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
imposing the Ceremonies now used in the Church of England because it hath been proved already that they have nothing of this nature in them that is nothing of positive Order or Decency But what he says has been proved already I have made appear is not proved by him yet and I hope I have proved the contrary But if the Ceremonies of our Church which are nothing else but the decent circumstances of action or contribute to the Gravity and Solemnity of religious actions have no positive Decency and therefore cannot be prescribed by the Church I desire to know what that positive Decency is which the Church has authority to command for if it does not extend to the determination of the necessary circumstances of action I cannot see that the Church has any authority in matters of Decency And if as the Bishop says the Rulers of the Church are the perpetual Iudges and Dictators in such matters which he seems to assent to how does it become the great modesty of our Reconciler to assert That there is no positive Decency and Order in those Ceremonies which the Church has appointed for the sake of Decency and Order If the Rulers of the Church be the proper Judges of this how does our Reconciler come by this authority to judge his Judges II. Our Reconciler adds a limitation of this Rule That all things be done decently and in order in the words of the same Reverend Bishop That it is not to be extended to such Decencies as are onely ornament but is to be limited to such as onely rescue from confusion The reason is because the Prelates and spiritual Guides cannot do their duty unless things be so orderly that there is no confusion But if it can go beyond this limit then it can have no natural limit but may extend to Sumptuousness to Ornaments of Churches to rich Vtensits to Splendour and Majesty for all that is decent enough and in some circumstances very fit But because this is too subject to abuse and gives a secular power into the hands of Bishops and an authority over mens estates and fortunes and is not necessary for Souls nor any part of spiritual Government it is more than Christ gave to his Ministers How much our Reconciler has injured this learned Prelate by his numerous citations of his words to a quite different sence from what he intended shall be made appear before I leave this Argument though he has dealt no worse by him than he has by Christ and his Apostles whose words â—e has as grosly abused That this excellent Bishop had no designe in this or any thing else which our Reconciler transcribes from him to reflect on the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England I have more than one reason to believe as will appear presently and therefore though I could not give an account of every particular expression yet none but such a Protestant Reconciler would expound any of his words in contradiction to his declared sence of things I am sure what he here says if it be applied to the Ceremonies of the Church of England has no reason in it and that is a sufficient Argument to me that he never meant it so For 1. Supposing this to be true That this Rule is not to be extended to such Decencies as are onely ornament this does not concern the Church of England which has no such Ceremonies as are meerly for ornament And therefore the Church has authority enough to prescribe the decent Rites and Modes of Worship though she have not authority to make her Worship gay and theatrical which indeed is not decent and therefore not contained within this Rule The Bishop never thought of the Church of England when he gave this Rule but had his eye upon the fantastick Ceremonies and Amusements of the Romish Worship 2. But yet when he says That this Rule is not to be extended to such Decencies as are onely ornament it is evident that he does not exclude all Ornaments neither if they serve any ends of Religion beside For if they be really such Decencies and Ornaments as become Religion and Christian Worship I cannot imagine any reason why they should not be included in the Rule of Decency and Order Such Decency and Order as is opposed to confusion and disorder is always necessary and may always be had what state soever the Church is in while there is any publick face of a Church Ornamental Decencies cannot always be had and therefore do not always oblige as in the case of Persecutions But why any man should say that the Authority of the Church does not extend to Ornaments when it is in her power to adorn the Worship of God I cannot guess Must there be no difference between the afflicted and prosperous state of the Church When God has made in all other things a distinction between Necessaries Conveniences and Ornaments does he allow nothing but what is barely neâ—essary to his own Worship It is possible indeed that men may mistake in what they call the Ornaments of Religion as the Church of Rome evidently does but if they do not mistake and have it in their power to give an external beauty and lustre to Religion do they exceed their Commission in this too The Bishop acknowledges that Sumptuousness Ornaments of Churches rich Vtensils Splendour and Majesty is decent enough and in some circumstances very fit and I should much have wondered had he denied it Now when these things are decent and fit does it exceed the Authority of the Church to appoint them Can any thing be decent and fit to be done in any circumstances which the Church has no Authority to do And therefore when he says that meer Ornaments are not comprehended within the Rule of Decency and Order he means no more by it than that the Governours of the Church are not so strictly obliged to take care of the external Ornaments of Religion which cannot be had at all times as they are of the Decency and Order of Worship Ornaments are very fitting when they can be had but the Bishop has not authority to oblige the People to the charges and expences of such Ornaments unless they freely and willingly consent And that this is his meaning appears from the Reasons he gives of it That this is too subject to abuse and that it gives a secular power into the hands of Bishops and an authority over mens Estates and Fortunes Which are good Arguments onely upon this supposition that the Bishop had such authority as to oblige his People to such expences as he should think fit for the Ornaments of Religion but suppose devout people liberally contribute to such pious uses if his Authority and Commission does not extend to Ornaments he must not receive their money nor adorn the Church with it if he may then his Authority extends to Ornaments though he has no Authority over mens Estates for he must not do any thing in
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
Church to have rejected those Ceremonies which had been made venerable by ancient use when they would equally or better serve those ends we designe than any new ones This is the very account our Church gives of it Having given the reason why she retained some Ceremonies still as I have already observed she answers that Objection why she has retained some old Ceremonies If they think much that any of the old remain and would rather have all devised new then such men granting some Ceremonies convenient to be had surely where the old may be well used there they cannot reasonably reprove the old onely for their age without bewraying of their own folly For in such a case they ought rather to have reverence to them for their antiquity if they will declare themselves to be more studious of Unity and Concord than of Innovations and new Fangleness which as much as may be with true setting forth of Christ's Religion is always to be eschewed Let our Reconciler consider whether this be Hypocrisie or true and sober reasoning 2. The Dean's second reason is To manifest the justice and equity of the Reformation by letting their Enemies see that they did not break Communion with them for meer indifferent things Or as our Reconciler adds That they left the Church of Rome no farther than she left the ancient Church Which the Dean does not say under that Head nor any thing like it But yet here he takes advantage and says It is manifest that we have left off praying for departed Saints the Vnction of the sick the mixing water with the Sacramental Wine c. with many other things which were retained in the ancient Church and in the Liturgie of Edward the Sixth he should have said the first Liturgy and which are things indifferent retained in the Roman Church But is our Reconciler in good earnest I fear the next Book we shall have from him will be the Roman Catholick Reconciler Are all these things as used in the Roman Church indifferent Is praying for the dead as it is joyned with the Doctrine of Purgatory and Merit in the Church of Rome a thing indifferent Is the Sacrament of Extream Unction an indifferent thing Are their Grossings and Exorcisms and such-like Ceremonies abused by the Church of Rome to the absurdest Superstitions indifferent things Our Reformers at first in veneration to the Primitive Church in which some of these Ceremonies were used did retain the use of them in the first Liturgy of Edward the Sixth but upon more mature deliberation finding how impossible it was to restore them to their primitive use and to purge them from the superstitious abuses of the Church of Rome to which their people were still addicted laid them all aside and for this they are reproached by our Reconciler Some men would have been called Papists in Masquerade for half so much as this But what is this to the Dean's reason That we do not break Communion with them for meer indifferent things For certainly to retain three indifferent Ceremonies though we should reject five hundred more equally indifferent is a sufficient proof that we do not quarrel nor break Communion for indifferent things considered as indifferent which is all that the Dean meant by it But he has a fling at some others besides the Dean though whom he means I cannot well tell but he says Some of our Church senselesly pretend we cannot change these Ceremonies because they have been once received and owned by the Church I suppose he means the Catholick Church and though I think it is too much to say we cannot change what has been once received for the Church of this Age has as much Authority as the Church of former Ages had yet I think what has been received by the Catholick Church ought not but upon very great reasons to be rejected by any particular Church But now had our Reconciler been honest he might have made a great many useful Remarks upon this History of ancient Ceremonies for the conviction of Dissenters He might have observed that even in the Apostles days there were several Ceremonies used of Apostolical institution which yet had not a divine but humane Authority and therefore were afterwards disused or altered by the Church That in all Ages of the Christian Church there have been greater numbers of Ceremonies used and those much more liable to exception than are now retained in the Church of England That the Church has always challenged and exercised this Authority in the Externals of Religion and therefore there has not been any Age of the Church since the Apostles with which our Dissenters could have communicated upon their Principles This had been done like an honest man and a true Reconciler but it is wonderful to me that he who can find so many good words for the Church of Rome can find none for the Church of England 3. It may so happen that some things must be determined by publick Authority which are matter of doubt and scruple to some professed Christians When I say Authority must determine such things I mean if they will do their duty and take care of the publick Decency and Uniformity of Worship without which there can be no Decency This is evident in such an Age as this wherein some men scruple every thing which relates to publick Worship but what they like and fancy themselves To be uncovered at Prayers is as considerable a scruple to some Quakers as to kneel at the Sacrament is to other Dissenters This it seems was a Dispute in the Church of Corinth in St. Paul's days but the Apostle made no scruple of determining that question notwithstanding that and yet praying covered or uncovered are but circumstances of Worship as kneeling or sitting at the â—acrament are and if I had a mind to argue this point with our Reconciler I think I could prove them as indifferent circumstances as the other For the reason the Apostle assigns for the mens praying uncovered and the women covered that one was an Emblem of Authority the other of Subjection which makes it a symbolical Ceremony as our Dissenters speak is quite contrary among us though it were so in the Apostles days and is so still in some Eastern Countries To be uncovered among us is a signe of Subjection and to be covered a signe of Authority and therefore Princes Parents and Masters are covered or have their Hats on while Subjects Children and Servants are uncovered in their presence And therefore in compliance with the Apostles reason men should now pray covered because that is a signe of civil Dignity and Superiority whereas we now pray uncovered in token of a religious Reverence and Subjection to God Now I would ask our Reconciler whether our Church may determine that all men shall pray with their Hats off notwithstanding the scruples of some Quakers for if the Church must have respect to mens scruples why not to the scruples of Quakers
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-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
sorts of People that when they are under they desire that liberty and indulgence which they judge unreasonable to grant when they are in power And whereas some attribute this to the weakness of humane nature which is corrupted by Power and grows insolent and domineering that Subjects see what is fitting for Governours to do but Governours lose that tender regard to their Subjects when they have Power in their hands I take the contrary to this to be the true reason of it that men who are in Power understand the reasons and necessity of Government and have a greater regard to a publick Good than to gratifie mens private Interests and Inclinations but Subjects when the Power is not on their side are bribed by their own interest and self-love to censure and condemn such acts of government as they liked very well in themselves when they were in Power Which is a plain demonstration that this Rule To do as we would be done by is onely a Rule for private Conversation not for publick Government and that the private Resentments of those who suffer is no Argument against the Justice Prudence or Charity of Government VI. His sixth Argument is from the nature and obligations of Charity but I have considered this at large in the second Chapter and explained the difference between a private Charity and the Charity of Government and made it appear that there is no want of Charity in the Constitution of the Church of England VII His next Argument is this That those Arguments which with the greatest strength of reason are offered to induce Dissenters to conform to the Constitutions of the Church of England do with equal force and clearness conclude against the imposition of those Rites as the condition of Communion If this prove true I am sure such Arguments are good for nothing on neither side but let us hear what they are 1. It is well argued by Conformists that the Rules and Canons of the Church-Governours imposed for Decency and Order are to be obeyed by inferiours till it be made as clear that they are not bound to obey in the instances enjoyned as it is evident in general that Inferiours ought to obey Superiours for if the exemption from obedience be not as evident as the command to obey it must be sin not to obey Now our Reconciler mistakes the nature and use of this Argument which is not directly to press any man to Conformity but onely to conquer mens unreasonable scruples about Conformity that in case they have any doubts and jealousies whether it be lawful to obey in such instances yet if they are not as certain that the thing commanded is unlawful to be done as they are that it is unlawful to disobey the lawful commands of their Superiours they ought to chuse the safer side that is to obey their Superiours which they are sure is their duty when they are not equally sure that to obey them in such instances is a sin This our Reconciler says is a good Argument and therefore I shall not dispute that point now But let us hear how he turns this Argument upon the Church That the Precepts of Christ and his Apostles not to offend his little ones not to condemn and scandalize our weak Brother c. must be obeyed by Superiours till it be made as clear that by imposing of such things which grieve and scandalize their Brethren c. they do not offend against the forementioned Precepts as it is evident in the general that they ought not to offend against them Very good But to whom must this be made as clear to the Dissenters or to the Governours of the Church If the Governours of the Church are onely concerned to satisfie themselves in this all is safe for I suppose they have no scruple about it and therefore may impose these things with a safe Conscience and yet this Rule concerns onely the private satisfaction of every mans Conscience whether he be a Governour or a Subject in the lawfulness of what he either commands or obeys 2. It is strongly urged against Dissenters that nothing can be unlawful which is not by God forbidden and therefore that Dissenters cannot satisfie their Consciences in their refusal to obey the commands of their Superiours unless they can shew some plain Precept which renders that unlawful to be done by them which is commanded by Superiours But our Reconciler misrepresents this Argument which is this Nothing is unlawful which is not forbidden by God the Ceremonies of the Church are not forbidden by God therefore they are not unlawful for as for the satisfaction of a Dissenters Conscience that is so wild and uncertain a thing that whatever the premises be you can never conclude whether they will be satisfied or not for they can be satisfied when they please with or without or against a divine Law and nothing shall satisfie them when they are not pleased to be satisfied But let us hear how this recoils upon Imposers Nothing can be unlawful to be forborn or laid aside for avoiding the scandal and offence of our weak Brother c. which is not plainly by God forbidden to be done for those good ends Wherefore unless that our Imposers can shew some plain Precept which renders it unlawful to leave these Ceremonies indifferent or alter some few places in the Liturgie which give this scandal and offence to their weak Brethren they cannot satisfie their Consciences in their refusal to forbear the imposition of those things But how does our Reconciler know this Suppose Governours can satisfie their Consciences without such an express prohibition what then Is it a sin not to grant that indulgence which they are not forbid to grant by an express positive Law For suppose that nothing is unlawful to be forborn which is not plainly by God forbidden to be done how does this prove that it is unlawful not to forbear that which God has not plainly forbidden to be done The Imposers cannot shew any plain Precept which renders it unlawful to leave these Ceremonies indifferent therefore it is unlawful not to leave these Ceremonies indifferent that is it is unlawful not to do that which we are not forbidden not to do which cannot be true unless whatever God does not forbid he commands which would make ill for our Reconciler and all his dissenting Clients for then we could easily prove that God has commanded them to observe all the Ceremonies of the Church of England because he has not forbid them to observe them And indeed now I think on 't I suppose he takes this to be the meaning of that Argument which is urged against the Dissenters that they are bound to do what they are not bound not to do that what is not forbidden by God and therefore not unlawful to be done they are bound to do and then I confess the same Argument would hold against the Imposers as well as against the Dissenters but it is a
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