selves while we are in his presence we must honour God too in the same manner that is by the gravity and reverence of our words and actions postures habits behaviour c. when we approach his presence There may be indeed and is a great difference between the particular expressions of civil and religious Honour that which may become a Prince is not always fit for religious Worship and that which is proper for the Worship of God must not always be given to Princes But the Comparison consists onely in this That since the external signs of Honour consist in our words postures looks habit behaviour and such-like external circumstances of action as he who does not observe such a good decorum in all these as is required in civil Honour affronts the Majesty of his Prince so does he who neglects such a Decency in these things as is proper to religious Honour profane the Worship and pollute the Name and Majesty of God But still we want some Rule whereby to determine what that Decency is in these external Circumstances which is proper for religious Worship and to explain this I shall lay down these three Rules I. That the external Decency of Worship consists in a peculiar regard to the Majesty of that God who is the sole Object of our Worship II. In a regard to the particular nature of those acts of Worship in which we are employed III. In a regard to the quality conditions and relations of those Persons who worship God I. The external Decency of Worship consists in a peculiar regard to the Majesty of that God who is the sole Object of our Worship This Rule God himself gives us by the Prophet Malachi A son honoureth his father and a servant his master If then I be a father where is my honour if I be a master where is my fear Which plainly signifies that we must worship God in such a manner as is expressive of a just Honour and Reverence for his excellent Majesty As he adds For I am a great King saith the Lord of hosts and my Name is dreadful among the heathen Now we express a just regard to the Majesty of God these two ways 1. When we worship him with all the external significations of Awe and Reverence When our words and actions postures and behaviour declare to all the world what a great sence we have of the Majesty of God and that infinite distance which is between him and us that is when our words are few and wise as Solomon directs when we worship and fall down and kneel before the Lord our Maker and not onely bind our hearts but our bodies to him and are very cautious of being guilty of the least indecency in his presence 2. Then we honour the divine Majesty when we worship him in a peculiar and appropriate manner and do make a visible distinction between the Worship of God and all the other actions of our lives The sanctification of Gods Name consists in the peculiarity of his Worship when we separate him from all other beings and ascribe incommunicable and eminent Perfections to him and therefore that Worship is most suitable to the divine Majesty to his peculiar and incommunicable Perfections which is performed in the most peculiar and distinguishing manner We know the Worship of God under the Law was by his own command performed in the most peculiar and appropriate manner by peculiar persons by Aaron and his Sons and the whole Tribe of Levi who were separated to the service of the Altar and Tabernacle in a peculiar place at the Tabernacle or Temple and at peculiar and appropriate times the seventh-day-Sabbath and those other annual Festivals and by peculiar Rites and Ceremonies The Priests had their peculiar Garments to minister in before the Lord and all the Vessels and Utensils of the Tabernacle were appropriated to those uses not to mention now their Sacrifices and Oblations and Incense c. Now though these Persons Times Places Rites and Ceremonies which by the Law of Moses were appropriated to the Worship of God had something mystical and typical in their signification yet the appropriation of peculiar Persons Times Places and Habits to the Worship of God is not mystical and typical but besides other uses it may serve is the natural Decency of Worship and that which the peculiar Excellencies of God and the peculiarity of the divine Worship requires The Light of Nature instructed all mankind in this as much as in the necessity of religious Worship insomuch that there never was any Nation which paid publick and solemn Adorations to any Deity but had their Priests their Temples their holy Garments and other Ceremonies appropriated to religious uses And if it be thought enough to say that these men were Idolaters and their Worship idolatrous and therefore we cannot learn from them what is proper and decent in the Worship of God we ought to consider that when the Devil set up for a God he challenged divine Honours to himself and therefore retained all the external form of religious Worship though he corrupted it with impure and obscene and inhumane Rites He would not have valued either Priests or their Vestments or Temples or Altars had not these been very necessary and essential to religious Worship and always judged so by mankind When a Rebel usurps the Throne he usurps the Honour too of a natural Prince and when the Devil would be thought a God he challenges such a Worship as according to the general sence of mankind is due to God though he adapts the particular Rites and Ceremonies of it to his own impure nature and barbarous and cruel inclinations As for appropriate Persons Times and Places I suppose our Reconciler will not dispute the fitness and decency of it under the Gospel And there is as little reason why he should dispute the Decency of an appropriate and peculiar habit for religious Worship which God himself commanded under the Law and which has been used in all Religions and in the early Ages of the Christian Church Appropriate Times and Places are as Jewish as appropriate Habits and whoever considers the peculiarity of the divine Worship cannot think it indecent that it should be distinguisht from other common actions by peculiar Times and Places and Habits as well as Persons II. The Decency of Worship consists in adapting the Rites and Ceremonies of it to the nature of those particular acts of Worship in which we are employed Thus when we beg of God the pardon of our sins or that he would bestow on us those Blessings which we want it becomes us to do this with the greatest humility and therefore kneeling and prostration are very decent postures of Prayer as being natural expressions of great modesty and a just sence of our own unworthiness When we profess our Faith in God or offer up Hymns of Praise and Thanksgiving standing may be a very decent posture as expressive both of our
late Pleas for Peace that so I confess I cannot think him so very inconsistent with himself as some men do But did they plead onely for the alteration of some disputable passages in the Liturgy when Mr. Baxter himself drew up a new Liturgy It seems they would first have reformed a Liturgy for us and then have had liberty to have used a better themselves and to have been at their liberty too whether they would have used it or not What if Mr. Baxter and his Brethren imposed upon their Prince with a pretended zeal for Peace and Unity which they pretend still as much as any men as the greatest Incendiaries in Church and State commonly do and with an equivocal use of the name Episcopacy when we all know what Bishops they mean not Diocesan but a new Baxterian invention of Parochial Bishops Though these pretences at first were plausible yet the King and the Parliament soon discovered what they would be at and it is modestly done of our Reconciler to alleadge the Kings Declaration when the King has since that more authentickly declared his will and his judgment of these matters by Act of Parliament But he further adds Moreover we are informed by Dr. Burnet and Mr. Baxter in the Life of the Lord Chief Iustice Hales That Dr. Bates Dr. Manton and Mr. Baxter conferring with the Bishop of Chester and Dr. Burton at the invitation of the Lord Keeper Bridgman came to an agreement drawn up in the form of an Act by my Lord Chief Iustice to every word of which they consented whereupon Mr. Baxter queries Whether after such agreement it be ingenuity to say We know not what they would have I would give all the Money in my Pocket to see this Act to every word of which all these persons could consent But till we know what it is we may with ingenuity enough say That we know not what they would have and I am still apt to believe that they themselves don 't know neither But what if these three men did consent to such an Act were they constituted the Representatives of the whole Body of Nonconformists Could they undertake that the rest of their Brethren should consent too Or must the Church be bound to alter her Constitutions at the instigation of some few busie undertaking Dissenters But since this story is so often alleadged I will freely tell what I know of it from Dr. Burton's own mouth a little before his death Having met with this story in some of Mr. Baxter's Writings for he hath told it more than once and going to visit Dr. Burton at his house at Barâ—es and finding him alone among other discourse I told him how often Mr. Baxter used his name in such a story and I thought it concerned him to give some account of it that it might not be represented to his disadvantage I ask'd him whether he could remember what the terms of accommodation were or whether he had any Papers about it He told me he did not remember particularly what the terms were but he believed he had his Papers still though he could not at present tell where to find them but would look for them and shew 'em me if he could find them I desired him in the mean time to tell me what he remembred about the management of that Affair and he gave me this relation of it That when he was Chaplain to my Lord Keeper Bridgman my Lord was very zealous to bring the Presbyterian Dissenters into the Church and thought it a thing very seasible and in order to that did procure a meeting between the Bishop of Chester and Mr. Baxter and some others and commanded him to attend them which as being his Chaplain he could not refuse But besides this my Lord drew up some Proposals of a limited Indulgence for the Independants who as he easily foresaw could not be comprehended in any National Establishment and sent for Dr. Owen and some others of that Party to discourse them about it They thanked his Lordship for his kindness to them and desired some time to confer with the rest of their Brethren and to consider of the Proposals And after some few days they returned to my Lord again and renewed their thanks to his Lordship and gladly accepted of the terms and did solemnly declare That if these terms might be granted them they would acquiesce in it and never give the least disturbance to the Government All this while the Conference with Mr. Baxter and his Brethren went on and in short they could come to no agreement insomuch that he said my Lord told him in the greatest passion that ever he saw him in These men meaning the Independants from whom I expected the least compliance thank-fully accept the terms proposed but the others Presbyterians Mr. Baxter and his Brethren whom I believed most ready to promote such a peaceable designe will never agree in any thing and I will never have more to do with them And thus that Conference wherein Dr. Burton was concerned ended without any effect Whether any thing was done towards an Accommodation at other times or by other hands he knew not but at that time when he was concerned which Mr. Baxter makes the time of forming this Act there was nothing agreed on I press'd him earnestly to search for his Papers and to make this Story publick for the vindication of the Memory of the deceased Bishop and his own Reputation but I never saw him again till I found him upon his Death-bed which was about a fortnight after I had this discourse with him And now let our Reconciler make the best he can of this story 2. Another thing whereby it appears how ineffectual this Condescension he pleads for would be to cure our Divisions is this That should we grant these things for the promotion of our Peace and Vnity Dissenters would onely be encouraged by these Concessions to ask more and we should never know where their demands would end till they had robbed us of the whole Church-government And does not the experience of the late Times manifestly confirm this beyond all dispute And is it reasonable to yield any thing which is fit to be retained in the Worship of God to those men who we know before-hand will be satisfied with nothing but the utter ruine of the Church of England But yet our Reconciler thinks he can perswade men out of their senses For 1. Says he Is not the power in your own hands to grant or refuse as you shall see expedient to the great ends of your whole Ministry the glory of God the peace of the Church and the salvation of Souls Yes thanks be to God yet it is and the Church has granted what she thinks expedient which should satisfie our Reconciler did he not think himself wiser than the Church For if he will own the power to be in the Church and that she must stop somewhere whatever Divisions it occasions she must
are which Magistrates can never know Hypocrites may pretend conscience as well as the sincere and Government could never be secure if Justice must be administred not by known and standing Laws but in compliance with every mans Conscience which is or may be no body knows what 3. The onely doubt then is about the Governours of the Church whether they in making Laws and in the exercise of Discipline ought not to have great regard to the Consciences of men Now I would fain know a reason why they are more bound than either God or civil Magistrates to suffer men to do what they please according to their various and different pretensions of Conscience If there be any equity in it that every man should enjoy the liberty of his own Conscience it holds in other matters as well as these I suppose our Reconciler will not say that the Governours of the Church are bound to suffer every man to be of what Religion he pleases to believe what he will to deny the Divinity and Satisfaction of our Saviour to worship an Image or the Host or the Virgin Mary c. and therefore the most considerable things in Religion are not left at liberty and yet of the greater moment any thing is the greater imposition it is upon Conscience I had rather submit to twenty Ceremonies than to be required to subscribe to one new Article of Faith But our Reconciler pretends onely to this Indulgence in inferiour matters Let us then consider his reason for that for certainly the less the things are the less need there is and the less reason to humour mens Consciences about them The onely reason he assigns for it is this That those who do observe or do refuse observance of the Constitutions of our Church in these inferiour matters do really observe them or not observe them out of Conscience towards God And if this be a good reason why every man should be left to the government of his own Conscience it is good in all other cases as well as in such inferiour matters for why should we impose upon men in any thing which they observe or not observe in conscience towards God But you 'll say this is St. Paul's Argument not the Reconciler's No say I it is the Reconciler's Argument not St. Paul's But does not St. Paul say He that regardeth a day regardeth it to the Lord and he that regardeth not a day to the Lord he doth not regard it He that eateth eateth to the Lord for he giveth God thanks and he that eateth not to the Lord he eateth not and giveth God thanks Yes I grant that these are St. Paul's words And does not this signifie that they who did eat and they who did not eat acted out of conscience towards God Yes I grant that too The converted Gentiles did eat indifferently of all sorts of meats and thanked God for that liberty he had granted them the converted Jews abstained from all meats forbidden by their Law and thanked God for their Law which preserved them from all legal pollutions but this is peculiar to this case and cannot be applied to our Dissenters that they refuse to observe our Ceremonies out of conscience towards God God had given a positive Law to the Jews by the hands of Moses which enjoyned the observation of new Moons and Sabbaths and other Festivals and made a distinction between clean and unclean meats and though this Law was now out of date yet it was not repealed in as publick a manner as it was given and God had no way declared that they should observe this Law no longer and therefore those Jews who embraced the Faith of Christ durst not renounce the Law of Moses out of reverence to the Authority of God who gave it and therefore these believing Jews might well be said to observe days and not to eat to the Lord that is out of reverence to the authority of God who gave that Law The believing Gentiles were never under the obligation of the Law of Moses and therefore were more easily instructed in their Christian liberty which God declared by sending his holy Spirit on them in their uncircumcision and by the Decrees of the Apostolical Synod at Ierusalem and they were very well assured by these divine Testimonies that God had delivered them from the Jewish observation of days and meats and therefore they did eat and they did not observe days to the Lord out of reverence to the divine authority which had delivered them from the Mosaical Law But where there is no positive Law nor any publick Declaration of Gods Will whatever our particular Perswasions and Opinions may be we do not act out of conscience towards God For no man can be said to do any thing to the Lord or out of conscience towards God in such cases wherein God has not interposed his authority And therefore unless our Reconciler can shew any positive Law either against Ecclesiastical Ceremonies in general or against the Cross in Baptism the Surplice or Kneeling at the Sacrament in particular how much soever his beloved Dissenters pretend to Conscience it is absurd to say that they do not observe these things out of conscience towards God nor do Conformists observe them out of conscience towards God any otherwise than as they obey that Authority which God hath set in his Church For there can be no other foundation for Conscience but either the express Laws of God or obedience to that Authority which God hath set over us But you 'll say may not that man also be said to act out of conscience toward God who does or forbears doing any thing out of a perswasion that God has commanded or forbid it though he should be mistaken in it and he can produce no Law of God to that purpose While men designe to please God in what they do surely they may be said to act out of conscience towards God I answer I will not contend about words and phrases with any man but let them call things by what names they please All that I say is this That St. Paul does not use it in this sence nor is any man in Scripture said to do any thing to the Lord who cannot produce a plain Law for what he does Other men may intend Gods glory in what they do but they may miss of their aim when they have no Rule and incur the divine displeasure instead of pleasing God and neither God nor men can grant any Indulgence to such a Conscience as this But when both contending Parties can produce a divine authority for doing or not doing the same thing which never did and never can happen but in this case concerning the obligation of the Law of Moses there is great reason for them to receive one another because they both act out of reverence to the divine Authority In a word two contrary Parties as the Jews and Gentiles were in this Controversie can never both of them
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