had said very true and this would have justified the Ceremonies of the Church of England and all the decent Ceremonies of any foreign Churches in all Ages But it is a manifest Fallacy to say that the particular Ceremonies which are used in the Church of England have no positive Order Decency or Reverence because the acts of Worship may be performed orderly decently and reverently without them which our Church always owned for she never condemned the Worship of other Churches which do not use her Ceremonies while by other means they secure the external Decency and Reverence of Worship But the Question is Whether the Ceremonies injoyned by the Church of England or some other decent Ceremonies in the room of them be not necessary to the external Decency and Reverence of Worship Whether we can worship decently and reverently without some decent habits postures places c Whether the Ceremonies used by the Church of England be not as decent and reverent as any other We do not pretend that our Ceremonies are the onely decent and reverent Ceremonies that can be used in religious Worship then indeed his Argument had been strong That those who do not use them must worship God irreverently and indecently but we say they have a positive Decency and Reverence and that those who worship God according to the Prescriptions of our Church observe an external Decency and Reverence of Worship But this he says not one word to and therefore I presume cannot for he has given evidence enough that he never wants will but when he wants power to be civil to the Church of England And therefore he might have spared his pains in proving that God may be decently and reverently worshipt without the use of the English Ceremonies for no body ever said otherwise that I know of and the very Argument whereby he proves it plainly shews that the Church of England is of that mind for she asserts these Ceremonies to be indifferent and alterable whereas as he well urges they could be neither if they were absolutely necessary to the Decency and Reverence of Worship But before I proceed it will be necessary for the clearer stating of this matter to consider the several kinds of Decency and upon what account we assert That our Ceremonies have a positive Decency in them Now we may distinguish between the decency of circumstances and the decency of things or actions No action can be performed without some circumstances and no action can be decently perâ—â—rmed without decent circumstances such as â—ime and place and posture and habit and this is as absolutely necessary as the Decency of publick Worship is And to this Head of decent circumstances we reduce the Surplice which is a decent habit for the Minister when he performs the publick Offices of Religion and kneeling at the Lords Supper which are two of the three Ceremonies of the Church of England The Cross in Baptism which is the third Ceremony is not a circumstance of action and therefore has not the same kind of Decency nor the same necessity that the other Ceremonies have but it is to be considered as a decent thing or action Now these two being of so distinct a nature must be considered distinctly also and therefore I must advertise my Reader that what I shall now discourse about the Decency of Worship and the necessity of iâ— concerns onely the decent circumstances of religious actions such as the Surplice and kneeâ—ing at the Lords Supper are As for decent things or actions such as the signe of the Cross is at Baptism I shall discourse of that distinctly by its self Having premised this let us now return to our Reconciler This modest man who is so sensible of his own weakness and proneness to mistake in judging who is so unwilling to do the least disservice to the Church of England who has such a hearty honour for his Reverend Superiours yet with great humility ventures to confute and expose all the Savoy-Commissioners who were very grave and reverend Persons The Commissioners observed That the Apostle hath commanded that all things be done decently and that there may be uniformity let there be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Rule and Canon for that purpose And hence he says they infer that though charity will move to pity and relieve those that are perplexed and scrupulous that we must not break Gods commandment in charity to them and therefore we must not perform publick Services indecently and disorderly for the sake of tender Consciences Which he adds is expresly said to justifie their refusal to abate the imposition of the Ceremonies especially these three the Surplice the signe of the Cross and Kneeling This seems to me to be very wisely and judiciously urged by our Commissioners but our Reconciler thinks they have greatly overshot themselves when they assert That by abating the use and imposition of these Ceremonies they should break Gods Commandment and perform publick Service indecently and disorderly Truly I think this is a little too much and our Author has loaded it with a great many hard consequences which I see not how they can answer but the best of it is that the Commissioners never said any such thing I am sure there is no such thing contained in the words cited by him which he reduces to this absurd Proposition But do not they say that they must not break Gods Command in Charity and therefore must not perform publick Services indecently and disorderly for the sake of tender Consciences Yes they do say so And was not that said to justifie their refusal to abate the imposition of the Ceremonies Suppose that too Does not this then signifie that by abating the use or imposition of these Ceremonies they shall break Gods Commandment and perform publick Service indecently and disorderly By no means This is onely one instance of our Author's proneness to mistake in judging which I wish he were more thoroughly sensible of and that would make him more modest without a complement The Commissioners assert very truly That the Apostle commands that all things be done decently and in order This they take to be Gods Command as well they might and therefore it is a breach of Gods Command to perform publick Services indecently and disorderly and charity does not oblige them to break any Command of God and therefore they must not do this for the sake of tender Consciences All this I presume our Reconciler himself will acknowledge What then is the fault Why the Commissioners urge this upon occasion of the Dispute about abating the Ceremonies of the Church of England and therefore it proves that they thought the Worship of God could not be decently and reverently performed without those particular Ceremonies for otherwise their Argument is not good Yes say I the Argument is very good without this Supposition and therefore the Reconciler's consequence is not good For I would ask him one plain Question Can any
great Sacrifice of the Cross. A great many such things our Reconciler himself has collected in his eighth Chapter which may properly be called the Rituals or Ceremonies or Religion most of which are now out of use in most Churches which formerly used them and none of them are in uâ—e among us But what we call the Ceremonies of the Church of England are not in this sence Rituals or Ceremonies but the decent circumstances of Worship as the Bishop acknowledges excepting the Cross in Baptism which yet is not a meer significant but a professing Signe as I have already discours'd and for such Ceremonies as these which serve for Order and Decency the Bishop tells us There is an Apostolical Precept and a natural Reason and an evident Necessity or a great Convenience In a word when the Bishop speaks of Rituals and Ceremonies he understands by them exterior actions or things something which is like the ceremonial observances of the Jewish Law which were not meer circumstances of action but religious Rites Such were their Sacrifices Washings and Purifications their Phylacteries their Fasts and Festivals new Moons and Sabbaths not considered meerly as circumstances of time but as having such a Sacredness and Religion stamped on them that the very observing them was an act of Religion that the religious Duties observed on them were appointed for the sake of the day not the day meerly for the sake of the Religion Such were the numerous Traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees about making broad their Phylacteries washing their Cups and Platters and their hands before dinner and an infinite number of other superstitious observances Now though some external actions and things wisely chosen and prudently used may be for the service of Religion at least are not unlawful to be used unless we will condemn the whole Christian Church for several Ages which used a great many external Rites yet every one sees what a vast difference there is between such Rites as these and the decent Circumstances of religious Worship And therefore those men mistake the case of the Church of England who lay the Controversie upon Rituals and Ceremonies for there is no such thing in the Church of England according to the true and proper signification of these words Our Fasts and Festivals look most like such Rituals and Ceremonies but are not so for with us they are not religious days but days appointed for the solemn Exercises of Religion which differ as much as a circumstance of time does from an act of Religion as making a day religious which none but God can do differs from appointing a day for the publick Solemnities of Religion which the Governours of the Church and State may do as the Religion of observing a day differs from those acts of Religion which are performed on such a day Now this very observation of the difference between Rituals and Ceremonies and the decent circumstances of Worship will answer most of his Citations which he has impertinently alleadged out of the Bishops Writings and a multitude of Objections which for want of observing this have been very injudiciously made against those which we call the Ceremonies of the Church of England Thus he observes from the Bishop That Ecclesiastical Laws which are meerly such cannot be universal and perpetual But then he should have told us what the Bishop meant by Ecclesiastical Laws meerly such That is saith he those which do not involve a divine Law within their matter And therefore this cannot relate to the decent circumstances of Worship for they all involve a divine Law in the matter of them they are onely the specification of the Law of Decency and include those very acts of Worship to which they belong To kneel at the Lords Supper is a command to receive the Lords Supper kneeling and when the Minister is enjoyn'd to wear theSurplice it signifies that he must perform divine Offices in a Surplice These are but the decent circumstances of necessary Duties and they founded on the Apostolical Rule of Decency Well but the Bishop adds When Christ had made us free from the Law of Ceremonies which God appointed to the Iewish Nation and to which all other Nations were bound if they came into that Communion it would be intolerable that the Churches who rejoyced in their freedom from that Yoke which God had imposed should submit themselves to a Yoke of Ordinances which men should make For though before they could not yet now they may exercise Communion and use the same Religion without communicating in Rites and Ordinances Now does not this make it plain that the Bishop does not speak of the decent circumstances of Worship such as our English Ceremonies are but of such Rituals and Ceremonies as answer to the Jewish Rites and Ordinances which he calls exterior things and actions which are of a different consideration and must be governed by different Rules and Measures And yet our Reconciler is so unfortunate that if the Bishop had meant this of the Ceremonies of our Church it had been nothing to his purpose for he adds in the very next words This does no way concern the Subjects of any Government what Liberty they are to retain and use I shall discourse in the following numbers but it concerns distinct Churches under distinct Governments and it means as it appears plainly by the Context and the whole Analogie of the thing that the Christian Churches must suffer no man to put a Law upon them who is not their Governour For when he says that Ecclesiastical Laws that are meerly such must not be universal he means that they must not be intended to oblige all Christendom except they will be obliged that is do consent That no Church or company of Christians have such authority as to oblige the whole Christian World and all the Churches in it to conform to their Rituals and Ceremonies which he says is contrary to Christian liberty and such an Usurpation as must not be endured which is directly levelled against the Usurpations of the Church of Rome But though one Church cannot impose upon another yet every Church has power over her own Members and they are bound to obey that Authority which is over them And by the way this answers all his Testimonies from Bishop Davenant and Bishop Hall in their Letters to Duraeus about his Pacificatory designe of uniting all the Reformed Churches into one Communion and several others cited in his Preface to the same purpose They discourse upon what terms distinct Churches which have no authority over each other ought to maintain Christian Communion and this he applies to particular Churches with reference to their own Members as if because particular Churches must not usurp authority and dominion over each other nor deny Communion upon every difference of Opinion or different Customs and Usages of Modes of Worship therefore no Church must govern her own Communion nor give Laws to her own Members as if because
particular Church urge this Rule of the Apostle that all things be done decently and in order in justification of their imposition of some indifferent but decent Rites and Ceremonies in religious Worship which are not commanded by God If any Church may why not the Church of England unless he can prove that our Ceremonies are indecent irreverent and disorderly If they may not then the Apostles Rule signifies nothing for it will not justifie the Governours of the Church in taking care of the Decency and Reverence of Worship And if this Rule will justifie any one Church in appointing decent Rites and Ceremonies of Worship it will equally justifie all the Churches in the World in their Rites and Ceremonies how different soever they be from each other so they be all decent and reverent And yet I suppose should the Advocates of any particular Church as for instance the Commissioners of the Savoy urge this Apostolical Rule in vindication of the Ceremonies of their own Church no man in his wits would hence conclude that they did believe the particular Ceremonies of their Church to be the Command of God and that religious Worship could not be decently or reverently performed without them which would be to condemn all other Churches which did not observe the same Rites and Ceremonies with themselves And thus all the several Churchâ—s in the World which enjoyn nothing but what contributes to the external Decency and Solemnity of Worship may by the Apostles Rule justifie themselves and yet according to this way of arguing cannot justifie themselves without condemning all other Churches which I confess is very hard to my understanding Does not such a general Rule for the Decency of Worship require that there should be some particular Rules of Decency and Order prescribed Does not such a general Rule suppose that there may be several Rules given several Rites and Ceremonies of Worship prescribed differing indeed from each other but all complying with the general Rule of Decency and Order for that is a strange general Rule which contains but one particular under it Does not such a general Rule suppose that the choice of particulars is left to the prudence of Ecclesiastical Governours while they keep themselves within the general Rule And is not the true reason of this general Rule and consequently of those particular Rules and Orders for Worship which are prescribed by vertue of this general Rule to prevent a disorderly irreverent indecent performance of religious Worship And may not Church-Governours then assigne this as a reason why they prescribe these Rules and why they will not alter them because they must not perform the publick Service indecently and irreverently If they may then their saying so does indeed suppose that those Ceremonies which they prescribe are decent and reverent but it does not suppose that there are no other decent or reverent ways of performing religious offices and that whoever does not use those Ceremonies which they institute and command must be guilty of an indecent and irreverent performance of publick Worship For that would be to overthrow the main Principle by which they act which is the authority of a general Rule which does not prescribe the particular Rules of Decency and Order and therefore supposes that there may be several and that every Church has liberty to chuse for her self In short I would desire our Reconciler to consider that if Church-Governours must not prescribe any particular Rites and Ceremonies to prevent the disorders and indecencies of Worship while there are any other Rites and Ceremonies as decent and orderly as those which they prescribe then this Apostolical Rule signifies nothing for it can never be reduced into practice As for instance suppose the French Protestants enjoyn standing at receiving the Lords Supper or at publick Prayers as the Primitive Church did on the Lords days and should assigne this reason for it that they must not suffer the Worship of God to be indecently or irreverently performed and so break that Commandment Let all things be done decently and in order presently our Reconciler has seven Arguments to oppose against them though they may all be reduc'd to one That this makes standing at the Lords Supper not to be an indifferent Ceremony of humane institution but necessary in its own nature and by a divine command antecedent to all humane Authority and that which no humane Authority can alter and therefore a necessary part of Worship For how can they say that they require their Communicants to receive standing in obedience to a divine command and because they must not worship God irreverently and indecently unless they believe that standing at the Lords Supper is not an indifferent Ceremony but such a necessary posture that he who does not stand at receiving breaks the Command of God and receives irreverently and Indecently And thus the French Church is utterly ruined and must no longer enjoyn standing at the holy Communion Well the Church of England requires kneeling for the same reason that the French Church requires standing and therefore the same Arguments are good against her and should any man have the confidence to use the same reason for sitting that they must not worship God irreverently and indecently the same Arguments would hold good against them also So that here is a general Rule given to Church-Governours to take care to preserve Decency and Order in the Worship of God and all the parts of it and yet no Church-Governours can reduce this to practice for a general Rule cannot be reduced to practice but by particular Rules and Orders and yet whoever prescribes any particular Rules of Decency and Order and insists on them to prevent irreverence and indecency in Worship falls undeâ— our Reconcilers censure and is with all humility intreated to answer seven terrible Arguments in his own vindication The plain Answer to our Reconciler then is this That the Governours of every Church are by vertue of this Apostolical Command required to prevent the indecency and irreverence of publick Worship and they have no other way of doing this but by prescribing some particular Rules of Decency and Order And though the constitutions and usages of several Churches may be very various and different from each other yet every constitution which is decent and orderly prevents the indecent and irreverent performance of publick Worship and therefore all Church-Governours may justifie such Impositions as the Commissioners at the Savoy did by saying that they must not break Gods Commandment and therefore must not suffer the publick Service to be indecently and irreverently performed and therefore must prescribe some particular Rules of Order and Decency without either making their own Rites and Ceremonies essential to the Decency of Worship or censuring and condemning the decent usages and customs of other Churches But since great part of this Controversie turns upon this hinge that it is a very trifling and inconsiderable thing to prescribe Rules for Habits