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
of the Cross on their foreheads at the same time that they were received into the Church by Baptism which does no more derogate from the perfection of Baptism than their forms of renouncing the Devil with their faces towards the West and spitting at him Those constant Persecutions which in those days attended Christianity made this a very useful and necessary Ceremony And it may be observed that no Christians in any Age of the Church ever scrupled to receive the signe of the Cross on their foreheads but those who think the Doctrine of the Cross now out of date and can as profanely scoff at a suffering Religion as the Heathens did at a crucified Christ None but those who profess Treasons and Rebellions for Christ and never think it their duty to suffer but when they want â—trength and power to fight for him which â—ives little encouragement to Christian Prinâ—es to part with this symbolical Signe and Ceâ—â—mony of a suffering Religion But there is one Objection which our Reconciler makes against the positive Order and Dcency of these Ceremonies which aâ—e used in the Church of England which is fit to be considered in this place and that is That Christ and his Apostles did not use them and therefore they either worshipt God indecently or the use of them is not necessary to the Decency of Worship Now this is sufficiently answered by what I have already discours'd That though the Decency of publick Worship be a necessary Duty and some decent Rites and Ceremonies be necessary to the external Decency of Worship yet where there is choice of such Ceremonies which are very decent we cannot say that such or such particular Ceremonies are absolutely necessary because the Decency of Worship may be preserved by the use of other decent Rites and therefore Christ and his Apostles might worship very decently without the use of these Ceremonies and the Church of England may worship very decently with them But yet to shew the folly of this Argument we may consider 1. That all the time Christ was upon Earth he never set up any publick Worship distinct from the Jewish Worship He lived in Communion with the Jewish Church anâ— worshipped God with them at the Temple oâ— in their Synagogues And it is as pleasant 〈◊〉 Argument to prove that there is no reason 〈◊〉 using such Ceremonies now because 〈◊〉 did not use them as it would be to proveth tht we must not use such Ceremonies as are proâ—er to the Christian Worship because they wre not used in the Temple or Jewish Synagogâ—es in our Saviours days for he never performed any act of publick Worship any-where else But you will say Christ instituted the Sacrament of his own Body and Bloud but he neither received kneeling himself nor commanded his Apostles to do so Now in answer to this it is not evident to me that Christ received at all himself much less does it appear in what posture he received It is said in St. Matthew and St. Mark that after the institution of this holy Supper when he had blessed the Bread and brake it and divided it among his Disciples and commanded them all to eat of it and had likewise took the Cup and having given thanks commanded them all to drink of it that he added But I say unto you I will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the vine until that day that I drink it new with you â—n my Fathers kingdom From whence some â—ay conclude that he did at that time drink 〈◊〉 the Cup though he tells them it was the 〈◊〉 time he would drink of it But St. Luke 〈◊〉 us that these words were spoke at eating 〈◊〉 Passover before the institution of his last Super and then they are a plain demonstratiâ—â— that he did not drink of the Sacramental Wâ—e and it is not likely that he should feaâ— on the symbols of his own Body and Bloâ— But suppose he had it had been as imprper for him to have received kneeling as it â—s decent in us to do so for this had been â—n act of Worship to himself And though we do not read in what posture the Apostle received yet I am pretty confident they did receive in their ordinary eating posture For it is very improbable that our Saviour would require them to kneel for he exacted no act of Worship from them while he was on Earth they never prayed to him as their great High-Priest and we may as well argue that we must not pray to him now he is in Heaven because he did not command his Apostles to pray to him while he was on Earth as that we must not worship him when we approach his Table nor receive that mysterious Bread and Wine with all humility of Soul and Body now he is in Heaven because at the first institution of this holy Supper while he was still visibly present witâ— them he did not command his Apostles tâ— receive kneeling Nor is it likely the Apostles would do 〈◊〉 of themselves any more than that they 〈◊〉 any other act of religious Worship to Chst on Earth for though they heard the wrds of institution yet at that time they understod nothing of the mystery of it as it is impoâ—ble they should who understood so little oâ— his Death and Passion much less of the merorious Vertue and Expiation of his Bloud 2. As for the Apostles who founed a Christian Church and set up Christian Worship after the Death and Resurrection of our Saviour what particular Rites and Ceremonies of Worship they used we are no certain though that they were careful of the Decency of Worship is evident from this Apostolical Precept That all things be done decotly and in ordâ—r And their Love-Feasts anâ— the holy Kiss are a plain proof that they were not without their religious Rites also And if we may judge of the Apostolical Churches by the succeeding Ages of the Church even while they were under Sufferings and Persecutions there was no Age of the Church till the Reformation so free from Rituals and Ceremonies as the Church of England is at this day Thirdly Let us now consider how our Reconciler states this matter and here I shall once for all examine whatever I can find in his Book pertinent to this Argument I. Now in the first place I observe that our Reconciler agrees with Bishop Taylor That it is for ever necessary that things should be done in the Church decently and in order and that the Rulers of the Church who have the same power as the Apostles had in this must be the perpetual Iudges of it And he adds It cannot therefore rationally be denied that the Rulers of the Church have power to command things which belong unto the positive Order and Decency of the Service of God This is so fair a Concession that methinks we might agree upon it but he immediately undoes all again and says That this Command affords no ground for the
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
the King of England must not impose the Laws of England on Italy or Spain therefore he must not make Laws for England neither This our Reconciler was aware of and therefore in his Preface to strengthen these Authorities he asks this Question 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 those Members of the same Church though disagreeing in like matters For if the reason why Christian Churches which do thus differ should be received and owned as Christians and Brethren of the same Communion with us is because these differences do not hinder their being real Members of Christs Body and therefore Fellow-members of the same Church and Body with us since the same reason proves the Members of any Church whatsoever who differ onely in non-fundamentals capable of being real Christians and so of the same Church and Body with us why should it not oblige us to receive them as Christian Brethren i. e. persons of the same Communion with us if we can do it without sin Now the Answer to this is so obvious that I wonder our Reconciler should miss it For 1. The reason of Communion between distinct Churches can be nothing else but the common Principles of Christianity one Lord one Faith one Hope one Baptism c. that is whatever is essential to Christian Faith and Worship for what is more than this as the particular Rules and Orders of Discipline and Government and Modes of Worship are the Object of Ecclesiastical Authority and since no Church has authority over another they ought not to impose their own Rules of Discipline or Worship upon each other But now no private Christian can live in the Communion of any particular Church without submitting to its Government and Discipline and conforming to its Rules of Worship Though one Church must not usurp Authority over another yet every Church must govern her own Members and direct her own Worship and there can be no Order nor Decency of Worship where there are no Rules of Worship no Uniformity but every man is left to do as he pleases And yet 2. Though the Communion of distinct Churches with each other does not require that they should all observe the same Usages and Rites of Worship in their own Churches yet it requires that the Members of these distinct Churches should communicate with each other and conform to each others Customs where they happen to be present It is a ridiculous thing to talk of two Churches being in Communion with each other who will not as occasion serves communicate together upon the terms of each others Communion For Calvinists to call the Lutherans or Lutherans the Calvinists Brethren but to refuse to joyn in Communion when they happen to be in each others Churches this is not to live in Communion with each other or for a Calvinist to communicate in the Lutheran Church or a Lutheran in the Calvinists but according to the Rites of their own Churches not of the Church in which they communicate this is not to communicate with but publickly to affront each other The onely Principle of Catholick Communion between distinct Churches in such matters as these is so far to allow of each others Rules and Modes of Worship as to conform when occasion serves to such indifferent Customs and Usages though very different from their own rather than divide the Communion of the Church and if this be necessary to the Communion of distinct Churches with each other then certainly it is necessary for the Members of every particular Church to submit to its Authority and conform to its Rules and Orders of Worship For 3. It is ridiculous to imagine that nothing more is necessary to a Christian in Church-Communion than what is absolutely necessary to the State of a Christian out of the visible Communion of any Church as if nothing more were necessary to make a man a Member of the Commonwealth than what is necessary to make him a man The belief of the fundamental Doctrines of Christianity and Obedience to those Laws of Righteousness which have an eternal and immutable goodness in them will make a man a good Christian in a private and single capacity but obedience to Government and conformity to the Rules of Discipline and Worship are as necessary to make a man a good Christian in Church-society as they are essential to the being and constitution of a Church and it is impossible to form a Church-Society onely of the Essentials of Christianity considered as a Systeme of Doctrines and Laws which every private Christian ought to observe for there are the Essentials of Christian-Communion as well as of Christian Religion Christ did not onely publish the Gospel but instituted a Church and the Government and Discipline of the Church is of a distinct consideration from the belief of the Gospel No man can be a Member of the Church without believing the Gospel but Church-Society lays some new obligations upon us beyond what is necessary in a single state out of Church-Society But to return Though this learned Bishop did not urge the abrogation of the Mosaical Law against the imposition of the Ceremonies of the Church of England nor against any other Rituals or Ceremonies neither but only against such usurpt Authority as challenge a power to make Laws for the whole Christian World yet this Argument is frequently alleadged by others and more than once repeated by our Reconciler to this purpose but how trifling it is appears from this distinction between Rituals and Ceremonies and the decent Circumstances of Worship They tell us that Christ removed those burdens which were on the Church and therefore would not impose new ones But does the Church of England lay any new burdens upon men Does she require any thing more than what is necessary Christ requires that we should celebrate his last Supper in remembrance of him that the Minister should perform all the publick Offices of Religion and that this should be done in a decent and reverent manner and does the Church of England require any more Does she institute any Ceremonies excepting the Cross in Baptism which is a professing Signe and relates to no act of Worship though it be thought decent to be done at the time of Baptism but what are decent circumstances of action And is Decency then a new burden which Christ hath not imposed on his Disciples Is Decency an unnecessary or unreasonable thing Did Christ leave it at liberty then whether his Disciples should worship God decently or not Christ hath taken away the Yoke of Jewish Ceremonies and has the Church of England put another Jewish Yoke on the Disciples necks Are there any such Rituals and Ceremonies in the Church of England as have the least affinity with the Jewish Yoke Did Christ when he abrogated the Jewish Law abrogate all Decency
of Worship too or is the bare Decency of Worship a Jewish Yoke What correspondence is there between the Ceremonies of the Jewish Law and the decent circumstances of Worship between new and distinct acts and the decent Modes of actions But our Reconciler proceeds Ecclesiastical Laws must not be perpetual that is when they are made they are relative to time and place to persons and occasions subject to all changes c. Now besides that the Bishop stills speaks of such Laws as concern Rituals and external Observances not the decent circumstances of Worship and therefore it is impertinently alleadged in our present Controversie yet suppose it did relate to our Ceremonies what advantage could he make of it They must not be perpetual that is they are alterable when the wisdom of Governours sees fit and who denies it But must every one who believes these Ceremonies alterable presently grant that they must be altered right or wrong This is much like another mangled Testimony which he cites from Rule 12. n. 9. I shall transcribe the whole because our Reconciler has concealed the sence by transcribing onely part of it Excepting those things which the Apostles received from Christ in which they were Ministers to all Ages once for all conveying the mind of Christ to Generations to come in all other things they were but ordinary Ministers to govern the Churches in their own times and left all that ordinary power to their Successors with a power to rule their Churches such as they had and therefore whatever they conveyed as from Christ a part of his Doctrine or any thing of his appointment this was to bind for ever All this our Reconciler leaves out which is a Key to what follows For Christ is our onely Lawgiver and what he said was to bind for ever In all things which he said not the Apostles could not be Lawgivers they had no such authority and therefore whatsoever they ordered by their own wisdom was to abide as long as the reason did abide but still with the same liberty with which they appointed it for of all men in the world they would least put a Snare upon the Disciples or tye Fetters upon Christian liberty To what purpose he cites this he does not say but I suppose it was to insinuate that there is no Authority in the Church to make any Laws which Christ has not made because he is our onely Lawgiver and that to make such Laws is to put a Snare upon the Disciples and to tye Fetters upon Christian Liberty which the Apostles of all men would not do but this is directly contrary to the designe of the Bishop All that he says is no more than this That the Apostles had not authority to make such Laws as should perpetually oblige the Church in all Ages for Christ onely is so our Lawgiver that his Laws are perpetual and unalterable and therefore what they taught as from Christ that was to bind for ever but what Laws they made as ordinary Ministers to govern the Churches in their own times they might be altered when the reason of them ceas'd by the Bishops and Ministers of following Ages who have as much ordinary authority for the government of the Church as the Apostles themselves had So that the Governours of the Church have authority to make Laws though not unalterable ones and therefore it is not making Laws but making perpetual Laws which he calls putting a Snare upon the Disciples and tying Fetters on Christian Liberty for the more unalterable Laws there are the less Liberty the Church enjoys and those Laws which were of excellent use when they were first made yet when their reason and use ceases might prove Snares to Christians if there were no power in the Church to repeal them All his Citations from this excellent Bishop about Ecclesiastical Laws are of the same nature they do not concern the decent circumstances of Worship but Rituals and external Ministeries of Religion and I suppose I need not tell any man how impertinent his Testimonies about Fasts and Evangelical Councils and Subscriptions to Articles c. are to this Controversie This is sufficient to prove that this excellent Bishop is ours and to satisfie all men that this Protestant Reconciler is either a very ignorant and careless Reader of Books or a shameless Impostor in suborning mens words to give testimony against their own protest and avowed Principles and Doctrines There are several other little Arguments which are frequently repeated by our Reconciler and confirmed with great Names and great Authorities though it is probable enough that he has as much abused other great men as he has done the Bishop and I have not leisure nor opportunity to examine all and it is no great matter when the Argument is weak and trifling whose Argument it is They tell us that to impose such Ceremonies and Rites of Worship is to come after Christ and to mend and correct his Laws and to require new terms of Communion which Christ hath not required This is a great fault if the charge be good and just but is the Church of England guilty of any such thing Does she require any new acts of Worship which Christ has not required Has not Christ required that we should worship God decently Has he not made Obedience to our Rulers and Governours a necessary condition of Communion And does the Church of England require any more Has the Church of England imposed any thing upon her People but the Rules of Order and Decency and has not Christ enjoyned this Are the Ceremonies of our Church decent circumstances of Worship or are they not If they be then here are no new terms of Communion here is no mending nor correcting the Laws of Christ but onely a determination of some necessary circumstances which Christ left undetermined and gave authority to his Church to determine But why should Church-Communion be suspended upon such terms as are not necessary to Salvation Why is not that sufficient to make a man a Member of a Church which is sufficient to carry him to Heaven No doubt but it is and the Church of England requires no more The Decency of Worship is as necessary to eternal Salvation as publick Worship is which is not Worship if it be not decent Decency is necessary and though such or such particular Modes of Decency be not necessary yet some decent Mode of Worship is and therefore that Church which requires no more than the Decency of Worship requires nothing but what is necessary to Salvation That which confounds and blunders these men and makes them dream of new terms of Communion is this That they distinguish the act of Worship from the manner of performing it and because Christ hath onely instituted and commanded the act but the Church directs and prescribes the manner therefore they say the Church mends Christs Laws and makes new terms of Communion by requiring something more than Christ has
for which a Church may deny her Communion to any persons either because they renounce the terms of her Communion or because they refuse to submit to her Laws and Rules of Worship and therefore it is a ridiculous thing to say that a Church makes every thing a term of her Communion for the refusal of which she denies her Communion to her own Members We may call these if we please the terms of her particular Communion but this is no greater fault for any Church to make such terms of Communion than to make Laws for Government and Discipline for such terms are nothing else To return then to our Argument Since the act of Worship and the necessary circumstanâ—s of Action though they may be distinctly considered yet cannot be separated that Church which commands nothing but a decent performance of those acts of Worship which Christ himself has commanded us to perform cannot be charged with making any additions to the Laws of Christ or with commanding any new thing For the decent manner of doing a thing is included in the command of doing it unless we think our Saviour was indifferent whether we worship God decently or indecently and therefore if the Church onely enjoyn such habits and postures times and places as are necessary to the doing of the action and are decent circumstances of doing it she commands nothing but what Christ has virtually commanded And this is a plain Answer to that other Objection that the Apostles had authority to teach onely such things as Christ had commanded them which if it be opposed to their Authority of Governing the Church which required the exercise of their own Wisdom and Prudence and making occasional Laws in emergent cases is a very trifling Objection but however the Church of England teaches nothing but what Christ taught She teaches all the acts of Worship which Christ commanded and no other and she â—eaches the decent manner of doing this which is involved in the very command of doing it for though the particular decent Rites of Worship are not expressed yet all decent Rites are included in the command of doing it and therefore the Church may take her choice Well but the Apostles gave Laws onely about necessary things as we see in the Council of Ierusalem they would lay no other burden upon the Disciples but what they thought necessary at least for that time 15 Acts 29. Now though there might several Answers be given to this I shall say no more at present but that I take the Decency of Worship to be necessary I am sure St. Paul gives an express Law about it But as for the necessary things which were determined at the Council in Ierusalem they did not concern the circumstances of Worship but some external Rituals and Ceremonies which were matters of burden We have nothing like it in our Church and if ever the Church should undertake to determine such matters it will be seasonable to urge the practice of the Council at Ierusalem to determine onely necessary things These are the most material things our Reconciler has urged against the imposition of the Ceremonies of the Church of England Whether upon the whole it appears that they are so useless and unnecessary that the Church ought not to interpose her Authority in such matters or be justly blameable for doing it I must leave every man to judge CHAP. II. Concerning charity to the Souls of men and how far and in what cases it obliges Church-Governours and what regard Church-Governours ought to have to the Errours and Mistakes and Scruples of PRIVATE CHRISTIANS under their care HAving discours'd thus largely of the usefulness and necessity of the decent Ceremonies and Circumstances of religious Worship in opposition to our Reconciler who affirms them to be useless and unnecessary and to have no positive Order or Decency for which they should be commanded it is time now to consider the other part of his Argument viz. that charity to the Souls of men obliges Church-Governours not to impose any such unnecessary things or to alter and remove them if already imposed when through the mistake and scruples of some Christians about such matters they occasion their sin and fall and hazard their eternal Salvation that is when such Impositions as these which some men believe unlawful and others doubt whether they be lawful or not tempt men to forsake the Communion of the Church and lift themselves in a Schism which is a damning sin I need not point out to any particular place wherein this is said for it is to be found almost in every page of his Book and comes in at the tail of every Argument and therefore I shall once for all consider these Principles also and begin here with charity to the Souls of men which in the method of my Discourse is the second general Principle I promised to examine The Question then is this Secondly What obligation charity to the Souls of men lays upon the Governours of the Church That the Governours of the Church ought to exercise great tenderness and charity to the Souls of men I readily grant for the care of Souls is their proper work and business and our Reconciler could not have pitch'd upon a more popular Argument to declaim upon as he does at large p. 187 c. And indeed I find his Talent lies more in some insinuating Harangues than in c'ose reasoning but though he has made a fine Sâ—ory of this and said things artificially enough to move the Passions of his Readers he has never offered fairly to state the extent and measures of Charity with relation to acts of Government but onely asserted charity to the Souls of men to be the Duty of Governours as well as of private Christians which no body denies that I know of and from thence infers the alteration of our Ceremonies and that Church-Governours act uncharitably if they do not consent to such an alteration Now the alteration of publick Laws and Râ—tes of Worship which some men take an unjust and unreasonable offence at whatever mischief they do to their own Souls by such an unjust offence does not seem to me to be an immediate consequence from the obligations of charity to mens Souls and therefore there should have been something at least offered for the proof of it and I confess I cannot see any thing that looks like an Argument to this purpose Since therefore I have little or nothing to answer upon this Argument which our Reconciler thought better to take for granted than to prove it I shall endeavour to state this matter so plainly as to vindicate our Governours from this spightful and uncharitable Accusation of want of charity to mens Souls And to this end I shall briefly inquire wherein the Charity of Governours must consist and how it must express it self which I shall explain by these two Principles I. That the Charity of Governours is consistent with the Duty and Authority of Government II.
hard case as such cases will happen under all Governments God who is our supreme Governour will take care to rectifie it when the Governours of Church or State cannot do it without loosening the Sinews of Government As for instance The Governours of the Church must take care to prescribe Rules for the decent performance of religious Worship and in such an Age of mistakes and scruples as this it is possible some very honest but weak Christians may take offence at the best and most prudent Constitutions and separate from the Church and involve themselves in the guilt of Schism what must the Church do in this case Must she alter her Laws as often as any Christians pretend to scruple them or must she make no Laws about such matters but suffer every Christian to worship God as he pleases This is to renounce their Government because some Christians will not obey or to make Government contemptible and ridiculous when it must yield to mens private fancies and scruples And yet it is very hard that the Government of the Church which is instituted for the care of mens Souls should prove a snare and temptation to them and occasion their eternal ruine and misery But I hope that there is no necessity for either of these Governours must do their duty must take care to make such Laws as are for the advantage of Religion and the edification of the Church and are least liable to any just offence and if after all their care some very honest men may take offence and fall into Schism we must leave them to the mercy of God who will make allowances for all favourable cases The Church can give no relief in such cases without destroying her Authority and Government and giving advantage to Knaves and designing Hypocrites to disturb the best constitutions of things but God can distinguish between honest men and Hypocrites and if men be sincerely honest and do fall into Schism through an innocent mistake God will be merciful to them which secures the final happiness of good men and yet maintains the sacredness and reverence of Authority For when men know that nothing can justifie a Schism and nothing can plead their pardon with God but great honesty and some invincible mistake it will make all honest men careful how they separate from the Church and diligent in the use of all means for their satisfaction without which no man can pass with Almighty God for an honest Separatist and I doubt not but were men convinced of this it would sooner cure our Schisms than the removal of all scrupled Ceremonies But in is so far from being the duty of Church-Governours to take any notice of mens scruples when there is no just occasion for them that they ought not to allow any man to scruple their authority in such matters which weakens Government and opens a gap for eternal Schisms to enter It is very true as our Reconciler has proved at large in a whole Chapter to that purpose that the Church in several Ages has made great alterations in the Externals and Rituals of Religion but how this serves his Cause I cannot tell No body questions but the Church has done this and that she had authority to do it and that she has so still when she sees just occasion to do it but the Question is Whether she must do this as often as every little Reconciler or every scrupulous Christian demands such an alteration The Question is Whether unreasonable scruples and prejudices be a necessary reason for the Church to make such alterations And if he can give any one example in all Antiquity that the Church altered her Constitutions for no other reason but to comply with the scruples of private Christians he will say something to the purpose No in those days private Christians did not use to scruple any Ceremonies which the Governours of the Church thought fit to appoint but Bishops made or repealed Laws about such matters as they thought most expedient for the good government of the Church The Question is Whether they repealed all Laws for the Order and Decency of Worship or renounced their Authority to make such Laws in compliance with those who denied any such Authority to the Church Again the Question is Whether in the same Church they allowed all private Christians to worship God after what manner they pleased according to their own private perswasions and apprehensions of these things that those who are for a May-pole may have a May-pole as our Reconciler very reverently expresses it If he can say any thing to these points I confess it will be to his purpose and therefore I would desire him to consider of it now he knows what he is to prove But though his History of those alterations which the Church in several Ages has made in the Rituals and Ceremonies of Religion would not serve his main designe yet it highly gratified his pride and insolence to trample upon a great man whom he thought he had taken at some advantage The Reverend Dean of St. Pauls assigns some reasons why the Church of England still retains the use of some Ceremonies His first reason is out of a due reverence to Antiquity They would hereby convince the Papists they did put a difference between the gross and intolerable Superstitions of Popery and the innocent Rites and Practices which were observed in the Church before This says our Reconciler is very like Hypocrisie to pretend to retain three Ceremonies of humane institution out of respect to their supposed antiquity whilst we reject as many which were unquestionably of a divine original and therefore sure of an antiquity which more deserveth to be reverenced Truly if our Church has parted with any thing of a divine original I think she has reformed too far but will our Reconciler say that every thing that was an Apostolical Practice is of divine original Bishop Taylor to whom he so often appeals would have taught him otherwise as I have already observed who says that the Apostles in ordering religious Assemblies and in prescribing such Rules of Worship as they did not immediately receive from Christ acted but as ordinary Ministers of the Church and what they prescribed obliged no longer than the reason and expediency of the things and the Governours of the Church in after-Ages had as full and ample Authority as the Apostles themselves in such matters But does the Dean say that these Ceremonies were retained onely for their antiquity then indeed the Reconciler's Objection had been strong that other Ceremonies which are as ancient as they should have been retained also But is it not a just reverence to Antiquity that when our Church had for other reasons determined what number of Ceremonies to retain and for what ends and purposes she chuses to use such Ceremonies as were anciently used in the Christian Church rather than to invent any new ones for it had been an affront to the ancient
in which Religion is not concerned and another thing to eat or not to eat out of regard to the Law of Moses which was the Dispute between the Jew and Gentile and which is the case wherein St. Paul exhorts them to the exercise of mutual charity and forbearance Now let our Reconciler speak his conscience freely whether there be any thing alike in these two cases or whether there be the same reason to indulge a Dissenter in his scruples about indifferent things which never were commanded nor forbidden by any divine Law as there was at that time to indulge the Jews in the observation of the Law of Moses which they knew was given by God and had been in all Ages till that day religiously observed by them from the time it was first given and which they thought did â—till as much oblige them as ever The Dispute is not about the lawful use of indifferent things but about the obligation of a divine Law and though it was very reasonable to indulge the Jews for a time in observing the Law till it should be repealed in such an evident manner as to leave no reasonable scruple about it yet it can never be reasonable to indulge men in their scruples about indifferent things because there never was nor never will be any such reason for these scruples as ought to be indulged But our Reconciler in answer to what Dr. Falkner had urged That the Apostle in this Chapter 14 Rom. is not treating about and therefore not against the Rules of Order in the service of God meaning by that expression the imposed Ceremonies adds That still the sequel is firm for the Apostle may dispute upon another subject and yet lay down such Principles and use such Arguments as equally confute the pressing or imposing of those Ceremonies as the Conditions of Communion when such an imposition will silence many able Ministers and involve many Myriads in the guilt of Schism and Separation from the Church Now to this I answer 1. This may be sometimes true but then the subjects must be near of kin and there must be something contained in the Argument which indifferently relates to all other cases which are of a like nature 2. But yet whatever the Argument be it depends wholly upon a parity of Reason and cannot challenge the same authority in any other case as it hath in that to which it is immediately applied The Arguments the Apostle uses to perswade Jews and Gentiles not to judge and censure each other upon account of observing or not observing the Law of Moses are St. Paul's Arguments as applied to that case but are onely our Reconciler's Arguments as applied to the Ceremonies of the Church of England and have no more authority than he has nor any greater strength than his reasoning gives them And therefore he imposes upon his Readers when he pretends to dispute against the Impositions of our Church from the authority of St. Paul and confesses at the same time that St. Paul does not say one word about the matter He ought plainly to declare that there is nothing in Scripture which expresly condemns the Impositions of our Church but there are some Arguments used by Christ and his Apostles upon other occasions which he thinks by a parity of Reason condemns these Impositions But to pretend Scripture against us when he cannot produce any one Scripture which primarily relates to the imposition of indifferent things is to set up his own Reasonings for Scripture though they are generally such as few men will allow to be senâ—e Our Saviour's and St. Paul's Arguments are Scripture when applied to those cases to which they apply them but when they are applied to other purposes though the words are Scripture still yet this new application of them is not and I would desire my Readers to observe this that though our Reconciler has alleadged numerous places of Scripture yet he has not one Scripture-proof against the Church of England the words are Scripture but applied by him to other purposes than the Scripture intended 3. But yet parity of Reason where it is plain and evident is a very good Argument and therefore here I will joyn issue with him and make it appear that the Apostles Arguments in the 14th of the Romans whereby he perswades them to mutual charity and forbearance in reference to the Rites and Ceremonies of the Mosaical Law cannot by any parity of Reason be applied to the Ceremonies of the Church of England Now I observed before that there are two distinct parts in this Chapter and Arguments proper to each and though our Reconciler confounds them I shall consider them distinctly First The first part perswades them not to judge or censure or break Communion with each other for the sake of such different customs Him that is weak in the faith receive that is receive to Communion which the Reconciler himself confesses to be the true sence of it but not to doubtful disputations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without judging of each others differing opinions and perswasions of things For one believeth he may eat all things another who is weak eateth herbs This is the matter about which they differed The Gentile Converts believed that they were free from the Law of Moses which made a difference between clean and unclean meats and therefore might eat any thing the Jew who was weak in the Faith and was not yet perswaded of his freedom from the Mosaical Law abstained from all forbidden meats and fed on herbs Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not Let not the Gentile despise the Jew as ignorant of the Mystery of the Gospel and that liberty which is purchased by Christ and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth let not the Jew condemn and reject the Gentiles as profane and unclean persons with whom they ought not to converse much less to receive them into their Communion because they do not observe the Law of Moses So that the Apostle's designe in these words is to prevent that Schism which was likely to be occasioned between the Jewish and Gentile Converts upon account of the Law of Moses he does not say that either Jews should yield to Gentiles or Gentiles to Jews but each of them retaining their own liberty in these matters they should still own each other as Christian Brethren and live in Christian Communion together which shews how remote this case is from the Dispute between the Church and Dissenters for Jews and Gentiles notwithstanding their Disputes about the obligation of the Law of Moses might joyn together in all the acts of Christian Worship whereas the Dispute between the Church and Dissenters is about the very acts of Worship and therefore while this difference lasts they cannot joyn in one Communion of which more anon Which is a plain proof that nothing of all this relates to our present case But before I consider the Apostles reasons for
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
terms of admission are very different from the Rules of Government That a man has served an Apprentiship to a Trade and is made free by his Master is sufficient to make him a Member of such a Corporation but though he understand his Trade very well and behaves himself honestly in it yet if he prove a disobedient and refractory Member to the government of the Society he may be cast out again and I wonder what the Master and Wardens of such a Company would say to the Reconciler should he come and plead in the behalf of such a disobedient Member that they ought not to make any thing necessary to his continuance in and communion with the Society but what was necessary to his first admission The Charter whereon the Society is founded is very different from the particular Laws of the Society whereby it is governed as it must be where there is any power of making Laws committed to the Governours of it and therefore if Christ has committed such a power of making Laws to his Church as our Reconciler himself acknowledges it is a ridiculous thing to say that they must not excommunicate or cast any man out of the Church who believes the Christian Religion and lives a vertuous life which is the sum of the Baptismal Covenant how disobedient soever he be to the Laws and Government of the Church Which is a sufficient Answer to Quest. 6. His sixth Query Whether anathematizing men for doubtful actions or for such faults as consist with true Christianity and continued subjection to Iesus Christ be not a sinful Church-dividing means Onely I shall observe farther that as he has stated this Query it does not concern the Church of England She anathematizes no man for doubtful actions for she commands nothing that is doubtful though some men are pleased to pretend some doubts and scruples about it But I have already shewn that there is a great difference between a doubtful action and an action which some men doubt of the first ought not to be commanded the second may And then our Church excommunicates no man who lives in a continued subjection to Iesus Christ which no Schismatick does whatever pretences he makes to holiness of life for subjection to Christ requires subjection to that Authority which Christ has set in his Church as well as obedience to his other Laws Quest. 7. As for his next Question about imposing heavy burdens and intolerable yokes when Christ came to take them away it has been at large answered already Quest. 8. Whether Christ hath not made Laws sufficient to be the Bond of Vnity to his Church and whether any man should be cut off from it who breaketh no Law of God necessary to Church-unity and communion Ans. Christ has made Laws sufficient to be the Bond of Unity to his Church for he has commanded all Christians to submit to the Authority which he has placed in his Church which is the onely Bond of Union in a particular Church and therefore those who are cut off from the Church for their disobedience to Ecclesiastical Authority while nothing is enjoyned which contradicts the other Laws of our Saviour cannot be said to break no Law of God necessary to Church-unity or communion for they break that Law which is the very Bond of Union and deserve to be cut off though they should be supposed to break no other Law of Christ. Quest. 9. Whether if many of the children of the Church were injudiciously scrupulous when fear of sin and Hell was the cause a tender Pastor would not abate them a Ceremony in such a case when his abating it hath no such danger Ans. A tender Pastor in such cases ought to instruct such children but not to suffer such childish fancies to impose upon Church-authority For to disturb the Peace and Order of the Church and to countenance mens injudicious scruples by such indulgence is a much greater mischief and more unpardonable in a Governour than the severest censures on private persons If a private connivance for a time in some hard cases would do any good it might be thought reasonable and charitable but to alter publick Laws and Constitutions for the sake of such injudicious people is for ever to sacrifice the Peace and Order and good Government of the Church to the humours of children which would not be thought either prudent or charitable in any other Government Quest. 10. If diversity in Religion be such an evil whether should men cause it by their unnecessary Laws and Canons and making Engines to tear the Church in pieces which by the ancient simplicity and commanded mutual forbearance would live in such a measure of Love and Peace as may be here expected Ans. Whoever cause a diversity of Religions by their Laws and Canons or make Engines to tear the Church in pieces are certainly very great Schismaticks but Laws for Unity and Uniformity can never make a diversity of Religions nor occasion it neither unless every thing produces its contrary heat produce cold peace war and love hatred Men may quarrel indeed about Laws of Unity and Uniformity but it is the diversity of Religions or Opinions which men have already espoused not the Laws of Unity which makes the quarrel The plain case then is this Whether when men are divided in their opinions and judgments of things and if they be left to themselves will worship God in different ways according to their own humours and perswasions it be unlawful for Church-Governours to make Laws for Unity and Uniformity because whatever they be some men will quarrel at them Or whether the Church may justly be charged with making a diversity of Religions by making Laws to cure and restrain that diversity of Religions which men have already made to themselves It is certain were men all of a mind the Laws of Unity could not make a difference and therefore these Laws and Canons are not the Engines which tear the Church in pieces but that diversity of opinions which men have wantonly taken up and for the sake of which they tear and divide the Church into a thousand Conventicles But had it not been for these Canons by the ancient simplicity and mutual forbearance they would live in such a measure of love and peace as may be here expected But what ancient simplicity does he mean The Church of England is the best Pattern this day in the World of the Primitive and Apostolick simplicity for a Phanatick simplicity was never known till of late days there never was a Church from the Apostles days without all Rites and Ceremonies of Worship till of late when men pretended to reform Religion by destroying all external Order and Decency of Worship and therefore he is fain to take in a commanded mutual forbearance to patch up Church-unity that is if men be permitted to worship God as they please and are commanded not to quarrel with one another and are not permitted to cut
very consistent with the Apostolical Authority in governing the Church but an indulgence of Dissenters is not 335 St. Paul always asserted and exercised the Apostolical Authority as much as any Apostle and therefore would not suffer any diminution of it 337 The forbearance St. Paul pleads for was onely temporary 339 CHAP. VI. Containing an Answer to the 5th Chapter of the Protestant Reconciler His 1 Arg. from St. Paul's reproving the Christians for going to Law before the unbelievers 341 His 2 Arg. that St. Paul would not impose Virginity upon the Christians though he owned some advantages in that state above marriage therefore the Church must not impose her Ceremonies though they had the advantages of greater Decency 345 The difference between these two cases plain the Apostle had not authority to impose the one the Church has to impose the other 346 His 3 Arg. is from the Dispute about meats offered to Idols ibid. Those knowing persons who eat in the Idols Temple were the Gnostick Hereticks 347 The weak persons who were offended at this were some Paganizing Christians who still thought it lawful to worship their Country-Gods and were confirmed in this belief by seeing the Gnosticks eat in the Idols Temple 349 In the 1 Cor. 8. the Apostle Disputes against this practice of the Gnosticks upon a supposition of the lawfulness of it because it encouraged these imperfect Christians in Idolatry 350 The Reconciler mistakes the whole case The Apostle does not grant it lawful to eat in an Idols Temple but proves the contrary in chap. 10. 352 The weak Conscience is not a Conscience which did abstain from eating but which did eat 354 Not a scrupulous Conscience which doubted of the lawfulness of eating but a Conscience erroneously perswaded that it might lawfully eat 355 And therefore the Apostle does not plead for indulgence to this weak Conscicnce but warns them against confirming such persons in their mistakes 356 The Apostle's decision of this Controversie that it is not lawful to eat in an Idols Temple but that it is lawful to eat meats offered to Idols when sold in the Shambles or eat at private houses 357 But yet they were to abstain in these cases also when it gave offence 358 For whose sake the Apostle abridges them of this liberty of eating such meats at private houses ibid. Nothing of all this to our Reconciler's purpose 359 This forbearance onely in the exercise of their private liberty 360 His Argument from St. Paul's own example of charity and condescension ibid. St. Paul was an example of no other condescension than what he taught and if that do not plead for Dissenters as I have already proved it does not neither can his example do it 361 His Argument from St. Paul's preaching the Gospel freely at Corinth answered at large 362 c. CHAP. VII An Answer to his Motives for mutual condescension 372 His first Motive from the smalness and littleness of these things which ought not to come in competition with Love and Peace ibid. This inforced from Gods own example who suffered the violation of his Ceremonial Laws upon less accounts than these 377 And gave his own Son to die for us 380 His second Motive that God does not exclude weak and erring persons from his favour for such errours of judgment as â—re consistent with true love to him 382 His third Argument that Christ broke down the middle wall of partition between Iew and Gentile 387 His fourth Motive from the example of Christ and his Apostles in preaching the Gospel who concealed at first many things from their Hearers which they were not then able to bear 390 Mot. 5. from that Rule of Equity to do to others as we would be dealt with 392 6. From the obligations of Charity 397 7. That the same Arguments which are urged to perswade Dissenters to Conformity have equal force against the impositeon of Ceremonies as the terms of Communion The particular Argument considered and answered ibid. His Arguments from many general Topicks which he says are received and owned by all Casuits 404 An Answer to the Dissenters Questions produced by our Reconciler 405 CHAP. VIII Some short Animadversions on the Authorities produced by our Reconciler in his Preface 431 His Testimonies relating to the judgment of King James King Charles the first and our present Soveraign answered 433 Whether those Doctors of the Church of England whose Authority he alleadges were of his mind 438 Concerning the testimonies of foreign Divines 442 And the judgment of our own and foreign Divines about the terms of Concord between different Churches which does not prove that the same liberty is to be granted to the Members of the same Church  A conclusion containing an Address to the Dissenters to let them see how the Reconciler has abused them that they cannot plead for indulgence upon his Principles without confessing themselves to be Schismaticks and weak ignorant humorsome People 443 Errata P. 35. l. 32. for and r. as p. 47. l. 28. f. bind r. bend p. 96. l. 10. f. charity r. clarity A VINDICATION OF The Rights OF Ecclesiastical Authority BEING An ANSWER TO THE Protestant Reconciler The INTRODVCTION THE name of a Reconciler especially of a Protestant Reconciler is very popular at such a time as this and it is a very invidious thing for any man to own himself an Enemy to so Christian a Designe and therefore I do not pretend to answer the Title which is a very good one but to examine how well the Book agrees with the Title and whether our Author has chosen the proper method for such a Reconciliation For this Reconciliation will prove very chargeable to the Church if she must renounce her own Authority to reconcile Dissenters The usual methods taken by Reconcilers have been either to convince men that they do not differ so much as they think they do but that the Controversie is onely about the manner of expressing the same thing or that they are both gone too far into opposite Extremes and have left Truth and Peace in the middle or that the matter in dispute is not of such moment as to contend about it or that the truth of either side of the Question is not certain or that one of the contending Parties is in the wrong and therefore ought to yield to him who is in the right But our Reconciler has taken a new way by himself to prove that both the contending Parties are in the wrong and that both of them are in the right for thus he adjusts the Controversie He who saith that it is sinful and mischievous to impose those unnecessary Ceremonies and to retain those disputable expressions of our Liturgie which may be altered and removed without transgressing of the Law of God saith true And thus the present Constitution of the Church of England in these present circumstances is with great modesty and submission without any dispute pronounced sinful by a professed Member and
equally in the right and equally in the wrong yet one of them is bound to yield Our Reconciler has not attempted any such thing as this nor indeed can he for there is no medium between the Authority of commanding and the duty and necessity of Obedience wherein Governours and Subjects may unite without either commanding or obeying which destroys the very Relation between Governours and Subjects Nor has he told us which of them must give way first unless we may conclude this from the order of publishing his Books that the Church ought to give place to the Dissenters and then his second Book is useless for there will be no need for Dissenters to obey the Church But our admirable Reconciler has first pelted the Church with the Dissenters Arguments and now serves the Dissenters in the same nature which is an excellent way to revive a Quarrel if it had been ended but bare disputing on both sides was never thought a likely way to reconcile a Quarrel I have premised this to take off the odium of answering the Protestant Reconciler which a man may very honestly do and yet be a great and passionate Friend to the Reconciliation of Protestants for there is not the least offer made towards a Reconciliation in all this Book He onely teaches the Dissenters to cast the sin and mischief of all our Divisions upon the Church and the Church to cast it back upon the Dissenters and so leaves them just at the same distance that he found them unless possibly he have added to the confidence and obstinacy of Dissenters by joyning with them in their lewd and unreasonable Clamours against the Church But let us consider what betrayed him into this mistake which he very honestly and plainly tells us in these words That which chiefly did confirm me in this apprehension was this observation That I found each of the Parties strong and copious upon these two points but elsewhere silent The Pleaders for Conformity still pressing the necessity that men should yield obedience to the things commanded but seldom saying any thing to justifie the exercise of that Authority which laid upon the Subject the burthen of obedience to things unnecessary and whosoever shall peruse the Writings of the learned Dr. St. and his Defenders will find that they have been very silent upon this head and have upon the matter left our Rulers in the lurch And on the other hand I find that our Dissenters are very prone on all occasions to cry out against imposing these things as the conditions of Communion and the excluding all that are not able to submit unto them from the priviledge of Church-Communion but they say little of any weight and moment to shew it is utterly unlawful under the present circumstances to yield submission and obedience to the things imposed Now as for matter of fact this is utterly false For the Dissenters themselves to give every one their due have used great variety of Arguments not onely to prove the unlawfulness of imposing these things but the unlawfulness of the things themselves otherwise what is it that the great Champions of the Church of England ever since the first rise of this Controversie and the Dean and his Defenders of late have answered Did they make Objections for the Dissenters and then answer them or did they answer such Objections as they found made to their hands Whether what they object have any weight or moment is another Question but it seems very unreasonable to charge men with saying nothing because they say nothing to the purpose when they say as much as they can and as much as the cause will bear by the same Figure we may assert that the Protestant Reconciler has said nothing But yet if no Answer had been returned to prove that all he has said is nothing I strongly fancy that he and several others of his Size would have thought that he had said something and so would the Dissenters too had not their something been so often proved to be nothing And he has treated the Advocates of the Church and the Dean and his Defenders with the same civility and honesty for have they indeed said nothing for the lawfulness of imposing these things and is not that a sufficient justification of theAuthority which imposes Did he never read any thing in vindication of Ecclesiastical Authority in commanding indifferent things Could he find nothing in the Dean and his Defenders tending this way I assure him I have found a great deal which he may hear of in a convenient place which may teach him to make more careful observations for the future But if this had been so methinks it had more become a Minister and Son of the Church of England to have tried his skill to have supplied these defects of his Brethren than to have exposed the nakedness of his Mother by tearing off her Vail with his own hands Every honest and prudent man thinks himself bound to obey and to justifie the Rites and Uâ—ages of the Church as far as they are lawful and innocent and to perswade others to do so and though he should observe some things which in his private opinion he judges might be altered for the better yet he does not think it his duty to raise a great Noise and Outcry about this and to call furiously for a Change and Reformation to set the people into a ferment and to alarm the Government with new Models and Platforms of Discipline and Worship A wise man considers what different apprehensions men have of expediency fitness and decency of things and that it properly belongs to Governours to determine these matters but it does not become private Christians when Authority does not ask their opinions and advice to sit in judgment upon the Wisdom of Government for there would be no end of this in â—uch matters wherein mens minds differ as much as their faces do Had our Reconciler been a Member of the Convocation when such matters had been under debate it had become him to have declared his mind freely where his Arguments might either have obtained such a Reformation as he desired or have received a fair Answer without appearing abroad to disturb weak and unstable minds or to confirm and harden men who are already engaged in an actual Schism at least if he be so thoroughly convinced of the truth of what he says if he be as he says so sensible of his own weakness and praneness to mistake in judging and most unwilling to do the least disserâ—ice to the Church or to those Reverend Superiours whom from his heart he honours what necessity was he under of publishing such a Discourse as this Why did he not first ask the opinion of his Brethren and Superiours about it What service did he expect to do to the Church by appealing to the People who certainly are not the best Judges in such matters and have no power to reform but by Mutinies and Seditions
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
which are upon all accounts indifferent and have neither any good nor hurt in them are by no means fit to be commanded in religious Worship for this is to trifle in sacred things which is contrary to the Decency and Gravity of Worship but those Ceremonies which serve the ends of Order and Decency are not indifferent things but necessary considered as decent There must upon some account or other be an antecedent Decency in things before they are fit to be commanded Church-Governours must take care to maintain the Decency of Worship but they must find things decent for by their meer command they cannot make them so All decent Rites and Ceremonies are by the Apostolical Rule to do all things decently and in order fitted and qualified to be made the Ceremonies of Religion which nothing purely indifferent is and all the Authority of Church-Governours in this matter is onely to determine what particular decent Rites of Worship shall be used in their Church that is to apply the Apostles general Rule to particular instances I know very well how jealous and fearful most men are of owning any other necessity or obligation to observe the external Rites and Ceremonies of Religion but what is derived from the Authority of Ecclesiastical or Civil Governours and therefore no wonder if in an Age wherein the Authority of the Church is so much despised and the Authority of the Prince in matters of Religion is absolutely denied they fall under such a general Contempt But I confess I see no reason why any man should be afraid to own some kind of necessity antecedent to all humane Authority For as I have already proved 1. The external Decency of Worship is absolutely necessary by an Apostolical Precept antecedent to all humane Authority 2. This makes it necessary that some decent Rites and Ceremonies should be used in religious Worship 3. This makes it necessary that nothing but what is decent should be used And therefore 4. All particular decent Ceremonies have this necessity antecedent to all humane Authority that some of them must be used in religious Worship and no other must And therefore 5. When the Governours of the Church have determined which particular decent Ceremonies shall be used in religious Worship these particular Ceremonies become necessary not meerly by Ecclesiastical Authority but by vertue of the Apostolical Command and their own natural Decency which brings them within the compass of that general Rule Church-Governours have Authority to apply that general Rule to particular Ceremonies which have such Order and Decency as comprehends them within that general Rule But these Rites and Ceremonies when they are fixt and determined do not derive their obligation meerly from the Authority of the Church but from the Apostolical Canon we must observe them not meerly because the Church has commanded them but because they are in themselves decent and so comprehended within the Apostolical Canon and therefore the proper Object of Church-Authority The Authority of the Church consists onely in applying the Apostolical Authority to such particular Rites and Ceremonies as by their own Decency are fit and qualified to be used in religious Worship but it is the Apostolical Authority as applied by the Church to such particular Ceremonies which gives them their necessity and obligation Hence Mr. Calvin observes that those Ecclesiastical Laws which relate to Discipline and Order must not be accounted humane Traditions because they are founded in this general Precept of doing all things decently and in order and so receive their approbation as it were from the mouth of Christ himself This I think is sufficient to shew that the decent Rites and Ceremonies of Religion have such goodness and necessity that they ought to be commanded for they have the goodness and necessity of Decency which is enjoyned by an Apostolical Canon But still the Controversie remains what this external Decency of Worship is and by what Rules we must judge of it for one man may account that decent which another may think has no positive Decency at all as it is in our present case The Church of England retains the use of some Ceremonies for the sake of Decency our modest Reconciler who is very sensible of his own proneness to mistake yet ventures to contradict the judgment of the Church and affirms that there is no positive Order or Decency in the Ceremonies of the Church of England wherefore they ought to be commanded And therefore it will be necessary Secondly To consider what the general notion of Decency in religious Worship is and by what Rules we must judge of it Now in general the external Decency of religious Worship consists in performing the Duties of Religion in such a manner as is expressive of Honour Reverence and Devotion This I suppose will not be denied by any man who acknowledges any such thing as external Worship but the difficulty is by what Rules we must judge of external Honour and Reverence and yet most men understand this very well also when they speak of civil Honour They know what Postures what Actions what Habit what Behaviour what Language what Address becomes them when they approach their Prince and their Parents or any other Persons whom they ought to honour or respect And this suggests to us two general Rules to direct us in religious Worship 1. That whatever would be deservedly thought a breach of good manners in common Conversation or a violation of that civil Respect and Honour which is due to Princes and all Superiours can never become the Worship of God What God tells the Israelites who offered the blind and the lame and the sick in Sacrifice holds good in all other cases Offer it now to thy Governour will he be pleased with thee or accept thy person saith the Lord of Hosts 1 Mal. 8. Such words and actions and behaviour as would be an affront to the Majesty of a Prince do much more unbecome religious Worship because God is much greater than the greatest Prince 2. That whatever is a necessary expression of our Honour and Reverence to men as far as it is agreeable with the nature of religious Worship is in a peculiar and eminent degreâ— due to Almighty God Many of the external expressions and signs of Honour both to God and man must of necessity be alike and if not the very same yet of the same kind and nature For whether we intend to honour God or men it must be done by some visible signs of Honour which are not necessarily determined either to religious or civil Worship but applicable to both If it be a signe of Honour to our Prince to be uncovered in his presence to deliver our Petitions upon the knee to come in a decent apparel to put on a grave and modest countenance to keep our distance c. that is if we must express our Reverence for our Prince in our words and gestures in our looks and habit and deportment of our
the Church which he has no authority to do But this is not necessary for mens Souls Right and therefore not an absolute and necessary Duty otherwise how does it appear that the Bishops Authority extends onely to Necessaries Why may not the Honour of God and the external Beauty of his Worship be considered in Religion as well as the salvation of mens Souls Why may not spiritual advantages find place in our Worship as well as what is barely necessary But it is no part of spiritual Government Right not to seize mens Estates to adorn the Worship of God By these Reasons he proves that this is more Authority than Christ has given to his Ministers From whence we may easily learn what kind of Authority he means such an absolute Authority to adorn Religion as gives the Bishop authority over mens Estates for such prous uses But Christ has given Authority to his Ministers to take care of the Decency of Worship and therefore their Authority is of equal extent with the Decencies of Religion 3. When that Reverend Bishop says That Rule Let all things be done decently and in order must be limited to such as onely rescue from confusion he must have some larger notion of confusion than the usual signification of that word will justifie for men may avoid all confusion and yet neglect all the natural Decencies of religious Worship The Meetings of Quakers may be very orderly without any confusion and yet without any Decency And the reason the Bishop assigns for this Because the Prelates and spiritual Guides cannot do their Duty unless things be so orderly that there be no confusion is a very good reason against confusion but is no reason at all to prove that the Rule of Decency and Order extends no farther than to rescue from confusion in the common acceptation of the word for there is something more required in religious Assemblies than meerly that the Bishop or Pastor may do his Duty without disturbance and confusion viz. that the People worship God in such a decent manner as becomes the divine Majesty The external Decencies and Solemnities of Worship are an essential part of Religion and therefore naturally belong to the care of Church-Governours whether there had been any Law for it or no much more when they are commanded to do all things decently and in order we may reasonably conclude that their Authority extends to whatever is truly decent in Religion But our Reconciler thinks that this limitation of the words to matters done in confusion and disorder may be plainly gathered from all the instances preceding which gave occasion to the Rule they being instances of great indecencies and disorders committed in the Church of Corinth And from thence he tells us This onely can be certainly collected that when any thing is performed indecently and disorderly in the Service of the Church the Rulers of it should correct them And to the same purpose he urges an Argument of Mr. Ieanes The words of the Apostle Let all things be done decently and in order are not disobeyed unless there be some indecency committed in the Worship and Service of God or some disorder in it for Decency and Indecency Order and Disorder or Ataxy are privatively opposite and between privative opposites in a capable subject there is no medium and therefore there is Decency sufficient in those actions where is no indecency But now by the omission of symbolical Ceremonies of humane institution such as the Cross in Baptism Surplice in Prayer Kneeling when we receive the Sacrament there is committed no indecency in those parts of the Worship of God and therefore the Apostles Precept is not disobeyed by the omission of such Ceremonies and consequently this Precept cannot warrant the imposing of them I wonder how learned men can impose upon themselves and others with such silly Sophisms as these for let us consider 1. Suppose this Precept to do all things decently and in order were given upon occasion of those disorders and indecencies which were committed in the Church of Corinth how does it hence follow that the Apostle requires no other Decency than just what will remove the indecencies of Worship Is Decency a thing valuable for it self or onely as it is opposed to indecency If the Decency of Worship be a good thing and if it be not Indecency cannot be a fault then it is a ridiculous thing to say that the end of Decency is onely to prevent Indecency as if the end of seeing were onely to prevent blindness or the end of Vertue onely to prevent Vice They tell us that Decency and Indecency are privatively opposite that is I suppose that Indecency is the privation of Decency not that Decency is the privation of Indecency and therefore though the nature of Indecency consists in its opposition to Decency yet the nature of Decency does not consist in its opposition to Indecency Though we should allow that to be decent which is not indecent yet it is not decent meerly because it is not indecent but because it is agreeable to the Laws and Rules of Decency And therefore though the Apostle gave this Precept upon occasion of these Indecencies committed in the Church of Corinth yet the Command extends to any instances and degrees of Decency for he does not command Decency meerly out of opposition to Indecency which is to invert the natural order of things but for its own sake as necessary and essential to publick Worship as he who reproves the Vices of the Age and exhorts men to the contrary Vertues does not mean that they should onely practise so much Vertue as not to be guilty of these popular Vices but that they should aim at the highest degrees and instances of Vertue 2. And therefore those Rites and Ceremonies of Religion may be included in this Apostolical Precept to do all things decently and in order the omission of which is not disorderly and indecent if they be agreeable to the Laws and Rules of Decency because the Decency of our Actions does not consist in its opposition to Indecency but in conformity to the Rules of Decency This is the principal Argument on which our Reconciler and Mr. Ieanes rely to prove that the Ceremonies of the Church of England cannot be included in that Apostolical Precept of doing things decently and in order because the omission of these Ceremonies is not indecent If then says the Reconciler it can appear that praying without a Surplice or receiving the Sacrament without kneeling or baptizing without the Cross is doing these things indecently and disorderly then must it be confess'd that this is a good warrant for the imposition of these things but till this can be made appear it must be vainly pleaded to that end But now says Mr. Ieanes by the omission of symbolical Ceremonies of humane institution such as the Cross in Baptism Surplice in Prayer Kneeling when we receive the Sacrament there is committed no Indecency in those
him without his consent for I doubt Church-authority does not extend to such matters which are purely civil and secular and though when such things are highly expedient for the Worship of God the Bishop has authority to exhort and perswade and that man sins who disobeys yet this is not properly the object of Church-censures and Ecclesiastical authority no more than when men refuse to do some pious or charitable act at the Bishops request Philemon's obligations to St. Paul who was his spiritual Father who had converted him to the Christian Faith gave him a peculiar authority over him but the bare Apostolical authority did not extend to the disposal of mens Fortunes and Servants which in those days were part of their Estates 3. In those things where God had interposed no command though the Rule they gave contained in it that which was fit and decent yet if men would resist they gently did admonish reprove them let them alone So S. Paul in case of the Corinthian men wearing long hair If any man list to be contentious we have no such custom nor the Churches of God that is let him chuse it is not well done we leave him to his own liberty but let him look to it But this does not reach the case neither for wearing long hair did not concern the Rites and Ceremonies and Uniformity of religious Worship which is our onely Dispute but was an Indecency in common conversation and a great many such things the Apostles indulged both to Jews and Heathens till they could be reformed by Reason and better Instructions though at the same time they did more severely correct the Disorders and Indecencies of Worship And yet I confess it seems a very odd Comment upon the Apostles words We have no such custom nor the Churches of God viz. let him chuse it is not well done we leave him to himself Whereas in these words the Apostle is so far from leaving them to do as they please that he determines the Controversie against them by the highest Authority to a Christian next to an express Law of God viz. the Customs and Usages of the Christian Church The Apostle indeed does not here threaten Church-censures against them but first tries what Reason and Argument will do which is a very proper method for Bishops to use but a very ill Argument to prove that the Church must not censure those who refuse Obedience to her Laws and Constitutions 4. If the Bishops power were extended farther it might extend to Tyranny and there could be no limits beyond this to keep him within the measures and sweetness of the Government Evangelical but if he pretend to go farther he may be absolute and supreme in the things of this life which do not concern the Spirit and so fall into Dynasty as one anciently complained of the Bishop of Rome and change the Father into a Prince and the Church into an Empire This is a plain Argument that the Bishop does not speak here of the decent Rites and Circumstances of Worship for how the Authority of the Church to prescribe the decent Rites and Ceremonies of Religion should degenerate into Tyranny and secular Power is unintelligible to me The Usurpations of the Church of Rome we know came in at another door and the Presbyter who has little regard to the external Order and Decency of Worship can find other pretences to get some secular power into his hands But what limit can be set to Ecclesiastical Authority if the Church exceed what is barely necessary to prevent confusion in religious Worship I answer Decency is the bound of it and there needs no other What is decent and orderly in religious Worship belongs to Church-authority what is more is an irregular abuse and there is no great danger that such a Power as this should make Bishops secular Princes This makes it evident to me that this learned Prelate intended not one word of all this against the Ceremonies of the Church of England or the imposition of them and it is certain he could not unless we will say that he contradicts himself and then his authority is good on neither side And I shall make this appear once for all and thereby answer the Citations out of the Writings of this excellent Bishop to countenance this Reconciling Designe all together I observe then that the Bishop himself does expresly justifie the Ceremonies of the Church of England as not offending against any of those Rules he had prescribed for Ecclesiastical Laws When he speaks of Rituals and significant Ceremonies and censures such Ceremonies which are meerly for signification which seems to come nearest to our Case there he designedly not onely vindicates the Practice but applauds the Wisdom of the Church of England in reference to her Ceremonies There is reason to celebrate and honour the Wisdom of the Church of England which hath in all her Offices retained but one Ritual or Ceremony that is not of divine Ordinance or Apostolical Practice and that is the Cross in Baptism which though it be a significant Ceremony and of no other use though in this I cannot agree with the Bishop and have given my reasons for it above so it is very innocent in it self and being one and alone is in no regard troublesome or afflective to those who understand her power her liberty and reason I say she hath one onely Ceremony of her own appointment for the Ring in Marriage is the Symbol of a â—ivil and religious Contract it is a Pledge and Custom of the Nation not of the Religion And those other Circumstances of her Worship are but determinations of time and place and manner of a Duty they serve to other purposes besides signification they were not made for that but for Order and Decency for which there is an Apostolical Precept and a natural reason and an evident necessity or a great convenience Now if besides these uses they can be construed to any good signification or instruction that is so far from being a prejudice to them that it is their advantage their principal end being different and warranted and not destroyed by their superinduc'd and accidental use In other things we are to remember that Figures and Shadows were for the Old Testament but Light and Manifestation is in the New This is the judgment of this excellent Bishop about the Ceremonies of the Church of England which I think makes little for our Reconcilers purpose and therefore when he had transcribed that large Discourse about Rituals and Ceremonies meerly for signification out of the Bishops Writings he stops when he comes to this as being convinc'd in his Conscience that the Bishop did not intend one word of this against the Ceremonies of the Church of England which he expresly excepted and justified Well but though the Bishop out of civility to the Church made such an exception yet there was no reason for it his Arguments were as strong against the
significant Ceremonies of the Church of England as of any other Church But it seems the Bishop did not think so and when the Reconciler alledges the Bishops Authority as well as Arguments against us he ought to have urged his Arguments no farther than he himself did or to have told his Readers what exceptions the Bishop made and left it to him to judge whether the exception was good and reasonable or not And I am apt to think that every ordinary Reader would have made some little difference as the Bishop did between such significant Ceremonies as are withall the necessary circumstances of religious actions and receive their Decency from their signification and such Ceremonies as contribute nothing to the decent performance of religious actions but onely entertain a childish fancy with some Theatrical Shews and arbitrary Images and Figures of things of which the Bishop there speaks And indeed all his other Citations out of the Writings of this excellent Bishop are as little to his purpose because none of them concern the decent circumstances of religious Worship which is our present Dispute and therefore we cannot from thence learn what the Bishop's judgment was in these matters as to take a brief survey of these Arguments as he calls them taken out of Bishop Taylor 's Ductor Dubitantium His first Argument is patcht up of two Sayings at the distance of fifteen pages from each other and yet they are much nearer to each other in the book than they are in their designe and signification He says The Bishop truly saith That 't is not reasonable to think that God would give the Church-Rulers his Authority for trifling and needless purposes This is said in one place and to make up his Argument he tacks another Saying to it Now Rituals saith he and Externals are nothing of the substance of Religion but onely appendages and manner and circumstances a wise man will observe them not that they are pleasing to God but because they are commanded by Laws The first of these Sayings is under the third Rule That the Church hath power to make Laws in all things of necessary Duty by a direct Power and divine Authority So that this does not relate to the circumstances of religious actions but to some necessary Duties The instance the Bishop gives in that place is this That the Bishop hath power to command his Subject or Parishioner to put away his Concubine and if he does not he not onely sins by uncleanness but by disobedience too This sure is remote enough from the Dispute of Ceremonies But then he proves that such men sin by disobeying the Bishop in such cases by this Argument among others That it is not reasonable to think that God would give the Church-Rulers his Authority for trifling and needless purposes For it is a trifling thing to have Authority to command if that Authority have no effect if men may disobey such commands without sin So that these words whereby the Bishop proves the Authority of the Church to command and that those sin who disobey our Reconciler produces to prove that the Church has no Authority to command the decent Ceremonies of Religion because in his opinion they are trifling and needless things The latter part of his Argument is taken from the Bishops sixth Rule which is this Kings and Princes are by the ties of Religion not of Power obliged to keep the Laws of the Church His resolution of which in short is this That such Ecclesiastical Laws which are the Exercises of internal Religion cannot be neglected by Princes without some straining of their duty to God which is by the wisdom and choice of men determined in such an instance to such a specification but in Externals and Rituals they have a greater liberty so that every omission is not a sin in them though it may be in Subjects and his reason is That they are nothing of the substance of Religion but onely appendages and manner and circumstances and therefore a wise man will observe Rituals because they are commanded by Laws not that they are pleasing to God Since therefore these are wholly matter of obedience Kings are free save onely when they become bound collaterally and accidentally So that the Bishop does not here speak one word of Externals and Rituals as such trifling and needless things that the Church has no Authority to command them to which purpose our Reconciler applies it but as such things which being bound on us onely by humane Authority a Soveraign Prince who owns no higher humane Authority than his own is not so strictly obliged by them as his Subjects are but may dispense with himself when he sees fit These are excellent premises for such a conclusion as our Reconciler draws from them But yet it is worth the while to consider what the Bishop means by the Externals or Rituals of Religion Whatever our Reconciler finds said about Ecclesiastical Laws or the Externals and Rituals of Religion he presently applies to the Ceremonies of the Church of England which excepting the Cross are onely decent circumstances without which or such-like the Worship of God cannot be decently or reverently performed that is without which there can be no external Worship which consists in the external expressions of Honour and Devotion It is sufficiently evident what a vast difference the Bishop makes between these two Thus he expresly does in these words To the ceremonial Law of the Iews nothing was to be added and from it nothing was to be substracted and in Christianity we have less reason to adde any thing of Ceremony excepting N. B. the circumstances and advantages of the very Ministry as time and place and vessels and ornaments and necessary appendages But when we speak of Rituals and Ceremonies that is exterior actions or things besides the institution and command of Christ c. Where he expresly distinguishes between the circumstances and advantages of the very Ministry what is necessary or convenient for the decent and orderly performance of the publick acts of Worship from Rituals or Ceremonies whereby he understands exterior actions or things that is such Ceremonies as are not the circumstances of religious actions but are distinct acts themselves either instituted as parts of Worship and then he says they are intolerable or meerly for signification and that is a very little thing and of very inconsiderable use in the fulness and charity of the Revelations Evangelical Such he reckons giving Milk and Honey or a little Wine to persons to be baptized and to present Milk together with Bread and Wine at the Lords Table to signifie nutrition by the Body and Bloud of Christ to let a Pidgeon flie to signifie the coming of the Holy Spirit to light up Candles to represent the Epiphany to dress a Bed to express the secret and ineffable Generation of the Saviour of the World to prepare the figure of the Cross and to bury an Image to describe the
That the Charity of Governours must express it self in the Acts of Government 1. That the Charity of Governours must be such as is consistent with the Duty and Authority of Government For charity to others cannot dispense with our own duty and therefore if Christ have given authority to his Ministers to govern his Church whatever pretences of charity there be to the contrary they must govern it or they are very uncharitable to themselves in neglecting their own Duty out of pretence of charity to others Nay all private acts of charity must give place to publick charity Now Government is a publick good that is is a publick charity and therefore must not be neglected out of pretence of charity to private Christians Now to apply this to our present purpose If the Governours of the Church could do what our Reconciler desires without neglecting their own Duty or injuring their Authority and Government I think this Plea of Charity would be more specious and plausible but that they cannot do it is as plain to me as a first Principle For 1. It is their duty to direct and govern religious Assemblies and to secure the Order and Decency of publick Worship which they cannot do without prescribing the Rules and determining the decent circumstances of action But you will say Cannot the Bishops govern the Church nor take care of the Decency of Worship unless they command the Minister to officiate in a Surplice and the People to receive kneeling Yes no doubt they may Then these Laws are alterable They are so Then in charity they are bound to alter them according to your own Rules for they may do this without neglecting their duty of governing religious Assemblies I deny the consequence and that for this reason because Charity does not require any man much less Governours to do a foolish thing which serves no good end at all For if they should alter our present Rules and decent Circumstances of Worship they must prescribe some others or else they neglect their Duty for the Decency of publick Worship cannot be preserved without the decent Circumstances of Worship and they cannot be secured especially in such an Age as this wherein so many men think a rude and slovenly Worship to be most pure and spiritual without some fixt and standing Rules of Decency Now whatever change they make they cannot change for the better nor remove any scruple by such a change For most of the Principles upon which our Dissenters dispute against our present Ceremonies will serve as well against any other establish'd Order of Worship and certainly it is not worth the while for Governours to alter Laws meerly to try the humours of People to see whether those who without reason scruple Impositions in one case will without reason submit to other Impositions when the same reasons hold in both It is neither consistent with the prudence nor charity of Government upon such slight pretences as these to make alterations so much for the worse as they must be if ever they alter our present Rules of Worship If this should gratifie some humoursome People it might justly offend and scandalize much better men to see a decent way of Worship changed for that which is less decent No saith our Reconciler this cannot with any truth be pretended Are not things indifferent such as may be imposed or not imposed at pleasure And doth not our Church declare her Ceremonies to be things indifferent Can therefore any regular Son of the Church of England be offended that she doth use her liberty in matters wholly left unto her liberty and by her first Reformers declared to be so Yes why not for all this Must every thing which is alterable be altered for no reason at all May it not justly offend a regular Son of the Church of England to see a more decent way of Worship laid aside and that which is less decent come in the room of it The Church of England I am sure is not of this mind she allows that her Ceremonies may be changed and altered but they ought to be altered onely upon just causes as she expresly determines and though in such cases she allows of some alteration in her Ceremonies yet she judges it necessary that some Ceremonies should be retained since without some Ceremonies it is not possible to keep any Order or quite Discipline in the Church But says our Reconciler they do not desire that the Ceremonies by Law establish'd should be abolished or that Conformists should be forbid to use them but onely that others whose Consciences will not permit them so to do should be dispensed with in their omission of them This would be a greater and more just offence than the other for this must be either in the same or in distinct Assemblies If in the same this introduces nothing but Disorder Confusion and Schismâ— into the Bowels of the Church if in distinct Assemblies this is to establish Schism by a Law and to make them onely legal Conventicles But he says As some sit some stand some kneel at Common-Prayer and Prayer before Sermon and this without confusion so may some sit some kneel some stand at the receiving the Sacrament But does our Reconciler think this variety of posture at Prayer an orderly and decent thing especially for men to sit at Prayers Standing may be sometimes necessary because especially in full Auditories all persons may not have the conveniency of kneeling But is one Irregularity sufficient to justifie another Does not the Church require an uniform posture at Prayer too And is it not more decent and orderly that it should be so And yet there is a great difference between such various postures at Prayers and at receiving the Lords Supper For excepting the rudeness of sitting when men have strength of body to kneel or stand which is an offence to pious and devout minds these variety of postures do not proceed from mens differing judgments and opinions about them and therefore do not occasion mutual scandal and offence censuring and judging one another in the very act of Worship But differing postures in receiving the Lords Supper is matter of Dispute and scruple one thinks kneeling idolatrous and superstitious the other deservedly thinks it rude and unmannerly to sit and this must of necessity occasion mutual Emulations in the very act of receiving than which nothing can be more inconsistent with the nature of that holy Communion And if you say that men must lay aside this judging and censorious humour you must either mean that while men retain these differing apprehensions of things they must not judge one another which is to say that they must not judge of men and things as they think which is ridiculously impossible unless you can teach men not to think as they think or that they must alter their apprehensions of things and look upon all these as indifferent postures and then there will be no reason to alter
to one case and not to the other and argues great ignorance as well as impudence in our Reconciler to censure it which I shall largely prove when I come to answer his fourth Chapter And because our Reconciler so often mentions not onely the abatement of the Ceremonies but the alteration of some scrupled expressions in the Liturgy without mentioning what those are I can give no other answer to it but to represent that account which is given us of those late alterations which were made in our Liturgy as we find it in the Preface to the Common-Prayer-Book Our general aim therefore in this undertaking was not to gratisie this or that Party in any of their unreasonable demands but to do that which to our best understanding we conceived might most tend to the preservation of peace and unity in the Church the procuring of Reverence and exciting of Piety and Devotion in the publick Worship of God and the cutting off occasion from them that seek occasion of cavil or quarrel against the Liturgie of our Church Most of the alterations were made for the more proper expressing of some words or phrases of ancient usage in terms more suitable to the Language of the present times and the clearer explanation of some other words or phrases which were either of doubtful signification or otherwise liable to misconstruction And what other Rule our Reconciler would have the Church observe in altering scrupled phrases I cannot tell for if she muâ—t alter while some people cease to scruple she must alter it all or rather take it quite away 3. But you will say It is at least a breach of Charity to impose such Rites and Ceremonies as are scrupled by great numbers of Christians and the imposition of which occasions a formidable Schism in the Church As for the Schisms and Divisions which are said to be occasioned by the imposition of these Ceremonies I shall consider that in the next Chapter My designe at present leads me to consider the Mistakes and Scruples of Christians and how far Governours ought to have any regard to them and for the explication of this there are several things to be observed 1. I readily grant that the Church ought not to command any thing which is of a doubtful or suspicious nature for where the thing is doubtful her Authority to command is doubtful too Or rather it is certain that the Church has no Authority in doubtful matters for her Authority can be no larger than her Commission and it is no part of her Commission to teach or command things which are doubtful Thus it may well be doubted whether it be lawful to set up Images in Churches to pray before a Crucifix to excite and quicken our Devotions though we have no intention to pay any religious homage to them For the same reason the Church cannot by her Authority adopt doubtful Propositions into Articles of Faith and require all Christians to believe them as the necessary terms of Communion To this purpose our Reconciler at his usual impertinent rate of Citations alleadges several passages out of Mr. Chillingworth to prove that no doubtful Propositions ought to be made Articles of Faith or necessary terms of Communion in which I perfectly agree with Mr. Chillingworth but can by no means see how it follows from hence that because the Church must not make new Articles of Faith therefore she must not prescribe the necessary Rules of Worship that because she must not impose things which are of a doubtful nature therefore she must not command any thing which some people raise doubts and scruples about But our Reconciler thinks that it is a sufficient evidence that a thing is doubtful and that the peace and unity of the Church ought not to be suspended upon the determination of it when there are a great number of men doubt of it and the thing is disputed and controverted and Arguments produced on both sides and if this be so there is not any Article of our Faith but what is doubtful it is very doubtful whether there be a God and whether Christ were the true Messias or an Importer for we know there are a great many Atheists Jews Turks and Infidels in the world And if it be an Argument against the Ceremonies of the Church of England that Dissenters dispute against them if this prove That the peace and unity of the Church ought not to be suspended upon submission to them and that the decision of the Controversie concerning them was not intended as a necessary means for the peace and unity of the Church of God in these Kingdoms farewell to all certainty in Religion But he proves this by an Argument transcribed from Dr. Stillingfleet's Irenicum a book which certainly did such great service at the time when it was written to draw men on to a calm consideration of things and whose Reverend Author has done such excellent service since to the Church of England by his incomparable Writings both against Papists and Fanaticks that whatever fault there may be in it both the Book and the Author have merited something more than a pardon especially since that Book stands now upon its own legs and can derive no authority from that great Name he having sufficiently declared his dislike and I think sufficiently answered some principal parts of it himself And though I cannot assent to every Proposition in the Irenicum as I am pretty sure the Author himself does not yet I can by no means think that it deserves all that clamour which some men have raised against it I am sure it never can make any man a Dissenter and I think it much more desirable and more for the interest of the Church that men should conform upon the Principles of the Irenicum than that they should continue Dissenters I could not forbear saying this once for all out of that sincere honour I have for that excellent person who has met with very ill usage from some men who either envy his deserved praises or hope to make themselves considerable by being his Rivals But let us hear what the Argument is Where probable Arguments are brought for the maintaining one part of an Opinion as well as another though the Arguments brought be not convincing for the necessary entertaining either part to an unbyassed understanding yet the difference of their Opinions is Argument sufficient that the thing contended for is not so clear as both Parties would make it to be on their own sides and if it be not a thing of necessity to salvation it gives men ground to think that the final decision of the matter in controversie was never intended as a necessary means for the peace and unity of the Church of God Now I confess I see no reason why I may not assent to all this for if the Arguments be onely probable on both sides and such as are not convincing either way to an unbyassed judgment it is a signe the
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 Church ought in charity to the people to shew them the blindness of their Guides and therefore not to comply with them in their superstitious scruples III. But the men who were offended at it were onely Hypocrites whose hearts were hardened against the truth What were they all Hypocrites was there not one honest man among them Some Hypocrites there were then and so there are still Hypocrites in another sence than these men were Hypocrites For the Jews did generally believe the unlawfulness of any kind of work on the Sabbath-day and therefore were really scandalized and offended but we have a company of Hypocrites among us who do not really scruple what they pretend to do but onely make a pretence of scruples an occasion to abuse the People to stir up Schisms in the Church and Factions in the State men who can conform when they please and be offended and scandalized when they please But our Lord did all that could be reasonable to prevent their scandal No he did not abstain from working Miracles on the Sabbath-day which he might have done if he had pleased but he was so far from avoiding giving offence to them that he did it on purpose because they were offended at it and to deliver men from such Superstitions as made them take offence But he first satisfies them from their own practice on a less occasion and from the nature of the action and that with so much evidence and conviction that they were ashamed and could not answer him one word And has our Church been wanting in this to give satisfaction to Dissenters How many unanswerable Books have been written in justification of the Constitutions and Worship of our Church And that our Dissenters are not ashamed but will talk on when they have not one wise word to say is onely an Argument that they have less wit and more impudence than the Pharisees had Our Church indeed cannot work Miracles as Christ did to convince them though where plain and convincing Reasons will not do I doubt Miracles will not do neither for though the Pharisees were silenced by Christ yet they were neither convinc'd by his Reasons nor his Miracles Thus I have considered what obligation Charity to the Souls of men lays upon the Governours of the Church to abate those Ceremonies which some men scruple and take offence at But I must here briefly consider one Principle more of our Reconcilers which he no-where pretends to prove but takes for granted That the Charity of Governours requires the abatement of every thing which is not absolutely necessary in Religion if it prove an occasion of scruple and offence For why must the Church be tyed up to what is necessary Her Power and Authority extends to things which are useful and expedient though not absolutely necessary and therefore she may exercise this Power according to the measures of Prudence and Charity notwithstanding the unreasonable superstitious scruples of men which ought to lay no restraint upon the prudent Exercise of Government as I think I have already sufficiently proved and yet our Reconciler thinks it a sufficient reason why the Church should alter any scrupled Ceremonies how decent or expedient soever they are if we cannot prove them to be absolutely necessary Thus I have considered the main Principles of his Book and shall not think my self any further concerned to take notice of them as often as I meet with them If these Principles which I have now laid down hold good his Book is answered and the Governours of the Church may exercise their just Authority and he that is offended let him be offended And yet for the more ample satisfaction of all men what a trifler our Reconciler is I shall particularly examine his Arguments from Scripture and shew how impertinent they are to our present Dispute CHAP. III. Concerning a more particular Answer to our Reconciler's Objections against the imposition of indifferent things when they are an occasion of Discords Divisians and Schisms THough what I have already discours'd bâ— sufficient to satisfie every impartial Reader that all our Reconciler's Arguments are meer Fallacies as proceeding upon false and mistaken Principles yet for the more abundant satisfaction of all who are willing to be informed I shall proceed to a more particular examination of his Reasons why Church-Governours ought to alter or abate such scrupled Ceremonies I. And first he declaims very copiously about the great evil and mischief of Divisions and truly I believe Discord and Division especially among Christian Brethren to be as bad a thing as he can possibly describe it to be But what then what then the consequence is very plain For if Conformists do not conceive it better at least that we should run the hazard of all these dreadful evils than that we should consent to lay aside the imposition of a few indifferent Ceremonies or to the altering of a few scrupled expressions in our Liturgie then must they yield up these few Ceremonies and alter these expressions to prevent all the aforesaid evils 1. I answer Does our Reconciler then think that every thing that is the occasion of Discords and Divisions must be removed Is the cause of Divisions in the nature of things or in the minds of men And is it not most proper to apply the remedy to the disease to instruct people that they ought not to quarrel about such matters that they ought to pay such deference to their Superiours as chearfully to obey them in all things which God has not expresly forbid Till this be done the Church may aâ—ter her Constitutions every year and be as far off from Peace as now for while men are ignorant scrupulous and quarrelsome it is impossible for the Governours of Church and State by the most wise and prudent Constitutions to prevent Divisions 2. Is not the contempt of Ecclesiastical Authority and the rude and unmannerly performance of religious Worship as great a mischief as Divisions and yet it is impossible to indulge every scrupulous person without destroying the Authority of the Church and the Decency of Worship as I have already proved Now I must confess bonâ fide to our Reconciler that I think all our Divisions about Ceremonies a less scandal to the Christian Religion than this would be for it is better to have a well constituted Church with Division than to have none without it 3. Will our parting with some few Ceremonies cure these Divisions which he so much complains of This our Reconciler cannot undertake for and it is demonstrable it will not Is this the onely Controversie that Presbyterians Independents Quakers and other Sectaries have with the Church of England Has our Reconciler never read Mr. Baxter's Pleas for Peace and those other venomous Pamphlets of late date When the Church of England was pull'd down and these Ceremonies and Episcopacy it self removed out of the way did it cure Divisions or increase them When the Reverend Dean
â—udge when it is fit to stop and every wise man will think it fit to stop when she has cast every thing out of her Worship which is a just cause of scandal and offence and if she goes further to satisfie unreasonable and clamorous demands she can never have a reason to stop till she has satisfied all Clamours 2. Yes says our Reconciler she may remove things indifferent and unnecessary which is all at present desired No say I she cannot part with all things which are in their own nature indifferent for some such things are necessary to the Order and Decency of Worship which must not be parted with and the Church never owned the contrary She says indeed that her particular Ceremonies are indifferent and alterable that we may exchange one decent Ceremony for another when there is reason for it but the Church ought to alter no Ceremony without reason nor part with all indifferent Ceremonies for the external Decency of Worship for any reason And now we are beholden to him that 3. He grants with some reconciling salvo's that we must not part with our Church-government under the pretence of parting with indifferent things But if we must not part with that we may as well keep all the rest for our Divisions will be the same No party ever separated from the Church for the sake of Ceremonies who did not quarrel with the Order and Authority of Bishops The rest of his Arguments in that Chapter do not concern this business but whatever he would prove by them there are two general Answers will serve for them all 1. That indifferent things which serve the ends of Order Decency are not such unnecessary trifles as to be parted with for no reason which I think I have sufficiently proved above And 2. Tâ—at parting with them will not heal our Divisions and therefore at least upon that account there is no reason to part with them What I have now discours'd about Divisions and Discords is a sufficient Answer to his next long Harangue about the evil of Schism in which I heartily concur with him as believing that Schism it self will shut men out of the Kingdom of Heaven which is as bad a thing as can be said of it and therefore out of love to my Brother's Soul I would not upon any account be guilty of his Schism But how does this prove that Church-Governours must part with the Rites and Ceremonies of Religion Oh! because Dissenters take offence at these things and run into Schism and consequently must be damned for it and therefore Charity obliges to part with such indifferent things to prevent the eternal damnation of so many Souls But now 1. Suppose the imposition of these Ceremonies be neither the cause of the Schism nor the removal of them the cure of it what then Why must the Church part with these Ceremonies which are of good use in Religion to no purpose And yet this is the truth of the case as appears from what I have already discours'd The several Sects of Religion were Schismaticks to each other when there were no Ceremonies to trouble them and would be so again if the Church of England were once more laid in the dust No man separates from the Church of England who has not espoused some Principles of Faith or Government besides the Controversie about Ceremonies contrary to the Faith and Government of the Church and will the removal of Ceremonies make them Orthodox in all other points or are they of such squeamish Consciences that they can submit to an Antichristian Hierarchy and an Antichristian Liturgy but not to Ceremonies 2. The Argument of Schism is the very worst Argument our Reconciler could have used as being directly contrary to the end and designe of it All the Authority the Church has depends on the danger of Schism and the necessity of Christian Communion The onely punishment she can inflict on refractory and disobedient Members is to cast them out of the Church and that is a very terrible punishment too if there be no ordinary means of salvation out of the Communion of the Church and therefore the danger of Schism is a very good Argument to perswade Dissenters to consider well what they do and not to engage themselves in a wilful and unnecessary Schism But it is a pretty odde way to perswade the Governours of the Church out of the exercise of their just Authority for fear some men should turn Schismaticks and be damned for it The reason why the Gospel has threatned such severe punishments against Schism is to make the Authority of the Church sacred and venerable that no man should dare to divide the Communion of the Church or to separate from their Bishops and Pastors without great and necessary reason and our Reconciler would fright the Church out of the exercise of her just Authority for fear men should prove Schismaticks and be damned for it Christ has made Schism a damning sin to give Authority to the Church and our Reconciler would perswade the Church not to exercise her Authority for fear men should be damned for their Schism Now whether our Saviour who thought it better that Schismaticks should be damned than that there should be no Authority in the Church or our Reconciler who thinks it better that there should be no Authority in the Church than that Schismaticks should be damned are persons of the greatest Charity I leave others to judge Indeed the odium of this whole business which is so tragically exaggerated by the Reconciler must at last fall upon our Saviour himself either for instituting such an Authority in his Church or for confirming this Authority by such a severe Sanction as eternal damnation If Christ will at the last day condemn those who separate from the Church for some external Rites and Ceremonies as our Reconciler's Argument supposes he will then it is a signe that Christ approves of what the Church does in taking care of the Decency of Worship and that he thinks it very just that such Schismaticks should be damned and then let our Reconciler if he think fit charge the Saviour of the World with want of Charity to the Souls of men The Church damns no man but does what she believes to be her duty and leaves Schismaticks to the judgment of Christ if he damns them at the last day let our Reconciler plead their Cause then before the proper Tribunal and if Christ can justifie himself in pronouncing the Sentence I suppose he will justifie his Church too in the exercise of her Authority This is certain that if the imposition of these Ceremonies be a just cause of Separation our Dissenters are not Schismaticks and therefore in no danger of damnation upon that score and if it be not a just cause of Separation then the Church does not exceed her Authority in it and therefore is not to be blamed notwithstanding that danger of Schism which men wilfully run themselves into
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
not break some divine Law This was the offence the Jews took that the Gentiles did not observe the Law of Moses and is the chief if not the onely case wherein men may be culpably charged with giving offence without sinning against any Law The Gentiles did break the Law of Moses indeed but that Law was now out of date and they knew that it was so and therefore were very innocent in what they did but the Jews did not believe that the Law was repealed and therefore they were offended at the contempt of that Law their offence was so reasonable that it made it a great fault and breach of charity to offer this offence to them but what is this to our Dissenters What Law condemns the Ceremonies of the Church of England Our Reconciler I suppose will not pretend that there is any such Law or that there ever was any such Law and therefore we offer no offence and scandal to them for we break no Law of God which either is now or ever was in force against our Ceremonies This one Observation that there is no scandal given where there is no divine Law broken would clear up that perplext Doctrine of Scandal as it is stated by most men and make it intelligible to every ordinary understanding and yet this criminal giving of offence is never applied in Scripture to any thing but the breach of a divine Law I meet with but two notions of giving offence in Scripture the first is to offend by contempt and ill usage or persecution in which sence our Saviour warns us against offending any of those little ones which believe in him which he calls also despising of them that is treating them ignominiously and reproachfully which is apt to discourage men in their Christian course but this does not relate to our present Dispute unless the Reconciler will call the exercise of Church-Discipline and Censures against Dissenters despising thâ—m and giving them offence The second is when we offend men by our Example by doing something which proves a Snare and Stumbling-block and scandal to them Now this is never applied to any action which is not contrary to some divine Law which either is in force or is reasonably presumed to be in force by those who take offence at it Thus the Jews took offence at the Gentile Christians for not observing the Law of Moses which they knew was given by God but were not satisfied that it was repealed which is the case the Apostle refers to in this 14 Rom. Another case like this was concerning eating things offered to Idols which was against an express Law which forbid all Idolatry or communicating with Devils as those did who eat of their Sacrifices and was expresly forbid the Gentile Converts by the Apostolical Synod at Ierusalem To abstain from meats offered to Idols This Law some expounded not onely to forbid them to eat in the Idols Temple and to feast upon the Sacrifice which was there offered to the Idol which was indeed an act of Idolatrous Worship but to forbid the eating of any meat which had once been offered to an Idol though it were carried from the Temple and sold in the Shambles and eat in private houses at a friendly entertainment without any relation to the Idol St. Paul indeed determines this Controversie that this Law to abstain from meats offered to Idols did onely forbid them to eat in an Idols Temple and to feast on their Idolatrous Sacrifices but if they went to buy meat in the Shambles or to eat at any private house they were not concerned to enquire whether that meat had been offered to an Idol or not but yet they ought in charity to have regard to the scruples of others who supposed this prohibition to extend to eating any meat that had been offered to an Idol where-ever they eat it as well as eating at an Idols Temple and there being an express Law and a reasonable Scruple in the case they were obliged in charity to their weak Brethren to abstain from all such suspicious meats Now indeed it is an act of charity not to offend nor scandalize our Brethren by giving them the least reasonable suspicion of our violation of any plain and express Law of God when the Law is not imaginary but visible for these cases have some equity in them are but few and can rarely happen and therefore are no great and burdensome restraint on our natural or Christian liberty much less have any ill influence on publick Government but if we extend this Doctrine of Scandal to all other kind of scruples it becomes both ridiculous and intolerable For then every humoursome and ignorant and conceited Christian who can make Laws by consequences and can extract such Laws out of Scripture as the Christian Church for many Ages never heard of shall prescribe to me what I shall eat and drink what Clothes I shall wear what Company I shall keep what Laws of Church or State I shall observe nay shall give Laws to the Church and repeal Laws and impose their own Dreams and Fancies upon their Superiours which is the very designe our Reconciler pursues throughout his Book to perswade the Governours of the Church that it is unlawful for them to prescribe any Laws or Rules of Worship which are scrupled by our Dissenters though without any reason or without any Law and truly could he perswade them to this I should as much admire their prudence as I do his charity 3. Let us now consider what danger the Apostle designed to prevent in this what hurt their weak Brother was like to suffer by it Now this he expresses by laying a stumbling-block or occasion to fall in our brothers way by destroying him with our meat for whom Christ died by his stumbling and being offended and made weak Which signifies that these believing Jews were in danger of taking such offence at this liberty which the believing Gentiles so uncharitably used as to renounce the Faith of Christ and fall back again into Judaism and there was manifest reason for this fear for since they retained such a mighty veneration for the Law of Moses which they knew was given by God it was a great temptation to them to suspect that Christ was not the true Messias but an Impostor when they saw his Disciples so notoriously break this Law and themselves derided and scorned for observing of it And therefore the Synod at Ierusalem did not determine against the observation of the Mosaical Law by believing Jews but excused the Gentiles from it who were never under the obligation of that Law for it had been an invincible prejudice to the Jews had the Apostles in express terms declared the abrogation of the Law which the Jews believed to be eternal but it was a more plausible pretence that the Law which was originally given onely to the Jews should not oblige the believing Gentiles But yet had the believing Gentiles not
onely refused to obey the Law themselves but scorned and despised the Jews for doing it and used their Christian liberty in an open contempt and defiance of them and their Law this would have been very apt to have alienated their minds from the Christian religion which the Apostle therefore calls laying a stumbling-block or occasion to fall in our brothers way and destroying him with our meat by tempting him to infidelity and Apostacy for whom Christ died Thus St. Chrysostom expresly tells us that St. Paul was afraid lest this contemptuous usage of the believing Jews should tempt them to renounce the Faith of Christ. But what is this to the case of our Dissenters are they tempted to renounce the Christian Religion by the Ceremonies of the Church of England It is so far from this that they learn to despise their Teachers and to think themselves a more perfect and excellent sort of Christians But you 'll say it makes them Schismaticks and Schism is as dangerous to mens Souls as Infidelity and therefore the same charity which obliges us to prevent the one obliges us also with equal care to prevent the other Now though I think every good Christian will and ought to do what he reasonably can to prevent a Schism yet the difference between the case of Schism and Infidelity in point of scandal is very great While men are weak and unsetled in the Faith and apt to take offence and apostatize from Christ they ought to be treated with all manner of tenderness and condescension because they are not yet capable of being governed they must be humoured for a while as Children are who must be managed by Art not by Rules of Discipline but when men are well rooted and confirmed in the Christian Faith they are no longer to be humoured but governed they must be taught to submit to that Authority which Christ has placed in his Church and to obey not to dispute the commands of their Superiours when there is no plain positive Law of God against them This is the onely way to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Christian Church and if men will take offence at the exercise of a just Authority and turn Schismaticks it is at their own peril And this indeed I take to be the true notion of the weak in the Faith whom the Apostle in this Chapter commands the strong Christians to treat with so much tenderness without giving them the least offence those who are not well confirmed in the truth of the Christian Religion and therefore are apt to take offence at every thing and to renounce the Faith And so his stumbling and being offended and made weak signifies his being shaken and unsetled in the Faith Every one who is an ignorant and uninstructed is not therefore a weak Christian his Understanding may be weak but his Faith may be strong that is he may very firmly and stedfastly believe the truth of the Christian Religion though he do not so well understand the particular Doctrines of it But these two sorts of weak persons are to be used very differently you must have a care of offending those who are weak in Faith but you must instruct and govern those who are weak in Understanding or else you prostitute the Authority of the Church and the truth of Christianity and the just liberties of Christians to every ignorant and yet it may be conceited obstinate and censorious Professor which is a plain demonstration that those directions the Apostle gives in this Chapter not to offend those who are weak in the Faith cannot concern our Dissenters who though they are weak enough as that signifies ignorant yet are not weak in the Faith as that signifies those who are not thoroughly perswaded of Christianity or not well confirmed in that belief and therefore are not to be humoured like Children but trained up to greater attainments by wise Instructions and a prudent Discipline Secondly Having seen what this Scandal and Offence was let us now consider by what Arguments the Apostle perswades those who were strong not to offend the weak Now our Reconciler has turned almost every word into an Argument One Argument is That it is our duty not to judge or lay a stumbling-block before our Brother That it is contrary to charity and evil in it self That it caused Christianity to be blasphâ—med That it is contrary to the concerns of Peace and the edification of the Church c. Now I have no dispute with our Reconciler about this that it is a very ill thing and very contrary to the duty of a Christian to give any just offence or scandal to a weak Brother if we were as well agreed what it is to give offence as that giving this offence is a very evil thing the Dispute were at an end And yet by this artifice he imposes upon his Readers is very copious and rhetorical in his Harangue on this Argument and transcribes several passages out of St. Chrysostom and some other ancient Writers to shew the great evil and manifold aggravations of scandal which every one would grant him to be very good when rightly applied but we deny that the Church of England is guilty of giving offende to the Dissenters in that sence in which St. Paul and other ancient Writers meant it and if our Reconciler had pleased he might have found enough in St. Paul's Arguments to have convinced him that the Apostle spoke of a case very different from ours which because he has been pleased to overlook I shall be so charitable as to mind him of it Now I take the sum of the Apostles Argument to be this That the reason why they were not to offend the Jews by an uncharitable use of their Christian liberty in eating such meats as were forbidden by the Law is because their eating or not eating such meats in it self considered is of no concernment in the Christian Religion and therefore is the proper Sphere for the exercise of charity For when we discourse of offence and scandal the first and most natural inquiry is of what moment and consequence the thing is in which we are required to exercise our charity for there are many things which we must not do nor leave undone out of charity to any man whatever offence be taken at it but if it be of that nature as to admit of a charitable condescension and compliance then all the other Arguments against scandal and giving offence are very seasonably and properly urged And this is the case here as will appear from considering the series of the Apostles Arguments In the 13th verse he perswades them not to put a stumbling-block and occasion to fall in their Brothers way And to inforce this Exhortation he adds in the 14th verse I know and am perswaded by the Lord Iesus that there is nothing unclean of it self but to him that esteemeth any thing unclean to him it is unclean That is all distinction of
Church and State it will necessarily occasion very great inconveniences Well but we must not set these little things in competition with the more weighty duties and concerns of Love and Peace No God forbid we should But does our Reconciler know what a competition between two Laws means I know but of two ways that this can happen either when they contradict each each other or are so contrary in their natures that they can never be both observed or when there is a competition of time that it so happens that we cannot observe both at the same time as when we cannot at the same time go to Church to serve God and stay at home to attend a sick Father or Friend in which cases our Saviour has laid down a general Rule That God prefers Mercy bâ—foâ—e Sacrifice But now upon neither of these accounts can there be any competition pretended between the Rites and Ceremonies of Religion and the great duties of Love and Peace and Unity and Edification For cannot men observe the Orders and Constitutions of the Church as to the external Rites of Worship and love one another and preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church at the same time Indeed can there be a better means to preserve Love and Peace and Unity among Christians and to promote mutual Edification than an Uniformity in Religious Worship since it is evident that nothing breeds greater Dissentions and Emulations and Envyings among Christians than different and contrary Modes of Worship And if this be so then there is no competition between the Ceremonies of Religion and the Love and Peace of Christians and consequently no reason why the Governours of the Church may not command both though the particular Ceremonies of Religion be acknowledged to be small things in comparison with the great duties of Love and Peace Yes you 'll say the imposition of these Ceremonies does come in competition with these great duties of Love and Peace and Unity because there are a great many who quarrel at them and divide the Church upon that account and if these controverted Ceremonies were removed Love and Unity would be restored among us Now supposing this to be true which I have already proved not to be true what is this to the Governours of the Church If they impose nothing which is inconsistent with Love and Peace and Unity then the imposition of these things in it self considered cannot be inconsistent with these great Gospel-duties for if what we command be consistent with Love and Unity then the Command otherwise called the Imposition must be so too It is not the command or imposition of these things which is inconsistent with Love and Unity but refusal of obedience to such lawful Commands which is not the fault of the Governours but of the Subjects not of those who command but of those who will not obey and therefore these are Arguments proper to be urged against Dissenters but not against the Governours of the Church As to give you a familiar instance of this A Master commands his Servant to put on a clean Band to wait at Table the Servant refuses to do it upon this the whole Family is divided some take part with the Master others with the Servant in steps a Reconciler and tells the Master he did very ill to cause such Divisions in his Family that Love and Peace and Unity were more considerable duties than a Servants wearing a clean Band which therefore ought not to come in competition with them Pray Sir says the Master preach this Doctrine to my Servants and not to me I have commanded nothing but what was fit to be done and I will have it done or he and all his Partners shall turn out oâ— my Family Now let one who is a Master judge whether the Master or the Reconciler be in the right The breach of Love and Peace and Unity is not the effect though it be the consequent which our Reconciler I perceive cannot distinguish of the Command or Imposition but of the disobedience and therefore when the Command is fit and reasonable cannot be charged upon him who commands but upon him who disobeys But besides this I observe that Christian Love and Unity and Peace in the Writings of the New Testament signifie the Communion of the Church and how kind soever they may be to each other upon other accounts men do not love like Christians who do not worship God together in the Communion of the same Church wherein they live and there can be no Edification out of the Church Now if there be no way of uniting men in one Communion but by an uniformity of Worship then to prescribe the Rules and Orders and Ceremonies of Worship is as necessary as Christian Love and Peace and Unity is Men who worship God after a different manner must and will worship in different places too and in distinct Communions and those who will not submit to the Injunctions of a just Authority will never consent in any form of Worship and therefore this may multiply Schisms but cannot cure them This is all perfect demonstration from the experience of our late Confusions when the pulling down the Church of England did not lessen our Divisions but increase them But our Reconciler confirms this Argument that the Governours of the Church ought not to insist on such little things when they come in competition with Love and Peace and Unity c. from the example of God himself who was not so much concerned for the ceremonial part of his Worship but that he would permit the violation of what he had prescribed about it upon accounts of lesser moment than these are He instances in the Law of Circumcision which was not observed in the Wilderness because this would hinder the motion of the Camp In the Law of the Passover which was to be observed on the first month and the 14th day of the month but God expresly provided that if any man were unclean or in a journey far off at that time they should observe it on the 14th of the second month in the Sabbatick rest which admitted of works of necessity and mercy which were never forbidden by God in that Law nor intended to be Now are not these admirable proofs That God is not so much concerned for the ceremonial part of his Law but that upon some accounts he would permit the violation of what he had prescribed when it does not appear that he ever did so As for the neglect of Circumcision in the Wilderness I doubt not but God had given express order about it otherwise Moses who was faithful in all his house and a punctual observer of all the divine Laws and Statutes would never have neglected it and this I may say with as much reason as our Reconciler can produce for Gods permission of it without an express Order and somewhat more As for the Passover let our Reconciler consider again whether the observation of
them from Communion whom God will receive So that the poor Church of England must receive Papists into her Communion as well as the Phanaticks where we must observe the Charity is Bishop Sanderson's the Inference and Application the Reconciler's III. His next Argument is from one great purpose of Christ's Advent and the effusion of his precious bloud to make both Iew and Gentile one by breaking down the middle wall of partition that was between them and abolishing the Law of Commandments contained in Ordinances Now the conceit of it is this He supposes the Ceremonies of the Church of England to be such a Partition-wall between Conformists and Nonconformists as the Mosaical Law was between Jews and Gentiles and therefore as Christ has broken down one Partition-wall and made Jew and Gentile one Church so our Governours ought to break down the other Partition-wall to make Conformists and Nonconformists one Body and Church which is such a dull conceit and argues such stupid ignorance in the Mysteries of Christianity that I do not wonder he is so zealous an Advocate for Ignorance and Errour The Partition-wall is an Allusion to that Partition in the Temple which divided the Court where the Jews worshipped from the Court of the Gentiles and that which made this Partition was Gods Covenant with Abraham when he chose his carnal Seed and Posterity for his peculiar People and separated them from the rest of the World and the more effectually to separate them from other Nations gave them a peculiar Law which was to last as long as this distinction did For God did not intend for ever to confine his Church to one Nation but when the promised Messias came to enlarge the borders of his Church to all mankind And therefore this Law was so contrived as to typifie the Messias and to receive its full completion in the perfect Sacrifice and Expiation of his Death which put an end to the former Dispensation and sealed a Covenant of Grace and Mercy with all mankind Thus Christ by his death broke down the Partition-wall because he put an end to the Mosaical Covenant which was made onely with the Jews and to that external and â—ypical Religion which was peculiar to the Mosaical Dispensation and made a distinction and separation between Jew and Gentile that is as Christ made a Covenant now with all mankind so he put an end to all marks of distinction between Jew and Gentile and to that typical and ceremonial Worship which was peculiar to the Jews as a distinct and separate People Now indeed any such Partition-wall as this which confines the Covenant and Promises of God to any particular People or Nation and excludes all others is directly contrary to the end and designe of Christs death and ought immediately to be pulled down but must there therefore be no Partion to distinguish between the Church of Christ and Infidels and Hereticks and Schismaticks Must there be no Walls and Fences about the Church this Vineyard and Fold of Christ Must there be no Laws made for the government of Religious Assemblies and the Decency and Order of Christian Worship for fear of keeping those out of the Church who will not be orderly in it How come the Ceremonies of our Church to be a Wall of partition the Church never made them so for she onely designed them for Rules and decent Circumstances of Worship which it is her duty to take care of Let those then who set up this Wall of partition pull it down again that is let those who separate from the Church and make these Ceremonies a Wall of partition return to the Communion of the Church which no body keeps them from but themselves As for his modest insinuations that our Ceremonies are carnal Ordinances weak and beggarly Elements and therefore ought to be removed for their weakness and unprofitableness as the Mosaick Ceremonies were I have already largely shewn the difference between a Ritual and Ceremonial Religion and those Ceremonies which are for the Decency of Religious Worship which are as necessary and must continue as long as External Worship which requires external Signs of Decency and Honour does IV. His next Motive to Condescension is from the Example of Christ and his Apostles in preaching the Gospel which in short is this That when Christ was on Earth he did not instruct his Disciples in such Doctrines as they were not capable of understanding till after his Resurrection and therefore left the revelation of such matters to the Ministry of his Holy Spirit whom after his Ascension into Heaven he sent to them And the Apostles when they converted Jews and Gentiles to the Faith of Christ did not immediately tell them all that was to be known and believed but instructed them in the plainest matters first and allowed some time to wear off their Jewish and Pagan prejudices therefore the Governours of the Church should forbear imposing of some practices at which our Flocks by reason of their prejudice and weakness will be apt to stumble and take offence But how this follows I confess I cannot understand if it proves any thing it proves that the Governours of the Church must not instruct their People in any thing which they are not willing to learn that our Reconciler should never have published his second part to convince Dissenters that they may lawfully and therefore in duty ought to conform to the Ceremonies of the Church when they are imposed for if notwithstanding the Example of our Saviour and his Apostles we may instruct our People in such things we may require their obedience too otherwise we had as good never instruct them But did Christ and his Apostles then intend that Christians should be always children Did not St. Paul testifie that he had declared the whole Will of God to them And when the Gospel has been fully published to the World for above sixteen hundred years must the Church return again to her state of infancy and childhood to humour Dissâ—nters But indeed is the duty of obedience to Governours in all things which Christ has not forbid such a sublime and mysterious Doctrine that it ought to be concealed as too difficult to be understood Is it not a pretty way of reasoning that Euclid's Elements is too difficult a book for a young child to learn therefore his Master must not teach him to obâ—y his Parents neither I am sure this was one of the first Lessons which the Apostles taught their Disciples whatever else they concealed from them for there can be no Church founded without Government and there can be no Government where Subjects must not be taught Obedience But however there is a great difference between the first publication of any Doctrine and the preaching of it after it is published The first requires great prudence in the choice of a fit time to do it in and of fit persons to communicate it to which was the case of Christ and his
for denying this liberty and indulgence is known to all men and it is hard to think then that he was a Reconciler for never any Reconciler was a Martyr for the Church And methinks the Act of Uniformity and the prosecution of Dissenters upon that and former Acts might convince any reasonable man that our present Soveraign is none of his Protestant Reconcilers But if notwithstanding all this he can prove against plain matter of fact and the evidence of sense and the experience and complaints of Dissenters all these to be Reconciling Kings I am resolved I will be a Protestant Reconciler too and I hope I may pass for as good a Reconciler as any of these renowned Kings without recanting this Book Let us hear then how he proves these great Princes to be Reconcilers As for King Iames he proves him to be a Reconciler from Casaubon's Epistle to Cardinal Perroon Now how faithfully Casaubon represented the Kings Judgment is more than our Reconciler can tell onely I am certain he did misrepresent him if he made a Reconciler of him But there is no reason to take Sanctuary in this for whoever considers the occasion of those words may put a very sober construction on them without giving any countenance to our Reconciler for the Dispute did not concern the Rules of Order and Decency in Religious Worship but the unscriptural Innovations of Popery which they imposed upon all Churches as terms of Catholick Communion Now in this Controversie any man may safely say what Casaubon says for the King without being a Protestant Reconciler For there is no nearer way of concord than to separate things necessary from unnecessary to call nothing simply necessary but what the Word of God commandeth to be believed or done or which the ancient Church did gather from the Word of God by necessary consequence that other humane Constitutions whatever antiquity or authority is pretended for them might be changed mollified antiquated and that this may in the general be said of most Ecclesiastical observations introduced without the Word of God Now this does not refer to the decent Circumstances and Ceremonies of Religion but to such Ecclesiastical observations as are in dispute between us and the Church of Rome as the Celibacy of the Clergy Prayers for the Dead Pilgrimages Monastick Vows the Worship of Saints and Angels and Images and the like for which the Church of Rome pretends the Authority of ancient Councils or the ancient practice and usage of the Church Now in these cases I am perfectly of the Kings mind and yet do not take my self to be a Protestant Reconciler in our Authors way Our Royal Martyr when he saw what danger Church and State and his own Royal Person was in from the outrageous zeal of dissenting Protestants who did not now humbly beg for Indulgence and Toleration but contended for Rule and Empire was willing if it were possible to allay these Heats and divert the Storm by yiâ—lding somewhat to their boisterous and threatning importunities and if he had yielded a great deal more at that time than he did I think it had been no argument of his own setled judgment of things The Reconciler might hence prove that the King thought it much better to yield a little at that time than to ruine Church and State by too much stiffness not that he thought it unlawful to impose any thing on his Subjects in matters of Religion which they were pleased to scruple And yet what is it that the King yielded under these necessities For that our Reconciler produces these words As for differences among our selves for matters indifferent in their own nature concerning Religion we shall in tenderness to any number of our loving Subjects very willingly comply with the advice of our Parliament that some Law may be made for the exemption of tender Consciences from punishment or prosecution for such Ceremonies and in such cases which by the judgment of most men are held to be matters indifferent and of some to be absolutely unlawful Does the King in these words promise to alter the Constitutions of the Church to abolish all Ceremonies c By no means he onely says that he will comply with the advice of his Parliament to exempt such tender Consciences from punishment And how can our Reconciler hence conclude that the King believed it unlawful to impose these Ceremonies because at such a critical time he was contented there should be some provision made to secure Dissenters from the execution of the penal Laws And yet that ill usage which so excellent a Prince met with from these dissenting Protestants after such a condescension as this gives no great encouragement to Princes to try this Experiment again Thus he proves our present Soveraign to be of his mind by his Declaration from Breda which he prints at large I suppose for fear People should forget that there had been such a Declaration or what were the contents of it How the present circumstances of affairs at that time might incline his Majesty to such a condescension is not my business to inquire it is sufficient for us to know that the House of Commons presented their Reasons to the King against that Declaration which so far satisfied him that he gave his assent to the Act of Uniformity and therefore I suppose is not of our Reconciler's mind now and indeed never was notwithstanding that Declaration for he never asserted it unlawful to impose scrupled Ceremonies upon Dissenters but thought it expedient at that time to indulge their weakness And while matters were under debate for the re-establishment of the Church of England no wonder that the King and his great Ministers should make Proposals of Accommodation and offer their Reasons and Arguments for it but I always thought that what is said by any person on one side or other while the matter is under debate is not so good an Argument what his judgment and opinion is as what he agrees and consents to when the Reasons on both sides have been heard and scann'd Thus our Kings are our own again and of all men in the world have the least reason to countenance such a designe as this which serves onely to encourage a busie and restless Party among us who first strike at the Church but will never be quiet till they have usurp'd the Throne What the sence of our Church is in this matter is evident from her Articles Canons and Constitutions and this signifies a great deal more to me than the opinion of any private Doctors of what note and eminency soever It is unreasonable to oppose the authority of any particular Doctors to the Judgment of the Church and it would be an endless work to number the Votes and Suffrages of private Doctors on both sides indeed their authority is no greater than their reason is and if any of them be of our Reconciler's mind I am sure they speak without book unless they have something more
of St. Pauls made some Proposals for the ease of scrupulous persons with reference to these Ceremonies what thanks had he for it How many bitter Invectives were written against him And can we flatter our selves then that the removal of these Ceremonies would cure our Divisions And if it will not why does he urge the evil and mischief of Divisions to perswade the Church to part with these Ceremonies Whatever other reasons there may be to part with these Ceremonies the cure of Divisions can be no reason when we certainly know before-hand that this will not cure them unless he thinks the Church bound to act upon such reasons as he himself and every body else knows to be no reason for nothing can be a reason for doing a thing which cannot be obtained by doing it But because our Reconciler attempts to say something to this in his tenth Chapter I shall follow him thither His first Objection is That the Church will gain little by such an Indulgence and this I verily believe to be true Let us hear then what he has to say to it And 1. he takes it for granted that he has already proved it the duty of Superiours to condescend in matters of this nature rather than to debar men from Communion with the Church of Christ for things unnecessary and which they nowhere are commanded to impose and if so let us do our duty and commit the event to God Now I answer 1. I can by no means grant that he has proved this and have in part already and doubt not to make it appear before I have done that he has not proved it But 2. Suppose he had proved that it is the duty of Superiours to condescend in such matters when they can do any good by their condescension has he proved also that it is their duty to condescend when they know they can do no good by it When these Divisions will not be cured by such condescension which is the present case The gaining of some very few Proselytes would not countervail the mischief of altering publick Constitutions though we should suppose it reasonable to condescend to such alterations when we can propose any great and publick good by doing it II. Our Reconciler answers Suppose that we by yielding in these matters should not reduce one of the Tribe of our dissenting Brethren yet should we take off their most plausible pretences and leave them nothing which could be rationally offered as a ground of Separation or accusation of our proceedings against them I doubt not but our Dissenters despise this Reconciler in their hearts for thinking that they have no plausible pretences nor rational grounds of Separation but the Dispute about Ceremonies What pretences then have the Dissenters in Scotland where none of these things are imposed And are they more quiet and peaceable or less clamorous in their Complaints than our Dissenters in England For whose sake shall the Church make this Experiment with the loss of their own Orders and Constitutions for the sake of Dissenters And what charity is it to them to discover their obstinacy and hypocrisie and render them more inexcusable to God and men Is it to satisfie our selves that the Dissenters are a sort of peevish and obstinate Schismaticks who will make Divisions without any just pretence or reason for it We know this already we know they have no rational grounds for their Separation though these Ceremonies be not removed Or do we think to stop their mouths and escape their reproaches and censures As if any man could stop the mouth of a Schismatick or make him blush Those who are resolved to continue Schismaticks will always find something to say for it and let them talk on the true Sons of the Church will defend her Constitutions with more reason than Dissenters reproach them III. However he says This will intirely stop the mouths of the Layety and if they be gained their Preachers must follow But who told him this I am sure Mr. Baxter often complains that their Layety is so headstrong and stubborn that they cannot govern them and in all my observation I find that they are as fond of Schism as zealous against Liturgies and Bishops as obstinately addicted to the peculiar Opinions and Practices of their Party as their Preachers are though I am of our Reconciler's mind that their Preachers will sooner follow their People to Church than the People their Preachers But with what face can our Reconciler say That these Ceremonies chiefly debar the Layety from full Communion with us when every one knows the contrary They can communicate with us notwithstanding these Ceremonies when they please and when they can serve any interest by it and their Preachers can give them leave to do so and is it not an admirable reason for altering the establish'd Constitutions of a Church to gratifie such humoursome Schismaticks who can conform when they please IV. He adds They who at first dissented from the Constitution of our Church declared they did it purely upon the account of these things i. e. the Ceremonies still used among us This now is a mistake in History for the first dislike that was taken against our Church was for the square Cap and Tippet and some Episcopal habitâ— which are not talked of in our days and some of which were used in the Universities without scruple in the late blessed times of Reformation But the use of these Ceremonies was never scrupled till Queen Elizabeth's days which was the fruit of the former Heats at Francford during the Marian Persecution and these men indeed did dissent as our Reconciler expresses it that is they expressed their dislike of these things but they did not separate upon it The first that made any steps to Separation set up other pretences complained for want of a right Ministry a right Government in the Church according to the Scriptures without which there can be no right Religion which are the pretences of our Separatists at this day Well but suppose what he says to be true what reason is this for altering our Ceremonies at this day Will our Separatists conform now if these Ceremonies are taken away That he dares not say but we shall gain this by it That it will appear that they are not the genuine Off-spring of the old dissenting Protestants As if any man but a Reconciler were to learn that now when it has been so often proved upon them and they themselves scorn and huff at the Argument and will not have the old Puritans made a President for them V. In the Treaty at the Savoy the abatement of the Ceremonies and the alteration of some disputable passages in the Liturgie was all that was contended for That is he means the Dispute went no farther but if they had gained these points we should then have heard more of them I am sure whoever reads their Petition for Peace will find all the Principles of Mr. Baxter's
case if they follow the direction of their own minds they do no injury to any body but themselves in an unnecessary restraint of their own liberty but neither offend God by it nor hurt men but if they act contrary to what they believe to be their Duty in compliance with others they sin in it for every mans private Conscience is his onely Rule where there is no other Law to govern him The Case of the Dissenters THe Dispute between Dissenters and the Church of England is concerning the use of indifferent Rites and Ceremonies in Religious Worship The scruples of Dissenters are not grounded on any express Law acknowledged by all Parties to be a divine Law but are occasioned by their ignorance and perverting of the holy Scriptures and obstinacy against better instruction The Dissenters cannot produce any plain positive Law which is oâ— ever was in force against the Ceremonies of our Church and so have no reasonable pretence to be offended The weakness of Dissenters is not a weakness in the Faith for they firmly believe the Christian Religion but at best a weakness of understanding which is not to be indulged but to be rectified by wise Instructions and prudent Restraints unless we think that every ignorant Christian must give Laws to the Church and impose his own ignorant and childish prejudices Whatever offence the Dissenters take at our Ceremonies it is not pretended that the imposition of them tempts them to renounce Christianity but onely is an occasion of their Schism and makes them forsake the Church for a Conventicle But this is no reason at all in it self for any indulgence and forbearance to be sure is vastly different from the case of the Jews for by the same reaâ—on there must be no Authority and Government in the Church or no exercise of it lest those who will not obey should turn Schismaticks But now besides that it is absolutely impossible for those to receive one another to Communion without mutual offence and scandal who observe such different Rites and Modes of Worship of which more anon God has never by any such visible signs declared that Dissenters should be received to Communion notwithstanding their disobedience to the Authority and non-conformity to the Worship of the Church For as for our Reconciler's invisible communion with God which he grants to his beloved Dissenters who refuse the Communion of the Church St. Paul never thought of it and no body can tell how our Reconciler should know it especially if Schism as he asserts be a damning sin for no man in a state of damnation which it seems is the case of Schismaticks can be in Communion with God But when the Church judges and censures and excommunicates those who refuse to conform to her Worship she does nothing but what she has authority to do for all private Christians are subject to the Authority of the Church in such matters as God has not determined by his own Authority But though our Dissenters pretend Conscience as the reason of their non-conformity yet these pretences are vain and not to be allowed of because there is no plain positive Law of God against it and neither Governours nor private Christians are concerned to take notice of or to make any allowance for every mans private Fancies and Opinions especially in matters of publick Worship which would bring eternal confusions and diâ—orders into the Church There is a great difference between mens doing any thing to the Lord and following their own Consciences or private Opinions the first requires a plain and express Law for our Rule which will justifie or excuse what we do both to God and men but mens private Consciences if they misguide them may deserve our pity but cannot challenge our indulgence Our Reconciler exhorts the Governours of the Church not to exercise their Authority in prescribing the Rules of Order and Decency for publick Worship for fear of offending Dissenters But the Dispute between the Church and Dissenters is of a different consideration it does not concern the exercise of a private liberty wherein all Christians ought to be very prudent and charitable but the exercise of publick Government and the publick administration of Religious Offices which must be governed by other measures than a private charity It is not in the power of private Christians to dispense in such matters as these nor absolutely in the power of Church-Governours who are obliged to take care of the Order and Decency of publick Worship whoever takes offence at it And therefore this cannot relate to indulgence and forbearance in the external Rites and Ceremonies of Religion wherein Religion is nearly concerned for though they be not Acts yet they are the Circumstances of Worship wherein the external Decency of Worship consists which is as necessary as external Worship is And therefore cannot refer to the publick Ceremonies of Religion which if they be practised at all must be practised publickly because they concern the publick acts of Worship There is no avoiding offence in this case by dissembling our Faith or by a private exercise of our liberty but Governours must part with their authority and private Christians with their liberty in such matters which the Apostle nowhere requires any man to do no not to avoid offence Now though our Dissenters pretend that it is against their Consciences to conform to the Ceremonies of the Church and our Reconciler pleads this in their behalf as a sufficient reason why they ought to be indulged yet this is not a good Argument in the case of Dissenters though it was in the case of the Jews because their mistakes do not meerly concern the exercise of their private liberty but publick Worship which is not left to the conduct of every mans private Conscience but to the direction and government of the Laws of God and men And though it be reasonable to leave men to the government of their own Consciences where there is no other Law yet there is no reason for it where there is for if they sin in acting contrary to their Consciences which no man can force them to do so they sin also in following an erroneous Conscience which Governours ought to hinder if they can This I take to be a sufficient Answer to all our Reconciler's Arguments from that condescension and forbearance which St. Paul exhorts the believing Jews and Gentiles to exercise towards each other because the case is vastly different from the case of our Dissenters The Dispute between the Jew and Gentile was not concerning the use of indifferent Rites and Ceremonies in the Worship of God but about the observation of the Law of Moses and those Arguments which the Apostle uses and which were very proper Arguments in that case can by no parity of reason be applied to the Dispute about indifferent things But there are several other considerations which I have already hinted at which plainly shew how vastly different the case of the Jews
as we may suppose from his own Character of himself by a dignified Clergy-man of our Church And that he also who pleads for separation from Communion with us on account of those few scrupled Ceremonies and disputable Expressions of our Liturgie is sinful and unreasonable as well as mischievous doth also speak the words of truth and soberness or that one should not impose these things as the conditions of Communion and the other should not when they are once imposed refuse Communion upon that account i. e. the Church sins in imposing and the Dissenter sins in disobeying such Impositions The Church is in the right as to the lawfulness of what she imposes but sins in the exercise of her Authority in commanding lawful things The Dissenter is in the right in affirming these Impositions to be the sin of the Imposers and yet sins in not obeying them that is the Dissenter judges aright of the duty of his Superiours but is mistaken in his own And if he can reconcile these things it will be one good step towards a Reconciliation Governours indeed may be over-rigorous and severe in the exercise of a just Authority but I dare not say that they always sin when they are so but that they do not act so wisely or so charitably as they might do For the Wisdom and Charity of Government is so nice a thing and subject to so many difficulties that the case of Governours would be very hard should every mistake in such matters be a sin and Government it self must necessarily lose its Sacredness and Authority if every Subject may censure the Wisdom and Charity of lawful Commands and Impositions and vote them to be mischievous and sinful if they do not agree with his Notions of Prudence and Charity All that Subjects are concerned to enquire about the Commands of their Superiours is concerning the lawfulness or unlawfulness of them if they go any farther they make themselves Governours not Subjects and therefore it is not very modest to condemn the Commands otherwise civilly called Impositions of Superiours as sinful and mischievous when it is lawful to obey them And he who thinks Dissenters do ill in refusing Obedience does not well himself in charging the Church with doing what is sinful and mischievous in imposing But then on the other hand if the Church do sin in imposing she either exceeds her Authority and Commission and so imposes without Authority or else she imposes something unlawful and in either of these cases no man can blame Dissenters for refusing Communion with the Church in such matters For no man is bound to communicate in unlawful things nor to obey where there is no Authority to command And therefore our Reconciler can never reconcile these two Propositions That the Church sins in imposing the Dissenter sins in rejecting such Impositions and in refusing Communion where it cannot be had without submitting to â—hem For though we are bound to submit to the Supreme Powers when they act illegally because we are bound never to resist yet we are not bound to yield an Active Obedience to any illegal Commands but the Church considered as a Church or Ecclesiastical Body having no external and compulsory Authority if she commands what she has no Authority to command no man is bound to obey her and if this occasion a Schism she her self is the Schismatick But to shew how ominously our Reconciler stumbles at the threshold let us state the case a little otherwise The great reason he assignes throughout his Book to prove that the Church sins in these Impositions is that there is a great number of men among us who either scruple the lawfulness or positively afsert the unlawfulness of them and this occasions a Schism in the Church To prevent which the Church is bound in charity to the Souls of men not to command such scrupled and unnecessary Ceremonies and sins if she does Now in this case also the sin and guilt can lie but on one side For if the Dissenters notwithstanding this may and ought to conform to such Impositions then there is no necessity upon that account for the Church to alter her Constitutions nor does she sin in imposing if they may not then the Dissenters do not sin in rejecting such Impositions If some particular Governours are acted by ill principles this contracts a personal guilt on themselves but it neither excuses Dissenters nor affects the Government while they command nothing but what the Church has Authority to command and what may be lawfully obeyed but if the meer scruples of Dissenters will make the Commands of the Church sinful when there is no other fault to be found in her Constitutions but that Disfenters will not obey them this overthrows all government in the Church So that our Reconciler who is resolved to prove both these Propositions that the Church sins in imposing and the Dissenter in breaking Communion for such Impositions will have much ado to reconcile his two Books together One part of his Task is certainly needless for if he can but convince the World of the truth of either part he effectually does the businâ—ss If he can convince the Disâ—enter that he ought to conform to these Impositions the Church may impose without sin or if he can perswade our Governours that it is sinful to impose there is no need to deal with Dissenters and therefore methinks it had savoured of more modesty and greater deference to Authority to have tried his skill upon Dissenters first But our Author by over-doing is like to spoil all For it is very probable he will convince Dissenters of what they believed before that the Church cannot impose such things from whence in spight of all his Logick they will conclude that they are not bound to obey and he will convince the Government that the Dissenter ought to conform and sins in not doing it which justifies their Impositions And thus he ends just where he began Nay could he convince the Church that she ought not to impose upon Dissenters while their scruples last and the Dissenters that they ought not to scruple these things nor disobey them when they are commanded we may expect it will take up some time to adjust the dispute after all this between the Church and the Dissenters which of them shall yield for both sides cannot yield unless we will say that the Church must leave off imposing and then the Dissenters must begin to obey that the Church must no longer command and then the Dissenter is bound to obey when no body commands So that could he effectually prove that the Church and the Dissenter are both guilty of sin the one in imposing the other in refusing Obedience yet I do not see what Reconciliation this is like to make For it is not enough to reconcile two contending Parties to prove that they are both in the fault unless you can propose some middle terms of accommodation or prove that though they are both
should refuse submission to them so have they nothing of real goodness nothing of positive Order Decency or Reverence for which they ought to be commanded Now if he can make this good I am resolved to meddle no farther in this Controversiâ—â— for it is not worth the while to spend Ink and Paper in defence of such Ceremonies as have no positive Order Decency or Reverence for which they ought to be commanded For I am sure no Ceremonies in Religion which do not serve the ends of Orders Decency and Reverence ought to be commanded for that is to trifle in sacred things But let us hear how he explains himself for this is a Proposition which seems to need some explication I call says he that positive Order Decency or Reverence which being done renders the Service more decent reverent and orderly and being undone the Service becomes irreverent indecent and disorderly performed So that my meaning is that if our publick Service were by the Minister performed without the Surplice if Baptism were administred by him without the Cross if the Sacrament of the Lords Supper were administred to such as did not kneel but stand at the receiving of it these actions would not be performed sinfully or with defect of any real goodness which belongs to them nor indecently disorderly or irreverently So that his description of positive Order Reverence and Decency resolves it self into two Propositions That no Ceremonies have any positive Order Decency or Reverence the use of which does not 1 make the Worship more decent reverent and orderly than otherwise it would be i. e. than it would be in the use of any other Ceremonies but those particular Ceremonies about which the Controversie is 〈◊〉 there the fallacy seems to lie And the neglect of which does not 2 make the Worship irreverent indecent and disorderly Now though it is in my nature to be very civil to Reconcilers yet I cannot grant him either of these Propositions As for the first I suppose our Reconciler will grant that it is possible there may be different degrees of Order Decency and Reverence and that religious actions may be performed orderly decently and reverently with some Ceremonies though there may be other Ceremonies more orderly decent and reverent and therefore there may be positive Order Decency and Reverence in those Cemonies the use of which makes the Worship orderly decent and reverent though it does not make it more orderly decent and reverent than otherwise it would be As for the second there may be a less orderly decent and reverent way of performing religious actions which yet cannot strictly be called irreverent indecent or disorderly or there may be several sorts of Ceremonies which may equally contribute to the reverent decent or orderly performance of religious actions and then the neglect of any one sort of Ceremonies may not make the action indecent irreverent or disorderly while we use other Ceremonies equally reverent or decent and therefore it cannot be true as he affirms that no Ceremonies have any positive Order Decency or Reverence which being undone the Service is not irreverently indecently and disorderly performed As to explain this by his own instances The Surplice may be a very decent Garment for Religious Offices and it may be the most decent of any other and yet the Worship may not be performed indecently without the Surplice if the Minister officiate in some other decent Garment but should he leave off the Surplice and put on a Colliers Frock or a Buff-coat I should think It very indecent and irreverent what the Reconciler would think I cannot tell Thus the Cross in Baptism does very much contribute to the gravity and solemnity of the action and yet Baptism is compleat and perfect without it and may be administred very reverently and decently if all other due circumstances be observed Kneeling is a posture very expressive of our Reverence and Devotion and therefore very proper for so sacred an action as receiving the Lords Supper but standing and prostration are expressive of Reverence and Devotion also and therefore those who do not kneel but stand when they receive cannot be charged with irreverence But now will any man in his wits say that there is no positive Order Decency or Reverence in a Surplice or the Cross in Baptism or kneeling at the Lords Supper because it is possible that these religious actions may be performed decently with other decent Ceremonies or Circumstances without them But our Reconciler though he may be a very charitable man yet is not very honest but manifestly puts tricks upon his Readers otherwise why does he oppose standing at the Lords Supper to kneeling and not rather sitting which is the onely posture used by our Dissenters The French Protestants indeed receive standing but what is that to our Dissenters who would no more receive standing than kneeling for the same Objections which they urge against kneeling are as good against standing That it was not the posture used by Christ at the institution of this Sacrament That it is not a Table-posture and therefore not proper at a Feast That it is used as a posture of Worship and therefore they may worship the Host as well standing as kneeling for if it be not used as a posture of Worship it is no more expressive of Reverence than sitting Now why does not our Reconciler say that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper may be received as reverently sitting as kneeling but instâ—ad of sitting which is the case of our Dissenters whose Cause he undertakes puts in standing I can imagine no other reason but onely this That he was very sensible that sitting was no reverend posture nor used by them as a posture of Worship for then it is liable to the same Objections as kneeling is for they might worship the Host as well sitting as kneeling and yet if they do not worship sitting they confess that they do not worship Christ no more than the Host when they approach the Lords Table and therefore he puts in standing which is not kneeling indeed and yet is expressive of Reverence And is not this a plain confession that the onely case wherein decent and reverent Ceremonies may be neglected and yet the Worship not be indecent and irreverent is when other decent and reverent Ceremonies are used in their room but if they lay aside reverent Ceremonies and use irreverent ones the Worship becomes irreverent also The external Decency and Reverence of religious actions consists in the Reverence and Decency of those Circumstances and Ceremonies wherewith they are performed Where there is choice of such decent Modes and Ceremonies of Worship the neglect of any one decent and reverent Mode or Ceremony cannot make the action irreverent or undecent but the neglect of all does Had our Reconciler said that all those Ceremonies had a positive Order Decency and Reverence without some or other of which the Worship would be indecently irreverently or disorderly performed he