Martyr in 1 Sam. 2. 25. much more when God calls by whom Kings Reign and Princes Decree Justice and to protect Offenders against his Publick and Solemn Worship may peradventure be some inconsiderate Pitty but Mercy it cannot be In His Answer to another Argument as he calls it I must observe many things First the Distinction between Natural and Christian Liberty He found in the Verdict pag. 125. and I am apt to believe he took it upon Trust from thence because I have not observed him so skilful or ingenious as to use Distinctions when there was just Cause for it and because he takes it up here Impertinently for no Reason in the World but to Cavil at it and that he does Twice for failing Secondly Whereas he saith the Dissenters pag. 160. would put no restraint upon others as to the Ceremonies in Contest but only crave a Freedom or Indulgence to themselves herein I believe as we say he Reckons without his Host No man that has read their Books or observed their Practice or seen their Publick Ordinances can believe it And I doubt whether upon Second Thoughts the Reconciler will believe it himself In their Ordinance of January 1644 the Presbyterian Lords and Commons did declare That they judged it necessary that the Book of Common-Prayer be abolished and the Directory for the publick Worship of God establish't and observed in all the Churches within this Kingdom And August the 29. 1648. They Ordain'd that all Parishes and Places whatsoever within the Kingdom of England and Dominion of Wales as well Priviledg'd Places and exempt Jurisdictions as others be brought under the Government of Congregational Classical Provincial and National Assemblies Provided that the Chappel or places in the House of the King and his Children and the Chappels or place in the Houses of the Peers of this Realm shall continue free for the Exercises of Divine Duties according to the Directory and not otherwise Thirdly His Answer is in Effect no Answer at all For he sayes First the Argument it self pleads strongly upon the Principles acknowledged in it against the Impositions of Superiours and even against all Vowes made by us concerning any thing indifferent For both these things do put a Necessary Abstention Restraint upon us as to the use of these things If therefore sayes he by so doing they betray our Liberties Dissenters ought not to yield to them nor should good Christians by a Vow restrain themselves from the Free use of things Indifferent Secondly He sayes the Argument is Evidently Contradictor both to the Doctrine and Practice of St. Paul In Answer to which I must observe that he still abuses his Reader-by his Sophistry how else could he bring in Personal Vows c. into his Answer Among Orthodox-Divines who hath ever Questioned whether a man that is Compos Mentis might not restrain his own Liberty and that as well by a Solemn Vow as a Prudent Resolution Or who ever denied the Power of Governours The not useing of our Christian Liberty renders us not the worse and therefore we may Lawfully not use it when by Superiours we are restrained from the use thereof Prot. Recon p. 131. to restrain the Liberty of such as are under their Jurisdiction Tho he 's confident enough to give the Lye to any thing yet I hope he will not charge the Rechabites with Folly nor their Father with Superstition And if the Sons did add their own Vow to their Fathers Command I know no harm in it I 'me sure God does highly approve of their strict Obedience to the Imposition of things Indifferent But to return and shew that the Reconcilers Answer is Trifling and Impertinent not contradicting Meisners Argument This I prove by Argumentum ad Hominem in this manner That Argument which Pleads strongly against the Impositions of Superiours that Argument the Reconciler does not contradict But Meisners Argument pleads strongly against the Impositions of Superiours Ergo. The Major is evident because the Reconciler himself pleads as strongly as he can against the Impositions of Superiours therefore he does not contradict Meisners Argument which he saies pleads so strongly against them the Minor is the Recomilers own Acknowledgment as the Reader may observe in his Words above mentioned 2ly The Reconciler contradicts himself and yeilds the Cause to his Adversary this is Evident to the Indifferent Reader for if Meisners Argument is evidently contradictory both to the Doctrine and Practice of St. Paul as he saies it is Page 161. then the Argument which pleads strongly against the Impositions of Superiours is Contradictory both to the Doctrine and Practice of St. Paul and consequently both the Doctrine and Practice of St. Paul are for the Impositions of Superiours which is the thing we contend for Here he inculcates again the Necessity of abstaining from some Meats and the observing some Dayes for fear of offending the Weak Brethren Indeed the Apostle's expression runs very high of not eating Flesh which is one of Rom. 14. 21. 1 Cor. 8. 13. his two Instances But does he say the same things of the Time of God's Worship Does he say it is good noâ— to Regard a day to the Lord whereby my Brother Stumbleth or is Offended or made Weak Wherefore if a day make my Brother to Offend I will never regard a day never observe the Lords day never Perform any Solemn Worship or Service to Almighty God while the World stands least I make my Brother to offend To take up such a Resolution savourâ—â— of too much Prophaneness to be Justified and this I hope will convince the Reconciler that in the Parallel Instance of Meats the Apostle was a little Hyperbolical as was formerly observed After a great deal of shuffling and trifling for two or three Pages together to no purpose but to make a Noise and show his Confidence he owns the Pag. 163. Truth at last that the Apostle came to a Point and Positively declar'd against Circumcision when the False-Teachers would have obtruded it as Necessary to Salvation And whatsoever his Practice was out of Condescention and special Dispensation while the Church was any where in Planting yet its evident where ever the Church was Organized and setled with Governours Laws and Discipline There he gave severe Rules as well against those Jewish Dissenters as the False Apostles which seduced them This is easy to be observed in his Epistles to the Corinthians the Galatians and Colossians Nay he commands the Governours of the Church to stop their Mouths who attempted to corrupt the Hyperius Calixtus ad Tit. 1. 11. Simplicity of the Gospel by joyning their Traditions Distinction of â—â—eats and Legal Ceremonies with it And St. Augustine saies expresly that the Opinion Epist 119. that some Meats would render them Unclean that eat them was against the Faith and sound Doctrine and he proves it to be wicked and Heretical from the words of St. Paul to Timothy
13. amounts to this That the Apostle to prevent sin and especially the sin of Apostacy in others was willing to deny himself that Liberty which by the Law of Christ did truly belong to him and every good Christian will be ready to do the same where there is a just occasion for it But we must remember that our Liberty tho an excellent Privilege yet is not such an absolute good thing but it may be abused and evil spoken of and 't is Rom. 14. 16. as justly evil spoken of when it is abused to Schism and Sedition as when 't is abused to gratifie our fleshly Lusts and turned into wantonness But I am sure no good man no wise man will speak evil of my Liberty when 't is governed by a just Authority For I am not bound Amesius ubi supra to disobey the just Impositions of my Superiors i. e. I am not bound to omit my necessary Duty or to commit a sin because I am not bound to go to Hell to avoid Scandal Charity begins at home and there it obliges me to avoid sin in my self before I prevent it in another The Truth is the Reconciler is insnared in a Fallacy and out of great kindness he would draw in his Brethren for company The Fallacy is à dicto secundùm quid and tho it be not so perceivable in this yet in the other instance Rom. 14. 5 6. it would appear too gross to be swallowed for thus it would run It is not good to regard a day unto the Lord whereby my brother stumbleth or is offended or is made weak Rom. 14. 21. wherefore if a day make my Brother to offend I will never regard a day never perform any solemn worship to God lest I make my brother to offend In this parallel instance he must distinguish of the Apostles meaning or confess his own false reasoning But this Reconciler whilst he allows nothing to be Lawful but what is necessary and commanded he destroys Authority he destroys Liberty and in contradiction to his own Hypothesis he imposes a Duty I cannot call it but a Task which is impossible 1. He destroys Authority he sets up the fourteenth against the thirteenth to the Romans And the command of Subjection to the higher powers he controuls by that expostulation Who are thou that judgest another mans Servant In favour of the Dissenters weakness he brings a Writ of Error against the force of Lawful Impositions and to secure them in their Superstition he makes a Tender Conscience a Supersedeas to the Sacred Prerogative of Authority and the Sovereignty of Governors of which we shall deliver more hereafter 2. If he allows nothing to be Lawful but what is necessary and commanded he destroys Liberty For what is that Liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free not to speak of our freedom from sin and Satan was it not from the Ceremonial Law of Moses If we are delivered from the Law then from the distinction of things Common and Vnclean from things that were not accounted such if from that distinction then from the superstitious Opinions and scruples of men about things indifferent which are grounded upon that distinction But if we be not set at Liberty from mens superstitious Opinions and Scruples about things Indifferent then are we still under that distinction of things Common and Vnclean and that distinction brings us directly under the Jewish Yoak of Bondage And if so we are in a much worse condition than the Jews were our burden and thraldom greater for that which obliged them was only the Institution of God but we are inthral'd to the Caprichioes of men and not to the humour or squeamish Fancy of any single Person but of a Multitude who can pretend no Authority over us but their own will and pleasure which is a derogation to the Gospel and a subjection of our Christian Liberty to the Arbitrary whimseys of all weak and Fanatick Persons 3. And this will destroy our peace too For one man will think he may take up Arms against his Prince to defend his conceits and scruples which he calls his Religion for what has been done may be done again by men of the same Principles another will think he may not one man will think he may disobey his Church-Governors another will think he may not if no man may be allowed to judge in this case as I do not see how they can according to this Reconcilers sense and principles what will be the end of our Peace or what will become of such Dissentions One man thinks he may wear a Surplice why because Authority has enjoyned it Another thinks he may not why he has no reason for it but his own will and humour If he saith he refuseth it because God has not commanded it The other will reply he does it because God hath not forbidden it And herein he follows the Apostles own Rule He obeys God rather than Man For God commands him to obey those that are set over him but they tempt him to disobey our Guides and follow a Rabble who have no stamp at all of Authority to recommend them to our observance To go further If this Doctrine of the Reconciler were in force no man could be sure that he is at peace with God or his own Conscience For let the Apostle profess as he doth 2 Cor. 1. 2 Cor. 1. 12. 12. Our rejoycing is this the testimony of our Conscience that in simplicity and godly sincerity not with fleshly wisdom but by the Grace of God we have had our Conversation in the World and more abundantly to you-wards The weak Brother can tell him his glorying is not good for he hath walked uncharitably he has done such things as were unnecessary and uncommanded whereby he stumbled and was offended and grieved and made weak and that hereby he had destroyed the work of God and a person for whom Christ died and made his good evil spoken of and tho there were neither any moral evil in the nature of the things he did nor any evil intention in his doing of them yet he had taken offence and in the event he was actually ruined by his practice as much as if he had designed it and therefore he must expect to bear his Judgement for it Can any man that understands his Interest in Christ and the Priviledges of the Gospel think himself concerned in such Scruples and Objections or disturb his inward peace upon that account 4. For this Doctrine that I must do nothing that is unnecessary and uncommanded for fear of Scandal puts a man upon a task which is impossible For suppose a Dissenter sees me for example wear a Surplice he tells me he is offended at it he is grieved and stumbled and made weak which perhaps he understands not the meaning of to give him the better satisfaction I consult the Reconciler as the great Oracle of Conscience in the case he tells me I must forbear the
use of it in hopes to gain this weak Brother Well I obey him and lay it by But then a Conformist comes in and observes me to officiate without it hereat he is offended and tells me it grieves him to see Authority contemned the Laws violated Christian Liberty betrayed by the superstitious forbearance of a thing indifferent to gratifie a Faction set up against the Government This he will say does weaken his faith and makes him question the sincerity of such as profess the Gospel and the Religion established among us By this Instance it is evident I cannot please them both I must unavoidably offend one of them Can I prevent them both from taking offence This affair is attended with such perplexity that the performance is impossible Cas Cons l. 5. c. 11. n. 18. and therefore it cannot be a Christian Duty And for this I have the suffrage of Amesius tho in his time a stiff Dissenter Nulla datur talis perplexitas ut necessarium sit pio homini sive hoc vel illud faciat sive non faciat scandalum alicui dare There can be no such case of perplexity that it should be necessary for a pious man to give any man scandal whether he does this or that or does it not But how to avoid such perplexity we must find out some better Rule among the Casuists than this Reconciler has yet prescribed or found out for us To shew his Ingenuity towards Dr. Womock or his artifice of concealment I shall let the Reader see how this Argument pag. 114. was managed in the Verdict where he takes notice from the Apostle that one man will observe a day another will not one man will eat Swines-flesh another does abhor it I Rom. 14. 5. cannot satisfie them both for both are scrupulous and both respectively offended at one anothers practice To eat and not to eat to esteem a day and not to esteem it these are perfect contradictions and 't is impossible for any Charity to reconcile mans practice to both their scruples S. Paul himself at last found this so perplex'd a case that the difficulty was insuperable This he learnt by experience upon the congress of the Jew and Gentile Converts at Antioch Gal. 2. of which we have given some account already wherefore instead of a prudent and charitable expedient which in this case was impossible to find out He withstood S. Peter to the face and with great Integrity and Stoutness asserted the truth of the Gospel and the extent of Christian Liberty And herein he left us his own practice for an Example to maintain our Privilege and not to govern our selves by the timorous squeamishness or pretended scruples of superstitious men which may be contradictory and endless but by the solid Rules of Truth and the prudent Resolutions of Pious and Careful Governors I shall conclude this with the words of Rollock When we are conscious to our Comment In Joan. 5. 9. selves in our actings that we aim at Gods glory above all things and do not transgress the limits of our Office and Calling we may act confidently tho all the World be offended at us and after we have done what we ought and what we were able to do if the success does not answer our expectation so happily as we could wish yet let us not be dejected at it but enjoy that good Conscience which the Apostle glories in 2 Cor. 1. 12. This will be of great force and efficacy to our comfort and rejoycing in the time of adversity and this we cannot but obtain if we keep within the bounds of our Profession and Calling and set the glory of God before our eyes in all our actions Thus saith R. Rolloc and herein he appears to be a better Casuist than our Reconciler hath expressed himself upon this occasion But let us hear what he hath to say further against Dr. Womock which is as followeth Secondly whereas he adds that the scandal here spoken of is in a matter of our own choice and power Pag. 79. and it is to be understood in a matter wherein Authority hath not interposed her determination This he grants is very true and the natural Inference from it is this c. Here the Reconciler fully acquits Dr. Womocks Doctrine in this point of scandal who pleads only for those things wherein Authority hath interposed her Determination Why then is he so peevish and froward towards the Dr. when he seems to acquit The reason is this he would set up the Liberty of the Subject in matters of Religion against the Authority of the Prince and Bishop which is establish'd in the same Charter of the Gospel by a divine Grant precedent to that Liberty and because Dr. Womock hath endeavoured to vindicate the Authority of our Superiors against his design therefore he is thus offended for he finds he shall never be able to prove what he calls the natural Inference from Dr. Womocks words but let us see what it amounts to Since therefore says this Reconciler no Authority can be supposed to interpose to determine our Superiors to the Imposition of these indifferent things or to hinder their abatement of them by the same power which imposed them in order to prevent the ruine of so many souls as are involved in a wretched Schism by the continuance of that Imposition since they declare 't is in their own choice and power to command or not to command them this case must by his own confession be good against the Imposition of them tho it does not hold good against obedience to them when Imposed In which words of his there are very many things observable 1. 'T is a great truth That the case he puts does not hold good against obedience to the things in difference among us when imposed 2. That 't is good against the Imposion of them is not the Drs. Confession but his own Inference which the Doctor is confident he can never make good being but one of his usual Paralogisms and false Reasonings 3. He confesseth that this wretched Schism of the Dissenters is damnable otherwise how could he object the ruine of so many souls as are involved in it But to save them harmless he lays their fault at the door of their Governors and to Commute for the Disobedience of the Dissenters he would be content to send our Governors to Hell in their stead 4. He can propound no way to prevent the ruine of our Schismaticks but to take down our Governors Authority by the abatement of their Impositions But if a Nation be addicted to Drunkenness is there no way to cure them but to root up their Vines and burn up all their materials that will afford strong Liquors A wise man sure will think it better and more rational to teach them temperance and the moderate use of those wholsom and comfortable Creatures In like manner when there are any Impositions which some men are led by their