as lawful Nay I do not discern what consistency there is between one part of the Preface and another part between the allowing the fore-mentioned mutations as reasonable and necessary Pag. 82. and 93. and this passage Pag. 89. which implies they are neither necessary nor reasonable For there he says we do heartily and sincerely desire Vnion with our Brethren if it may be had on just and reasonable Terms but they must not think that we will give up the Cause of the Church for it so as to condemn its Constitution or make the Ceremonies unlawful which have been hitherto observed and practised in it if any Expedient can be found out for the Ease of other mens Consciences without reflecting on our own if they can be taken in without Reproach or dishonour to the Reformation of the Church I hope no True Son of the Church of England will oppose it Now whether the fore-mention'd dispensings with and Retrenchments of our Church-Orders and Practices upon the fore-mention'd Reason and Argument for the sake of Union with them whom he is pleas'd to call Brethren be not so far a giving up the Cause of the Church as to condemn its Constitution and to make the Ceremonies unlawful which have hitherto been observed and practised in it I leave you to judge as also whether the taking in Dissenters upon such Terms will not necessarily reflect reproach and dishonour upon the Reformation of that Church which at her first Reforming thought fit to retain and impose those Constitutions and Ceremonies as just and reasonable and as such hath ever since continu'd them without imagining that continu'd Imposition inconsistent with Christian Wisdom or with any regard that 's justly due to the Scruples and Exceptions of troublesome men relating to the Administration of Sacraments in a Christian Church To which troublesome Men the Dr. is pleased to give the Title of Brethren more than once in the later end of the Preface which is it self in my Opinion too absurd a contradiction to that Book whose main design is to prove them Schismaticks He tells us Pag. 364. That 't was the great Wisdom of our Church not to make more things necessary as to Practice than were made so at the Settlement of the Reformation but whether there be sufficient reason to alter those Terms of Communion which were then settled for the sake of such whose Scruples are groundless and endless I do not says he take upon me here to determin And I wish he had not taken it upon him in the Preface especially to determin it so much to the Reproach and Dishonour of our Church as to imply she hath hitherto been guilty of Transgressing the Obligation of Christianity in not making those Alterations for the sake of Union with such Persons whose Scruples are groundless and endless and which as himself Affirms p. 372. might be remov'd by a little Impartiality and â—lue consideration there being no depth of Learning no subtilty of Reasoning no endless quotation of Fathers necessary about them but the dispute lies in such a narrow compass that men may see light if they will And why ours or indeed any Church should be Reproached as Defective in Christian Wisdom for not complying with such humersom Persons or not altering her Constitutions for the sake of such wilfully blind and perverse Dissenters I confess I do nor understand Now these Premises being duly consider'd do I think abundantly justifie the first charge and make it too reasonable to adhere to this conclusion that the Doctors Preface hath destroyed what he had said for our Church in his Book And in reference to the other charge that the Preface has effectually destroy'd that Church of England which the Doctor had taken pains to defend in his Book The same premises do really contribute so much to the making it good that for ought I see no more need to be added to that End than the bare application of them to that Censure and to the Doctor 's own Notion of the Church of England For he asserts p. 249. of his Book that the National Church of England diffusive is the whole Body of Christians in this Nation consisting of Pastors and People agreeing in that Faith Government and Worship which are Establish'd by the Laws of this Realm And Pag. 302. All Bishops Ministers and People taken together who profess the Faith so Establish'd and worship God according to the Rules so Appointed make up this National Church of England And this is the Church of England which the Doctor has taken pains to defend in his Book If therefore the Church of England takes its denomination not only from the Profession of that Faith but also from its consent in Worshipping God according to such and such Rules he that would destroy those Rules will consequently destroy that Church which is denominated such and diversified from other Churches by its embracing and adhering to those Rules But it appears from the premises that the Doctor 's Preface would have several considerable Alterations made of those Rules and that upon such an account and for such reasons as do consequentially destroy that Order and those Rules of Worship that are Established by Law and therefore that Preface does effectually destroy that Church of England which he had taken pains to defend in his Book These are all the things says the Dr. which appear to me reasonable to be Allowed in order to an Vnion and which I suppose may be Granted without detriment or dishonour to our Church And says this Writer these are all I plead for in this Book But 1. there is this little difference between these Authors The Reverend Dean supposes they may be Granted but this Author endeavours to prove they ought to be Granted 2. Though that Author mentions only such and such things as appearing to him reasonable to be Allowed yet to make them appear so to others he urges an Argument which will infer it as reasonable to dispense with a great many other things not mention'd And so though this Author pretends that these are all he pleads for in his Book yet the Arguments he makes use of if they prove any thing prove it the duty of our Governours to dispense with a great many more Constitutions even all that enjoyn any Indifferents whereby our Brother is offended Chap. 3. And therefore whereas he adds here As for those who deny the lawfulness of Lyturgy and the right Constitution of our Churches and who would be exempted from the Jurisdiction of their Bishop and set up Congregations separate and independent upon him I know not how to plead for them without pleading for Schism Confusion and Disorder I doubt his Arguments will if they prove any thing prove it as unlawful for Governours to impose a Lyturgy and require Obedience to Episcopal Government as to impose Ceremonies For I am confident he is very sensible that a great many whom he seemed to account weak Brethren are mightily offended
REMARKS ON THE PREFACE TO THE Protestant Reconciler IN A LETTER TO A FRIEND LONDON Printed by J. Wallis for Joanna Brome at the Gun in St. Paul's Church-yard 1683. SIR HAving Read and Consider'd the Preface to The Protestant Reconciler I now send you these Remarks upon it The Author professes Pag. 58. of that Preface That he does from his heart Conform to all that is requir'd by the Church of England and yet a great part of the Preface is employ'd in producing Testimonies against the Lawfulness not only of the Imposition it self but also of the things Impos'd we are told p. 25. out of Beza's Epistle to Bishop Grindal That Men so oft do grievously Sin as they do introduce into the Church of God any Ceremonies significative of Spiritual things and that all Symbolical Rites should be entirely excluded from the Christian Church And this forsooth must have a Hand set over against it in the margin as if it ought to be taken for some very precious and valuable Truth We are told also by the same Divine p. 26. That the Right of Crossing is not to be reckon'd among things Indifferent but as a thing rather to be destroyed than the brazen Serpent of Hezekias That they do best of all who are as diligent in the Abolishing the Rites of Crossing in Baptism and Kneeling at the Sacrament as they would be in Abolishing open Idolatry And this also is thought fit to be Printed in another Character and to be mark'd out with a marginal Hand as if 't were a Maxim of Infallible Truth A great many other Reproaches of our Ceremonies and their Imposition are transcribed into the following Pages as p. 27. That the Imposing our English Ceremonies is a falling back to worse than the Ceremonies of Moses to the Trifles and Refuse of human Traditions That Queen Elizabeth was carry'd with a Zeal not according to Knowledge in Commanding the Vse of them Pag. 28. And that by that Imposition the Fire of Contention was to the incredible offence of the Godly as it were raised from Hell That the white Linen Garments requir'd to be Vsed in Divine Service are at the least signs of Idolatry and Popish Superstition with the Vse whereof Ministers defile themselves and give offence to the Weak by their Example That to retain those Garments is to destroy the whole Body of the Church That they ought not be Imposed Pag. 30. because all things are to be abandon'd which may any way either by themselves or by accident desile Gods Worship because they are contrary to the Purity of the Apostolical Worship and smell of Popish Superstion and are neither available to the Edification of the Godly nor to Order nor for Ornament except that which is Whorish Because all Godly men will be offended with the Decree concerning Apparel And it may much further Vngodliness and at least give occasion of many Evils and very grievous Superstitions and the very Occasions of Evils are to be shun'd because 't is God's Will p. 31. That after the Death of Christ all Garments of Aaron and Levi should be Abolish'd That the Lord himself Commanded that all Vngodly and Vain Ceremonies should be driven away when he charg'd utterly to destroy all things which appertain'd to those who should give Counsel to follow strange Gods and to burn their Garments and all their Stuff with Fire that they might be an execrable thing unto the Lord. Because the Imposing them ministers Offence to the Consciences of Weak Believers which to do is very grievous and distastful to the Holy Spirit and that Paul's Example of resolving always to abstain from Flesh rather than offend his Brother gives a general Rule taken out of the Doctrin of Christ viz. That no Indifferent thing is to be admitted and yielded to much less to be Vrg'd upon others and least of all to be Commanded by Decree if in the Admitting Vrging and Commanding of it the Minds of Good Men and Consciences of the Faithful be Offended Now this Prefacer did either look upon these kind of paultry Argumentations against our Ceremonies and their Imposition and these and a great many other Censorious Reproaches of them as Valid Arguings and Justifiable Reproaches or he did not if he did not to what end has he taken the Pains to Transcribe them unless he had a Fanatick Design of rendring our Church and State-Constitutions odious by so doing But if he does really judge them Valid and Justifiable he is a strange Man that can from his heart Conform to all that is required by the Church of England and yet imagine not only the imposing and requiring the Use of its Ceremonies to be both without and against the Command of God but also the things requir'd and impos'd to be some of them Signs of Idolatry and Popish Superstition that Ministers defile themselves with the use of them that they are only for Whorish Ornament and such as whereat the Minds of Good Men and the Consciences of the Faithful are Offended and that such things ought not for that very reason either to be Imposed or so much as Admitted or Yielded to Besides if he has Transcribed them as Reproaches in his own Opinion justifiable he has by quoting those Passages out of other Writings made them his own And he has too plainly done so in his re-capitulation p. 43. where he expresly Affirms That judicious Beza truly saith that these things viz. Ceremonies required by the Church of England are not only unnecessary but profitable for little if a Man use them aright And as if this were not Reproach enough this Prefacer has no more Wit nor Judgement than to Add and when they Accidentally do minister to Schisnt and all its fatal Consequences and then again to Approve it as truly said by Beza That to impose such Ceremonies is to labour about Hay and Stubble or rather things more vain than they And himself Affirms That sad Experience shews that they bring no Profit but many Evils to the Church and that 't is our Duty to shun the Occasion of those Evils By which Approbation of and Compliance with these Censures of things required and imposed in our Church I humbly conceive he has incurr'd the Penalty of Excommunication which is Decreed by Can. 4. against those who Affirm that the Form of Gods Worship in the Church of England Established by Law and Contained in the Book of Common-Prayer and Administration of Sacraments is a Corrupt Superstitious or Vnlawful Worship of God or Containeth any thing in it that is repugnant to the Scriptures By Can. 6. against those Who Affirm that the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England by Law Established are Wicked Antichristian or Superstitious By Can. 10. Consequentially For that Canon Excommunicated those Separatists from the Church of England who take upon them the Name of another Church and presume to publish that this their pretended Church hath a long time Groaned under the Burden of
certain Grievances imposed upon the Members thereof by the Church of England And 't is the drift of this Man's Preface and Book to load the Church it self with the Burden of this Reproachful Complaint Besides the Opinion which this Prefacer owns as true That the Ceremonies required in the Church of England do bring no Profit but many Evils to the Church is a flat Contradiction to the Doctrin of the 30th Canon touching the Use of the Cross in Baptism viz. That the Christians shortly after the Apostles Time used it in all their Actions thereby making an outward Shew and Profession even to the Astonishment of the Jews that they were not ashamed to Acknowledge Him for their Lord and Saviour who Dyed for them upon the Cross And this Sign they did not only use themselves with a kind of Glory when they met with any Jews but signed therewith their Children when they were Christned to dedicate them by that Badge to His Service whose Benefits bestowed upon them in Baptism the Name of the Cross did represent and this Vse of the Sign of the Cross in Baptism was held in the Primitive Church as well by the Greeks as the Latins with one consent and great applause at what time if any had opposed themselves against it they would certainly have been Censur'd as Enemies of the Name of the Cross and consequently of Christs Merits the sign whereof they could no better endure And what must this Prefacer then be counted who in complyance with Father Beza Father Zanchy and Father Calvin as he pretends Pag. 23. Censur'd this and other Ceremonies as Fooleries and the endeavouring to uphold them as Labouring about Hay and Stubble or rather about things more vain than they and brands them as things bringing no Profit but many Evils to the Church whereas this Canon you see expresly teaches the contrary and tho' it Acknowledges that in process of time the sign of the Cross was greatly abused in the Church of Rome especially after the Corruption of Popery had once possessed it yet withal it affirms that the Abuse of a thing doth not take away the Lawful Vse of it Nay so far was it from the purpose of the Church of England says the Canon to forsake and reject the Churches of Italy France Spain Germany or any such like Churches in all things which they held and practised that as the Apology of the Church of England confesseth it doth with reverence retain those Ceremonies which do neither endamage the Church of God nor offend the minds of Sober Men. In which respect among some other very Ancient Ceremonies the sign of the Cross in Baptism hath been retained in the Church For the very remembrance of the Cross which is very precious to all them that rightly Believe in Jesus Christ and in the other respects mention'd the Church of England hath retained still the sign of â—â—…in Baptism following therein the Primitive and Apostolical Churches and accounting it a Lawful Outward Ceremony and Honourable Badge whereby the Infant is Dedicated to the Service of Him that dy'd upon the Cross In the next place I observe that this Prefacer confesses Pag. 9. that the Bishops themselves have no Power to dispense with the Laws for Uniformity or to make any Proposals for the healing of our Breaches and if they have no such Power I wonder upon what grounds this Author assumes to himself the Power of making such Proposals and such as would destroy the Act of Uniformity and Metamorphose the Common-Prayer-Book into a Directory I know he has produced the Testimony of King James King Charles the First and King Charles the Second to justifie the design of his Book but with how little Reason Candor and Ingenuity he has done it I shall leave you to judge when you have consider'd the reflexions I have to make upon them As to that of K. James it may suffice 1. To remember that notwithstanding that excellent determination as the Prefacer styles it his Majesty was so far from changing or antiquating or so much as dispensing with the Ceremonies of the Church of England that he ratified them anew and gave those Divines who appear'd against them at the Conference at Hampton-Court a Severe Reprimand for scrupling Conformity to them upon such inconsiderable Reasons as were then urg'd for those Scruples and this Establishment he continued all his Reign 2. To take Notice that whereas this Writer calls that which Casaubon represents as K. James his Opinion a golden Sentence and which fully justifies all which he pleads for the words of that Golden Sentence as quoted by himself do only affirm That those things which by the Constitutions of Men without the Word of God were for a time received into the Church of God may be Changed Mollified Antiquated And this too is so far from being there his Majesties peremptory Determination that 't is only said his Majesty Thinks Conceives Believes they may be antiquated Whereas this Writer is not content to think our Church-Constiâ—utions May be but the whole scope of his Book is to prove they Ought to be alter'd and antiquated 3. That which his Majesty is said to Believe does in the quotation refer not to All but only to Most Ecclesiastical Observations and therefore it is not evident from that quotation That our Church-Ceremonial-Observations are in the number of those which the King Conceived might be antiquated For which reasons this first quotation signified little to this Writers purpose supposing it a Candid and Impartial quotation which because I have not that Epistle by me I have not at present the opportunity of examining But if this Prefacer has treated King James in this Testimony no more candidly and ingenuously than he has King Charles in the next he has in plain English play'd the Knave with two Kings For hapning to have the Exact Collections by me I consulted the Kings Answer to that Remonstrance of the State of the Kingdom and there found p. 26. of that Collection immediately after the words by him quoted these following Provided that this Case be attempted and pursued with that modesty temper and submission that in the mean time the Peace and Quiet of the Kingdom be not disturbed the Decency and Comliness of Gods Service discountenanced nor the Pious Sober and Devout Actions of those Reverend Persons who were the first Labourers in the Blessed Reformation scandalised and defamed Which Proviso being added does so cramp and consine the Condescension spoken of in the former words that they are on that account rendred insignificant to the Writers design and so they are upon another For they only say That his Majesty would willingly comply with the Advice of a Parliament for the making a Law to Exempt Tender-Consciences from Punishment or Prosecution but does not say either that 't was the duty of a Parliament to give him such Advice nor that it was his own duty to comply with it when given and yet nothing
the Credit of Dr. Burnet whose Testimony Valeat quantum valere potest Nay he is brought in as one who declar'd it his Judgement That the only means to heal us was a new Act of Vniformity which should neither leave all at Liberty nor impose any thing but Necessary And this we are told upon the Credit of Mr. Baxter who I doubt may say as the Dr. aforesaid does of himself in the Preface p. 8. to his History of the Rights of Princes I know this will not be the more believed for my saying it Now that 't is not naturally Impossible that such words should be spoken by Judge Hale who can deny but that he did actually declare his judgement in those Terms who can believe that is at all acquainted with the Parts and Intellectuals of that Great Man For sure he had more Wit than to call that an Act for Vniformity which would leave men at Liberty as to the Order Modes Circumstances and Ceremonies of Publick Worship and more Consideration than not to reflect that an Act which imposes nothing but what 's Necessary will certainly leave men to that Liberty and a Person of more Skill in the measures of Government and the needs of Human Society than to propose That as the only means for the healing the breaches of this Nation in matters of Religion which was never yet made use of for the Cementing of any National Society of men or the effecting Union and Concord among them For I dare Challenge this Author if I had the opportunity to shew me where there is or ever was such a Society whose Union Order and Government was conserv'd or design'd to be conserv'd by the imposing on them nothing but necessary things meaning by necessary things such only as God's Word has made so and as are contra-distinguish'd to all things in their own nature Indifferent and so this Prefacer must understand this Testimony if it be pertinent to the design of his Book The 16. 17. and 18. Pages are taken up wiâ—h Dr. Stillingfleet's Opinion touching this Affair which because I had occasion to consider soon after that Book of his the Vnreasonableness of Separation was publish'd I shall now impart to you the result of that consideration which was 1. That if any one should affirm That that Preface of the Doctors had destroyed what he had said for our Church in his Book And 2. That it has effectually destroyed that Church of England which he had taken pains to defend in his Book I did not see how the Doctor could purge himself from the Accusation In the third Part of the Book and twenty sixth Section the Doctor defends our Churches Terms of Communion and proves that there 's no Unlawfulness in them particularly not in the sign of the Cross Kneeling at the Communion the Religious Observation of Holidays the constant Vse of the Lyturgy nor the Vse of God-Fathers and God-Mothers in Baptism The Lawfulness of all which except that of the constant Vse of the Lyturgy which he Acknowledges-done very well to his hand by Dr. Falkner he defends by Answering whatsoever was urg'd against them by his Adversaries Pag. 332 333. c. And yet in the Preface p. 83. he represents it as most adviseable either wholly to take away the Sign of the Cross or to leave it Indifferent as the Parents shall desire or not desire besides which he would have Kneeling at the Sacrament dispensed with as to those that scruple it and several Alterations made in the setled Practice of our Church as to the Use of God-Fathers and God-Mothers in Baptism And to justifie this changing of our Church-Constitutions he makes use of such a Motive and Argument as the truth is if it prove any thing proves those Constitutions unlawful and therefore that they ought to be abolish'd For 1. What less than this can reasonably be inferr'd from these words of his p. 82. I do think it would be a part of Christian Wisdom and Condescension in the Governours of our Church to remove those Barrs that is the matter of the Dissenters scruplings and excepâ—ings against the Sacramental Offices from a freedome in joyning in full Communion with us The most obvious and pertinent meaning of which words is That it is such a part of Wisdome and Condescension as Christianity obliges our Governors to and if they are obliged to it by vertue of the Christian Religion it is certainly their duty to be so Wise and Condescending But 2. in the immediately preceding Lines he urges this Argument for that Condescension viz. because the Vse of Sacraments in a Christian Church ought to be the most free from all Exception and they ought to be so Administred as rather to invite than discourage scrupulous Persons from joyning in them Which Argument if valid will effectually destroy not only the prescription of those Ceremonies but several other things of the like kind which the men of Scruples are or shall be pleased to except against particularly 't will be as valid against the Use of a set Form of words in those and other sacred Administrations because even that discourages abundance of scrupulous Persons from joyning in any of the Publick Services of our Church all which therefore will be effectually destroyed by that Argumentation Besides which he mentions p. 92. several other mutations for the satisfaction of the scrupulous which p. 93. he thinks reasonable to be allowed in order to an Union As the explaining or amending some more doubtful and obscure passages in the Common-Prayer-Book the use of the New Translation of the Psalms in Parochial Churches at least the charging of the Apochrypha-Lessons for portions of Canonical Scripture the leaving at liberty those Expressions in the Office for Burial which suppose the good Estate of the Person buried the restoring the Rubrick about the Salvation of Infants to its former place in the Office of Confirmation and so removing the present exceptions against it by which last I confess I do not well know what he means because I do not discern how the placing it in the Office of Confirmation will remove the present scruples against it those scruples being about its truth and the Proposition contain'd in that Rubrick will certainly be no truer in one Office than in the other Now since 't is plain that the Preface does thus endeavour to undermine and destroy so many of our Church-Constitutions which yet the Book endeavours to uphold and maintain and since he does it by an Argument which if rational and cogent does as plainly infer the continuing those Constitutions especially those of them that belong to the Sacraments to be no part of Christian Wisdom and Condescension in our Governours but inconsistent with it and with that freeness from all exceptions which ought to be the constant Attendant of those Administrations I think 't is evident that the Preface does at least virtually and consequentially destroy and render unlawful what the Book defends
with those Constitutions also And I doubt himself is not so strong and hardy as to affirm that our Lyturgy and Diocesan Episcopacy are things founded on a Divine unchangeable Law And if they be not his Arguments will conclude against them as well as against the imposition of Ceremonies As for the Testimonies which follow pag. 23. 24. c. my Remarks on them are these 1. Some of them I confess seem to speak home to this Author's design and pretend that our Ceremonies ought to be abolish'd but if this Man's Book be fraught with no better Reasons to prove it than those mention'd by him out of the Epistles of Judicious Beza and Learned Zanchy I 'll be bold to say that it is good for little but to prove the Author a very weak Brother 2. He shewed himself too near of kin to such aâ— Brother in pretending pag. 23. That Calvin styl'd our Ceremonies Follies but owning that affirmed them Tolerable Follies and then writing a great Book himself to prove them intolerable But as to that Censure which Calvin is said to pass upon our Ceremonies see Durell's Vindiciae Ecclesiae Anglicanae Cap. 12. where he makes it more than probable That that Censure was not meant of our Ceremonies nor of the English Lyturgy as it wa in it self at that time but as it was knavishly represented to him by the English Sectaries of those days 3. I observe that several of his Testimonies pag. 38. c. seem not to speak of the duty of the Governours of this or that particular Church to bear with and indulge the Members of their own Church in matters indifferent but of the Duty only of one Protestant Church pag. 40. 41. towards another viz. That if both Churches agree in Fundamentals their differences in other matters may be Tolerated pag. 38. 40. The Reformed Churches say the Geneva-Doctors pag. 40. ought to maintain a Brotherly Affection towards one another c. The Protestant-Churches says the Transylvanian pag. 41. are to be mov'd notwithstanding their differences to exercise Moderation Compassion and Mutual Toleration And so the Professors of Aberdeen pag. 42. 43. The possibility of this Exception the Prefacer himself was aware of and therefore endeavours to enervate it pag. 57. by Asking What reason can be given why these conditions of Communion betwixt Reformed Churches should not obtain amongst the Member of the same Christian Church And pag. 58. Why that Agreement in Fundamentals which is sufficient to preserve Communion betwixt Churches disagreeing in Rites and Ceremonies and Doctrines of inferior moment may not be sufficient also to preserve Communion among the members of the same Church though disagreeing in like matters As if there where no difference between two Societies neither of which is subject to or dependant upon the other nor have any Governour common to them both and the members of the same Society or several Societies united under and subject to such or such a Governour or Governours Where two Societies are independent one upon another there being no common Governour to take care of Order and the things relating to it among them each of them is left to the management of its respective Governour or Governours and to them the care of the Publick Worship to be perform'd by that Society belongs who therefore ought to see that it be performed in an orderly decent and reverent manner and to constitute such Modes Rites and Ceremonies as they judge most convenient to that End And when they have so done what has any other Church which in the Case suppos'd cannot justly pretend to any superiority over them I say what has such a Church to do to call in question their Constitutions in any Authoritative way I mean And therefore to talk of its being the duty of one Protestant Church to tolerate another that 's Independent upon it and differs from it in matters of outward Order is at least a very improper way of speaking If by tolerating those Testimonies mean only that they should not Censure and Condemn the other Church that so differs from them and if this Writer be of the same mind in this with the Authors of those dictates and if he be not why does he quote them as Testimonies favouring his pretensions then himself ought to pronounce Beza and Zanchy a little too pragmatical in quarrelling the Governours of the Church of England for their thinking fit to retain such and such Ceremonies But what does this Prefacer mean by Conditions of Communion and Preserving Communion in these questions Does it follow that because these Testimonies make it the Duty of one Protestant Church so far to Accord with another that agrees with it in Fundamentals and differs from it only in Rites and Ceremonies or other matters extra-Fundamental as not fastidiously to reject or Anathematise that Church P. 43. on Account of any such difference that therefore they make it the duty of each Church to admit the members of the other Church to all sorts of Communion meerly because they agree in Fundamentals If he fancy that to be their meaning let him instance if he can in any one Protestant Church that will receive others to Sacramental Communion meerly because they hold the Fundamentals of Christian Faith This Man has undertaken to maintain That things Indifferent ought not to be imposed as Conditions of Communion or as Conditions without which none shall partake of the publick Ordinances but does he imagine that if he go to Geneva he shall be admitted to the Communion there without submitting to the Ceremonies of Reception there enjoyn'd in particular that they 'll give it him unless he stands when he receives it I am sure Durell in the foremention'd Vindiciae Cap. 22. where he defends the Church of Englands imposing Kneeling on all Communicants tells us that in that it challenges no greater a Power to it self than other Reformed Churches do pag. 235. And that as the Churches of the Lutheran Confession will give the Communion only to those that Kneel so the French and Geneva Churches will give it to none but such as Stand in the Act of Receiving Whereas therefore this Author would gladly know pag. 58. Why that Agreement in Fundamentals which is sufficient to preserve Communion betwixt Churches disagreeing in Rites and Ceremonies may not be sufficient also to preserve Communion among the Members of the same Church though disagreeing in such Matters I Answer That the Communion which his own Testimonies speak of as preserv'd thereby is only for ought I see that which consists in not Censuring and Anathematising or Disowning them as True Churches though differing in such matters which as it scarce deserves the Name of Communion so 't is too far remov'd from the Nature of that Communion which this Book pleads for to make these Testimonies pertinent to that Plea And whereas he pretends in the same Page that the reason why Christian Churches which do thus differ should be received and owned
in all Places where Christianity obtains If Crossing Kneeling Surplice he needful to be used in the Church of England why not in all the Churches of the Saints If they are needful or expedient for Order Vniformity for Reverence and Decency in this Age Why not in that in which our Lord and his Apostles liv'd and through all subsequent Ages of the Church If therefore Christ did neither by himself nor his Apostles who form'd the first Church and deliver'd us his mind institute and impose these Rites then either the imposing them is needless or else you must say that Christ hath omitted what was needful to the due performance of his Worship which seemeth to imply that either he was ignorant what to do or careless and neglective of his own Affairs which cannot be Asserted without Blasphemy A shrewd Argument I confess in the consequences of it if allowed for a good Argument but 't is really so pitiful a Ratiocination as to this Prefacer's design in quoting it that I believe Baxter himself has Wit and Reason enough still left him if still living to laugh at any man that should be wheedl'd by it into a perswasion that it is unlawful for any Church or State to impose such and such Rites and Ceremonies as it thinks most convenient for Order Uniformity Reverence and Decency Because those Ceremonies were never imposed by Christ or his Apostles But that which I mention it for is this to manifest what kind of quoter this man hath shewn himself Any Reader who views the quotation and the lines of it mark'd each of them with two little hooks may justly think that the lines so mark'd consist only of Baxter's words and in the same order as disposed by Baxter himself in that Chapter Section and Reason but it is so far from being so that 1. These words This seems to be coming after Christ to amend his Laws correct his Works and make better Laws and Ordinances for his Church than he himself hath done are not Baxter's words in that Paragraph of that Disputation as Printed with the other four in 1659 which I believe is the only Edition of those Disputations of Church-Government but this man 's own unless he has quoted them at second hand from some falsifyer of Testimonies 2. Whereas in the quotation 't is If they viz. Crossing Kneeling Surplice are needful or expedient for Order Vniformity for Reverence and Decency in this Age why not in that in which our Lord and his Apostles liv'd and through all subsequent Ages of the Church this Clause also and Question is not Mr. Baxters but this mans own or some body's that has imposed upon him 3. Whereas the Prefacer concludes the quotation with these words which cannot be Asserted without Blasphemy Baxter's words are only which are not to be imagined Now 2. Neither of these variations are allowable in any Testimony that is published as a just and exact quotation as any Reader would guess this to be by the manner of printing it But 3. The second Clause is such an addition as is altogether intolerable for Baxter doth not there dispute against the Ceremonies of Crossing and Surplice considered as expedient for Order Vniformity Reverence and Decency But as things pretended by him to be Mystical Symbolical Sacramental Rites and his reasoning such as it is is there directed against them only under that Notion for this Author therefore to quote him as there applying that reasoning to our Ceremonies considered as Needful or Expedient for Order Vniformity c. is not to quote but to invent and falsifie and therefore 4. If the rest of this Gentleman's quotations which I have not the opportunity of examining are of the same complexion with this he must in all reason be concluded either a Knavish quoter himself or a quoter at second hand from some body that was so But supposing Baxter had reason'd so simply as for ought I know he may in some other part of his writings as this Prefacer makes him to do in that Paragraph against mens appointing such and such Ceremonies as needful for Order Uniformity Reverence and Decency I shall annex an wholsome Testimony-Antidote against the venom of it which I find quoted to my hands from Mr. Calvin I hope with more honesty and fidelity than this is Mr. Baxter by Dr. Hooke in his judicious Answer to Baxter's Petition for Peace pag. 150. in these words Let us hold thsi That if we see in every Society of men some Policy to be necessary which may serve to nourish common Peace and to retain Concord if we see that in the doing of things there is always some Orderly Form which is behoveful for publick honesty and for very humanity not to be refus'd the saine ought chiefly to be observ'd in Churches which are both best maintained by a well-fram'd disposition of all things and without Agreement are no Churches at all Therefore if we will have the safety of the Church well provided for we must altogether diligently procure that which St. Paul commandeth That all things be done Comely and according to Order But forasmuch as there is so great diversity in the manners of men so great variety in minds so great disagreements in judgements and wits neither is there any Policy stedfast enough unless it be Established by certain Laws nor any orderly usage can be observed without a certain appointed Form therefore we are so far off from condemning the Laws that are profitable to this purpose that we affirm that when these be taken away Churches are dissolved from their sinews and utterly deformed and scatter'd abroad for this which St. Paul requireth That all things be done decently and in Order cannot be had unless the Order it self and Comeliness be Established with observations adjoyned as with certain Bonds But this only thing is always to be excepted in those Observations That they be not either believed to be necessary to Salvation and so bind Consciences with Religion or be applyed to the Worship of God and so Godliness be reposed in them But pag. 152. it is good yet to define more plainly what is comprehended under that Comeliness which St. Paul commendeth and also what under Order The end of Comeliness is partly that when such Ceremomies are used as may procure a Reverence to holy things we may by such helps be stirred up to Godliness partly also that the Modesty and Gravity which ought to be seen in all honest doings may therein principally appear In Order this is the first Point That they which Govern may know the Rule and Law to Govern well and the People which are governed may be Accustom'd to Obeying of God and to right Discipline Then that the state of the Church being well fram'd Peace and Quietness may be provided for Verily because the Lord hath in his holy Oracles both faithfully contain'd and clearly set forth both the whole sum of true Righteousness and all the parts of the