or despise little ones 18 Mat. where by little ones he understands those who are weak in the Faith or not well instructed in their Duty or mistaken in it though very obstinate and peremptory in their mistake for so he must mean if he will apply it to the case of Dissenters And by scandalizing offending or despising them he understands doing any action which occasions their ruine And thus he tâ—inks Church-Governours fall under this Woe which is denounced against those who offend these little ones when they impose such Ceremonies which they cannot and will not submit to which occasions the Schism and consequently the damnation of their weak Brother No man can possibly want Arguments who has such an admirable faculty not at finding but making them for nothing can be more remote from our Saviour's intention in these words than such an inference as this For 1. It is evident that by little ones our Saviour understands those who are meek and humble and modest who are as void of pride and passion and earthly ambitions as a little Child as is evident both from the occasion of this discourse which was to correct the ambition of his Disciples and from the example of a little Child which he proposes to them for their imitation Thus St. Chrysostom and St. Ierom expound the words though the latter observes also that those who are scandalized are upon that account also little ones for great and strong Christians will not receive scandal That is though they be humble and modest c. yet these Graces and Vertues are not so well rooted and confirmed in them but that the ill usage they meet with from the world may turn them out of their byass and occasion their fall But what is this to our Dissenters who are neither in one sence nor other little ones who neither have the modesty humility and peaceableness of Children nor their soft and ductile nature but are stiff and inflexible and obstinate in their conceits that they will neither hearken to Reason nor yield to Conviction 2. To scandalize or offend these little ones St. Chrysostom tells us is to dishonour to reproach to vilifie them to despise them as it is expressed v. 10. which as he observes is a great temptation and scandal to men of weak minds Our Reconciler observes that St. Ierom says We are said to scandalize when by our actions we give occasion to their ruine I find no such saying in St. Ierom upon the place but however the saying is a very good one if we apply it right to actions of contempt and scorn of which both St. Ierom and St. Chrysostom speak which are apt to spoil this good temper of mind when men see themselves onely scorned and derided for it and exposed to all sorts of violence and injury This is the usual reward of great modesty and humility in this World and therefore our Saviour secures these little ones from contempâ— by denouncing severe woes against those who offer it But what is all this to the Church which offers no contempt to the meanest Christian much less to men of humble and modest and peaceable tempers She is as much concerned for the salvation of the Poor as of the Rich and despises no man who has a soul to be saved and will submit to wise instructions Must the Church be charged with scandalizing little ones because she will not renounce her own Authority nor suffer these little ones to give Laws to her Certainly our Saviour never intended any such thing when in this very Chapter and upon this very occasion he asserts the Authority of the Church even in the point of scandal and commands us not to converse with those men who will not hearken to her Counsels and Reproofs If thy brother shall trespass against thee shall offend and scandalize thee go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone if he shall hear thee thâ—u hast gained thy brother But if he will not hear thee then take with thee one or two more that in the mouth of one or two witnesses every word may be established And if he shall neglect to hear them tell it to the Church but if he neglect to hear the Church let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican Verily I say unto you Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven But of the case of scandal or giving offence our Reconciler has given us occasion to discourse more in another place V. His next Argument is as wise as the rest He tells us Our Lord denounceth woe against the Scribes and Pharisees because they shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men But he should have added the whole verse for ye neither go in your selves neither suffer ye them that are entring to go in St. Ierom expounds this two ways 1. They shut the Kingdom of Heaven against men by hindring their belief in Christ in whom they would neither believe themselves nor suffer others to believe who were prepared and disposed for it which is certainly the true exposition of the words But then he adds 2. That these Teachers and Rabbies may be said to shut up the Kingdom of Heaven who scandalize their Disciples with their wicked lives that is who tempt them to sin by their example But what is this to the Dispute about Ceremonies Does the imposition of Ceremonies in its own nature shut men out of the Kingdom of Heaven Can none be saved then who obey the Laws of the Church about Rituals and Ceremonies as no man could enter into the Kingdom of Heaven who followed the directions of the Scribes and Pharisees Christ condemns the Pharisees for using their utmost endeavour to hinder men from embracing the Christian Faith and entring into the Kingdom of Heaven Our Reconciler draws up the same charge against the Church because some men take unjust offence against the Order and Decency of her Worship and will not enter though she uses all manner of Entreaties and Arguments and wise Arts to perswade them to enter
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
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
very foolish Argument against either The true Argument against the Dissenters is this That they are bound to obey their Superiours in those things which God has not forbidden for where God has not interposed his Authority they are subject to the Authority of their Governours The Argument is not That they are in all cases bound to do what God has not forbid them to do which is ridiculously absurd for what is not unlawful not forbidden by God may either be done or may be let alone without sin unless some other consideration besides its being not forbidden alter the case But the Argument is this That what God has not forbidden Governours may command and Subjects are bound in Conscience to obey Let us see then how he applies this to our Imposers as he modestly calls our Governours in Church and State It is not unlawful as not forbidden by God to leave these Ceremonies indiffâ—rent so far indeed it agrees with the case of the Dissenters that the Ceremonies are not unlawful as not being forbidden by God but now where is the superior Authority over Governours to make it unlawful for them to impose that which it is not unlawful not to impose then the case of Imposers would be exactly parallel with the Dissenters who are under the Authority of their Governours which makes that their duty which God had left indifferent and that unlawful which God had by no express prohibition made unlawful but here the Parallel fails and therefore the Argument is not the same For the supreme Authority of Church and State can have no superiour Authority on Earth to make that unlawful to them which God has not made unlawful All that our Reconciler offers to this purpose is onely this That the avoiding scandal and offence and the preservation of Charity Peace and Vnity in the Church lays as necessary an obligation on Governours to forbear what they may lawfully forbear for the promoting these ends as the Authority of Governours obliges Subjects to obey them in all things wherein they lawfully may that is that Governours are bound not to command any thing which they may lawfully not command when hereby they serve the ends of Charity and Peace Now if this were the case yet so the Argument would not be the same for then we must state the case of Governours thus That they must not do that which is unlawful to be done not that they must not do that which is not unlawful not to be done The Authority of Governours does not alter the intrinsick nature of things and therefore we may very properly say that Subjects must obey their Governours in all things which are not unlawful and that the things commanded are not in their own natures unlawful is a good Argument to oblige them to obey but the end and circumstances of action alters its moral nature and that which in some circumstances is not unlawful in other circumstances becomes absolutely unlawful And if this be the case here that the imposition of these Ceremonies is unlawful when it gives scandal and offence and disturbs the Peace and Unity of the Church then the Argument to disswade Governours from such Impositions is not that it is not unlawful to forbear imposing which is parallel to the Argument used against Dissenters that it is not unlawful to obey but that it is unlawful to impose in such circumstances which differ as much as to perswade men not to do what they lawfully may not do differs from disswading them from doing what is not lawful to be done This I think is abundantly enough to shew that our Reconciler is very much out in his Logick when he makes this Argument against Dissenters and Imposers to be the same as for the Argument it self that it is unlawful for Governours to impose these Ceremonies when it gives offence and scandal to weak Brethren c. I have sufficiently answered that already 3. His next Argument which he says equally holds against the Dissenters and Imposers is taken from the littleness and small importance of the things upon which we are divided and it is in short this That Dissenters ought not to disturb the Peace of the Church by refusing obedience in such little things nor the Governours of the Church by imposing such little things Now I need not concern my self about this Argument which is not likely to have any effect either upon Dissenters or Imposers who if they understand themselves and act honestly it is plain do not think these things so little and inconsiderable that they are not worth contending about That the decent Ceremonies of Religion are not such very contemptible things I have already proved at large in the first Chapter that they are not so little that Governours ought not to impose them I have proved at the beginning of this Chapter and that sufficiently proves that this is no Argument against Governours and if as our Reconciler says it be an unanswerable Argument against Dissenters I am contented to leave it so However our Reconciler is mightily out when he thinks the littleness of a thing to be as good an Argument against the imposition of Governours as against the disobedience of Dissenters for Governours are bound to take care of little as well as of great things because things which are little in themselves may have very great effects either good or bad but there is no excuse for the disobedience of Subjects in such cases for the less the command is the less reason have they to refuse obedience I believe all Parents and Governours in the world think so excepting our Reconcilers In the next place our Reconciler argues from many general Topicks received and owned by all Casuists As 1. Qui non vetat peccare cùm possit jubet Which he translates thus He that being a Superiour a Father a Master of a Family c. doth not what lawfully he may for the prevention of the sin of those who are subject to his government becomes partakers of their sin Now suppose all this what care can be taken to prevent sin which it becomes Governours to take which is neglected by the Church of England Yes says the Reconciler they may abate those Impositions which occasion the Schism But this has been so often answered already that I shall now onely direct my Readers in the Margin where to find the Answer 2. He says Divines concerning the right interpretation of the Ten Commandments and of the Laws of Christ do generally lay down these Rules viz. That when any thing is forbidden by these Laws all those things are forbidden also which follow from that forbidden action and for whose sake it was forbidden Now I think this is a very good Rule and if he can prove that the imposition of these Ceremonies is a forbidden action I will grant that the Schism which is consequent upon it is imputable to the Church but if it be not forbidden if the Church has this