God has not determined by his own Authority whereas the Dispute between Jews and Gentiles was actually determined by God that the Jews should be indulged in the observation of the Law but that it should not be imposed upon the Gentiles and therefore when they judged and censured one another upon this account they exceeded their authority they judged over Gods judgment and judged another mans Servant which the Church cannot be charged with when she judges and censures her own refractory and dissenting Members for their disobedience in such things as are subject to her authority 3. The Apostle perswades both Jews and Gentiles to receive one another to Christian communion because though they differed in their practice yet both of them acted out of reverence to the divine Authority The Jew knew that the Law of Moses was given by God and could not be satisfied that it was repealed and therefore still observed the Law in reverence to the Authority which first gave it The converted Gentiles knew that the Law was never given to them and were assured by the same persons upon whose authority they embraced the Gospel that they were not under the obligation of the Law and therefore they thankfully accept that liberty which Christ had purchased for them And therefore since both of them at that time could truly plead a divine authority for what they did and not meerly some unaccountable humour and prejudice they ought not to judge and censure one another for such different practices One man esteemeth one day above another another esteemeth every day alike let every man be fully perswaded in his own mind He that regardeth a day regardeth it to the Lord and he that regardeth not a day to the Lord he doth not regard it He that eateth eateth to the Lord for he giveth God thanks which would be a profane and impudent mockery of God did he not believe that God had given him liberty to eat indifferently of any thing and he that eateth not to the Lord he eateth not and giveth God thanks Our Reconciler represents the Apostles Argument thus These persons saith the Apostle ought to be received into communion although they differ in practice and in judgment about these matters because it was from conscience towards God and a desire to do what was most pleasing to him that some did eat and others not that some did regard a day and others not If charity therefore will teach us to conclude of such as do observe or do refuse observance of the Constitutions of our Church in these inferiour matters that as they outwardly profess so do they really observe or not observe them out of conscience towards God which they who cannot know mens Consciences but by their own professions cannot well deny then must they both by the Apostles Rule receive each other to communion and not reject each other on the accounts of differences in judgment or in practice in these lesser matters Let us then consider what the consequence of this Doctrine would be if it were true viz. that the Consciences of men are under no Government and when we consider what is usually meant by Conscience viz. mens private Opinions and Judgments of things the plain English of it is that every man must do as he list and thus all the Authority of Government is over-ruled by the more soveraign Authority of Conscience This is so extreamly absurd that it is wonderful to me that men of common understanding should not blush to own it For 1. It is plain that God will judge the Consciences of men and condemn them too if they be erroneous and wicked The Jews crucified our Saviour and persecuted his Apostles out of zeal for God as St. Paul witnesses but God destroyed their City Temple and Nation for it I suppose our Reconciler will not charge all the Heathen Idolaters even after the Empire was turned Christian with being a pack of damned Hypocrites Many of them no doubt very sincerely followed their Consciences and yet were damned not for Hypocrites but for conscientious Idolaters All the Laws of God oblige the Consciences of men whatever their particular Perswasions may be and if mens Consciences will not comply with the Laws of God the Law will judge and condemn them and yet it seems as hard a thing that God should condemn men who act out of conscience and a desire to do what is most pleasing to him as that Earthly Governours should condemn and punish them No you 'll say God is the sole Lord and Judge of Conscience and he alone has authority to give Laws to the Consciences of men which no humane power can but all this is senseless Cant for what is it to be the Lord of Conscience and to give Laws to Conscience Does it signifie any more than a Soveraign Authority to command under the guilt of sin if we disobey And have not all Governours then who have received authority from God to command the government of mens Consciences too as far as their authority reaches But this is not the Question Who has authority to give Laws to Conscience for whoever has authority to make Laws has authority to make Laws for Conscience unless they have authority to make Laws without obliging any body to obey them But the Question is Whether after Laws are made either by God or men every man may equitably challenge a liberty to follow the guidance of his own Conscience though his Conscience mistake its rule Now it is plain that God does not grant this liberty for he punishes such erroneous Consciences and will eternally damn those who do wicked actions out of a mistaken Zeal for his glory and yet if there were any reason or equity in the case it would more oblige God than any Earthly Governours because such misguided Zealots are supposed to intend Gods glory in what they do And if God will not indulge such men in the breach of his Laws though they intend to please him by it what reason have Earthly Governours to do it who receive their authority from God and cannot imitate a better Example in the exercise of it than God himself 2. Civil Magistrates ought to take no notice at all of mens Consciences in making or executing Laws for the good government of the Nation If the Saints should think it their priviledge and prerogative to rob and plunder and murder the ungodly if they should think themselves bound in conscience to pull down earthly Princes to set up King Jesus on his Throne should Magistrates be afraid of hanging such Villains as these as commit such horrid Outrages from a Principle of Conscience Nay if men refuse to give security to the Government or a legal testimony in any civil cause out of a scruple about the lawfulness of Oaths is the Government to take notice or to make any allowance for this If God does not Magistrates have less reason to do it because God knows what mens Consciences
are which Magistrates can never know Hypocrites may pretend conscience as well as the sincere and Government could never be secure if Justice must be administred not by known and standing Laws but in compliance with every mans Conscience which is or may be no body knows what 3. The onely doubt then is about the Governours of the Church whether they in making Laws and in the exercise of Discipline ought not to have great regard to the Consciences of men Now I would fain know a reason why they are more bound than either God or civil Magistrates to suffer men to do what they please according to their various and different pretensions of Conscience If there be any equity in it that every man should enjoy the liberty of his own Conscience it holds in other matters as well as these I suppose our Reconciler will not say that the Governours of the Church are bound to suffer every man to be of what Religion he pleases to believe what he will to deny the Divinity and Satisfaction of our Saviour to worship an Image or the Host or the Virgin Mary c. and therefore the most considerable things in Religion are not left at liberty and yet of the greater moment any thing is the greater imposition it is upon Conscience I had rather submit to twenty Ceremonies than to be required to subscribe to one new Article of Faith But our Reconciler pretends onely to this Indulgence in inferiour matters Let us then consider his reason for that for certainly the less the things are the less need there is and the less reason to humour mens Consciences about them The onely reason he assigns for it is this That those who do observe or do refuse observance of the Constitutions of our Church in these inferiour matters do really observe them or not observe them out of Conscience towards God And if this be a good reason why every man should be left to the government of his own Conscience it is good in all other cases as well as in such inferiour matters for why should we impose upon men in any thing which they observe or not observe in conscience towards God But you 'll say this is St. Paul's Argument not the Reconciler's No say I it is the Reconciler's Argument not St. Paul's But does not St. Paul say He that regardeth a day regardeth it to the Lord and he that regardeth not a day to the Lord he doth not regard it He that eateth eateth to the Lord for he giveth God thanks and he that eateth not to the Lord he eateth not and giveth God thanks Yes I grant that these are St. Paul's words And does not this signifie that they who did eat and they who did not eat acted out of conscience towards God Yes I grant that too The converted Gentiles did eat indifferently of all sorts of meats and thanked God for that liberty he had granted them the converted Jews abstained from all meats forbidden by their Law and thanked God for their Law which preserved them from all legal pollutions but this is peculiar to this case and cannot be applied to our Dissenters that they refuse to observe our Ceremonies out of conscience towards God God had given a positive Law to the Jews by the hands of Moses which enjoyned the observation of new Moons and Sabbaths and other Festivals and made a distinction between clean and unclean meats and though this Law was now out of date yet it was not repealed in as publick a manner as it was given and God had no way declared that they should observe this Law no longer and therefore those Jews who embraced the Faith of Christ durst not renounce the Law of Moses out of reverence to the Authority of God who gave it and therefore these believing Jews might well be said to observe days and not to eat to the Lord that is out of reverence to the authority of God who gave that Law The believing Gentiles were never under the obligation of the Law of Moses and therefore were more easily instructed in their Christian liberty which God declared by sending his holy Spirit on them in their uncircumcision and by the Decrees of the Apostolical Synod at Ierusalem and they were very well assured by these divine Testimonies that God had delivered them from the Jewish observation of days and meats and therefore they did eat and they did not observe days to the Lord out of reverence to the divine authority which had delivered them from the Mosaical Law But where there is no positive Law nor any publick Declaration of Gods Will whatever our particular Perswasions and Opinions may be we do not act out of conscience towards God For no man can be said to do any thing to the Lord or out of conscience towards God in such cases wherein God has not interposed his authority And therefore unless our Reconciler can shew any positive Law either against Ecclesiastical Ceremonies in general or against the Cross in Baptism the Surplice or Kneeling at the Sacrament in particular how much soever his beloved Dissenters pretend to Conscience it is absurd to say that they do not observe these things out of conscience towards God nor do Conformists observe them out of conscience towards God any otherwise than as they obey that Authority which God hath set in his Church For there can be no other foundation for Conscience but either the express Laws of God or obedience to that Authority which God hath set over us But you 'll say may not that man also be said to act out of conscience toward God who does or forbears doing any thing out of a perswasion that God has commanded or forbid it though he should be mistaken in it and he can produce no Law of God to that purpose While men designe to please God in what they do surely they may be said to act out of conscience towards God I answer I will not contend about words and phrases with any man but let them call things by what names they please All that I say is this That St. Paul does not use it in this sence nor is any man in Scripture said to do any thing to the Lord who cannot produce a plain Law for what he does Other men may intend Gods glory in what they do but they may miss of their aim when they have no Rule and incur the divine displeasure instead of pleasing God and neither God nor men can grant any Indulgence to such a Conscience as this But when both contending Parties can produce a divine authority for doing or not doing the same thing which never did and never can happen but in this case concerning the obligation of the Law of Moses there is great reason for them to receive one another because they both act out of reverence to the divine Authority In a word two contrary Parties as the Jews and Gentiles were in this Controversie can never both of them
evident in this very place that those whom our Reconciler calls the strong Iewish Christian St. Paul calls the weak in the Faith who did not understand his true Christian liberty and writing neither to strong Jewish nor to strong Gentile Christians but to the Church of Rome which consisted of both in compliance with the Apostolical Decree in the first Council at Ierusalem He imposes no necessity on the Jews to renounce the observation of the Law nor on the Gentiles to observe it and lest such different manners and customs might occasion Schisms and Divisions among them he exhorts them to mutual forbearance not to judge nor censure nor reproach each other upon this account And this the Apostle might do without incurring the censure of the Christians at Ierusalem or contradicting his own practice For he was charged at Ierusalem not with teaching the abrogation of the Law with respect to Jews as well as Gentiles which was a thing so notorious that he neither could nor would dissemble it but with forbidding the Jewish Christians to observe the Law which indeed was directly contrary to the Apostolical Decree which delivered the Gentiles from that necessity but indulged the Jews in it Thus Iames the Bishop of Ierusalem tells him that the Jews who were then in great numbers at Ierusalem and were zealous for the Law were informed of him that he taught all the Iews which are among the Gentiles that they ought to forsake Moses saying that they ought not to circumcise their children neither to walk after the customs Now it is one thing to say that they are under no necessity of doing this and another to say they are under a necesâ—ity of not doing it the first was the Apostles constant Doctrine the second was contrary both to his own practice and to that liberty he every-where indulged the Jews as well as in this Chapter under debate Having thus cleared the way and proved that St. Paul does here discourse about the observation of the Jewish Law and that neither believing Jews nor Gentiles ought to judge censure or condemn each other for observing or not observing such customs I come now to shew what a vast difference there is between this case and those indifferent Ceremonies and Circumstances of Worship which are enjoyned by our Church and that we cannot argue from one to the other And methinks every ordinary Reader cannot but be sensible of the difference at the first hearing For the Dispute here is not about indifferent things but about the obligation of the Law of Moses The Proposition our Reconciler undertakes to prove is That indifferent things which may be changed and altered without sin or violation of Gods Law ought not to be imposed by Superiours as Conditions of Communion And this he proves from St. Paul's Indulgence to the Jews in the observation of the Mosaical Law Now what relation is there between the Law of Moses and the indifferent Circumstances or Ceremonies of Worship Did St. Paul allow the Jews this liberty of observing the Law of Moses upon this reason that it was indifferent for them to observe or not to observe the Law If he did not then this Example is impertinently alleadged as not relating to this present Dispute about imposing or not imposing indifferent things If he did then the observation of the Law is indifferent still for that which is once indifferent must continue so without some new Law to alter its nature and I know of none in this case If St. Paul thought the observation of the Law so indifferent why does he dispute so earnestly against it in this whole Epistle Why did he contend so earnestly even with St. Peter himself in behalf of the Gentiles to maintain their liberty from the Jewish Yoke for if it were indifferent to the Jew it was so to the Gentile and according to our Reconciler's way it did not become such great Apostles to contend about indifferent things either one way or other Why did St. Paul so severely chide the Galatians who chiefly consisted of Gentile Converts for their warping to the observation of the Law and so passionately exhorts them to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ had made them free and not to be intangled again with the yoke of bondage Why does he so diligently caution the Colossians both against Jewish and Pagan Superstitions as contrary to the Doctrine of Christ This does not argue that the Apostle thought the observation of the Law of Moses an indifferent thing for though he indulged the Jews in it he would not indulge the Gentile Converts especially those Gentile Churches which were panted by himself and were from the very beginning instructed in their Christian liberty which seems to be the true reason of his different treatment of the Churches of Rome and Galatia At Rome it is evident there were great numbers both of Jewish and Gentile Converts and as he asserts the liberty of the Gentile Christian from the Mosaical Law so he indulges the believing Jew in such observations and exhorts them both to bear patiently and charitably with one another without despising or judging But the Churches of Galatia consisted of Gentile Converts and either had none or very few Jews originally among them as is evident in that St. Paul from the very beginning had freely and openly instructed them in their Christian liberty and freedom from the Law of Moses which he could not have done had there been any great number of Jews there who were all zealous for the Law therefore when in his absence some Jewish Christians had got in among them and seduced them from the simplicity of the Gospel to the observation of legal Rites and Ceremonies he deals very sharply with them and chides them for their Apostacy for there was not the same reason to indulge them in this case as to indulge the Jews And we may as well from St. Paul's severity to the Galatians prove that it does not become Church-Governours to indulge the wantonness and superstitious conceits and scrupulous fancies of private Christians as from his indulgence to the Jewish Christians at Rome prove the unlawfulness of imposing indifferent things and with much better reason too To be sure since he so sharply reproves the Galatians for their observation of the Law of Moses which he so charitably indulges the Jewish Romans in he does neither under the notion of indifferent things and therefore this Example does not concern our present Dispute But you will say Were not these things indiâ—ferent Does not the Apostle expresly say I know and am perswaded by the Lord Iesus Christ that there is nothing unclean of it self Was not the Law abrogated which made the diâ—ference between clean and unclean meats And were they not at liberty then to eat or not to eat Yes no doubt of it as we are at this day But it is one thing to eat or not to eat as an instance of natural liberty
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
a long debate determined against the Circumcision of the Gentiles notwithstanding the Jewish scruples about it On the other hand they lay a Burden for so the Council calls it upon the Gentile Christians without any regard to any scruples they might have about it though as Dr. Falkner shews there was a fair colour and pretence for many The Reconciler indeed answers those pretences of scruple which the Doctor says the Gentile Christians might have though he sufficiently blunders in it But what is that to the purpose the Doctor did not pretend that they were unanswerable but expresly says That though these are far from solid Arguments yet to an indifferent person for he did not dream of the Protestant Reconciler may possibly seem as plausible as many exceptions used by some men in other cases that is by the Dissenters in the Dispute of Ceremonies But the force of the Argument which our Reconciler conceals because he could not answer it is this That notwithstanding such plausible exceptions and scruples That Apostolical Sanction was both lawful and honourable yea though it concerned things indifferent and was established as many think by that Ecclesiastical Authority which they committed to their Successors in the Church As for what the Reconciler urges that this Decree was onely about necessary things it has been sufficiently answered already for the Decency of publick Worship is a necessary thing and I think a little more necessary than abstaining from Bloud which is part of that Decree And whereas he pretends that the abating our Ceremonies is necessary upon the same reason which made that Apostolical Decree necessary viz. in order to avoid scandal and offence I shall largely shew how different these cases are in answer to his fourth Chapter I observe farther that our Saviour himself who certainly knew as well as our Reconciler what indulgence was fit to be used to mens scruples and mistakes and in what cases Charity did oblige to such an indulgence yet was so far from complying with the errours and mistakes of the Pharisees that he seems to have done many things on purpose to oppose their superstitious conceits This Argument was urged by Dr. Falkner and proposed as an Objection by the Reconciler though not in the Doctor 's words as he would have his Readers believe by putting them into a different Character The Doctor 's Argument in his own words are these It is truly observed by Ursin to adde confirmation to erroneous Opinions in the minds of the weak about indifferent things is a giving offence or being guilty of an active scandal Vpon this account though our Saviour knew that his healing and commanding the man who was healed to take up his bed on the Sabbath-day his eating with Publicans and Sinners and his Disciples eating with unwashen hands were things in the highest manner offensive to some of the Iews he practised and allowed these things in opposition to the Scribes and Pharisees who in their censures of him proceeded upon erroneous and corrupt Doctrines vented by them for divine Dictates Our Reconciler seems conscious to himself that this was an untoward Argument as it was stated by the Doctor and therefore in his Margin he refexs his Reader to the place where these words are found which I have now cited but yet he durst not trust his Readers with them but puts the Objection into his own words which he thought he could better deal with And that every one may see how unlike they are to Dr. Falkner's Argument I shall transcribe them also which are these Our Saviour knew that his healing on the Sabbath-day gave great offence unto the Pharisees and also ministred unto them an occasion to traduce his mission and to perswade the people that he was not of God because he did not keep the Sabbath although he could as well have done it on the following day and therefore his Embassadours may still persist in the imposing of our Ceremonies though others are offended at them Where we see he durst instance onely in his healing on the Sabbath-day which he thought he could say something to but slips over those other instances which the Doctor gave and conceals the force of the Doctor 's Argument which consists in this That our Saviour did not think fit by his compliance with men in their errours and mistakes to confirm them in such superstitious conceits But let us hear what our Reconciler answers to it I. He says touching the act it self our Saviour declares affirmatively that there was a moral goodness in it that it was to do well to do good to save life But what is this to the purpose Was there any moral goodness too in commanding the man whom he had cured to take up his Bed and walk on the Sabbath-day which we know gave equal offence to the Jews who told the man that was cured It is the Sabbath-day it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed Was there any moral goodness in his Disciples eating with unwashen hands which gave as great offence as any thing else and yet was publickly justified by our Saviour Was there any moral goodness in Christ's eating with Publicans and Sinners Could not he have instructed them in the Will of God without such a familiar conversation with them as he knew gave great offence to the Pharisees Was there any moral goodness in healing on the sabbath-Sabbath-day when there was no necessity for doing it just on that day for our Saviour might have healed them at any other time as well Yes says our Reconciler our Saviour adds That the neglect of doing this on the Sabbath was to do evil and destroy life But where does our Saviour say this He proposes this Question indeed to them Is it lawful on the Sabbath-day to do good or to do evil to save life or to destroy it And from hence our Reconciler infers that not to heal on the Sabbath-day had been to destroy life an inference worthy of his great and profound judgment for I would ask him Whether our Saviour could be charged with destroying those mens lives whom he did not heal whether on the Sabbath-day or on any other day Whether he were under a necessity of healing all that were sick If he were not then he might have chosen his times of healing as well as the persons whom he would heal without being guilty of destroying any mans life and so might have forborn healing on the Sabbath-day Nay Whether our Saviour could be charged with destroying life by neglecting to heal a withered hand on the Sabbath-day which did not endanger life and the cure of which might have been deferred till the next day without any hazard And therefore St. Matthew represents the force of our Saviour's Argument onely to prove that it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath-day And if we compare what St. Matthew and St. Luke say we shall find this to be the whole meaning
the Lord and bow my self before the high God shall I come before him with burnt-offerings with calves of a year old Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams or with ten thousand rivers of oyl shall I give my first-born for my transgression the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul He hath shewed thee O man what is good and what doth the Lord require of thee but to do justice and to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God Now because God prefers true and real goodness before the externals of Religion does it hence follow that there must be no external Worship or that the Church must make no Laws for the decent or orderly performance of it or must repeal these Laws when any ignorant people refuse to submit to them Just as much as that God did not require them to offer Sacrifice because he preferred Mercy before it Our Reconciler obsâ—rves two Cases to which our Saviour applies this saying 1. To justifie his Disciples who pulled the ears of Corn as they walked through the fields and rubbed them in their hands and eat them on the sabbath-Sabbath-day which the Pharisees expounded to be a breach of the Sabbatick rest as being a servile work and our Saviour does not dispute with them upon that point but justifies what they did by their present necessity and by this Rule I will have mercy and not sacrifice That God who prefers acts of Kindness and Mercy before Sacrifice when they come in competition with each other is not such a rigorous exacter of obedience to any positive Institutions as to allow no Indulgence to necessity it self and it becomes Church-Governours to imitate the goodness of God in this and our Church does so as I have already observed but how this proves that the Church must make no Laws about Ceremonies or repeal them if men won't obey them I do not understand The next instance is our Saviour's justifying himself against the accusations of the Pharisees for his eating and drinking with Publicans and Sinners which he tells them was onely in order to reform them as a Physician converses with the sick and certainly it was lawful to converse with them upon so charitable a designe since God preferred Mercy before Sacrifice and therefore certainly God will be better pleased with our conversing with Sinners in order to make them good men than with our abstaining from their company though a familiar conversation with them upon other accounts be scandalous And how this proves what our Reconciler would conclude from it I cannot see Well but this is a general Rule which may be applied to more cases than one or two Right But if we will argue from our Saviour's authority and application we must apply it onely to such cases as are parallel to those cases to which our Saviour applies it otherwise we must not pretend the authority of our Saviour but the reason of the thing and let him set aside our Saviour's authority and we shall deal well enough with his Reason All that can be made of this Rule is this That where there happens any such case that there is a temporary competition between two Duties which are both acknowledged to be our duty there the greatest and most necessary duty must take place and particularly that all Rituals must give place to Mercy So that to make this a parallel case our Reconciler must grant that it is the duty of Church-Governours to prescribe Rules for the external Decency and solemnity of Worship what is the other Duty then to which this must give way To the care of mens Souls says our Reconciler No say I there is no inconsistency between the care of mens Souls and the care of publick Worship which is the best way of taking care of mens Souls and therefore there can never be a competition between these two O but some men are ignorant and scrupulous and wilful and if you prescribe any Rules of Worship they will dissent from them and turn Schismaticks and be damned and thus accidentally it affords occasion to these great and fatal evils Let him prove then if he can from these words of our Saviour that the Governours of the Church must never do their duty for fear those men should be damned who will not do theirs Such cases as these if they be truly pitiable must be left to the mercy of God but the Church can take no cognizance of them especially when this cannot be done without destroying the publick Decency and Solemnities of Worship and renouncing her own just Authority the maintaining of which is more for the general good of Souls than her compliance with some scrupulous persons would be I shall onely farther observe his great civility to theChurch and Kingdom of which he is a Member For his third Observation from these words is That they were used by the Prophet upon the occasion of the strictness of the Israelites in the observance and the requiring these Rituals whilst charity and mercy to their Brother was vanished from their hearts there being no truth no mercy nor knowledge of God in the land but killing committing adultery stealing lying and swearing falsly c. Now certainly it was no fault in the Jews at that time to be zealous for the external Worship instituted by the Law of Moses though our Reconciler seems to insinuate that it was for he matters not how he reproaches the Institutions of God himself so he can but reflect some odium on the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church yet they betrayed their Hypocrisie by their Zeal for the Externals of Religion while they neglected the weightier matters of the Law And left any man should be so dull as not to understand the meaning of this Observation he thetorically introduces it with a God forbid Now God forbid that I should say that it is thus in England but he is pleased to put men in mind of it if they please to think so This is true Fanatick Cant and Charity There must be no Rules prescribed for the Worship of God the Church must not take care to reclaim or restrain Schismaticks because our Reconciler thinks the State does not take sufficient care to punish other Vices Certainly there never was any Age of the Church wherein the publick Ministers of Religion took more care to decry this Pharisaical Hypocrisie of an external Religion and to teach men that nothing will recommend them to God without the practice of an universal Righteousness than at this day who will not flatter the greatest men in their Vices nor think any man a Saint because he expresses a great Zeal for the Church when his life and actions proclaim him to be a Devil We leave this good Reconciler to your beloved tender-conscienced Dissenters who can strain at a Gnat and swallow a Camel who cannot see a Surplice without horror but can dispence with Lying and Perjury with Slanders and Revilings and speaking
This is just as if we should charge that good Father who received his prodigal Son with all expressions of joy and made a great entertainment for his return with shutting his eldest Son out of his house because he foolishly and wickedly took offence at his Fathers kindneâ—s to his Brother and would not enter though his Father himself went out to perswade him and invite him in and to satisfie him of the fitness and decency of what he had done I doubt this does more properly belong to those Pharisaical Preachers who are satisfied in the lawfulness of what is required as St. Ierom supposes some of these Pharisees were convinc'd that Jesus was the Messias but to gratifie their own obstinacy pride and revenge will neither do what they know they may lawfully do themselves nor suffer others to do it St. Chrysostom expounds the words much to the same purpose and therefore no wonder if as our Reconciler observes he tells us That these men are called Pests and are diametrically opposed to Teachers their work being to destroy For if the Teachers business be to save what is lost to lose or cause to perish what might be saved is the work of the destroyer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which otherwise would be saved the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those who were entring that is as he expounds it the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those who were prepared and disposed to enter Now I think our Church never shut any out of her Communion who were prepared and disposed to enter But our Reconciler observes that in the same Chapter our Saviour condemns the Scribes and Pharisees for binding heavy burdens upon mens shoulders which they would not move with one of their fingers But what were these heavy burdens and grievous to be born which the Pharisees bound upon mens shoulders were they things burdensom to the Conscience which tempted men to forsake their Communion No such matter men were not so scrupulous in those days and our Saviour in that very place expresly charges his own Disciples not to forsake their Communion The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses seat all therefore that they bid you observe that observe and do And therefore our Saviour could not charge them that by these heavy burdens they frighted men from their Communion and made Schisms in the Church and therefore it is very impertinently alleadged by our Reconciler These heavy burdens did not concern the Rites and Ceremonies of publick Worship which our Saviour never blamed them for but conformed to them himself when he worshipped in their Synagogues But they were some strict and rigorous Expositions of their Law without making such allowances in cases of necessity and mercy as God intended as when they quarrelled with the Disciples for pulling the ears of Corn and eating them as they walked through the fields on the sabbath-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
whereby their Brother stumbleth or is made weak or is offended yet may Church-Governours impose such things although God has declared that their power is only for edification and not for destruction For this is the plain case all these Arguments St. Paul uses to perswade private Christians to mutual forbearance and charity in the exercise of their Christian liberty and yet both the Council at Ierusalem and St. Paul in this Chapter do positively determine that the Gentile Christians should have this liberty though St. Paul perswades them to great charity in the exercise of it So that the case of private Christians and publick Governours is so very different that charity may exact that from private Christians to avoid scandal and offence which no charity can justifie in Governours the Gentile Converts were to deny themselves in the use of their liberty to avoid giving offence to the Jewish â—hristians but a whole Council of Apostles did not think fit to deny this liberty to the Gentiles which might prove an offence and scandal to the Jews For the believing Gentiles might restrain the use of their liberty without injuring their Christian liberty for no man is bound to use all the liberty he has and therefore may suspend the use of it when it will serve the ends of charity but the Apostles could not deny the use of this liberty to the gentile Converts without destroying their Christian liberty And therefore our Reconciler is mightily out in his Argument That Church-Governours in their publick capacity are bound to all those acts of forbearance and charitable condescension which private Christians are bound to when in this very instance from which he argues it appears to be quite otherwise the Church determines for the liberty of the Gentiles to eat all sorts of meats without any regard to the Mosaical distinction between clean and unclean notwithstanding that offence it gave to the believing Jew and yet St. Paul perswades the believing Gentile not to use this liberty to the scandal and offence of their weak Brethren In a word This fourteenth Chapter to the Romans consists of two distinct parts though not so commonly observed which has occasioned very confused apprehensions about it 1. That which equally concerns both Jews and Gentiles viz. not to judge despise or censure each other nor to break Christian Communion upon account of their different apprehensions about the Mosaical Law that one believed he might indifferently eat of all sorts of meat and another eat herbs one preferred one day before another another thought all days alike Now all the indulgence to one another which the Apostle exacts in this case is onely to grant each other that liberty which the Apostolical Synod had granted them that the Jews might still observe the Law of Moses and that the Gentiles might enjoy their liberty not to observe it and therefore the Apostle uses much such Arguments to perswade them to this as were before used by the Council when they made their Decree of which more presently and this part reaches to the 13th verse But how our Reconciler hence infers that Church-Governours must not make any Determinations about things which are scrupled because the Apostle exhorts them to obey such Determinations and not to judge and censure one another for such matters which the Church had determined they might both lawfully do I cannot imagine 2. The second part peculiarly refers to the believing Gentiles to perswade them to exercise great charity and as much as might be to avoid all scandal and offence in the use of their Christian liberty That because their Jewish Brethren were so weak as to take offence at their liberty therefore they should forbear the use of it when it was likely to give offence And to this purpose he urges several Arguments from charity to the end of the Chapter and in the beginning of the 15th Chapter But this you have already heard peculiarly relates to the duty of private Christians in the private exercise of their Christian liberty and can by no means be applied to the Governours of the Church as exercising acts of Government in making publick Decrees and Constitutions for as I have already shewn the Church could not deny that liberty to the Gentiles nor make any Decree in favour of such Jewish scruples but onely exhorted the Gentiles to exercise this liberty charitably and without offence This one thing well considered is a sufficient Answer to our Reconciler's fourth Chapter since it makes it very plain that there is nothing in the 14th of the Romans to restrain the exercise of Ecclesiastical Authority whatever scruples men have entertained about it II. Another very material difference is that the subject of the Dispute between the Church and Dissenters is of a quite different nature from that Dispute which was between the Jewish and Gentile Christians about which the Apostle gave those directions about mutual forbearance and a charitable condescension to each other The Dispute between the Church and Dissenters is about indifferent things between the Jews and Gentiles about the observation of the Law of Moses Now these two are so vastly different that there may be very wise reasons for allowing some indulgence in one case but not in the other By indifferent things I mean such things as are neither morally good nor evil nor are either commanded nor forbidden by any positive Law of God Now if our Reconciler can shew any Dispute about such things in Scripture or any one Precept or Exhortation either to Governours or private Christians about forbearance or the exercise of charity in such matters I will yield him the Cause He has not produced one yet for the Dispute between Jew and Gentile was of another nature This our Reconciler acknowledges That this Discourse is generally thought to have relation to the Iewish Converts who thought it was unlawful to eat of meats forbidden by the Law of Moses and that it was their duty to observe the Iewish Festivals and says That his Discourse will be more firm if the Apostle speaks concerning the observance of the Law of Moses or of the meats and days prescribed by it And in this sence I desire to take it and believe this is the true sence of the words but it may be when he sees that this interpretation of the place will overthrow his whole Hypothesis he will be willing to retreat and therefore I shall briefly examine what he alleadges to prove the Apostle did not refer to the observation of the Law of Moses in this place but that he rather speaks of meats offered to Idols and the observing days of Fasting His Arguments are these 1. Because the weak Brethren did not abstain from Swines-flesh onely and other meats forbidden by the Law of Moses but they abstained from all kinds of flesh Whence saith the Commentator on the Romans in St. Jerom 's Works It may be proved that the Apostle speaketh not of the Iews as some
conceive non enim carnes secundum legem sed sola olera manducabant Because the weak persons mentioned here onely did eat herbs abstaining from all flesh and not from that alone which was forbidden by the Law of Moses But if we will take the opinion of this Commentator we must understand also one who is weak in body who has an ill stomach or ill digestion and therefore eats herbs because he cannot eat flesh through sickness or old age Infirmus aetate aut corporis vigore which are the words immediately before and then how this will reach the case of Ecclesiastical Ceremonies I cannot tell As for his reason that these weak persons eat onely herbs it is not evident from the Text. Herbs may be taken synecdochically for all sorts of meats allowed by the Law no sort of herbs being forbidden or it may signifie that rather than eat any meats forbidden by their Law they chose to live on herbs which might be often the case of those Jews who lived among Heathens as the Jews at Rome who are primarily concerned in this Epistle did And St. Chrysostom who positively asserts that this concerns meats forbidden by the Law of Moses assignes another reason for their eating herbs Because if they had onely abstained from Swines-flesh and other forbidden meat they would have discovered their Reverence for the Law of Moses still which he supposes they had a mind to conceal and therefore to palliate the business they abstained from all flesh and eat onely herbs that it might look more like fasting and abstinence than the observation of the Law Whether this be a good reason or not I am not now concerned to inquire it plainly shews what St. Chrysostom's opinion was in the case which I suppose may be thought as considerable as this Commentators But there can be no doubt about this if we consider what the Apostle saith v. 14. For I know and am perswaded by the Lord Iesus that there is nothing unclean of it self but to him that esteemeth any thing unclean to him it is unclean 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 common the word peculiarly used to signifie the distinction of clean and unclean meats among the Jews and there was no other Law that ever made such a distinction For though the Pythagoreans did forbid eating of flesh yet that was an inconsiderable Sect of Philosophers which could not occasion such a general Dispute as this was and they did not forbid flesh upon this distinction of clean and unclean meats which was peculiar to the Mosaical Law but for reasons peculiar to their Philosophy which were so vain and superstitious that we cannot imagine the Apostle would grant any indulgence to such fancies 2. His next reason is Because the Apostle doth in the Epistles to the Galatians and Colossions speak severely against their observation of the Iewish Festivals and therefore here would not speak of them as things indifferent concerning which it was onely needful that the observers or not observers of them should be well assured in their own minds and be permitted to continue in their practice as St. Ambrose saith the Apostle here asserts nor is it like that in such things he would permit them to abound in their own sence Which last assertion directly overthrows his whole Hypothesis for it seems the Apostle might have required of them to renounce the Law of Moses and the observation of it whatever scruples they pretended and then how does it become so necessary a duty in Church-Governours to renounce their own Authority to gratifie and humour every scrupulous Conscience for if ever there were reason to be favourable to scruples it was in the case of the believing Jews whose scruples were occasioned by a Divine Law which they were not yet convinc'd was abrogated and out of date And if as he says it was not likely the Apostle should suffer them to abound in their own sence in such things there is much less reason to expect this from Church-Governours in other matters where no such Authority can be pretended to justifie their scruples But of the different behaviour of the Apostle to the Romans and Galatians I shall give such an account in what follows as will not be much to our Reconciler's purpose 3. Because the Apostle confineth his discourse to meats not speaking of the whole observance of the Law of Moses he doth not therefore say that Christ had now abolished that Law or that it was not made unto and so could not oblige the Gentile World or any thing which seemeth proper to oppose unto those judaizing Christians but onely saith that meats did not commend to God and such-like things which are all proper to be spoken unto those who understanding of their liberty freely indulged themselves in eating of the Idol-Sacrifice Now this is a notable Argument if it be well considered The Apostle confines his discourse to meats and days not speaking of the whole observance of the Law of Moses Because his whole Epistle treats upon this Argument and he does not repeat all that he said in the foregoing Chapters about Circumcision and Sacrifices Washings and Purifications and the abrogation of the Mosaical Law in this 14th Chapter therefore these meats and drinks and days must not refer to Mosaical observances The whole Epistle concerns the Dispute between Jews and Gentiles and if he can find any other meats and days which the Jews thought themselves bound to observe and the Gentiles thought themselves freed from by Christ he will say something more to the purpose And whereas he argues that the Apostle does not urge such Arguments as are proper to prove the abrogation of the Law of Moses it is evident that this was not his business in this Chapter but he proves what he intended to prove how reasonable mutual forbearance is in these matters which supposes the abrogation of the Law already proved as indeed he had sufficiently proved it before for there is no place for forbearance against a positive Law 4. His last reason is as good as any of the former Because had the Apostle spoken to the strong Iewish Christian and declared his freedom from the observation of the whole Iewish Law he would have contradicted the Churches of Jerusalem and his own practice there for they were zealous for the observation of it and did esteem it their duty so to be and did not judge him a strong but a disorderly Christian who being a Iew observed not their Laws and Customs Now if this proves any thing it proves that St. Paul never did and indeed ought not to dispute against the freedom of the Jewish Converts from the observation of the Law and then we shall want a new Commentator upon most of his Epistles to deliver him from that scandal which all Exposiâ—ors hitherto have cast on him that he has in many places industriously proved that neither Jew nor Gentile were under the obligation of the Mosaical Law But it is