The Apostle says Not to touch a woman And why our Reconciler says wife instead of woman I cannot tell I am sure it is a corruption of the Text and contrary to the Apostolical command Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence and likewise also the wife unto the husband v. 3. But to let that pass his Argument in short is this The Apostle declares that a single life has many advantages in it as to the purposes of Religion especially in that afflicted and persecuted state of the Ghuach above Marriage and therefore he recommends a single life to them But knowing as our Saviour had before declared that every one could not receive this saying he does not impose it upon them and therefore the Governours of the Church should not impose our Ceremonies though it could be proved that there is like profit decency or tendence to perform Gods service better as the Apostle says there was under the present circumstances in keeping their virginity Now I would onely ask our Reconciler whether the Apostle had any authority to impose Virginity on the Christians of those days or to forbid them to marry If he had not as I think our Reconciler will not say that he had then his Argument runs thus The Apostle would not impose that upon the Christians which he had no authority to impose therefore the Governours of the Church must not impose that which they have authority to impose Some things may have great profit and advantage in them which yet are instances of so perfect a Vertue as is above the common attainments of Christians and therefore not fit to be made a standing Law they may be proper matter for an Exhortation but not for a Command But what a wide difference is there between the instances of a raised and perfect Vertue and the decent Rites and Ceremonies of Worship It is too severe an imposition to command the one but there is no difficulty in observing the other But the difference between Laws of burden and Ecclesiastical Ceremonies has been already observâ—d Thirdly His next head of Arguments for condescension to Dissenters is taken from that Dispute about eating of those meats which were offered to Idols 1 Cor. 8. 10. Now there is no need of any other Answer to this but to state this case right which will convince every ordinary Reader how unapplicable any thing which the Apostle here discourses is to the case of our Dissenters And to do this plainly and briefly we must consider 1. Who those were who out of a pretence of extraordinary knowledge went to the Idol-Temples and eat of those meats which were offered in sacrifice to Idols 2. Who the weak were who were offended with this and what the scandal and offence was 3. How the Apostle reasons about this matter 1. Who these knowing Persons were who eat in the Idols Temples Now it is very plain that the Apostle in this place taxes the Gnostick Hereticks who had occasioned that first Schism â—n the Church of Corinth and taught the People to despise St. Paul as very ignorant of the Mysteries of the Gospel and what the just extent of Christian liberty was For 1. it is plain that he here taxes a vain and arrogant pretence of knowledge v. 2. If any man think that he knoweth any thing he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know which is purposely to warn the Christians against those men who boasted so much of their knowledge assuring them that they were very ignorant notwithstanding all their brags of knowledge 2. It is evident that these men out of pretence of greater knowledge did eat in the Idols Temple If any man see thee which hast knowledge who dost so much boast of thy knowledge sit at meat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in an Idols Temple Now this St. Paul in the tenth Chapter absolutely condemns not onely as sinful upon account of scandal but as sinful in it self as partaking with Devils by eating of their Sacrifices No true Orthodox Christian ever did this but the Gnostick Hereticks did partly out of luxury to partake in these splendid Entertainments and to defile themselves with those impure lusts which were part of their Mysteries as the Apostle insinuates ch 10.6 7 8. v. These things are our examples to the intent we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted neither be ye idolaters as were some of them as it is written The people sate down to eat and drink and rose up to play neither let us commit fornication as some of them committed and partly out of fear of persecution against which the Apostle warns and encourages the sincere Christians v. 13. There has no temptation no tryal by sufferings and persecutions taken you but what is common to men but God is faithful who will not suffer you to be tempted above what you are able but will with the temptation also make a way to escape that ye may be able to bear it And to justifie this practice of theirs in eating at an Idols Temple they pretended that an Idol is nothing in the world that the Gods whom the Heathen worshipped were not Gods but dead men or according to the Mythology of the Stoicks which prevailed in that Age among the Philosophical Idolaters and therefore most probably was embraced by the Gnosticks were onely the names of some divine Powers and Attributes of the one eternal God which the errour and superstition of these People had formed into several distinct Dâ—â—ies and therefore an Idol being nothing it could not pollute the meat which was offered in sacrifice to it but it was as lawful to eat of that as of any other ordinary Feast 2. Let us consider who these weak persons were who were offended and scandalized at this liberty which the Gnosticks took Now it is as plain that these were a sort of very imperfect Christians who together with the Faith of Christ retained many of their old Pagan Superstitions as the Jews did the observation of the Mosaical Law This appears from that account St. Paul gives of them that they were men who did not understand that an Idol is nothing but look'd upon them at least as some inferiour Gods and frequented their Temples and eat of the meat offered to them under the notion of Sacrifices and thereby did defile and pollute themselves with Idolatrous Worship Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge for some with conscience of the Idol to this hour eat it as a thing offered unto Idols and their conscience being weak a sick misinformed corrupt conscience is defiled with Idolatry And therefore the scandal which was given to these men was this that when they saw those who pretended to such perfect knowledge in the Mystery of Christianity eat of the Sacrifice in the Idols Temple this confirmed them in their errour and Idolatry and made them conclude that such Pagan Superstitions as these were reconcilablâ—
with the Faith of Christ For if any man 〈◊〉 thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in an Idols Temple shall not the conscience of him that is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to Idols and through thy knowledge shall thy weak brother perish for whom Christ died by being confirmed in his Idolatry by thy Example 3. Now the Apostle disputes against this practice of the Gnosticks of eating in the Idols Temple two several ways 1. Upon the supposition of the lawfulness of it 2. By proving it unlawful 1. Upon the supposition of the lawfulness of it and this he does in the eighth Chapter He allows that Principle of the Gnosticks That an Idol is nothing in the world and supposes for argument sake that this would justifie those who have this knowledge in eating at an Idols Temple for that the Apostle himself was not of this mind appears from the tenth Chapter of which more presently yet since there were so many professed Christians among them who were still leavened with their Pagan Superstitions and could not presently renounce that kind of Worship which they had been so long accustomed to as some Copies read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indeâ—d of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 7. that some out of custom to the Idol instead of with conscience of the Idol it was very uncharitable by doing the same thing which they did though with very different notions and apprehensions to confirm them in their Idolatrous Practices Though these knowing Gnosticks who believed an Idol to be nothing might eat in the Idols Temple without being guilty of Idolatry yet thâ—y must acknowledge that those who believed these Idols to be Gods and did eat that meat which was offered to them under the notion of Sacrifices were guilty of Idolatry and therefore they were guilty of a very great sin when by doing the same thing though without Idolatry they encouraged those to do so too who were certainly guilty of Idolatry in it And the guilt of this is so much the greater because though they should suppose it lawful to eat at an Idols Temple yet they were under no necessity of doing it if they did not sin in it yet neither did they please God meerly by eating such meats as were offered to Idols for meerly to eat or not to eat any kind of meats is not in it self an acceptable service to God Meat commendeth us not to God for neither if we eat are we the better neither if we eat not are we the worse And therefore certainly we may abstain from it without any other injury than laying some little restraints upon the exercise of our private liberty and this is therefore a proper matter for the exercise of Christian charity as the Apostle had discoursed in the case of the Jews and Gentiles And though the Gnosticks thought that eating in an Idols Temple was a great argument of the perfection of their knowledge yet the Apostle tells them that charity and the care of their Brothers soul was to be preferred before such a vain boast of knowledge Take beed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling-block to them that are weak and through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish for whom Christ died For which reason in the beginning he told them Knowledge puffeth up but charity edifieth This is the sum of the Apostle's reasoning in this eighth Chapter upon a supposition that it were lawful to eat in an Idols Temple Now what affinity is there between this case and that of our Dissenters Those who knew that an Idol was nothing and therefore that it could not pollute the meat which was offered in sacrifice to it might eat in an Idols Temple without Idolatry but yet ought not to do it when their Example though innocent in it self would confirm others in actual Idolatry therefore the Governours of the Church must not prescribe the decent Rites and Ceremonies of Worship because Dissenters will not obey them but turn Schismaticks If our Reconciler be not ashamed to argue at this rate I am ashamed to confute him But it is plain he mistook the case For he says The Apostle grants that it is lawful in it self for Christians to eat of things offered to Idols he should have added in an Idols Temple where it had an immediate relation to the Idol which was the matter in dispute between the Apostle and the Gnosticks because an Idol was nothing in the world But now the Apostle does not grant this but onely at present supposes the lawfulness of it for in the tenth Chapter he professedly confutes it He tells them that to partake of a Sacrifice signifies our communion with that being to whom the Sacrifice is offered Thus it was with the Jewish Sacrifices Behold Israel after the flesh are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar Thus it is in the commemorative Sacrifice of the Lords Supper The cup of blessing which we bless is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ the bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ And thus to eat of the Idols Sacrifice in the Idols Temple is communion with the Idol Well says the Gnostick what communion can there be with that which is not or will you say That an Idol is any thing or that which is offered in sacrifice to Idols is any thing Will you say that there are any such Gods as the Heathens worship Or will you say that that is a Sacrifice or that that meat is polluted which is offered to nothing No says the Apostle I do not say that there are any such Gods as the Heathens worship for they worshipped dead men and women who cannot be present at their Sacrifices to receive their Worship or it may be they worship onely some fanciful and poetick Names and Fictions but this I say that though Iupiter and Bacchus Minerva and Diana and the rest of the poetick Deities are meer fictitious Gods yet wicked Spirits supply their places receive their Worship and attend their Sacrifices and therefore though these Heathen Idolaters be not in communion with those fictitious Gods whom they pretend to worship yet they are in communion with Devils who assume the names of these Gods But I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to Devils and not to God and I would not that ye should have fellowship with Devils Whether this can be reconciled with the lawfulness of eating in an Idols Temple because an Idol is nothing in the world let our Author consider But he proceeds He the Apostle moreover grants that they who out of conscience did abstain from eating of such things had a weak conscience and that their conscience was defiled by eating of such things onely because they wanted knowledge or were not well perswaded of this truth that Christians had a liberty or power to be
partakers of these things v. 7 9. He therefore grants that the weak brother was mistaken and that the strong gave him no just occasion of offence Which is every word false as appears from what I have already discoursed His interpretation of a weak Conscience to be such a Conscience as did abstain from eating of such things is directly contrary to the Text which affirms that they did eat For some with conscience of the Idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an Idol and their conscience being weak is defiled They were such as were encouraged and emboldned by the example of the Gnosticks to eat those things which were offered to Idols So that they did not do this with a fearful timorous scrupulous doubting Conscience but with a full assurance and perswasion of the lawfulness of it And therefore this weakness did not consist in the tenderness but in the corruption and debauchery of their Conscience that they believed they might still sacrifice to their Heathen Gods and that Christianity did allow them to do so in which Perswasion they were confirmed by the Example of those professed Christians whom they saw sit at meat in the Idols Temple Nor therefore were their Consciences defiled as our Reconciler asserts onely because they wanted knowledge or were not well perswaded of this truth that Christians had a liberty or power to eat of these things for they were too well perswaded not of this truth but of this great and fatal errour that it was lawful for Christians to sacrifice to Idols and to eat of their Sacrifices And thus their Consciences was defiled not by acting doubtfully but by committing Idolatry So that the weak Brother was mistaken indeed but the mistake lay quite on the other side and those Gnostick Hereticks whom our Reconciler calls the strong Christians did give just occasion of offence not by perswading much less compelling the weak to do what he suspected to be unlawful but by confirming him in these Idolatrous Practices to which he was so strongly addicted by their Examples And therefore when as he observes the Apostle exhorts those Christians who had attained to this knowledge or rather who pretended to such extraordinary knowledge which indeed they had not not to use it so as to give offence to the weak Conscience of their Brother who had this knowledge his meaning is not that they should indulge such persons in their weakness and mistakes but that they should have a care by their examples of confirming them in such mistakes They must not use their liberty which they supposed they had of eating in an Idols Temple not because some ignorant Christians scrupled the lawfulness of it but because those imperfect weak Christians who were still addicted to the Worship of their Country Gods would be confirmed in their Idolatrous Worship by seeing them eat of the Heathen Sacrifices which was a known and venerable part of the Pagan Worship And how this pleads for indulgence to the errours and mistakes of Dissenters I cannot guess when the onely scandal the Apostle here mentions and exhorts them to avoid is the confirming such weak Christians in their errours and wicked practices which our Reconciler who has contributed so much to harden these men in their Schism should do well to consider But let us proceed in St. Paul's discourse about eating those meats which were offered in sacrifice to Idols Having in the eighth Chapter disputed against the practice of eating in an Idols Temple upon supposition of the lawfulness of it for how lawful soever it was it was very uncharitable when hereby they confirmed their weak Brother in his Idolatrous Worship And in the tenth Chapter as I have already shewn having proved the unlawfulness of eating in an Idols Temple notwithstanding that pretence that an Idol is nothing in the world he comes to give a more particular decision of this Controversie to prevent those scruples which otherwise might disturb very good Christians For in that Age and place wherein they lived without infinite care and scrupulosity they could not avoid eating of meats offered to Idols for what was not spent in the Idols Feast was sold in the Shambles or spent at their private houses and therefore they neither could buy any meat in the Market nor eat at the private house of any Pagan or Heathen Idolater but they were in danger of eating meats offered to Idols To salve this difficulty the Apostle tells them that they should eat any meat which was sold in the Shambles or set before them at private houses without asking any questions for conscience sake that is without enquiring whether that meat had been offered in sacrifice to an Idol or making any scruple about such matters for the earth is the Lords and the fulness thereof that is all Creatures are Gods who has freely given them to us for our use and we may as freely use them when they have no relation to any Idolatrous Worship as to be sure they have not when they are exposed to sale in the Shambles or used for private Entertainments But yet if any person present acquaint you that this was offered in sacrifice then you must abstain for his sake that shewed it and there is no great damage in this since the earth is the Lords and the fulness thereof God has made such ample provision for us that we are not confined to any one dish but when it is inexpedient to eat of one thing we need not be a hungry for all that having such variety of provisions which there can be no scruple about to support and refresh us Who these were for whose sake the Apostle exhorts the Corinthians to abstain from eating of meats offered to Idols even at a private Entertainment which yet he asserts they might lawfully do is not plain in the Text If any man say unto you this is offered in sacrifice to Idols eat not But whether this man for whose sake they should abstain be a Christian or an Infidel is not said The unbeliever at whose house the Christian is supposed to eat might accidentally take notice that such meat had been offered in sacrifice to such a God and in this case the Christian might be obliged to forbear to shew his abhorrence and detestation of Idols that he might not do any thing which seems never so little to countenance Idolatry If it were a Christian who gave this information it might either be one who did really scruple the lawfulness of â—ating any meat that was offered to an Idol though out of the Idols Temple and then he who understood his liberty ought to forbear for his sake who did not or it was one of those weak and imperfect Christians whom the Apostle mentioned in the eighth Chapter who was so far from scrupling the lawfulness of eating such meats at a private house that he thought it lawful to sacrifice to these Heathen Gods and to partake of the Sacrifice in
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
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
scandal Now these two do so widely differ that the one is true and proper scandal and the other is not To offend a weak Brother by an uncharitable use of our liberty by doing such things as prove a stumbling-block and occasion of falling to him is scandal in the Apostle's notion of the word and the onely scandal of which he treats in this 14th Chapter to the Romans but thus it seems we do not scandalize the Dissenters who are not concerned not offended in the Apostle's sence at what we do so they might enjoy their own liberty and therefore neither the Church nor Dissenters are concerned in what the Apostle discourses about Scandal in this Chapter And as for that offence and scandal they take at the exercise of Discipline and Government which restrains their wild and fanatick pretences to liberty it is no other offence than what all Criminals take at Laws and publick Government which is so far from being such a scandal as the Governours of the Church ought to avoid that there is not a greater scandal to Religion than the neglect of it But I shall think nothing impossible if our Reconciler can prove out of this Chapter that the Governours of the Church should prescribe no Rules of Worship nor lay any Restraint upon the giddy and enthusiastick fancies of men for fear of giving offence to them 4. The last Argument the Apostle uses to represent the reasonableness of this forbearance is this that though the Gentile Christians without sin or without any injury to their own liberty might comply with their weak Jewish Brethren yet these Jewish Christians who believed it unlawful to eat any meats forbidden by the Law of Moses could not comply with the believing Gentiles without sinning against their own Consciences which brings judgment and condemnation upon them And he that doubteth which does not signifie what we commonly call a scrupulous Conscience for that was not the case of the Jews who did not doubt but certainly believe that it was unlawful for them to eat such meats but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I observed before signifies him who makes a distinction between meats and so believes it unlawful to eat any meats which were forbidden by the Law of Moses he who thus doubteth is damned if he eat because he eateth not of faith for whatever is not of faith is sin Now here our Reconciler thinks he has us fast for if this were a good Argument in the case of the Jewish Christians it must be also in the case of the Dissenters If the Gentile believers were not by any means to compel the believing Jews to eat those meats which they believed unlawful because how lawful soever it was in it self yet it was unlawful for them to do it while they believed it unlawful to be done by the same reason the Governours of the Church must not compel Dissenters to Conformity which they believe unlawful or at least greatly doubt of the lawfulness of it For he that doubteth is damned if he conforms as well as if he eats This looks most like a parallel case of any thing yet and if this fails him I doubt his Cause is desperate and yet I am pretty confident that this will do him no service 1. For first this is not a good Argument in all cases to grant such an indulgence and forbearance that men act according to their Consciences as I have already proved at large for this would subvert all Order and Government in Church and State and supersede the Authority and Obligation of all other Laws but every mans private judgment and opinion of things 2. Let us then consider in what cases this Argument is good for certainly it is good in the case to which the Apostle applies it Now I know of but one general case to which this Argument can be reasonably applied and that is where every man 's own Conscience is his onely Rule not where Conscience it self has a Rule The Laws of God and the Laws of our Superiours when they do not contradict the Laws of God are the Rule of Conscience that Rule whereby all men ought to act and it is a senseless thing to say that when men are under the government of Laws they must have liberty to act according to their own Consciences that is according to their own judgment and opinions of things which is to say that though men are under Laws yet they must be governed by none that Magistrates may make Laws but they must not execute them but must suffer every man when his Conscience serves him to break both the Laws of God and of the Church or Kingdom wherein he lives But where we are under no obligation of divine or humane Laws in such cases every mans own Conscience is his onely Rule and in these cases it is fit to leave every man to the direction and government of his own mind because they concern onely every mans private liberty and have no influence at all upon the Publick And if in such cases any man should fancy himself to be under the obligation of a divine Law when indeed he is not it would be barbarously uncharitable by Censures and Reproaches and such kind of rude and ungentile Arts to force him to a compliance contrary to the sense and judgment of his own mind for when there is no other Rule of our Actions every mans Conscience is his onely Rule and if he does that which he believes to be forbidden by the Law of God though indeed it is not yet he sins in it and if we force him to such a compliance we are very uncharitable in it and are guilty of offending a weak Brother This was the very case of which the Apostle speaks The Law which made a distinction between clean and unclean meats was now out of date and did no longer oblige them and therefore it was lawful both for Jews and Gentiles to eat what meat they pleased but the Jews still thought that Law to be in force and therefore though the Law did not oblige them to abstain from such meats yet their own Consciences which is always a Law when there is no other did still oblige them to abstain and therefore it was very uncharitable in the Gentile Christians to judge and censure and reproach them for this for though they who understood their liberty might use it yet a believing Jew could not do this without sin And there may be a great many cases in â—ome degree parallel to this As suppose a man scruples the use of Lots and consequently all Games which depend upon Lots or thinks it unlawful to drink a Health or to see a Play or apprehends himself obliged to a stricter observation of the Lords day than the Christian Church has in former Ages thought necessary though we should suppose that there were no Law of God about these matters yet this mans Conscience is a Law to him and whiles he thinks any
of these things unlawful they are unlawful to him and it would be very uncharitable by any Arts to force him to do such things as are contrary to the dictates of his own Conscience This is onely a restraint of their own private liberty and therefore they ought to be indulged in it especially while they are so modest as not to censure those who use their innocent liberty innocently In such cases as these there is no other Rule to guide us but what the Apostle gives Let every man be fully perswaded in his own mind which is a safe and a sure Rule when there is no other Law to govern us for this must not be extended to all cases as St. Chrysostom observes upon the place for if in all cases we must suffer every man to act according as he is perswaded in his own mind this would subvert all Laws and Government but this is reasonable in such cases as onely concern mens private liberty and are under the restraint and government of no Laws but what men make or fancy to themselves It is true all men who act upon any Principles will in all cases do as they are fully perswaded in their own minds yet this is not a Rule to be given in all cases It can be a Rule onely in such cases wherein let a mans judgment and opinion be what it will he acts safely while he acts according to his own judgment which can never be where there is any other Law to govern us besides our own judgment of things for though we act with never so full a perswasion of our own minds if we break the divine Laws we sin in it and shall be judged for it And that this is the true sence of the Apostle's Argument appears in this that he urges the danger a weak Brother is in of sin if he should be perswaded or forc'd to act contrary to the judgment of his own mind which supposes that he is in no danger of sin if he follow his own judgment for if there were an equal danger of sin both ways this Argument has no force at all to prove the reasonableness of such an indulgence and forbearance For if this weak Brother will be guilty of as great a sin by following his judgment if we do forbear him as he will by acting contrary to his own judgment if we do not the danger being equal on both sides can be no reason to determine us either way and therefore this must be confined to such cases wherein there is no danger of sinning but onely in acting contrary to our own judgment and perswasions that is onely to such cases where there is no other Law to govern us but onely our own private Consciences And therefore this danger of scandal cannot affect Governours who have authority to command nor extend to such cases which are determined by divine or humane Laws and therefore not to the Rites and Ceremonies of publick Worship for whatever our own Perswasions are if we break the Laws of God or the just Laws of men by following a misguided and erroneous Conscience we sin in it And the same thing appears from this consideration that the Apostle perswades them to exercise this forbearance out of charity to their weak Brother but what charity is it to suffer our Brother to sin in following a misguided Conscience If our Brother sin as much in following a misguided Conscience as in acting contrary to his Conscience he is as uncharitable a man who patiently suffers his Brother to sin in following his Conscience as he who compels him to sin by acting contrary to his Conscience or rather by not suffering him to act according to his Conscience Nay since external force and restraint may and very often does make men consider better of things and help to rectifie their mistates it is a greater act of charity to give check to men than to suffer them to go quietly on in sin And here I shall take occasion to speak my mind very freely and plainly about that perplext Dispute of liberty of Conscience It seems very contrary to the nature of Religion to be matter of force for Religion is a voluntary Worship and Service of God and no man is religious who is religious against his will and therefore no man ought to be compelled to profess himself of any Religion which was plainly the sence of the Primitive Christians when they suffered under Heathen Persecutions as is to be seen in most of their Apologies And yet on the other hand it is monstrously unreasonable that there should be no restraint laid upon the wild fancies of men that every one who pleases may have liberty to corrupt Religion with Enthusiastick Conceits and new-fangled Heresies and to divide the Church with infinite Schisms and Factions The Patrons of Liberty and Indulgence declaim largely on the first of these heads those who are for preserving Order and Government in the Church on the second and if I may speak my mind freely I think they are both in the right and have divided the truth between them No man ought to be forc'd to be of any Religion whether Turk or Jew or Christian though Idolatry was punishable by the Law and that with very good reason for though men may not be forc'd to worship God yet they may and ought to be forc'd not to worship the Devil nor to blaspheme or do any publick dishonour to the true God And this was all the restraint that Christian Emperours laid upon the Pagan Idolaters they demolished their Temples and forbad the publick exercise of their Idolatrous Worship But though no man must be compelled to be a Christian yet if they voluntarily profess themselves Christians they become subject to the Authority and Government of the Christian Church The Bishops and Pastors of the Church have authority from Christ and are bound by vertue of their Office to preserve the Purity of the Faith and the Decency and Uniformity of Christian Worship and if any Member of the Church either corrupt the Faith or Worship of it or prove refractory and disobedient to Ecclesiastical Authority they ought to be censured and cast out of the Communion of the Church which is as reasonable as it is to thrust a Member out of any Society who will not be subject to the Orders and Constitutions of it This distinction St. Paul himself makes between judging those who are without and those who were within the Church They had no authority to force men to be Christians but they had authority over professed Christians to judge and censure them as their actions deserved and this is properly Ecclesiastical Authority to condemn Heresies and Schism and to cast Hereticks and Schismaticks and all disorderly Christians out of the Communion of the Church and no governed Society can subsist without so much authority as this comes to As for temporal restraints and punishments they belong to the Civil Magistrate and if we
pleaded for a weak and ignorant and scrupulous Conscience And I wonder what service our Reconciler could think to do by pleading for the Dissenters under such a character as they will neither own themselves nor their Governours believe of them He takes it for granted that they are guilty of Schism and that their Schism is owing to a weak and ignorant tender and scrupulous Conscience Now Dissenters disown all this they do not think themselves Schismaticks or at least are too wise to own it much less do they think themselves ignorant but the most knowing and understanding Christians the very Gnosticks of the Age nor are they scrupulous but fully assured that they are in the right and their Governours in the wrong and therefore if they be wise they will give him no thanks for his pains And our Governours know indeed that they are Schismaticks and that they are ignorant or worse but do not take them for weak tender-conscienced scrupulous Schismaticks but know the quite contrary that they are proud conceited troublesome factious that they despise Dominions and speak evil of Dignities that they are restless Underminers of the setled Constitutions of Church State wherein they live that they despise instruction and think themselves too wise to learn or receive better information and this they are as certain of as forty years experience can make them So that were our Reconciler's Arguments never so good to perswade Governours to indulge weak and scrupulous and tender Consciences yet they fail in their application to Dissenters and are not so much as an Argument ad hominem because our Governours do not and have no reason to believe our Dissenters to be such persons and I cannot imagine what makes our Dissenters so fond of this Reconciler unless it be that they find so much of their own temper and spirit in him to unsettle the present Constitutions of the Church and to censure and reproach the Wisdom and Charity of his Governours And therefore I would advise Dissenters to act like men and if they are resolved to continue Dissenters to keep their Post and stand upon their defence and not to take Sanctuary in such lame Apologies as no considering man can make for himself without blushing If they are in the right they may justifie themselves against all Imposers without the help of a Reconciler and if they are in the wrong no Reconciler can help them And therefore they are bound in their own defence to answer the Second Part of the Protestant Reconciler as I have done the First in the defence of my dear Mother the Church of England which God Almighty long preserve and defend against all whether Popish or Protestant Dissenters and Reconcilers Amen THE END Reconcil p. 3. Preface p. 2 3 Reconcil p. 4. P. 2. Prot. Recon p. 39. Pref. p. 2. Reconcil p. 39. Reconc p 39 40. See Pract. disc of religious Assembl 6.2 See Defen of Dr. Still Unr. of Separ p. 30. Calvin in 1 Cor. 14.40 1 Mal. 6. v. 14. 1 Cor. 11.4 5 6 7. ch 14.34 35. 1 Tim. 2.11 12. 4 Rev. 4. 7 Rev. 9. 19 Rev. 8. See Defen of Dr. Still Unr. of Separ p. 41 42. 13 Joh. 4 5. 1 Tim. 5.10 P. 297. Prot. Rec. p 38 26 Mat. 29 14 Mark 25. 22 Luke 15 16 17. Prot. Rec. c. 8. p. 313. Ibid. P. 3 4. Duct dubit l. 3. c. 4. R. 20. S. 8. Prot. Recone p. 220 c. Reâ— c. 7. p. 212. Duct Dubit 3 b. 4 c. R. 20. S. 6. Recon p. 214. P. 227 c. Preface p. 53. P. 215. See the Vind. of the Defen of Dr. Stilling p. 427 c. Recon p. 332 333. Of Ceremonies why some abolish'd and some retain'd Pref. to the Com. Pray P. 338. P. 159. P. 323. Rec. p. 31 32. Recon p. 208. P. 247 c. P. 239 240. Irenicum p. 3. Recon p. 109 c. Chap. 8. p. 259. Hist. of Separation p. 16. Recon p. 297. Pref. to the Com. Prayer-book about Ceremonies 1 Cor. 11.3 4 c. Rec. p. 339. 15. Acts. P. 309. Libertas Eccl. p. 429. Recon p. 317. Libertas Eccl. p. 415. P. 318. 5 Joh. 10. 6 Luke 9. 12 Mat. 12. Prot. Rec. c. 1. P. 22. Recon ch 10. p. 326. P. 327. P. 330. See Dr. Still Hist. of Separation p. 4. P. 25. P. 331. Recon ch 2. p. 23. Recon p. 45. P. 46. 6 Hos. 6. 6 Mic. 6 7 8. 12 Mat. 7. 9 Mat. 13. P. 47. 9 Mat. 14 c. P. 49. P. 48. P. 50. P. 51. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys. in locum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 15 16 17 18. â—3 Mat. 13. v. 4. P. 54. v. 2 3. P. 56. 9 Mark 38. 15 Acts. Chap. 2. P. 73. P. 71. P. 79. Ibid. p. 80. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys. in Loc. 21 Acts 24. 21 Acts 21. 5 Gal. 1. 2 Col. 5.8 c. 14 Rom. 14. P. 77. 14 Rom. 1. v. 2. v. 3. P. 83. Libertas Ecclesiastica P. 437. Acts 10. 2 Gal. 11 12. 15 Acts 1. P. 84. P. 79. 14 Rom. 3. 15 Acts 7. P. 85. P. 86. 14 Rom. 4. 4 Jam. 11 12. 14 Rom. 5 6. P. 87 88. 14 Rom. 13. P. 77. 18 Mat. 6 10. 1 Cor. 8.10 ch 15 Acts 29. 14 Rom. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Chrys. in Locum Reconciler p. 88 c. v. 17. v. 18. Prot. Recone p. 59. Prot. Reconc p. 99. 14 Rom. 5. 14 Rom. 1. Unreason of Separation p. 215 216. Recâ—nc p. 81. Ibid. P. 82. 1 Cor. 10.32 Recon p. 154. Vid. Supra ch 2. p. 124. 14 Rom. 14 Rom. 1. 3 Philip. 16. 2 Gal. 11 12 c. Vide Supra ch 2. p. 118. 1 Cor. 11.34 1 Tit. 5. 1 Cor. 11.2 2 Cor. 7.15 1 Thess. 5.12 13. 13 Heb. 17. 2 Thess. 3.14 3 Phil. 15. Argum. 1. P. 122. Argum. 2. Recon p. 123. Vide Supra ch 4. p. 209. Recon p. 127. 1 Cor. 8.2 v. 10. v. 4. v. 7. v. 10 11. v. 8. v. 8 10. v. 1. Prot. Reconc p. 127. 1 Cor. 10. 1 Cor. 10.25 26 27. v. 28. 1 Cor. 8.8 Ibid. v. 13. 1 Cor. 9.20 21 22. Prot. Recon p. 138. 1 Cor. 9. v. 14 v. 12. 2 Cor. 9.1 c. 1 Cor. 9.15 16 18. Prot. Recon p. 138. Prot. Recon p. 166. See chap. 3. See Defence of Dr. Still Separat about Church-unity Recon p. 170. 16 Numb 2 Sam. 6.6 7. 1 Sam. 13.9 10 c. 15 ch 7 8 c. 23 Mat. 23. Recon p. 178. Ibid. 2 Sam. 12. P. 179. 20 Gen. 6. P. 180. 2 Phil. 14 c. Recon p. 182. P. 183. 1 Tim. 6.20 P. 185. Prot. Recon p. 197. P. 198. Prot. Reconc p. 200. See chap. 2. p. 131 c. Recon p. â—02 Vide Supra p. 104. Chap. 2. p. 144 c. Supra p. 105 c. Recon p. 20â— Chap. 1. p. 24 c. See chap. 2. Chap. 1. p. 79 c. p. 109 c. Recon p. 207. Chap. 2. p. 140 141. Preface p. 4. Chap. 1. p. 100 c.
beholden to our Reconciler for pleading their Cause O ye Dissenters when will you be wise when will you learn understanding when will you be able to distinguish between a Defence and a demure Abuse I blush to think that you do not blush for your selves when you read such an Apologie as this which casts all the Dirt upon you imaginable and yet you read and admire and applaud your Reconciler as a man of wonderful charity and tenderness for you And yet if you believe that he has said any thing to the purpose you must own your Cause to be very bad and your condition to be very dangerous He all along supposes that you are Schismaticks and in very great danger to be damned for your Schism which is his principal Argument to perswade Governours out of charity to your Souls to abate those Ceremonies which are very harmless and innocent in themselves but abused by you for an occasion of Schism He confesses the fault is your own for our Governours command nothing but what is lawful to be obeyed and the onely Apologie he can make for you is that you are Children and that you are froward and humoursome Children too who will be sullen and refuse your Victuals unless you can receive it from what hand you please That you are very weak in understanding very ignorant of your Religion and this makes you so fearful and scrupulous that you start at your own shadows and stumble as men do in the dark and are almost scared out of your Wits if any knavish Wag make you believe that there are some Hobgoblins or Fairies in the way Now do you indeed believe that this is the true state of your Case If you do not then our Reconciler has said nothing for you nor against your Governours which I know you like as well as an Apologie for your selves for which you ought to thank him but has most grosly abused you If you be not Schismaticks if you be not in danger of damnation for your Schism if you be not fools and children silly ignorant humoursome people then all those Arguments which our Reconciler draws from these Topicks to perswade Governours to humour you with Abatements have no force in them and if you be I will leave you to consider how reasonable it is that Schismaticks should govern the Church or Fools and Children give Laws to their Parents Masters and Governours And if you say that your Reconciler onely urges this as an Argument ad Hominem that those who do think you to be such persons as he there pleads for should grant you your liberty and condescend to your weakness it is a signe then that he would have our Governours take you for weak ignorant humoursome Schismaticks which is a wonderful Argument of his charity to you and a great signe of your wit and understanding to be contented to be thought so But if you would be thought so to exercise the charity and condescension of your Governours I must advise you by the way never to boast more of your profound knowledge and attainments in Religion nor to despise your Governours and Teachers as ignorant carnal men lest you confute your Advocate and spoil his Reconciling designe This is a hard case indeed but there is no help for it if you will enjoy your liberty upon such suggestions as these you must mortifie your pride if you would be indulged as Fools and Children you must never more pretend to be wise men and then there is no danger of any other discovery for whatever indulgence is due to the weak and ignorant yet I think all men will grant that a proud conceited fool is not to be indulged but to be humbled and made to know himself Nay if you will stand to your Reconciler's Plea for you you must never write any more Books to justifie your Separation you must never talk more of Antichristian Ceremonies and unscriptural Impositions nor pretend to teach your Teachers and Governours for no man can in modesty make two such contrary Pleas at the same time to plead his knowledge and his ignorance the weakness and indiscretion of a child and the understanding of a man at the same time and for the same thing which is to plead that Governours must yield to you because you are in the right and that in charity they must condescend to you because through ignorance and weakness of understanding you are in the wrong Indeed though we should grant that a Reconciler might honestly make such a Plea as this for Dissenters yet no Dissenter can honestly make this Plea for himself because he does not believe it He does not think himself a Schismatick nor weak and ignorant though possibly he may be conscious to himself that he is froward and humoursome enough and therefore cannot honestly pretend that he is so and that he ought to be indulged for that reason St. Paul pleaded â—or condescension to the weak Jews but the Jews never pleaded this for themselves but scorned the Plea for if men know their own mistakes they must rectifie them if they are sensible of their own weakness they must submit to their Governours not plead their weakness to excuse their disobedience In short no man can honestly make this Plea but he who is sensible of his own weakness and ignorance and he who is sensible of this cannot modestly do it for it is an immodest thing for any man to desire to be indulged in his ignorance and mistakes So that though a Dissenter may like the general Doctrine of the Reconciler yet he cannot like the application of it to himself and ought never to plead it in his own case which is to put tricks upon Government and to cheat them with false and counterfeit Pleas which when it is known as it is certainly known in this case is an insolent contempt of the Wisdom of Governours And since no Dissenters can honestly or modestly use this Plea I have much wondered to hear them so mightily applaud our Protestant Reconciler when they cannot justifie themselves in his way If they think our Reconciler did really speak his Conscience when he charges them with a damning Schism with weakness and ignorance and a childish folly he has given as bad a character of them as the worst Enemy they have can do onely he has broken their heads and given them a Plaister and it argues great tameness and mortification in them to take it so patiently if he did not believe this as I presume the Dissenters charitably think he did not he has put a great abuse upon his Governours reproaches them for not indulging Dissenters who as he suggests through weakness and ignorance and tenderness of Conscience fall into Schism and destroy their Souls when he himself believes no such thing of them and yet this would prove a very fatal mistake in Government to grant that liberty to an obstinate conceited incurable Schismatick which may in some cases be charitably