disadvantage of so many Souls as are made Schismaticks upon this account Let us then briefly consider what likeness or affinity there is between these two cases 1. The Fasts of which the Dispute is here are private and voluntary Fasts such as men imposed upon themselves or observed in imitation of their Sect and Party or in obedience to the directions of their several Masters Christ imposed no such Fasts upon his Disciples therefore the Governours of the Church must not prescribe the Rites and Ceremonies of publick Worship though in such matters Christ conformed himself and taught his Disciples to conform to the Rules and Orders of their Synagogues which were all as much of humane institution as our Ceremonies are which is an admirable way of arguing The observing or not observing private and voluntary Fasts though it might offend some superstitious Pharisees was no affront to publick Authority nor made any alteration or confusion in publick Worship and therefore was not of that consequence whatever our Reconciler thinks as dissenting from publick Constitutions This Christ never indulged his Disciples in nor has the Church any reason to do it 2. This Indulgence was but temporary during our Saviour's abode with them on Earth but he tells them when he should be taken from them then they should fast And the ancient Writers look upon this saying to be a kind of Institution of the Quadrigesimal Fast and will our Reconciler argue â—rom a short Indulgence for a year or two granted to the Disciples by Christ to prove a perpetual Indulgence to the end of the World to be granted to Dissenters For if his Arguments are good they will last for ever Christ did not intend that his Disciples should be always Children nor has he imposed upon his Church to indulge such childish weakness and fancies for ever 3. Fasting was a very severe duty very afflictive both to mind and body and therefore there might be some reason for our Saviour to forbear commanding it for some time But what severity is there in the Ceremonies of our Church What mighty trouble is it to kneel at the Sacrament What offence is a white Linnen garment to the eye What disturbance does the signe of the Cross made with the gentle motion of the finger cause But though these Ceremonies are not grievous in themselves yet they are burdensom to the Conscience Let him shew then that our Saviour had any regard in this to a doubtful or scrupulous Conscience and I will grant it a good proof How could any Jew scruple the lawfulness of fasting which was so often commanded and recommended in their Law I am sure all the ancient Writers take notice onely of the severity of the Duty not of its burdensomness to the Conscience as the reason of our Saviour's Indulgence Well but he tells us that Theophylact and St. Chrysostom say That herein Christ gave them a Rule that when they should convert the World they also should condescend and behave themselves towards them with the greatest meekness Whether Christ intended this or not in what he now said to be sure it is a good Rule and that which the Apostles carefully observed they indulged the believing Jews in the observation of the Mosaical Law and bore with many weaknesses and infirmities both in Jews and Gentiles But did this meekness extend to suffer every man to worship God as he pleased Did they prescribe no Rules or Orders or Ceremonies of Worship Or did they prescribe such Rules without exacting obedience to them Did they suffer any Christians to dispute their Authority in such cases And was it thought an act of meekness and gentleness to do so It is strange then that it should never be thought so in after-Ages wherein the Church exercised an absolute and uncontroulable Power in all such matters and no Christian ever pretended to dispute their Authority But the Prophet Isaiah describes our Saviour as one who will not break the bruised reed nor quench the smoaking flax and who will gather his lambs with his arm and carry them in his bosom and shall gently lead those that are with young Well we readily grant that our Saviour was the most kind and gentle Master that ever was but does this signifie that he would give no Laws about Worship Or that if any person scrupled these Laws he would not insist upon it but give them their liberty to worship God as they pleased If Christ was a kind and merciful Lord without this his Ministers also may exercise great lenity and gentleness without prostituting their Authority or the Worship of God to the ignorance or giddiness or frowardness of Professors Christ gave very easie and gentle Laws instructed his Hearers with great mildness and calmness bore their dulness and infidelity their indignities and affronts with admirable patience convers'd even with Publicans and Sinners to gain them to repentance encouraged the least beginnings and cherish'd the first and weak Essays of Faith but if they would be his Disciples he expected they should submit to his Authority and Laws and still expects that they should submit to that Authority he has plac'd in his Church And if Church-Governours use this mildness and gentleness in their Laws and in their behaviour though they assert their own Authority and exact obedience to their Laws they need not fear the censure of the Shepherds of Israel which our Reconciler so charitably threatens them with The diseased have you not strengthned neither have you healed that which was sick neither have you bound up that which was broken neither have you brought again that which was driven away neither have you sought that which was lost III. His next Argument is a wonderful one That Christ took compassion on the Iews as Sheep without a Shepherd that he went about preaching himself that he sent his Disciples to preach that he commands his Disciples to pray that God would send forth more Labourers into his Harvest The Query then is Whether they do conform to this Example or the matter of this Prayer who do exclude so many Servants of the Lord from labouring in his Harvest for a thing indifferent Truly I think they may though they excluded the Reconciler into the bargain for thanks be to God it is not now with us asit was in our Saviour's days at the first preaching of the Gospel God has now sent out numerous Labourers into his Vineyard men of Learning Piety and Diligence more indeed than there is entertainment or employment for And the Christian Church notwithstanding this Prayer of our Saviour never scrupled casting Schismatical Presbyters out of Christ's Vineyard But has our Reconciler the face to say that they are shut out meerly for indifferent things when they themselves give another account of it Renouncing of the Covenant kept them out a great while Reordination Episcopal Government a National Church Liturgies c. and are all these indifferent things But the dissenting Preachers
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
this I must a little more particularly examine what he means by receiving the weak for though our Reconciler and I agree that this signifies to receive to Communion yet I find we differ very much about that what is meant by receiving to Communion as will appear from a long Paragraph wherein he opposes Dr. Falkner about this matter which seems to me to be the very perfection and quintessence of Gibberish By receiving one another I understand owning each other as Members of the same Body i. e. of the same Christian Communion a necessary consequence or duty of which is actually to communicate with each other in all acts of Christian Worship or as Dr. Falkner expresses it in other words That they ought to be owned and judged as Christians notwithstanding these different observations He forbiddeth the weaker Iews to condemn the other Iews or Gentiles as if they were not possess'd with the fear of God because they observed not the Law of Moses and prohibiteth those others from despising or disowning these weaker Iews as not having embraced Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 3. signifying here so to despise as withal to reject and disclaim as Mark 9.12 Acts. 4.11 1 Cor. 1.28 because they observed the Rites of Iudaism And therefore he adds That if by a parity of Reason we will apply this to any other case it must be to condemn them who press their own practices or judgments in things unnecessary as being the essential and necessary points of Religion and Christianity and thereupon do undertake to censure all those who differ from them in such lesser things as having no true Religion or inward relation to or communion with Iesus Christ though they live never so conscientiously and act according to the best apprehensions they can attain What now has our Reconciler to say to this why this is not the true sence of receiving them to own them for Christians as Members of the Body of Christ and such as they ought actually to communicate with Why he says This is tacitly presumed in all the Apostle's Arguments and without that concession they are not cogent and of this the miraculous gifts of the Spirit with which both parties were endowed were a sufficient testimony but he declares that they were to be received into communion and that because God had received them He doth not only forbid the strong to disown these weak persons as not having embraced Christ for they who thus conceived most suitably unto that Principle deny what the Apostle here asserts of these weak persons viz. that God had received them that they were Christian Brethren or that Christ died for them or that they were the work of God and so all the Apostles Arguments must be to men of such opinions weak and unconcluding but he declares that they should joyn with them in Christian Fellowship or should admit them into Communion with them as God did with him And having repeated over the same thing again almost in the same words he concludes Therefore the designe of the Apostle in this Chapter plainly is to condemn those persons who for these things did take upon them to despise judge and refuse Communion with those who differed thus in judgment and practice from them The meaning of which is that both Jews and Gentiles did own each other to be very good Christians and Members of the same Church and Body of Christ notwithstanding that one observed the Law of Moses and the other did not but yet they had taken a pique against each other for these different customs and would not receive each other to actual Communion though there was nothing else to hinder this actual Communion but the dispute about the observation of the Law which by their own confession was no hindrance at all since they did believe that those who observed it and those who did not observe it were both of them very good Christians Which is so ridiculous a Comment upon the Text that I could wish it had been spared for the credit of Protestant Reconcilers But the onely way to end this Dispute is by considering the plain matter of fact Now it is evident that the Jews did look upon all persons as unclean who were not circumcised and did not observe the Law For which reason God instructed Peter by a Vision not to call any man common or unclean and the believing Jews retained the same apprehensions even of the believing Gentiles after this matter was determined by the Synod at Ierusalem as is evident from that Contest between St. Peter and St. Paul at Antioch which is generally supposed to be after the Council at Ierusalem The opinion the Jews had about the Law was that the observation of it was necessary to salvation So the Jews taught the Brethren at Antioch Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses ye cannot be saved which occasioned the determination of the Council at Ierusalem Thus it is evident the Jews at Rome to whom the Apostle wrote this Epistle did believe also and therefore the designe of the Epistle is to prove justification by the Faith of Christ without the works of the Mosaical Law Now men of such Perswasions as these could not believe the Gentiles to be perfect Christians because they rejected something w ch they thought as essential as any thing else in Christianity viz. Circumcision and the observation of the Law and for this reason they judged and condemned them as no Members of the Church which they could not be without being incorporated by Circumcision and observing the Law and therefore rejected them from their Communion As for the Gentiles though we do not read that they ever rejected the Communion of the Jews who observed the Law yet this Chapter would perswade us that at this time they were very near it at Rome and therefore the Command to receive the weak seems to be given to the Gentile believers who were most numerous and prevalent at Rome to receive the Jewish Christians into their Communion and not to despise the weak not to reject them out of contempt and scorn as a sort of such imperfect Christians as scarce deserved the name of Christians but were still more the Disciples of Moses than of Christ. So that the reason why both Jews and Gentiles were apt to reject each other from Communion was because those who did so had no opinion of each others Christianity for it is both a contradiction to the account we have of those times and absurd in it self that they should believe one another to be goodChristians and yet refuse to joyn in Christian Communion upon such Disputes as did neither hinder their Communion with each other nor prejudice their Christianity which is as humoursome a Schism as Dissenters themselves are guilty of and such as there is no Example of in the first Ages of the Church But says our Reconciler Were the designes of the Apostle that which
be said to do what they do to the Lord but onely in such cases where there is a divine positive Law or a divine Indulgence permission or liberty on both sides which was the case between the Jews and Gentiles but has no parallel that I know of Our Dissenters indeed pretend the authority of Scripture to justifie their non-observance of Ecclesiastical Rites and Ceremonies and so did the Jews for putting our Saviour to death so do all Hereticks and Schismaticks and even Rebels themselves and if the Government must take notice of every foolish Reasoner who pretends Scripture it is in as ill a case as if every unscriptural Dream and Fancy must pass for an Oracle This will make no difference before God whether men pervert the Scripture to their own destruction or follow the wild Enthusiasms of their own brains and I see no reason that Governours have to make a difference neither By these Arguments St. Paul perswades the believing Jews and Gentiles at Rome notwithstanding their Disputes about the observation of the Law of Moses to maintain Christian communion with each other and they are very proper to this purpose but can by no parity of Reason be applied to the case of our Dissenters as I hope abundantly appears from what I have already discours'd Secondly The Apostle by these Arguments having perswaded them to receive one another to Christian communion proceeds to perswade the Gentile Converts or those strong Jewish Christians who understood their Christian liberty not to give any needless offence and scandal to the weak by an uncharitable use of their liberty from v. 13. to the end of the Chapter These two to receive into communion and not to give offence and scandal are of a very different consideration though our Reconciler makes no distinction between them and therefore I shall briefly state this matter also and shew how remote it is from the case to which our Reconciler applies it The scandal which he supposes the Church gives to the Dissenters is this That by enjoyning the use of some indifferent Ceremonies in Religion which are scrupled by them or condemned as unlawful she tempts them to separate from her Communion and rather to involve themselves in the guilt of Schism than to submit to such unscriptural Impositions Let us then consider what that Scandal is of which St. Paul speaks and by what Arguments he disswades them from it and how â—ar it is applicable to our case 1. Then I shall consider what this Scandal was 2. By what Arguments he disswades them from giving Offence and Scandal First What this Scandal was Now the persons who were scandalized were the weak that which gave this scandal to them was as they apprehended an open contempt and violation of the Law of God in eating such meats as were on all hands agreed to be forbidden by the Law the danger of this scandal was lest it should tempt them to renounce Christianity Let us then compare this with the case of our Dissenters 1. The weak Jew was scandalized and offended So far you 'll say the Parallel holds good for whatever the Dissenters think of themselves I suppose the Church looks upon them as a sort of weak Christians and it is not what they think but what they are which is to be considered in this case for these Jews did not think themselves weak no more than our Dissenters do and yet the Apostle declares them to be weak and requires the strong to treat them as weak Brethren So far I agree but then we must consider what this weakness was for all weakness is not alike nor equally the object of our charity Some men are weak because they are ignorant and because they will not be instructed others are weak out of prejudice and some vicious inclinations some weakness is to be chastised and corrected not indulged and therefore because St. Paul requires them not to offend the weak Jew it does not follow that the Church must use the same Indulgence to the weak Dissenters unless their weakness be alike pityable Now the weakness of the Jew consisted in this that though they had embraced the Faith of Christ yet they were not convinced that the Law of Moses was out of date and therefore durst not do any thing which was forbidden by that Law nor omit doing what the Law commanded nor could they endure to see others do so so that their weakness consisted in a profound reverence for an express positive Law which all men agâ—eed was given by God but which was not yet repealed in so visible a manner as to satiâ—fie the believing Jews that it was repealed Now this was a very favourable case so favourable that God himself still indulged the Jews in the observation of their Law and therefore there was great reason why the strong Christian should avoid giving offence to the weak by the use of his Christian liberty But now this is such a case as never was before and never can be again Our Dissenters may be weak but not weak as the believing Jews were out of reverence to an express positive Law because there is no such Law which ever did forbid the use of those Ceremonies which they condemn and certainly there cannot be the same pretence to indulge those who foolishly reason themselves into mistakes and scruples as there was to indulge those who could produce a plain positive Law to justifie their dissent The case is so vastly different that I doubt not but St. Paul who pleaded for such Charity and Indulgence to the Jews would himself have censured our Dissenters For both the Governours of the Church and private Christians are in an ill state if they are bound to humour those mistakes and scruples which are owing to mens ignorance folly interest prejudice or unteachable and refractory dispositions 2. These weak Jews took offence at the open violation of an express Law of God For the Gentile Christians did not observe the Law of Moses but acted in direct opposition to it Now this was a just matter of offence to the Jew while he retained such a great veneration for the Law of Moses which at least he had some fair appearance of reason to do It is true the strong Christian in eating those things which were forbidden by the Law of Moses did nothing but what was lawful for him to do but it does not hence follow as our Reconciler infers that the scandal the weak Christian took at the freedom of the strong who used his Christian liberty in eating these things was scandalum acceptum non datum scandal received but not given the action being such as the weak Christian could not justly be offended at For the weak Christian had as much reason to be offended at this as he had to believe that the Law of Moses was still in force and this was the true reason of his offence No man can be justly charged with giving offence or scandal who does
meats is perfectly taken away by the Gospel of our Saviour and therefore if we be well instructed in the nature of our Christian liberty we may eat or not eat just as we please and therefore there is nothing in the nature of the thing to hinder the exercise of our charity because it is wholly at our own choice whether we will eat or not eat And this makes it a great breach of charity to eat with offence to destroy our Brother with our meat for whom Christ died 15 16 v. Which may justly cause our Christian liberty which is a very good and valuable thing in it to be censured and condemned on all hands when it is used so uncharitably to the destruction of our Brother and therefore let not your good be evil spoken of v. 16. And as there is nothing in the nature of the thing to hinder our charity it being equally lawful to eat or not to eat and perfectly at our own choice which we will do so neither is Religion concerned one way or other in it The Christian Religion indeed is concerned in theDispute about the lawfulnessof eating or not eating such things as were forbid by the Law of Moses because this is a point of Christian liberty and the Apostle does not perswade the Gentile Converts to renounce this liberty which the Gospel allows them but bare eating or not eating without respect to our opinions about it is of no consequence in Religion we are neither the better Christians if we do eat nor the worse Christians if we do not For the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink The Gospel of our Saviour prescribes no Laws about the quality of our diet and therefore it is no part of the Christian Religion to eat or to forbear The liberty of eating indifferently of all things is allowed by the Gospel but the act of eating is neither commanded nor forbid and therefore is no duty of Religion But though the Gospel do not give us any direct and positive command about eating or not eating yet there are some duties which are essential to the Gospel wherein the life and spirit of Christianity consists which in some cases may be a collateral restraint upon the exercise of our liberty for the Kingdom of God is righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost And therefore it is an essential duty of Christianity to deal kindly and compassionately with our fellow-Christians to promote the Peace and Unity of the Church and that Spiritual Joy and Delight which Christian Brethren ought to take in each other in the Communion of the same Church and the joynt Worship of their common Father and Saviour These are the things which are most pleasing to our great Master and have so much natural goodness as recommends them to the approbaâ—ion of all men for he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approved of men and therefore in the use of our Christian liberty we must be sure to have this Rule always in our eye To follow after the things which make for peace and things wherewith one may edifie another And therefore though the Gospel has taken away all distinctions of meats and given us free leave to eat of every thing yet since it is not matter of duty in all times and in all places and companies to eat such meats as were formerly forbidden by the Law and since we know that to do so gives great offence and scandal to the weak Jews without serving any end at all in Religion and therefore is directly contrary to those essential Duties of Love and Charity Unity and Peace and mutual Edification let us not so much insist on our Christian liberty in the use of meats as to destroy the work of God for though no meats are now unclean but all things all kind of diet is now pure and lawful yet it is a very evil thing for any man by his eating such meat as his weak Brother thinks unclean to give offence and scandal to him It is good much better neither to eat flesh nor drink wine nor any thing of the like nature whereby thy brother stumbleth or is offended or is made weak discouraged in his Christian course and tempted to apostatize from the Faith of Christ. But besides this as it is purely in our choice to eat or not to eat there being no Law to require either and neither eating nor not eating is in it self considered of any concernment to Religion so it is no injury at all to thy Christian liberty to forbear eating in compliance with the weakness of thy Brother Hast thou Faith Dost thou believe thou mayst eat indifferently of all meats Believe so still and use this liberty privately when it may be done without offence but thou art under no necessity of publishing this belief nor of acting according to it in all companies but have this faith to thy self before God This Faith makes it lawful for thee to eat but then thou must take great care that thou dost not do a lawful thing in such a manner as to make it become sin to thee that is thou must not eat how lawful soever it be in it self with the scandal and offence of thy weak Brother which makes it very unlawful Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth who does not do a good action in so ill a manner as to bring condemnation upon himself But then as thy believing it lawful for thee to eat does not make it necessary to eat nor lawful in all circumstances when it is done with offence and scandal so much less does thy believing it lawful to eat make it lawful for thy weak Brother to eat for if the Jewish Christian who doubteth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who stills makes a distinction between meats and believes it unlawful to eat such meats as are forbidden by the Law of Moses if he notwithstanding this eat such forbidden meats he is damned self-condemned by his own Conscience for doing that which he believes to be unlawful for whatever is not of faith done with a full perswasion of the lawfulness of it is sin and therefore thou oughtest not to judge and cenâ—ure and reproach thy weak Brother in such cases but to bear with him and to avoid giving him any scandal or offence This I take to be the true sence of St. Paul's reasoning in this place to perswade the Gentile Christians not to give offence to the Jewish Converts by eating meats forbidden by the Law and it seems to me to contain the plainest and easiest determination of the case of Scandal which I shall therefore briefly review and inquire how applicable it is to the case of indifferent things in the Worship of God to which our Reconciler applies it 1. First then I observe that the Apostles discourse in this place can be extended no farther than to forbid offering scandal and offence in the exercise
was from that of our Dissenters For 3. Another material difference between that Indulgence St. Paul granted to believing Jews with respect to the Law of Moses and that liberty our Reconciler exacts from the Church for Dissenters is this that the first had no influence upon Christian Worship it neither destroyed the uniformity of Worship nor divided the Communion of the Church but the second must do one or t'other or both which is such a liberty or forbearance as St. Paul never did and never would allow The believing Jews thought themselves still obliged to observe that difference of clean and unclean meats which was prescribed by the Law and to celebrate the Jewish Festivals and this liberty might be granted them without dividing the Communion of the Christian Church or disturbing Christian Worship for whatever private rules of Diet they observed believing Jews and Gentiles might all worship God together according to the common Principles of Christianity and therefore the Apostle exhorts the Romans to receive those who were weak in the Faith that is to receive them to Christian Communion to worship God together in Christian Assemblies This account the Learned Dr. Stillingfleet gave of this matter This being matter of Diet and relating to their own Families the Apostle advises them not to censure or judge one another but notwithstanding this difference to joyn together as Christians in the Duties common to them all For the Kingdom of God doth not lie in meats and drinks Let every one order his Family as he thinks fit but that requires innocency and a care not to give disturbance to the Peace of the Church for these matters which he calls Peace and Ioy in the Holy Ghost which is provoked and grieved by the Dissentions of Christians And he saith he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approved of men Let us therefore follow after the things that make for peace and things wherewith we may edifie one another In such cases then the Apostle allows of no separation from the publick Communion of Christians This our Reconciler very gravely smiles at As if the business here discours'd of were onely matter of Diet relating to their own Families and the command of the Apostle Him that is weak in Faith receive did onely signifie Let him dine with you This with submission to that Learned Person I judge a most unlikely thing for what great cause of scandal could their private Dinners give to a weak Brother unless they search'd into their Kitchins or had a Bill of Fare sent in from every Christian Family This is such leud trifling with a Great man and in a serious Cause as I leave to the censure of every sober Christian. For did not the Laws concerning clean and unclean meats respect their ordinary Diet in their own Families Was it not sufficiently known without a Bill of Fare that the Jews did observe these Laws Did not this occasion great Heats and Animosities Judgings and Censurings of one another Did not some both Jews and Gentiles separate from each other upon these accounts and disturb the Peace and divide the Communion of the Church Does not the Dean expound receiving the weak by joyning together as Christians in the Duties common to them all Cannot we expound meats of their ordinary Diet in their private Families without expounding Receive him that is weak by Let him dine with you And yet whereas he says What great cause of scandal could their private Dinners give to a weak Brother unless they search'd into their Kitchins or had a Bill of Fare sent 〈◊〉 from every Christian Family I readily grant they could give none Nor does the Apostâ—e command the Gentile Christians to abstain from such meats in their private Families when no body was preâ—ent who took offence at it but onely not to use this liberty publickly nor in their private Families neither if any believing Jew happened to be present who was offended at it Well but our Reconciler thinks it most probable that the Apostle speaks of eating in the Idol-Temples Suppose this were so it does not alter the state of the case if they did not eat there as an Act of Worship to the Idol but as at a common Feast And whether it be private or publick eating it is all one if it be innocent it has no influence upon Christian Worship and therefore cannot break Church-Communion while men forbear one another in such matters And yet it is evident the Apostle cannot here mean eating at the Idol-Temple but their ordinary Diet. For this whole Epistle to the Romans concerns the Dispute about the obligation of the Law of Moses as I have already observed and as our Reconciler acknowledges to be the general sence of ancient and modern Expositors concerning this very Chapter But our Author proceeds The Apostle does not onely speak of meats but also of observing days v. 6. Now that was not a matter of Diet but of publick Worship taught in the fourth Commandment And so the Dean acknowledges For some Christians went then on Iewish Holy days to the Synagogues others did not but for such things they ought not to divide from each others Communion in the common Acts of Christian Worship Their going to the Synagogues on Jewish Holy days did not hinder their Communion in Christian Worship and therefore they ought not to break Communion on such accounts But now these Controversies about Religious Ceremonies do wholly concern Christian Worship it is not what Clothes men shall ordinarily wear what Diet they shall use or how they shall behave themselves in other matters of a like nature wherein a great latitude and variety may be allowed without any breach of Christian Charity and Communion but how we shall worship God in the publick Assemblies of Christians whether the Minister who officiates shall wear a white Linnen Garment whether the Child that is baptized shall be signed with the sign of the Cross whether Christians who communicate at the Lords Table shall receive the consecrated Bread and Wine kneeling sitting or standing Now I would fain know of our Reconciler how it appears that these two are parallel cases or by what Logick he can fairly argue from one to the other That because the Apostle grants a liberty and indulgence to the Jews in such things as do not concern Christian Worship therefore the same liberty must be granted in the Acts of Worship it self though it must either destroy the Uniformity of Worship or divide the Unity of the Church especially considering that he has not produced and I am sure cannot any one instance of such indulgence granted to private Christians to dissent from the publick Rules of Worship and Constitutions of the Church and if he cannot shew any thing of this nature all his other Scripture-proofs are nothing to our Case And that these cases are so different that we cannot argue from one to the other I shall
the Idols Temple and then the sound Christian was to forbear for fear of encouraging such weak Christians in their Idolatry for they might apprehend it as lawful to sacrifice to an Idol as to eat of the Sacrifice and as lawful to eat of the Sacrifice in the Idols Temple as in a private house And thus the use of their innocent liberty in eating what is set before them without scruple might confirm such men in their Idolatrous practices and for that reason they were to forbear And it is probable enough that St. Paul might have respect to all these from what he adds v. 32. Give none offence neither to the Iew nor to the Gentile nor to the Church of God Not to the Jew who had a great abhorrence of Idolatry by doing any thing which should make them suspect you of the least approach to Idolatry which would confirm them in their aversion to Christianity not to the Gentile by confirming them in their Idolatry not to the Church of God by scandalizing either weak or scrupulous Christians much less by scandalizing the Christian Profession as the Gnosticks did by eating in the Idols Temple But how any thing of all this makes to our Reconciler's purpose I cannot see that which comes nearest the business is if we suppose that the Apostle commands them to abstain for the sake of those who scrupled the lawfulness of such meats but then this forbearance was only in the exercise of their private liberty in eating or not eating wherein Religion is not immediately concerned for though it were lawful to eat of such meats yet it was not their duty to do it their eating in it self considered did not please God though they eat without scandal much less when their eating was an offence to weak Christians Meat commendeth us not to God for neither if we eat are we the better neither if we eat not are we the worse as he had before told the Romans The Kingdom of God is not meat and drink and therefore in such cases it became them to exercise great charity in the use of their liberty But how little this makes to our Reconciler's purpose I have already shewn at large in the fifth Chapter and our Reconciler has offered nothing new here to deserve a new Answer All that remains to be considered in this Chapter is the Example of St. Paul himself which may be answered in a very few words He exercised great charity and forbearance both towards Jews and Gentiles and therefore being so great an Apostle ought to be an Example of the like forbearance to all succeeding Bishops and Pastors of the Church Now if our Reconciler can prove from the Example of St. Paul that the Governours of the Church ought not to prescribe the decent Rites and Ceremonies of Religion or ought to alter and abolish them in charity and condescension to Dissenters I will yield the Cause Let us then consider what St. Paul's condescension was and I observe in general that he was an Example of the same condescension and forbearance which he perswaded other private Christians to exercise and therefore if that charity and forbearance which he exhorts the Christians to exercise towards each other does not overthrow Ecclesiastical Authority nor plead for the Indulgence and Toleration of Dissenters then St. Paul's Example cannot do this neither This will appear from considering particulars In this Epistle to the Corinthians he perswades them not to eat meats offered to Idols especially in an Idols Temple for fear of offending and scandalizing weak Christians and this he tells them he would observe himself Wherefore if meat make my brother to offend I will eat no flesh while the world standeth lest I make my brother to offend In the Epistle to the Romans he perswades believing Jews and Gentiles to receive each other and not to judge and censure and scandalize one another about the observation or non-observation of the Law of Moses and this condescension both â—o Jews and Gentiles he exercised himself Vnto the Iew I became as a Iew that I might gain the Iews to them that are under the Law as under the Law that I might gain them that are under the Law to them that are withouâ— the Law as without Law that I might gain them that are without Law That is when he was among the Jews he lived as a Jew observed the Law of Moses as they did when he was among the Gentiles who had no regard to the Law of Moses he did not observe it neither he complied with the weakness and mistakes both of Jews and Gentiles he became all things to all men that he might by all means gain some that is he practised that condescension and forbearance which he taught others to practise And if that did not concern the case of our Dissenters nor plead for the like Indulgence and Toleration for them as I have already proved at large it does not neither can the Apostle's Example prove any such thing All this condescension of the Apostle was not in the exercise of his Apostolical Authority but in the use of his private liberty which he was very willing to restrain to make his Ministry the more effectual but he never parted with his Authority to govern the Church and to prescribe the Rules and Orders of Worship for the sake of any Dissenters as I have already proved But there is one instance more of St. Paul's condescension which our Reconciler takes notice of and indeed it is a very notable one viz. that though St. Paul asserts his right to live upon the Churches stock as well as other Ministers yet he maintained himself by his own labour that he might preach the Gospel to the Corinthians without charge for it is plain that he did receive Contributions from other Churches and this he did lest he should hinder the Gospel of Christ and to cut off occasion from them that desire occasion From whence our Reconciler thus argues Wherefore although the Rulers of the Church have certainly a right to impose things indifferent yet with submission to them I conceive they should not exercise that power in like circumstances viz. when by the exercise thereof they give occasion to them that desire occasion to traduce them as men who more regard a Ceremony than an immortal Soul the exercise of their commanding power than the preserving poor Souls from damning Schisms and the Church from sad Divisions when it hinders the preaching of the Gospel to their Flock as this imposing seems to do Ad Populum phalerae Now I shall briefly consider the Case and then I will consider our Reconciler's Application The Case is this St. Paul had a right to live on the Gospel by Gods own appointment and ordination as the Priests under the Law who ministred in holy things lived of the things of the Temple and they which wait at the Altar are partakers of the Altar have their portion
A VINDICATION OF The Rights OF Ecclesiastical Authority BEING AN ANSWER To the First Part OF THE Protestant Reconciler By WILL. SHERLOCK D. D. Master of the TEMPLE LONDON Printed for Abel Swalle at the Vnicorn at the West-end of St. Paul's Church-yard 1685. who exclude so many Labourers for things indifferent p. 212 His fourth Argument from our Saviour's command not to scandalize little ones p. 213 What is meant by little ones p. 214 What it is to scandalize them p. 215 His fifth Argument from the Woe denounced against those who shut up the Kingdom of Heaven p. 216 How the Pharisees shut the Kingdom of Heaven ibid. What is meant by heavy burdens p. 218 And what it is our Saviour condemns under that notion p. 219 His sixth Argument that Christ would not suffer his Disciples to forbid that man who wrought miracles in his Name but did not follow him and therefore dissenting Preachers who renounce the Communion of the Church must not be forbid to preach p. 220 His seventh Argument from Christ's laying down his life for his Sheep to prove that the Church must part with her Ceremonies for them p. 223 His last Argument from Christ's Prayer for the Vnity of the Church ibid. CHAP. V. The Answer to our Reconciler's Argument drawn from the 14 of Rom. p. 225 There may be some cases wherein forbearance is reasonable others wherein it is neither prudent nor reasonable ibid. And therefore we cannot argue from the case of the Iews to the case of the Dissenters unless they appear to be the same ibid. St. Paul in the 14 Rom. onely exhorts the Iewish and Gentile Converts to mutual forbearance in such cases which had already been determined by the highest authority in the Church 226 And therefore it is impertinently alleadged to prove that the Governours of the Church must not impose any indifferent Ceremonies which are scrupled by Dissenters 227 The Decree of the Council at Jerusalem the foundation of this Apostolical forbearance ibid. Private charity may be exercised in such cases where publick authority can make no determination in favour of the scrupulous 231 The Dispute between the Church and Dissenters of a different nature from that between the Iews and Gentiles the one concerns indifferent things the other the observation of the Law of Moses 235 No Dispute about the use of indifferent things in Scripture nor any exhortation to forbearance in such matters 236 An Answer to the Reconciler's Argument which he alleadges to make it probable that St. Paul in this Chapter does not refer to the observation of the Law of Moses ibid. So that this Chapter does not concern the Dispute about indifferent things 243 The Apostle did not plead for indulgence to the Iews in the observation of the Law of Moses under the notion of an indifferent thing ibid. The reason of his different treatment of the Churches of Rome and Galatia 244 Whether though the case of the Iews and Dissenters be different yet by a parity of Reason the same indulgence ought to be granted to both 247 The nature of such Arguments from a parity of Reason ibid. That there is no parity of Reason between these two cases 249 The Arguments the Apostle uses in this 14 Chap. very proper to the case of the Iews but not applicable to the case of our Dissenters proved at large ibid. c. What the Apostle means by receiving one another and Dr. Falkner vindicated from the Reconciler's Objections The Apostles first Arg. That God has received them the meaning of it that it is peculiar to that case of Iews and Gentiles and not applicable to Dissenters 257 c. 2 Arg. that they must not judge another mans servant 262 That this Arg. relates onely to such matters as God has determined by his own immediate authority 264 3 Arg. that they acted out of conscience towards God 265 Whether every man must be permitted to act according to his own Conscience 266 God will judge the Consciences of men and therefore grants no such liberty as this 267 Civil Magistrates ought not to regard mens Consciences in making or executing Laws for the publick good 268 Nor is there any obligation on the Governours of the Church to do this 269 What St. Paul means by regarding a day to the Lord 270 To do any thing to the Lord does not meerly signifie a private perswasion that God has commanded or forbid it 272 The Apostles Exhortation not to offend a weak Brother 274 What the scandal was of which the Apostle speaks 275 Who this weak Brother is and whether this be applicable to Dissenters 276 The offence which was given was a supposed violation of an express Law of God 277 The nature of a criminal scandal 279 The danger of offending these weak Iewish Brethren which the Apostle warns them against was lest they should renounce the Christian Faith and fall back into Iudaism 282 The weak in Faith who are to be indulged signifies those who are not well confirmed in the truth of Christianity 284 The same indulgence not to be granted to Schismaticks though ignorant and weak in understanding ibid. The Reasons whereby the Apostle disswades them from giving scandal 287 A Paraphrase on the 14 15 c. verses of the 14 Rom. ibid. These Arguments to avoid scandal concern onely the exercise of every mans private liberty 292 That this compliance must be in such matters wherein Religion and religious Worship is not concerned 293 Meat and Drink does not signifie the Externals of Religious Worship 294 Nor does Righteousness and Peace c. signifie all the Essentials of Religion 296 The mistake of Reconcilers that the Externals of Religion are nothing worth and of small account with God 297 This Apostolical Exhortation to avoid scandal concerns onely such cases wherein we are not bound to make a publick profession of our Faith 298 The meaning of Hast thou Faith have it to thy self 299 What is meant by Him that doubteth 302 How far the Apostle allows that every man must be left to the conduct of his own Conscience This extends onely to such cases where every mans Conscience is his onely Rule not where Conscience it self has a Rule 303 Let every man be fully perswaded in his own mind is a safe and a sure Rule when there is no other Law to govern us 306 This proved to be the meaning of the Apostle ibid. The Case of liberty of Conscience briefly stated 304 A short Recapitulation of this Discourse by comparing the case of the Iews with the case of Dissenters 311 The forbearance St. Paul pleads for had no influence upon Christian Worship it neither destroyed the Vniformity of Worship nor divided the Communion of the Church what the Reconciler pleads for must do one or both 321 Dr. Stillingfleet vindicated 322 The forbearance St. Paul pleads for was in order to prevent Schisms which our Reconciler's forbearance cannot do 333 This indulgence to the Iews was
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
that liberty to each other which the Church has decreed that they should allow to each other therefore the Church it self must not impose the observance of any indifferent Ceremonies on Dissenters or must alter or abate them in compliance with their Scruples This is the plain case here The Council at Ierusalem had decreed that the Gentiles who received the Faith of Christ should not be under a necessity of being circumcised or observing the Law of Moses and left the believing Jews at their liberty to observe the Rites and Ceremonies of their Law still but notwithstanding this determination the believing Gentiles who understood their Christian liberty despised the weakness and superstition of the believing Jews who continued zealous for the Law of Moses and the believing Jews were mightily scandalized and offended at the liberty which the Gentile Converts took and made great scruple of conversing with them or of worshipping God together This Scandal and Offence which the Council easily foresaw would be taken and given on both sides did not hinder them from making a peremptory Decree in this matter as I observed before and when such Scandals as these did arise between the believing Jews and Gentiles in the Church of Rome St. Paul in this Epistle earnestly exhorts them to mutual charity and forbearance to grant that liberty to each other without mutual censures contempt and scandal which the Church had already decreed should be granted for he pleads for no other forbearance than what was expresly decreed by the Council at Ierusalem In such cases wherein the Church allows a latitude and permits different apprehensions and practices certainly it becomes all Christians not to judge or censure offend or scandalize each other which is the onely case the Apostle mentions But will any man in his wits hence infer that the Church must make no Laws nor prescribe any Rules of Worship which are scrupled by private Christians and that if she do she sins against these Laws of Charity and Forbearance which the Apostle exhorts the Romans to observe The Governours of the Church may exercise the same authority which the Apostles did in the Council at Ierusalem they may determine what upon mature deliberation and advice they judge fit or necessary to be determined whatever scruples some Christians have entertained about it and when they have done so it becomes Christian Bishopâ— and Ministers as the Apostle here does to perswade private Christians to obey such Constitutions for the preservation of the Peace and Unity of the Church not to turn Reconcilers and to plead the Cause of Dissenters against Church-Authority which St. Paul never did And it becomes private Christians to submit to such Determinations and those who do not are guilty of the scandal and offence if there be any not those who do The Gentile Converts were guilty of scandal if they despised the Jews for observing the Law of Moses which the Council had still permitted them to observe the Jews were guilty of scandalizing the Gentiles if they judged and censured them and denied Communion to them for not observing the Law of Moses because the Council had delivered the Gentiles from any such necessity but no man can be guilty of any criminal scandal by obeying the lawful Constitutions of the Church whoever is scandalized at it but scandal always lies on the side of disobedience The Christian Jew gave no offence by observing the Law of Moses nor the Christian Gentile by not observing it because they both herein had the authority of the Apostolical Decree to justifie them and therefore St. Paul does not exhort the Jews not to observe the Law of Moses nor the Gentiles to observe it to avoid scandal which had been somewhat like our Reconciler's Address to the Church not to impose and to the Dissenters to obey such Impositions to avoid Schism but he exhorts them both to grant that liberty to each other which the Church had granted and not to judge and censure and despise and separate from each other for the use of this liberty which in both of them would be an express violation of the Apostolical Decree Governours indeed may be guilty of uncharitableness in the exercise of a just Authority as I have already discours'd and vindicated our Church from any such imputation but Subjects can never be guilty of scandal in obeying the lawful commands of a lawful Authority And private Christians may be guilty of scandal in the imprudent use of their just liberties but this can never extend to the authority of Government Thus it was with the Gentile Converts The Council at Ierusalem had delivered them from the necessity of observing the Laws of Moses but yet had not laid a necessity on them to eat Swines flesh or any other meats which were unclean by the Law when a Jew was present and therefore herein it became them to use their liberty without offence and to exercise a generous charity towards the weakness of a believing Jew in such cases as the Apostle argues from the 13th verse to the end of the Chapter and yet it became the Church to allow this liberty to the Gentiles which they might use uncharitably for to have abridged it had been to impose on them the observation of the Mosaical Law The Apostle indeed as the Reconciler observes did plainly assert That the things scrupled by the weak were pure and lawful in themselves that he knew and was perswaded by the Lord Iesus that there was nothing unclean of it self which is the very determination of the Council at Ierusalem and yet he requires the believing Gentiles to exercise great charity in the use of their liberty which is a plain instance of the exercise of a private charity in such cases where publick Authority can make no such determination in favour of the scrupulous The Council at Ierusalem and St. Paul in this Epistle determine against the scruples of the Jews and assert the liberty of the Gentiles and they could not do otherwise and yet St. Paul requires private Christians to use this liberty without offence and to exercise such charity to their Jewish Brethren as the Church it self did not and could not exercise And thus St. Paul falls under our Reconciler's lash as well as Dr. Womack As if Church-Governours were not as much concerned in the reasons laid down as were the common People that is that they were not obliged to receive the weak in Faith and being strong to bear the infirmities of the weak that they might judge another mans servant that they might put a stumbling-block or an occasion to fall in their Brothers way that they might walk uncharitably might grieve and even destroy him with their meat for whom Christ died that they might let their good be evil spoken of and might for meat destroy the work of God and that though it is good for private persons not to eat flesh nor drink wine nor to do any thing
whereby their Brother stumbleth or is made weak or is offended yet may Church-Governours impose such things although God has declared that their power is only for edification and not for destruction For this is the plain case all these Arguments St. Paul uses to perswade private Christians to mutual forbearance and charity in the exercise of their Christian liberty and yet both the Council at Ierusalem and St. Paul in this Chapter do positively determine that the Gentile Christians should have this liberty though St. Paul perswades them to great charity in the exercise of it So that the case of private Christians and publick Governours is so very different that charity may exact that from private Christians to avoid scandal and offence which no charity can justifie in Governours the Gentile Converts were to deny themselves in the use of their liberty to avoid giving offence to the Jewish â—hristians but a whole Council of Apostles did not think fit to deny this liberty to the Gentiles which might prove an offence and scandal to the Jews For the believing Gentiles might restrain the use of their liberty without injuring their Christian liberty for no man is bound to use all the liberty he has and therefore may suspend the use of it when it will serve the ends of charity but the Apostles could not deny the use of this liberty to the gentile Converts without destroying their Christian liberty And therefore our Reconciler is mightily out in his Argument That Church-Governours in their publick capacity are bound to all those acts of forbearance and charitable condescension which private Christians are bound to when in this very instance from which he argues it appears to be quite otherwise the Church determines for the liberty of the Gentiles to eat all sorts of meats without any regard to the Mosaical distinction between clean and unclean notwithstanding that offence it gave to the believing Jew and yet St. Paul perswades the believing Gentile not to use this liberty to the scandal and offence of their weak Brethren In a word This fourteenth Chapter to the Romans consists of two distinct parts though not so commonly observed which has occasioned very confused apprehensions about it 1. That which equally concerns both Jews and Gentiles viz. not to judge despise or censure each other nor to break Christian Communion upon account of their different apprehensions about the Mosaical Law that one believed he might indifferently eat of all sorts of meat and another eat herbs one preferred one day before another another thought all days alike Now all the indulgence to one another which the Apostle exacts in this case is onely to grant each other that liberty which the Apostolical Synod had granted them that the Jews might still observe the Law of Moses and that the Gentiles might enjoy their liberty not to observe it and therefore the Apostle uses much such Arguments to perswade them to this as were before used by the Council when they made their Decree of which more presently and this part reaches to the 13th verse But how our Reconciler hence infers that Church-Governours must not make any Determinations about things which are scrupled because the Apostle exhorts them to obey such Determinations and not to judge and censure one another for such matters which the Church had determined they might both lawfully do I cannot imagine 2. The second part peculiarly refers to the believing Gentiles to perswade them to exercise great charity and as much as might be to avoid all scandal and offence in the use of their Christian liberty That because their Jewish Brethren were so weak as to take offence at their liberty therefore they should forbear the use of it when it was likely to give offence And to this purpose he urges several Arguments from charity to the end of the Chapter and in the beginning of the 15th Chapter But this you have already heard peculiarly relates to the duty of private Christians in the private exercise of their Christian liberty and can by no means be applied to the Governours of the Church as exercising acts of Government in making publick Decrees and Constitutions for as I have already shewn the Church could not deny that liberty to the Gentiles nor make any Decree in favour of such Jewish scruples but onely exhorted the Gentiles to exercise this liberty charitably and without offence This one thing well considered is a sufficient Answer to our Reconciler's fourth Chapter since it makes it very plain that there is nothing in the 14th of the Romans to restrain the exercise of Ecclesiastical Authority whatever scruples men have entertained about it II. Another very material difference is that the subject of the Dispute between the Church and Dissenters is of a quite different nature from that Dispute which was between the Jewish and Gentile Christians about which the Apostle gave those directions about mutual forbearance and a charitable condescension to each other The Dispute between the Church and Dissenters is about indifferent things between the Jews and Gentiles about the observation of the Law of Moses Now these two are so vastly different that there may be very wise reasons for allowing some indulgence in one case but not in the other By indifferent things I mean such things as are neither morally good nor evil nor are either commanded nor forbidden by any positive Law of God Now if our Reconciler can shew any Dispute about such things in Scripture or any one Precept or Exhortation either to Governours or private Christians about forbearance or the exercise of charity in such matters I will yield him the Cause He has not produced one yet for the Dispute between Jew and Gentile was of another nature This our Reconciler acknowledges That this Discourse is generally thought to have relation to the Iewish Converts who thought it was unlawful to eat of meats forbidden by the Law of Moses and that it was their duty to observe the Iewish Festivals and says That his Discourse will be more firm if the Apostle speaks concerning the observance of the Law of Moses or of the meats and days prescribed by it And in this sence I desire to take it and believe this is the true sence of the words but it may be when he sees that this interpretation of the place will overthrow his whole Hypothesis he will be willing to retreat and therefore I shall briefly examine what he alleadges to prove the Apostle did not refer to the observation of the Law of Moses in this place but that he rather speaks of meats offered to Idols and the observing days of Fasting His Arguments are these 1. Because the weak Brethren did not abstain from Swines-flesh onely and other meats forbidden by the Law of Moses but they abstained from all kinds of flesh Whence saith the Commentator on the Romans in St. Jerom 's Works It may be proved that the Apostle speaketh not of the Iews as some
conceive non enim carnes secundum legem sed sola olera manducabant Because the weak persons mentioned here onely did eat herbs abstaining from all flesh and not from that alone which was forbidden by the Law of Moses But if we will take the opinion of this Commentator we must understand also one who is weak in body who has an ill stomach or ill digestion and therefore eats herbs because he cannot eat flesh through sickness or old age Infirmus aetate aut corporis vigore which are the words immediately before and then how this will reach the case of Ecclesiastical Ceremonies I cannot tell As for his reason that these weak persons eat onely herbs it is not evident from the Text. Herbs may be taken synecdochically for all sorts of meats allowed by the Law no sort of herbs being forbidden or it may signifie that rather than eat any meats forbidden by their Law they chose to live on herbs which might be often the case of those Jews who lived among Heathens as the Jews at Rome who are primarily concerned in this Epistle did And St. Chrysostom who positively asserts that this concerns meats forbidden by the Law of Moses assignes another reason for their eating herbs Because if they had onely abstained from Swines-flesh and other forbidden meat they would have discovered their Reverence for the Law of Moses still which he supposes they had a mind to conceal and therefore to palliate the business they abstained from all flesh and eat onely herbs that it might look more like fasting and abstinence than the observation of the Law Whether this be a good reason or not I am not now concerned to inquire it plainly shews what St. Chrysostom's opinion was in the case which I suppose may be thought as considerable as this Commentators But there can be no doubt about this if we consider what the Apostle saith v. 14. For 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 common the word peculiarly used to signifie the distinction of clean and unclean meats among the Jews and there was no other Law that ever made such a distinction For though the Pythagoreans did forbid eating of flesh yet that was an inconsiderable Sect of Philosophers which could not occasion such a general Dispute as this was and they did not forbid flesh upon this distinction of clean and unclean meats which was peculiar to the Mosaical Law but for reasons peculiar to their Philosophy which were so vain and superstitious that we cannot imagine the Apostle would grant any indulgence to such fancies 2. His next reason is Because the Apostle doth in the Epistles to the Galatians and Colossions speak severely against their observation of the Iewish Festivals and therefore here would not speak of them as things indifferent concerning which it was onely needful that the observers or not observers of them should be well assured in their own minds and be permitted to continue in their practice as St. Ambrose saith the Apostle here asserts nor is it like that in such things he would permit them to abound in their own sence Which last assertion directly overthrows his whole Hypothesis for it seems the Apostle might have required of them to renounce the Law of Moses and the observation of it whatever scruples they pretended and then how does it become so necessary a duty in Church-Governours to renounce their own Authority to gratifie and humour every scrupulous Conscience for if ever there were reason to be favourable to scruples it was in the case of the believing Jews whose scruples were occasioned by a Divine Law which they were not yet convinc'd was abrogated and out of date And if as he says it was not likely the Apostle should suffer them to abound in their own sence in such things there is much less reason to expect this from Church-Governours in other matters where no such Authority can be pretended to justifie their scruples But of the different behaviour of the Apostle to the Romans and Galatians I shall give such an account in what follows as will not be much to our Reconciler's purpose 3. Because the Apostle confineth his discourse to meats not speaking of the whole observance of the Law of Moses he doth not therefore say that Christ had now abolished that Law or that it was not made unto and so could not oblige the Gentile World or any thing which seemeth proper to oppose unto those judaizing Christians but onely saith that meats did not commend to God and such-like things which are all proper to be spoken unto those who understanding of their liberty freely indulged themselves in eating of the Idol-Sacrifice Now this is a notable Argument if it be well considered The Apostle confines his discourse to meats and days not speaking of the whole observance of the Law of Moses Because his whole Epistle treats upon this Argument and he does not repeat all that he said in the foregoing Chapters about Circumcision and Sacrifices Washings and Purifications and the abrogation of the Mosaical Law in this 14th Chapter therefore these meats and drinks and days must not refer to Mosaical observances The whole Epistle concerns the Dispute between Jews and Gentiles and if he can find any other meats and days which the Jews thought themselves bound to observe and the Gentiles thought themselves freed from by Christ he will say something more to the purpose And whereas he argues that the Apostle does not urge such Arguments as are proper to prove the abrogation of the Law of Moses it is evident that this was not his business in this Chapter but he proves what he intended to prove how reasonable mutual forbearance is in these matters which supposes the abrogation of the Law already proved as indeed he had sufficiently proved it before for there is no place for forbearance against a positive Law 4. His last reason is as good as any of the former Because had the Apostle spoken to the strong Iewish Christian and declared his freedom from the observation of the whole Iewish Law he would have contradicted the Churches of Jerusalem and his own practice there for they were zealous for the observation of it and did esteem it their duty so to be and did not judge him a strong but a disorderly Christian who being a Iew observed not their Laws and Customs Now if this proves any thing it proves that St. Paul never did and indeed ought not to dispute against the freedom of the Jewish Converts from the observation of the Law and then we shall want a new Commentator upon most of his Epistles to deliver him from that scandal which all Exposiâ—ors hitherto have cast on him that he has in many places industriously proved that neither Jew nor Gentile were under the obligation of the Mosaical Law But it is
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
of every mans private liberty The Gentile Christians who knew that they were not under the obligation of the Mosaical Law which made a distinction between clean and unclean meats were perfectly at liberty whether they would eat or not eat such meats as were forbid by that Law and this was an instance of their own private liberty wherein no body was directly concerned but themselves neither any other particular man excepting the case of scandal nor the publick state of the Church For what is it to any man what is it to the Church whether I eat such meat or not when I may lawfully do either And therefore this is a proper Sphere for the exercise of a private Charity for Charity of what nature soever it be can be exercised onely in such matters as are perfectly in our power and therefore no private Christian can lawfully extend his charity any farther than his own private liberty extends whatever others are concerned in as well as himself especially whatever the Church of God and the publick state of Religion is concerned in is the object neither of private liberty nor of private charity And yet the Apostle here exhorts them to nothing but what was in the power of every private Christian. And whether we say that this Exhortation concerns onely particular Christians or Church-Governours also yet it is evident it concerns onely the exercise of their own private liberty Now if any such case should happen again which I think cannot possibly be that in the use of our private liberty in our Diet or Clothes or way of living we should give such offence to weak Christians as should make them suspect the truth of Christianity and endanger their final Apostacy this 14th Chap. to the Romans would be an admirable Text to preach on to correct such uncharitable abuses of our liberty but what is this to the use of decent but indifferent Rites and Ceremonies in the Worship of God for the decent Rites of Worship concern the publick exercise of Religion not every Christians private liberty every instance of our private liberty may indeed in some sence be called an indifferent thing as that signifies what we may do or may not do as we please but it is not indifferent as the decent Rites of Worship are indifferent for the Decency of Worship is the matter of an express positive Law and the particular Rites of Worship the Object of Ecclesiastical Prudence and Authority And what a vast difference this makes in the case of Scandal will appear from my second Observation on St. Paul's discourse which is this 2. That this compliance and condescension to a weak Brother must be in such matters wherein Religion and Religious Worship is not concerned For by this Argument St. Paul perswades them to this forbearance because Christian Religion is not at all concerned in it The Kingdom of God is not meat nor drink Their eating or not eating in it self considered was no act nor so much as a circumstance in Religion and it did not become the charity and goodness of the Christian temper to give such great scandal to a weak Brother for things in which Religion is not at all concerned Those who expound meat and drink in this place to signifie all the Externals of Religious Worship especially all such Rites and Circumstances as have not a divine institution and command as our Reconciler plainly does do mightily mistake the Apostles meaning and affix such Doctrines to him as are very absurd and unaccountable When the Apostle says The Kingdom of God is not meat and drink it plainly signifies that the Christian Religion does not consist in eating or not eating such or such meats that no man is the better Christian for eating Swines flesh or other prohibited meats nor the worse Christian meerly for not eating them No man questions whether the Kingdom of God signifies the Christian Religion or the state of the Christian Church and therefore when he says that meat and drink is not the Kingdom of God he must mean not that it is not the whole of Religion which no man ever dreamt of but that it is no part of it no act of Religious Worship as I think I need not prove to the Reconciler himself that though the Gospel gives us leave to eat Swines flesh yet it is no act of Religion to do it And therefore the Externals of Religion the decent Rites and Ceremonies of Worship how mean and indifferent soever they may be thought cannot be comprehended under those general terms of meats and drinks because this meat and drink was no act nor part nor circumstance of Religious Worship nor any thing relating to it but the decent circumstances of Religious Worship are necessary to publick Worship Now when the Apostle exhorts them to exercise forbearance and condescension to a weak Brother in such matters by this very Argument because Religion is not concerned in it our Reconciler will be a very wonderful man if he can prove that we must exercise the same indulgence in such matters as do concern Religious Worship if he can prove that the Governours of the Church must indulge private Christians in the different Rites and Modes of Religious Worship because private Christians must indulge each other in such different practices as do not at all relate to Religion I am resolved never to dispute more with him for I doubt not but he is at the same rate able to make good the greatest Paradoxes in Religion or Philosophy There is very great reason for Christians not to quarrel with each other nor to divide the Unity or disturb the Peace of the Church for such Disputes as do not properly belong to Religion for where it is purely matter of our own liberty there is room for the exercise of Charity and mutual Forbearance And this is the Apostles Argument that the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink But where Religion and the Worship of God is concerned it is of another nature for it is not in our power to do what we please in such matters nor to allow others the liberâ—y of doing what they please and therefore this is not the Object of Indulgence and Forbearance nor is there any one word in all the Scripture to countenance any such liberty which would effectually undermine all Order Decency and Uniformity of publick Worship And therefore when the Apostle adds that the Kingdom of God is righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost this does not signifie neither that this is the whole of Religion or the onely thing that we are to be concerned about as the Reconciler understands it for the external and visible Worship of God is as essential a part of Religion as these but these are plain and acknowledged Duties of Religion and we ought not to violate a plain and necessary Duty for the sake of that which is no Duty at all Which is the sum of the Apostle's Argument as
I observed before The necessary consequence of which is that in all such cases wherein not Religion but our own liberty is concerned the great Rule we are to observe is to promote the Peace of the Church and the mutual Edification of each other to follow after the things which make for peace and things wherewith one may edifie another Now this is a plain Rule which all men at first hearing will acknowledge to be reasonable not to violate the plain Duties of Religion in contending about such liberties the use and exercise of which are of no account in Religion not to scandalize a weak Brother nor destroy the Peace of the Church and the mutual edification of Christians in love by eating such meats as we may indeed in other cases lawfully eat but the eating of which is at no time and in no case in it self considered an act of Worship or acceptable to God But if we understand these words in our Reconciler's way that the Externals of Religion are of no account and therefore must be sacrificed to the dearer interests of Peace and Charity and mutual Edification I confess the Argument is plain enough but it is neither to the Apostle's purpose nor is it true And yet this is the fundamental Principle of all Reconcilers and of those men who affect the name and character of Moderation that the Externals of Religion are little worth and of small account with God But the great business which Christians ought to mind is Love and Charity and the practice of those moral Vertues wherein they place the life and substance of Religion and therefore it does not become them to quarrel about the external Modes of Worship but an indulgence in such matters becomes the good and benign temper of the Gospel Now how these men come to know that God is so indifferent about his own Worship I cannot guess nor how the Worship of God comes to be a less essential part of Religion than justice and charity to men I am sure under the Law God appeared very jealous of his Honour and Worship and though he rejected all the Worship of bad men and despised those external acts of Worship which were separated from Justice and Charity yet this was no Argument that he undervalued his own Worship because he was not pleased with an empty shew and appearance of it As for his preferring Mercy before Sacrifice I have given some account of it already and may do more in what follows but certainly Religion is properly the Worship of God and therefore that is the greatest thing in it And publick Worship which is the most visible Honour of God consists in external and visible Signs and therefore the Order Decency and Solemnity of Worship is so essential to the notion of publick Worship that there can be no Worship without it for to worship God visibly without publick and visible signs of Honour is a contradiction and therefore it does not seem to me to be so indifferent a thing after what manner God is worshipped and therefore not to be left indifferently to every mans humour upon every slight pretence of Charity and Moderation However it is plain that the Apostle does not speak one word of this here which had been nothing to his purpose and I cannot find any thing to this purpose in all the Scripture 3. This Apostolical Exhortation to avoid scandal concerns onely such cases wherein we are not bound to make a publick profession of our Faith nor to do that in publick in the view of all men which we believe we may very lawfully innocently do Hast thou faith have it to thy self before God that is keep thy Faith to thy self and enjoy thy liberty privately when thou may'st do it without offence Now I suppose our Reconciler will not think this a good Rule in all cases to dissemble our Faith and to keep our Religion to our selves which would effectually undermine the publick profession and practice of Religion in the World For if this were once granted men would find a great many other as good reasons to keep their Faith to themselves as avoiding scandal Indeed this Rule can hold onely in matters of a private nature such as I before observed this case to be for matters of a publick nature require a publick profession and practice For let us consider wherein the force of this Argument consists to perswade the Gentile Christians to exercise this forbearance towards their weak Jewish Brethren not to offend or scandalize them with their meat Hast thou faith have it to thy self before God which includes these two Arguments 1. That they are under no obligation to a publick profession or exercise of their Christian liberty in these matters 2. That though it be some restraint yet it is no injury to their liberty not to do those things publickly which give such offence For their liberty in such matters is maintained as well by a private as by a publick exercise of it For if they may do it at any time their liberty is secure though the exercise of it may be sometimes restrained But now if we apply this to the Rites and Ceremonies of publick Worship what sence is there in this Argument for publick Worship must be publickly profess'd and publickly practised or else it is not publick and therefore there is no place here to avoid publick scandal by keeping our Faith to our selves for then we must not worship God publickly as we think we may and that we ought to worship him for fear of giving offence So that this does not onely restrain but it destroys the Authority of Governours and the Liberty and Obedience of private Christians for what relates to publick Worship cannot be done at all if it must not be done publickly and that is no Authority and no Liberty which cannot be exercised without sin that is without a criminal offence and scandal As for what our Reconciler frequently urges and I have already observed and answered that it is not desired that the Church should renounce her Authority and Worship but onely give liberty to Dissenters to worship God in their own way this plainly shews how vastly different the case of the Jews and of our Dissenters is and how little they are concerned in that forbearance of which the Apostle speaks The Jews were offended not at the restraint of their own liberty for they were indulged in the observation of the Law of Moses but at that liberty which the Gentile believers used in breaking of the Law of Moses our Dissenters it seems are scandalized not so much at what we do as because they cannot do what they would The Apostle exhorts private Christians not to do such things publickly as offended their weak Brethren This great Reconciling Apostle exhorts or rather commands the Church to suffer Dissenters to worship God according to their own way and to do what is right in their own eyes and this would remove the
scandal Now these two do so widely differ that the one is true and proper scandal and the other is not To offend a weak Brother by an uncharitable use of our liberty by doing such things as prove a stumbling-block and occasion of falling to him is scandal in the Apostle's notion of the word and the onely scandal of which he treats in this 14th Chapter to the Romans but thus it seems we do not scandalize the Dissenters who are not concerned not offended in the Apostle's sence at what we do so they might enjoy their own liberty and therefore neither the Church nor Dissenters are concerned in what the Apostle discourses about Scandal in this Chapter And as for that offence and scandal they take at the exercise of Discipline and Government which restrains their wild and fanatick pretences to liberty it is no other offence than what all Criminals take at Laws and publick Government which is so far from being such a scandal as the Governours of the Church ought to avoid that there is not a greater scandal to Religion than the neglect of it But I shall think nothing impossible if our Reconciler can prove out of this Chapter that the Governours of the Church should prescribe no Rules of Worship nor lay any Restraint upon the giddy and enthusiastick fancies of men for fear of giving offence to them 4. The last Argument the Apostle uses to represent the reasonableness of this forbearance is this that though the Gentile Christians without sin or without any injury to their own liberty might comply with their weak Jewish Brethren yet these Jewish Christians who believed it unlawful to eat any meats forbidden by the Law of Moses could not comply with the believing Gentiles without sinning against their own Consciences which brings judgment and condemnation upon them And he that doubteth which does not signifie what we commonly call a scrupulous Conscience for that was not the case of the Jews who did not doubt but certainly believe that it was unlawful for them to eat such meats but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I observed before signifies him who makes a distinction between meats and so believes it unlawful to eat any meats which were forbidden by the Law of Moses he who thus doubteth is damned if he eat because he eateth not of faith for whatever is not of faith is sin Now here our Reconciler thinks he has us fast for if this were a good Argument in the case of the Jewish Christians it must be also in the case of the Dissenters If the Gentile believers were not by any means to compel the believing Jews to eat those meats which they believed unlawful because how lawful soever it was in it self yet it was unlawful for them to do it while they believed it unlawful to be done by the same reason the Governours of the Church must not compel Dissenters to Conformity which they believe unlawful or at least greatly doubt of the lawfulness of it For he that doubteth is damned if he conforms as well as if he eats This looks most like a parallel case of any thing yet and if this fails him I doubt his Cause is desperate and yet I am pretty confident that this will do him no service 1. For first this is not a good Argument in all cases to grant such an indulgence and forbearance that men act according to their Consciences as I have already proved at large for this would subvert all Order and Government in Church and State and supersede the Authority and Obligation of all other Laws but every mans private judgment and opinion of things 2. Let us then consider in what cases this Argument is good for certainly it is good in the case to which the Apostle applies it Now I know of but one general case to which this Argument can be reasonably applied and that is where every man 's own Conscience is his onely Rule not where Conscience it self has a Rule The Laws of God and the Laws of our Superiours when they do not contradict the Laws of God are the Rule of Conscience that Rule whereby all men ought to act and it is a senseless thing to say that when men are under the government of Laws they must have liberty to act according to their own Consciences that is according to their own judgment and opinions of things which is to say that though men are under Laws yet they must be governed by none that Magistrates may make Laws but they must not execute them but must suffer every man when his Conscience serves him to break both the Laws of God and of the Church or Kingdom wherein he lives But where we are under no obligation of divine or humane Laws in such cases every mans own Conscience is his onely Rule and in these cases it is fit to leave every man to the direction and government of his own mind because they concern onely every mans private liberty and have no influence at all upon the Publick And if in such cases any man should fancy himself to be under the obligation of a divine Law when indeed he is not it would be barbarously uncharitable by Censures and Reproaches and such kind of rude and ungentile Arts to force him to a compliance contrary to the sense and judgment of his own mind for when there is no other Rule of our Actions every mans Conscience is his onely Rule and if he does that which he believes to be forbidden by the Law of God though indeed it is not yet he sins in it and if we force him to such a compliance we are very uncharitable in it and are guilty of offending a weak Brother This was the very case of which the Apostle speaks The Law which made a distinction between clean and unclean meats was now out of date and did no longer oblige them and therefore it was lawful both for Jews and Gentiles to eat what meat they pleased but the Jews still thought that Law to be in force and therefore though the Law did not oblige them to abstain from such meats yet their own Consciences which is always a Law when there is no other did still oblige them to abstain and therefore it was very uncharitable in the Gentile Christians to judge and censure and reproach them for this for though they who understood their liberty might use it yet a believing Jew could not do this without sin And there may be a great many cases in â—ome degree parallel to this As suppose a man scruples the use of Lots and consequently all Games which depend upon Lots or thinks it unlawful to drink a Health or to see a Play or apprehends himself obliged to a stricter observation of the Lords day than the Christian Church has in former Ages thought necessary though we should suppose that there were no Law of God about these matters yet this mans Conscience is a Law to him and whiles he thinks any
of these things unlawful they are unlawful to him and it would be very uncharitable by any Arts to force him to do such things as are contrary to the dictates of his own Conscience This is onely a restraint of their own private liberty and therefore they ought to be indulged in it especially while they are so modest as not to censure those who use their innocent liberty innocently In such cases as these there is no other Rule to guide us but what the Apostle gives Let every man be fully perswaded in his own mind which is a safe and a sure Rule when there is no other Law to govern us for this must not be extended to all cases as St. Chrysostom observes upon the place for if in all cases we must suffer every man to act according as he is perswaded in his own mind this would subvert all Laws and Government but this is reasonable in such cases as onely concern mens private liberty and are under the restraint and government of no Laws but what men make or fancy to themselves It is true all men who act upon any Principles will in all cases do as they are fully perswaded in their own minds yet this is not a Rule to be given in all cases It can be a Rule onely in such cases wherein let a mans judgment and opinion be what it will he acts safely while he acts according to his own judgment which can never be where there is any other Law to govern us besides our own judgment of things for though we act with never so full a perswasion of our own minds if we break the divine Laws we sin in it and shall be judged for it And that this is the true sence of the Apostle's Argument appears in this that he urges the danger a weak Brother is in of sin if he should be perswaded or forc'd to act contrary to the judgment of his own mind which supposes that he is in no danger of sin if he follow his own judgment for if there were an equal danger of sin both ways this Argument has no force at all to prove the reasonableness of such an indulgence and forbearance For if this weak Brother will be guilty of as great a sin by following his judgment if we do forbear him as he will by acting contrary to his own judgment if we do not the danger being equal on both sides can be no reason to determine us either way and therefore this must be confined to such cases wherein there is no danger of sinning but onely in acting contrary to our own judgment and perswasions that is onely to such cases where there is no other Law to govern us but onely our own private Consciences And therefore this danger of scandal cannot affect Governours who have authority to command nor extend to such cases which are determined by divine or humane Laws and therefore not to the Rites and Ceremonies of publick Worship for whatever our own Perswasions are if we break the Laws of God or the just Laws of men by following a misguided and erroneous Conscience we sin in it And the same thing appears from this consideration that the Apostle perswades them to exercise this forbearance out of charity to their weak Brother but what charity is it to suffer our Brother to sin in following a misguided Conscience If our Brother sin as much in following a misguided Conscience as in acting contrary to his Conscience he is as uncharitable a man who patiently suffers his Brother to sin in following his Conscience as he who compels him to sin by acting contrary to his Conscience or rather by not suffering him to act according to his Conscience Nay since external force and restraint may and very often does make men consider better of things and help to rectifie their mistates it is a greater act of charity to give check to men than to suffer them to go quietly on in sin And here I shall take occasion to speak my mind very freely and plainly about that perplext Dispute of liberty of Conscience It seems very contrary to the nature of Religion to be matter of force for Religion is a voluntary Worship and Service of God and no man is religious who is religious against his will and therefore no man ought to be compelled to profess himself of any Religion which was plainly the sence of the Primitive Christians when they suffered under Heathen Persecutions as is to be seen in most of their Apologies And yet on the other hand it is monstrously unreasonable that there should be no restraint laid upon the wild fancies of men that every one who pleases may have liberty to corrupt Religion with Enthusiastick Conceits and new-fangled Heresies and to divide the Church with infinite Schisms and Factions The Patrons of Liberty and Indulgence declaim largely on the first of these heads those who are for preserving Order and Government in the Church on the second and if I may speak my mind freely I think they are both in the right and have divided the truth between them No man ought to be forc'd to be of any Religion whether Turk or Jew or Christian though Idolatry was punishable by the Law and that with very good reason for though men may not be forc'd to worship God yet they may and ought to be forc'd not to worship the Devil nor to blaspheme or do any publick dishonour to the true God And this was all the restraint that Christian Emperours laid upon the Pagan Idolaters they demolished their Temples and forbad the publick exercise of their Idolatrous Worship But though no man must be compelled to be a Christian yet if they voluntarily profess themselves Christians they become subject to the Authority and Government of the Christian Church The Bishops and Pastors of the Church have authority from Christ and are bound by vertue of their Office to preserve the Purity of the Faith and the Decency and Uniformity of Christian Worship and if any Member of the Church either corrupt the Faith or Worship of it or prove refractory and disobedient to Ecclesiastical Authority they ought to be censured and cast out of the Communion of the Church which is as reasonable as it is to thrust a Member out of any Society who will not be subject to the Orders and Constitutions of it This distinction St. Paul himself makes between judging those who are without and those who were within the Church They had no authority to force men to be Christians but they had authority over professed Christians to judge and censure them as their actions deserved and this is properly Ecclesiastical Authority to condemn Heresies and Schism and to cast Hereticks and Schismaticks and all disorderly Christians out of the Communion of the Church and no governed Society can subsist without so much authority as this comes to As for temporal restraints and punishments they belong to the Civil Magistrate and if we
prove by these following Considerations First I observe that the Apostle himself makes a plain distinction between an offence offered to private and particular men and that publick offence which is offered to the Church or to the Body and Society of Christians Give none offence neither to the Iews nor to the Gentiles nor to the Church of God Which shews that we are to have a different regard to particular men in their single or private capacity whether they be believing or unbelieving Jews or Gentiles and to the Church or whole Community of Christians For this is an eternal Law in all Societies to prefer the publick good before the interest of any particular man And therefore though we must have a tender regard to the satisfaction of particular men and have a great care lest we offend a weak Brother in such matters as are of a private nature and use yet in all things of a publick nature i. e. in all things which concern Christian Communion we are to have a greater care of offending the Church than particular Christians though their numbers may be great And therefore we cannot argue that because we must grant all reasonable indulgence to weak Brethren in such matters as do not concern Church-communion which is the case of the Apostles indulgence to the Jews therefore the publick Constitutions of the Church and Rules of Worship must be made to comply with the private Fancies and Humours of men and submit to unreasonable Scruples Our Reconciler owns this consequence as to Dissenters Seeing the refusal of submission to these things gives great offence unto the Church of God it equally concerneth the Dissenters upon these motives to submit unto them and it concerns them both to be as the Apostle careful to please all men in all things not seeking their own profit but the profit of many that they may be saved But why could not our Reconciler observe that this Rule equally concerns Governours as it does Dissenters not to offend the Church of God when he so earnestly disputes that Church-Governours are as much concerned in all these Rules of charity forbearance avoiding offence and scandal as private Christians and St. Paul urges this Exhortation from his own Example even as I please all men in all things Now if Church-Governours must not offend the Church they can grant a liberty and indulgence to the private scruples and fancies of men onely in such things as do not concern the publick communion of Christians The Rules of Worship and the Methods of Government and Discipline must be fixt and determined according to the general directions of the Gospel and with regard to the publick edification of the Church not to the pleasing and humouring some weak and scrupulous Christians for it is a just offence and scandal to the Church to make some mens private Fancies and groundless Scruples the Rule and Measure of Christian Worship Secondly This will more plainly appear if we consider a very material difference between indulging mens private scruples which concern matters of private use and observance and indulging such scruples as affect the publick Worship of Christians that in the first case Christian communion may be secured Men might worship God together according to the common Principles of Christianity though believing Jews were allowed to abstain from all meats forbidden by the Law of Moses and believing Gentiles indifferently to eat of all but when men differ about the Rules of Christian Worship one of these three things must happen Either 1. That Christians of different Perswasions in these matters must divide communion and separate from each other Or 2. That Christian Worship must be made to comply with the groundless fancies of scrupulous Christians Or 3. That men of differing opinions must be allowed to observe different Modes and Rites of Worship in the same Christian Assemblies each of which are a great offence and scandal to the Church of God 1. That Christians of different Perswasions must divide communion and separate from each other This is the usual effect of such Disputes about the Modes of Worship as our own sad experience witnesseth But this our Reconciler will not plead for and to be sure St. Paul never intended as you shall hear more presently 2. Christian Worship then must be made to comply with the groundless Fancies of scrupulous Christians That is there must be no Rules given for the Decency and Solemnity of publick Worship but what the most ignorant and most humoursome Professor will readily submit to which is both absurd in it self and inconsistent with all Government and makes it impossible to secure the external Decency and Solemnity of Worship which ought to be the principal care of Church-Governours as I have already proved 3. As for the third That men of differing opinions might be allowed to observe different Rites and Modes of Worship in the same Christian Assemblies This is as absurd as the other as sufficiently appears from what I have already discours'd At this rate the Governours of the Church cannot do their duty in taking care of the external Decency of publick Worship for who can foresee what Indecencies will be committed when every man is left to worship God as he pleases Nay this very thing in it self is extremely indecent for what Order what Decency can there be where there is no one Rule of Worship Uniformity in worship is like the proportion and symmetry of parts in the natural body wherein the external grace and beauty of it consists Though there were no difference at all as to external reverence in the several postures of receiving the Lords Supper whether kneeling standing or sitting yet it would be indecent and disorderly in the Communicants who receive together not to observe the same posture for some to kneel others to stand others to sit I am sure we should think it so at any ordinary and common Feast should some of the Guests sit at the Table on Chairs others stand and eat by themselves in a corner others sit on the ground others lean on Couches though there were nothing indecent in any of these postures according to the different Modes and Fashions of different Countries yet such an odd and humoursome variety it self is indecent and disorderly at the same Feast And if it be so at a common Table I think the indecency is much greater and more unpardonable at the Table of our Lord which requires the most universal harmony and consent Nay such a variety as this must needs give mutual offence and scandal to each other in the very act of receiving as I have already observed The onely reason that is or can be pretended why every man should be left to his own liberty to worship God as he thinks best is because men are divided in their Opinions about the Modes and Rites of Worship One thinks that rude and unmannerly which another thinks necessary One thinks that posture or habit c.
it on the second month by those who were unclean or in a journey on the first month was a violation of what God had prescribed when God himself had expresly prescribed it And let him consider once more whether works of necessity and mercy were a violation of the Sabbatick rest when our Saviour himself poves that they were not that God never intended that the rest of the Sabbath should exclude such works I am sure our Reconciler cannot produce any one instance wherein God permitted and allowed the violation of any ceremonial Law according to the true intent and meaning of the Law without express order for it but on the other hand God was very strict and rigorous in exacting the observation of them and did give as signal examples of his Justice and Severity upon such accounts as upon any other whatever Witness the man who gathered Sticks on the Sabbath-day and was stoned to death for it The fate of Corah Dathan and Abiram who quarrelled with Moses and Aaron which is more like the case of our Dissenters and offered Incense the Earth opened her mouth and swallowed them up and a Fire consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered Incense To which we may adde the case of Vzzah who was struck dead upon the place for touching the Ark of God which was not lawful for him to do though he did it with a very pious intention to preserve it from falling Thus Saul's offering Sacrifice in Samuel's absence though he had a very plausible excuse for it and his sparing Agag the King of the Amalakites and the best of the Sheep and Oxen c. cost him his Kingdom This is no Argument that God was so little concerned about the observation of his ceremonial Laws or thought any thing little which he commanded when he so severely revenged the breach of them God indeed did prefer true and real Righteousness before any ceremonial Observances but he did not therefore countenance the breach of his meanest Laws What our Saviour tells the Pharisees Who payed thythe of mint and anise and cummin and neglected the weightier matters of the law judgment mercy and faith is a standing Rule in all these cases These things ought ye to have done and not to leave the other undone they should observe them both the great and the less matters of the Law and not neglect or despise either So that Gods example in theâ—e matters is so far from helping our Reconciler's Cause that it makes against him God did not equal the Ceremonies of the Law with the more weighty duties of Judgment Mercy and Faith no more than the Church equals a Ceremony with the dearer interesâ—s of Love and Peace and Unity but yet God instituted these Ceremonies and commanded the observation of them and punish'd the breach of them even when the whole Congregation mutinied and rebelled upon it as they did in the case of Corah that is when they came as much in competition with Love and Peace and Unity as the Reconciler pretends our Ceremonies at this day do 2. But if this will not do our Reconciler has another way of arguing from the example of God to oblige the Governours of the Church not to impose these Ceremonies when there are so many Dissenters amongst us who will not submit to them As 1. The example of Gods love in sending his Son into the World that we might live through him why then should they who are commanded to be followers of God as dear children and walk in love refuse to part with their unnecessary Ceremonies and to refrain the exercise of their imposing power in things indifferent Now if our Reconciler will give me a reason why they should not I will tell him why they should God has in infinite goodness sent his Son into the World to save sinners but still they must be saved in that method which Christ has appointed To this end Christ has given us his Laws instituted a Church-Society appointed Stewards of his Family and Rulers of his Houshold and given them authority to govern Religious Assemblies to prescribe the Rules of Worship and the Methods of Discipline and all this for the salvation of mens Souls and therefore the Governours of the Church must not renounce this Authority and the exercise of it because in its rank and order it is subservient to the great end for which God sent Christ into the World viz. the salvation of mens Souls and is instituted by Christ for that purpose But you 'll object that the exercise of this Authority in indifferent things is so far from contributing to the salvation of mens Souls especially in such an Age as this that it destroys them What destroys them the use of indifferent things No men may observe these Ceremonies without prejudicing their salvation What then is it the imposition of these things Nor that neither for to command that which will not destroy mens Souls cannot destroy them What is it then an obstinate refusal to obey such Impositions Right for this makes men Schismaticks and will damn them and thus disobedience to any other of Christs Laws will damn men though Christ died for them And thus according to this way of arguing God who did so infinitely love sinners as to send Christ to save them ought to have given them no Laws nor made any Conditions of salvation for fear men should break them and be damned for it For is it not a greater thing to give his Son for sinners than to indulge them in some little Follies and Extravagances Will God who loved sinners so as to give his own Son for them damn them for stealing a shilling or two for playing the Good-fellow sometimes or for some kind and amorous Embraces Sure he is so good that he will repeal all these Soul-destroying Laws and when we see this done it will be time for the Governours of the Church to renounce their Authority too in imitation of the love of God II. His next Argument is That God is so merciful to weak and erring persons as not to judge condemn or exclude them from his favour for any errours of their judgments which are consistent with true love to him and which they did not wilfully embrace nor do persist in against conviction of their Consciences but will upon a general repentance for their unknown sins receive them to his favour though they live and die under such errours and mistakes Why then should we who are commanded to be merciful as our heavenly Father is merciful reject them from Communion whom God will receive why should we not forbear to condemn and censure them whom God will absolve This is so fulsomly ridiculous that I should be ashamed to answer it were it not very fit to expose such popular Cant. For 1. Though the infinite goodness of God does incline us to hope well of those who lived and died in invincible errours yet we know
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
evident in this very place that those whom our Reconciler calls the strong Iewish Christian St. Paul calls the weak in the Faith who did not understand his true Christian liberty and writing neither to strong Jewish nor to strong Gentile Christians but to the Church of Rome which consisted of both in compliance with the Apostolical Decree in the first Council at Ierusalem He imposes no necessity on the Jews to renounce the observation of the Law nor on the Gentiles to observe it and lest such different manners and customs might occasion Schisms and Divisions among them he exhorts them to mutual forbearance not to judge nor censure nor reproach each other upon this account And this the Apostle might do without incurring the censure of the Christians at Ierusalem or contradicting his own practice For he was charged at Ierusalem not with teaching the abrogation of the Law with respect to Jews as well as Gentiles which was a thing so notorious that he neither could nor would dissemble it but with forbidding the Jewish Christians to observe the Law which indeed was directly contrary to the Apostolical Decree which delivered the Gentiles from that necessity but indulged the Jews in it Thus Iames the Bishop of Ierusalem tells him that the Jews who were then in great numbers at Ierusalem and were zealous for the Law were informed of him that he taught all the Iews which are among the Gentiles that they ought to forsake Moses saying that they ought not to circumcise their children neither to walk after the customs Now it is one thing to say that they are under no necessity of doing this and another to say they are under a necesâ—ity of not doing it the first was the Apostles constant Doctrine the second was contrary both to his own practice and to that liberty he every-where indulged the Jews as well as in this Chapter under debate Having thus cleared the way and proved that St. Paul does here discourse about the observation of the Jewish Law and that neither believing Jews nor Gentiles ought to judge censure or condemn each other for observing or not observing such customs I come now to shew what a vast difference there is between this case and those indifferent Ceremonies and Circumstances of Worship which are enjoyned by our Church and that we cannot argue from one to the other And methinks every ordinary Reader cannot but be sensible of the difference at the first hearing For the Dispute here is not about indifferent things but about the obligation of the Law of Moses The Proposition our Reconciler undertakes to prove is That indifferent things which may be changed and altered without sin or violation of Gods Law ought not to be imposed by Superiours as Conditions of Communion And this he proves from St. Paul's Indulgence to the Jews in the observation of the Mosaical Law Now what relation is there between the Law of Moses and the indifferent Circumstances or Ceremonies of Worship Did St. Paul allow the Jews this liberty of observing the Law of Moses upon this reason that it was indifferent for them to observe or not to observe the Law If he did not then this Example is impertinently alleadged as not relating to this present Dispute about imposing or not imposing indifferent things If he did then the observation of the Law is indifferent still for that which is once indifferent must continue so without some new Law to alter its nature and I know of none in this case If St. Paul thought the observation of the Law so indifferent why does he dispute so earnestly against it in this whole Epistle Why did he contend so earnestly even with St. Peter himself in behalf of the Gentiles to maintain their liberty from the Jewish Yoke for if it were indifferent to the Jew it was so to the Gentile and according to our Reconciler's way it did not become such great Apostles to contend about indifferent things either one way or other Why did St. Paul so severely chide the Galatians who chiefly consisted of Gentile Converts for their warping to the observation of the Law and so passionately exhorts them to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ had made them free and not to be intangled again with the yoke of bondage Why does he so diligently caution the Colossians both against Jewish and Pagan Superstitions as contrary to the Doctrine of Christ This does not argue that the Apostle thought the observation of the Law of Moses an indifferent thing for though he indulged the Jews in it he would not indulge the Gentile Converts especially those Gentile Churches which were panted by himself and were from the very beginning instructed in their Christian liberty which seems to be the true reason of his different treatment of the Churches of Rome and Galatia At Rome it is evident there were great numbers both of Jewish and Gentile Converts and as he asserts the liberty of the Gentile Christian from the Mosaical Law so he indulges the believing Jew in such observations and exhorts them both to bear patiently and charitably with one another without despising or judging But the Churches of Galatia consisted of Gentile Converts and either had none or very few Jews originally among them as is evident in that St. Paul from the very beginning had freely and openly instructed them in their Christian liberty and freedom from the Law of Moses which he could not have done had there been any great number of Jews there who were all zealous for the Law therefore when in his absence some Jewish Christians had got in among them and seduced them from the simplicity of the Gospel to the observation of legal Rites and Ceremonies he deals very sharply with them and chides them for their Apostacy for there was not the same reason to indulge them in this case as to indulge the Jews And we may as well from St. Paul's severity to the Galatians prove that it does not become Church-Governours to indulge the wantonness and superstitious conceits and scrupulous fancies of private Christians as from his indulgence to the Jewish Christians at Rome prove the unlawfulness of imposing indifferent things and with much better reason too To be sure since he so sharply reproves the Galatians for their observation of the Law of Moses which he so charitably indulges the Jewish Romans in he does neither under the notion of indifferent things and therefore this Example does not concern our present Dispute But you will say Were not these things indiâ—ferent Does not the Apostle expresly say I know and am perswaded by the Lord Iesus Christ that there is nothing unclean of it self Was not the Law abrogated which made the diâ—ference between clean and unclean meats And were they not at liberty then to eat or not to eat Yes no doubt of it as we are at this day But it is one thing to eat or not to eat as an instance of natural liberty