against her uncharitable Impositions And when he has published a Book against the Constitutions of our Church agreed on by the wisdom of the Convocation and establisht by Act of Parliament when he has already the most mature and deliberate judgment of Church and State it looks like a very hypocritical piece of modesty a downright Challenge to the whole Clergy to cry out as he does Teach me my Reverend Brethren and I will hold my peace cause me to understand wherein I have erred and I will thankfully yea I will publickly retract it Any body I think but a Protestant Reconciler would call this libelling the Church and hectoring and out-braving all his Mothers Children How the rest of my Brethren will digest this outragious Contempt of Church-Authority I cannot tell for my part I cannot bear it but am resolved to do my weak endeavours to vindicate my dear Mother from the rudeness and insolence of her undutiful Son And in order to this I shall consider what it is he contends for wherein we agree and where we part and fairly debate on which side the truth lies The Proposition which he undertakes to prove is contained in these words That things indifferent which may be changed and altered without sin or violation of Gods Laws ought not especially under our present circumstances to be imposed by Superiours as the Conditions of Communion or as Conditions without which none shall minister in sacred things though called to that work and none shall be partakers of the publick Ordinances which Christ hath left to be the ordinary means of Grace and of Salvation to mankind bâ—t shall upon refusal to submit unto them for ever be excluded from the Church and from the Priviledges belonging to the Members of it Where by indifferent things which may be changed and altered without sin or violation of Gods Laws it is plain he means whatever is not expresly commanded by God and so must include all the Externals of Worship Government and Discipline which are not enjoyned by a divine Law That these ought not to be imposed signifies that it is sinful and mischievous to impose them as he expresly asserted before and which all his Arguments are designed to prove viz. that Governours sin in it To impose signifies onely to command and to impose as Conditions of Communion signifies no more than to impose though it sounds bigger For the Church makes such indifferent things the Conditions of Communion in no other sence than as she commands those of her Communion to worship God in such a manner and rejects those which will not which is nothing more than to command as to command is opposed to leaving every one at liberty to worship God as he pleases So that if the Church have not Authority to make these indifferent things the terms of Communion in this sence so as to reject those who will not worship God according to such Prescriptions i. e. who will not obey the Governours of the Church wherein they live then she has no power at all to command And when he adds especially in our present circumstances he refers to those Divisions and Schisms which he says are occasioned by such Impositions Whenever such Ceremonies are doubted and scrupled and made an occasion of Schism then especially it is a sin to impose them but when he says especially he plainly insinuates that it is at all times sinful and unlawful to impose such uncommanded Rites and Modes of Worship though it is a greater sin to do it when there are any who scruple the lawfulness of such Impositions This is the Doctrine of our Protestant Reconciler which I should rather have expected from a profess'd Enemy than from a pretended Advocate of the Church of England He has at once very modestly rejected all Ecclesiastical Authority in indifferent things He has condemned all the Canons and Constitutions of the Church for the orderly performance of Religious Worship from the Apostle days until this time which concern the external Circumstances and Ceremonies of Worship He has plainly renounced one of thoâ—e Articles of Religion to which he has subscribed and declared his Assent if he be a Member of our Church For Art 20. asserts That the Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies And if the Church has power to do this I suppose she may do it without sin and without asking leave of her Inferiours But though our Reconciler has stated this matter so generally as to condemn all Ecclesiastical Authority in indifferent things and has said many things which look that way in several parts of his Book yet his open and avowed designe is onely to prove the sinfulness of such Impositions when they are scrupled and made the occasion of Schisms and Divisions in the Church as he says it is at this day among us And here I shall joyn issue with him and give a particular Answer to every thing which has the least appearance of an Argument which though it will make this Answer larger than I could wish yet is necessary to stop the mouths of such pragmatical Reconcilers who are as troublesome and dangerous to the Government as Dissenters themselves CHAP. 1. Concerning the external Order and Decency of Worship and the Authority of the Church in such matters THat I may give a fair Answer to our Protestant Reconciler I shall first examine some of his Mistakes which run through his whole Book and whereon the whole Argument of his Book is founded the removing of which to men of any competent understanding would supersede the necessity of any farther Answer And they either concern 1. The usefulness of some Rites and Ceremonies of Religious Worship and the Authority of the Church in such matters Or 2. The obligations of charity to the Souls of men with the due measures and extent of it Or 3. That regard which ought to be had to an erroneous or scrupulous Conscience From these Topicks he all-along argues to prove that Church-Governours ought to alter the external Ceremonies of Worship because they are of no value in themselves and therefore charity to the Souls of men requires them in such things to condescend to the errours or scruples or weakness of their Brethren I shall begin with the first which is the fundamental Mistake on which all the rest depend and therefore must stand or fall with it and that concerns the external Order and Decency of Worship or the Authority of the Church in prescribing Rites and Ceremonies for the more decent and orderly performance of Religious Worship Now concerning this matter our Reconciler thinks that the external Ceremonies of Religion are of no account at all for publick Worship may be performed as decently and reverently without the use of those Ceremonies which are in dispute as with them For thus he expresly and dogmatically asserts That the Ceremonies which are imposed by our Church as they have nothing sinful in their nature for which Inferiours
Reverence of God and of the Vigour and Chearfulness of our Minds But I shall onely instance here in kneeling at the Sacrament which with our Reconciler's leave I must needs think a very decent Ceremony both as it distinguishes it from a common Feast and is very agreeable to the nature of that holy Mystery In this holy Supper we feast indeed at the Table of our Lord but this is not a common and ordinary Feast and therefore an ordinary Table-posture does not become us for this is not to discern the Lords body that is not to distinguish it from a common Feast If the Decency of religious Worship consists in peculiar and appropriate Ceremonies certainly there ought to be some distinguishing marks on this mysterious Feast And what more proper than to receive our Pardon upon our knees which is here sealed and conveyed to us What more proper than in the highest act of Worship to our Saviour to express the greatest humility of Soul and Body and when we receive the greatest and most ample favours from him to acknowledge our own unworthiness and pay the lowest Adorations to him I could be tempted to say that if any particular Ceremony in Religion be necessarily determined by an innate Decency and Fitness kneeling at the Lords Table is III. The Decency of Worship consists in a respect to the quality conditions and relations of those who worship God This Rule I learn from that reason the Apostle gives why a man should pray uncovered and a woman covered to signifie the natural Authority of the man and Subjection of the woman For the same reason he would not suffer a woman to speak in the Church because they must be under obedience for to teach is an act of Authority and therefore does not become her state of Subjection And there are other cases to which this may be applied but all that I shall at present observe is the use of distinct Habits for separate and consecrated Persons in the Worship of God The Apostle it seems thought it a piece of Decency that their external Garb and Habit when they worshipped God should be proper and suitable to their state and condition should represent and signifie the Authority and Government of the man and the Subjection of the woman And then I would fain know a reason why this is not decent for the Ministers of Religion too that they should perform the publick Offices of Religion in such a distinct Habit as may both signifie the peculiarity of their Function and that holiness and purity of mind which becomes those who minister in holy things A white Linnen Garment has always been thought very proper for this purpose the twenty four Elders who sate about the Throne are represented as clothed in white Linnen Garments nay that great multitude which stood before the Throne and before the Lamb were clothed with white Robes Nay this is one priviledge which was granted to the Wife of the Lamb that she should be clothed with fine Linnen clean and white Which I alledge onely for this purpose to shew that a white Linnen Garment is very proper for the Ministries of Religion and very expressive both of the Honour and Purity of the Ministerial Function for otherwise it would not be represented as the habit of those Elders who sate round the Throne nor as the habit of the Lambs Wife for all these prophetical descriptions must borrow their figures and resemblances from earthly things And if a white Linnen Garment were not proper to signifie the Dignity and Honour and Holiness of such Persons it could not properly be used to represent and signifie that in Heaven which it does not signifie on Earth And if a white Linnen Garment do very aptly â—ignifie both the Honour and Purity of such a Function and it be a piece of Decency to use such Habits in religious Worship as are proper to the state condition or relation of the Worshippers we may certainly conclude that a Surplice or a white Linnen Garment is a very decent Habit for the Ministers of Religion when they perform the publick Offices of Religion I confess I cannot see what can reasonably be objected against this For why should not the Ministers of Religion worship God in a Habit expressive of the Dignity and Holiness of their Office as well as men and women in such Habits as signifie the natural Honour and Dignity or Subjection of these different Sexes Is not Religion as much concerned in the Honour and Purity of the Ministerial Office as in such oeconomical relations And is it not as fitting then to signifie one as the other by distinct and appropriate Habits If it be said that these external signs are nothing worth and that the Honour of the Ministry is more concerned in the Purity of their Lives than in the whiteness of their Garments this answer might have been given to St. Paul when he commanded the men to pray uncovered and the women covered That the Obedience and Subjection of Wives to their own Husbands is much more valuable than their praying covered in token of such Subjection But it seems S. Paul thought that the Decency and Solemnity of Worship did require the external signs and significations of this though every body knows that a signe is not so valuable as the thing signified This I hope is a sufficient Vindication of those Rites and Ceremonies of Religion which are also the necessary circumstances of action and it is a wonderful thing that this should ever be a Controversie whether the Governours of the Church have any Authority in these matters The Dissenters themselves at other times will acknowledge that the Church has Authority to prescribe the necessary circumstances of action and I take that to be necessary without which an action cannot be performed as I think it cannot be without time place habit and posture And since different times places habits postures may be lawful and some are necessary it must be left to the prudence of Governours to determine which shall be observed according to the Rules of Decency and Order And when the determination of these things is necessary it seems a more ridiculous thing to me to quarrel with Habits and Postures for their signification if they signifie well for there is no other Rule that I know of to determine the Decency of religious Circumstances but by their signification as I think sufficiently appears from what I have already discours'd That which signifies nothing is neither decent nor indecent that which signifies ill any thing unworthy of God or unsutable to the nature of religious Worship is indecent that which signifies well the Devotion and Reverence of our Minds our religious Awe for God or that peculiar Honour we have for him is a very decent Circumstance and yet this is all which men raise so much Clamour about under the formidable name of Symbolical Ceremonies But as I observed before there are
great Sacrifice of the Cross. A great many such things our Reconciler himself has collected in his eighth Chapter which may properly be called the Rituals or Ceremonies or Religion most of which are now out of use in most Churches which formerly used them and none of them are in uâ—e among us But what we call the Ceremonies of the Church of England are not in this sence Rituals or Ceremonies but the decent circumstances of Worship as the Bishop acknowledges excepting the Cross in Baptism which yet is not a meer significant but a professing Signe as I have already discours'd and for such Ceremonies as these which serve for Order and Decency the Bishop tells us There is an Apostolical Precept and a natural Reason and an evident Necessity or a great Convenience In a word when the Bishop speaks of Rituals and Ceremonies he understands by them exterior actions or things something which is like the ceremonial observances of the Jewish Law which were not meer circumstances of action but religious Rites Such were their Sacrifices Washings and Purifications their Phylacteries their Fasts and Festivals new Moons and Sabbaths not considered meerly as circumstances of time but as having such a Sacredness and Religion stamped on them that the very observing them was an act of Religion that the religious Duties observed on them were appointed for the sake of the day not the day meerly for the sake of the Religion Such were the numerous Traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees about making broad their Phylacteries washing their Cups and Platters and their hands before dinner and an infinite number of other superstitious observances Now though some external actions and things wisely chosen and prudently used may be for the service of Religion at least are not unlawful to be used unless we will condemn the whole Christian Church for several Ages which used a great many external Rites yet every one sees what a vast difference there is between such Rites as these and the decent Circumstances of religious Worship And therefore those men mistake the case of the Church of England who lay the Controversie upon Rituals and Ceremonies for there is no such thing in the Church of England according to the true and proper signification of these words Our Fasts and Festivals look most like such Rituals and Ceremonies but are not so for with us they are not religious days but days appointed for the solemn Exercises of Religion which differ as much as a circumstance of time does from an act of Religion as making a day religious which none but God can do differs from appointing a day for the publick Solemnities of Religion which the Governours of the Church and State may do as the Religion of observing a day differs from those acts of Religion which are performed on such a day Now this very observation of the difference between Rituals and Ceremonies and the decent circumstances of Worship will answer most of his Citations which he has impertinently alleadged out of the Bishops Writings and a multitude of Objections which for want of observing this have been very injudiciously made against those which we call the Ceremonies of the Church of England Thus he observes from the Bishop That Ecclesiastical Laws which are meerly such cannot be universal and perpetual But then he should have told us what the Bishop meant by Ecclesiastical Laws meerly such That is saith he those which do not involve a divine Law within their matter And therefore this cannot relate to the decent circumstances of Worship for they all involve a divine Law in the matter of them they are onely the specification of the Law of Decency and include those very acts of Worship to which they belong To kneel at the Lords Supper is a command to receive the Lords Supper kneeling and when the Minister is enjoyn'd to wear theSurplice it signifies that he must perform divine Offices in a Surplice These are but the decent circumstances of necessary Duties and they founded on the Apostolical Rule of Decency Well but the Bishop adds When Christ had made us free from the Law of Ceremonies which God appointed to the Iewish Nation and to which all other Nations were bound if they came into that Communion it would be intolerable that the Churches who rejoyced in their freedom from that Yoke which God had imposed should submit themselves to a Yoke of Ordinances which men should make For though before they could not yet now they may exercise Communion and use the same Religion without communicating in Rites and Ordinances Now does not this make it plain that the Bishop does not speak of the decent circumstances of Worship such as our English Ceremonies are but of such Rituals and Ceremonies as answer to the Jewish Rites and Ordinances which he calls exterior things and actions which are of a different consideration and must be governed by different Rules and Measures And yet our Reconciler is so unfortunate that if the Bishop had meant this of the Ceremonies of our Church it had been nothing to his purpose for he adds in the very next words This does no way concern the Subjects of any Government what Liberty they are to retain and use I shall discourse in the following numbers but it concerns distinct Churches under distinct Governments and it means as it appears plainly by the Context and the whole Analogie of the thing that the Christian Churches must suffer no man to put a Law upon them who is not their Governour For when he says that Ecclesiastical Laws that are meerly such must not be universal he means that they must not be intended to oblige all Christendom except they will be obliged that is do consent That no Church or company of Christians have such authority as to oblige the whole Christian World and all the Churches in it to conform to their Rituals and Ceremonies which he says is contrary to Christian liberty and such an Usurpation as must not be endured which is directly levelled against the Usurpations of the Church of Rome But though one Church cannot impose upon another yet every Church has power over her own Members and they are bound to obey that Authority which is over them And by the way this answers all his Testimonies from Bishop Davenant and Bishop Hall in their Letters to Duraeus about his Pacificatory designe of uniting all the Reformed Churches into one Communion and several others cited in his Preface to the same purpose They discourse upon what terms distinct Churches which have no authority over each other ought to maintain Christian Communion and this he applies to particular Churches with reference to their own Members as if because particular Churches must not usurp authority and dominion over each other nor deny Communion upon every difference of Opinion or different Customs and Usages of Modes of Worship therefore no Church must govern her own Communion nor give Laws to her own Members as if because
the King of England must not impose the Laws of England on Italy or Spain therefore he must not make Laws for England neither This our Reconciler was aware of and therefore in his Preface to strengthen these Authorities he asks this Question Why that agreement in Fundamentals which is sufficient to preserve Communion betwixt Churches disagreeing in Rites and Ceremonies and Doctrines of inferior moment may not be sufficient also to preserve Communion among those Members of the same Church though disagreeing in like matters For if the reason why Christian Churches which do thus differ should be received and owned as Christians and Brethren of the same Communion with us is because these differences do not hinder their being real Members of Christs Body and therefore Fellow-members of the same Church and Body with us since the same reason proves the Members of any Church whatsoever who differ onely in non-fundamentals capable of being real Christians and so of the same Church and Body with us why should it not oblige us to receive them as Christian Brethren i. e. persons of the same Communion with us if we can do it without sin Now the Answer to this is so obvious that I wonder our Reconciler should miss it For 1. The reason of Communion between distinct Churches can be nothing else but the common Principles of Christianity one Lord one Faith one Hope one Baptism c. that is whatever is essential to Christian Faith and Worship for what is more than this as the particular Rules and Orders of Discipline and Government and Modes of Worship are the Object of Ecclesiastical Authority and since no Church has authority over another they ought not to impose their own Rules of Discipline or Worship upon each other But now no private Christian can live in the Communion of any particular Church without submitting to its Government and Discipline and conforming to its Rules of Worship Though one Church must not usurp Authority over another yet every Church must govern her own Members and direct her own Worship and there can be no Order nor Decency of Worship where there are no Rules of Worship no Uniformity but every man is left to do as he pleases And yet 2. Though the Communion of distinct Churches with each other does not require that they should all observe the same Usages and Rites of Worship in their own Churches yet it requires that the Members of these distinct Churches should communicate with each other and conform to each others Customs where they happen to be present It is a ridiculous thing to talk of two Churches being in Communion with each other who will not as occasion serves communicate together upon the terms of each others Communion For Calvinists to call the Lutherans or Lutherans the Calvinists Brethren but to refuse to joyn in Communion when they happen to be in each others Churches this is not to live in Communion with each other or for a Calvinist to communicate in the Lutheran Church or a Lutheran in the Calvinists but according to the Rites of their own Churches not of the Church in which they communicate this is not to communicate with but publickly to affront each other The onely Principle of Catholick Communion between distinct Churches in such matters as these is so far to allow of each others Rules and Modes of Worship as to conform when occasion serves to such indifferent Customs and Usages though very different from their own rather than divide the Communion of the Church and if this be necessary to the Communion of distinct Churches with each other then certainly it is necessary for the Members of every particular Church to submit to its Authority and conform to its Rules and Orders of Worship For 3. It is ridiculous to imagine that nothing more is necessary to a Christian in Church-Communion than what is absolutely necessary to the State of a Christian out of the visible Communion of any Church as if nothing more were necessary to make a man a Member of the Commonwealth than what is necessary to make him a man The belief of the fundamental Doctrines of Christianity and Obedience to those Laws of Righteousness which have an eternal and immutable goodness in them will make a man a good Christian in a private and single capacity but obedience to Government and conformity to the Rules of Discipline and Worship are as necessary to make a man a good Christian in Church-society as they are essential to the being and constitution of a Church and it is impossible to form a Church-Society onely of the Essentials of Christianity considered as a Systeme of Doctrines and Laws which every private Christian ought to observe for there are the Essentials of Christian-Communion as well as of Christian Religion Christ did not onely publish the Gospel but instituted a Church and the Government and Discipline of the Church is of a distinct consideration from the belief of the Gospel No man can be a Member of the Church without believing the Gospel but Church-Society lays some new obligations upon us beyond what is necessary in a single state out of Church-Society But to return Though this learned Bishop did not urge the abrogation of the Mosaical Law against the imposition of the Ceremonies of the Church of England nor against any other Rituals or Ceremonies neither but only against such usurpt Authority as challenge a power to make Laws for the whole Christian World yet this Argument is frequently alleadged by others and more than once repeated by our Reconciler to this purpose but how trifling it is appears from this distinction between Rituals and Ceremonies and the decent Circumstances of Worship They tell us that Christ removed those burdens which were on the Church and therefore would not impose new ones But does the Church of England lay any new burdens upon men Does she require any thing more than what is necessary Christ requires that we should celebrate his last Supper in remembrance of him that the Minister should perform all the publick Offices of Religion and that this should be done in a decent and reverent manner and does the Church of England require any more Does she institute any Ceremonies excepting the Cross in Baptism which is a professing Signe and relates to no act of Worship though it be thought decent to be done at the time of Baptism but what are decent circumstances of action And is Decency then a new burden which Christ hath not imposed on his Disciples Is Decency an unnecessary or unreasonable thing Did Christ leave it at liberty then whether his Disciples should worship God decently or not Christ hath taken away the Yoke of Jewish Ceremonies and has the Church of England put another Jewish Yoke on the Disciples necks Are there any such Rituals and Ceremonies in the Church of England as have the least affinity with the Jewish Yoke Did Christ when he abrogated the Jewish Law abrogate all Decency
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
case if they follow the direction of their own minds they do no injury to any body but themselves in an unnecessary restraint of their own liberty but neither offend God by it nor hurt men but if they act contrary to what they believe to be their Duty in compliance with others they sin in it for every mans private Conscience is his onely Rule where there is no other Law to govern him The Case of the Dissenters THe Dispute between Dissenters and the Church of England is concerning the use of indifferent Rites and Ceremonies in Religious Worship The scruples of Dissenters are not grounded on any express Law acknowledged by all Parties to be a divine Law but are occasioned by their ignorance and perverting of the holy Scriptures and obstinacy against better instruction The Dissenters cannot produce any plain positive Law which is oâ— ever was in force against the Ceremonies of our Church and so have no reasonable pretence to be offended The weakness of Dissenters is not a weakness in the Faith for they firmly believe the Christian Religion but at best a weakness of understanding which is not to be indulged but to be rectified by wise Instructions and prudent Restraints unless we think that every ignorant Christian must give Laws to the Church and impose his own ignorant and childish prejudices Whatever offence the Dissenters take at our Ceremonies it is not pretended that the imposition of them tempts them to renounce Christianity but onely is an occasion of their Schism and makes them forsake the Church for a Conventicle But this is no reason at all in it self for any indulgence and forbearance to be sure is vastly different from the case of the Jews for by the same reaâ—on there must be no Authority and Government in the Church or no exercise of it lest those who will not obey should turn Schismaticks But now besides that it is absolutely impossible for those to receive one another to Communion without mutual offence and scandal who observe such different Rites and Modes of Worship of which more anon God has never by any such visible signs declared that Dissenters should be received to Communion notwithstanding their disobedience to the Authority and non-conformity to the Worship of the Church For as for our Reconciler's invisible communion with God which he grants to his beloved Dissenters who refuse the Communion of the Church St. Paul never thought of it and no body can tell how our Reconciler should know it especially if Schism as he asserts be a damning sin for no man in a state of damnation which it seems is the case of Schismaticks can be in Communion with God But when the Church judges and censures and excommunicates those who refuse to conform to her Worship she does nothing but what she has authority to do for all private Christians are subject to the Authority of the Church in such matters as God has not determined by his own Authority But though our Dissenters pretend Conscience as the reason of their non-conformity yet these pretences are vain and not to be allowed of because there is no plain positive Law of God against it and neither Governours nor private Christians are concerned to take notice of or to make any allowance for every mans private Fancies and Opinions especially in matters of publick Worship which would bring eternal confusions and diâ—orders into the Church There is a great difference between mens doing any thing to the Lord and following their own Consciences or private Opinions the first requires a plain and express Law for our Rule which will justifie or excuse what we do both to God and men but mens private Consciences if they misguide them may deserve our pity but cannot challenge our indulgence Our Reconciler exhorts the Governours of the Church not to exercise their Authority in prescribing the Rules of Order and Decency for publick Worship for fear of offending Dissenters But the Dispute between the Church and Dissenters is of a different consideration it does not concern the exercise of a private liberty wherein all Christians ought to be very prudent and charitable but the exercise of publick Government and the publick administration of Religious Offices which must be governed by other measures than a private charity It is not in the power of private Christians to dispense in such matters as these nor absolutely in the power of Church-Governours who are obliged to take care of the Order and Decency of publick Worship whoever takes offence at it And therefore this cannot relate to indulgence and forbearance in the external Rites and Ceremonies of Religion wherein Religion is nearly concerned for though they be not Acts yet they are the Circumstances of Worship wherein the external Decency of Worship consists which is as necessary as external Worship is And therefore cannot refer to the publick Ceremonies of Religion which if they be practised at all must be practised publickly because they concern the publick acts of Worship There is no avoiding offence in this case by dissembling our Faith or by a private exercise of our liberty but Governours must part with their authority and private Christians with their liberty in such matters which the Apostle nowhere requires any man to do no not to avoid offence Now though our Dissenters pretend that it is against their Consciences to conform to the Ceremonies of the Church and our Reconciler pleads this in their behalf as a sufficient reason why they ought to be indulged yet this is not a good Argument in the case of Dissenters though it was in the case of the Jews because their mistakes do not meerly concern the exercise of their private liberty but publick Worship which is not left to the conduct of every mans private Conscience but to the direction and government of the Laws of God and men And though it be reasonable to leave men to the government of their own Consciences where there is no other Law yet there is no reason for it where there is for if they sin in acting contrary to their Consciences which no man can force them to do so they sin also in following an erroneous Conscience which Governours ought to hinder if they can This I take to be a sufficient Answer to all our Reconciler's Arguments from that condescension and forbearance which St. Paul exhorts the believing Jews and Gentiles to exercise towards each other because the case is vastly different from the case of our Dissenters The Dispute between the Jew and Gentile was not concerning the use of indifferent Rites and Ceremonies in the Worship of God but about the observation of the Law of Moses and those Arguments which the Apostle uses and which were very proper Arguments in that case can by no parity of reason be applied to the Dispute about indifferent things But there are several other considerations which I have already hinted at which plainly shew how vastly different the case of the Jews
not certainly how God will deal with them in the other World God has nowhere told us any thing of it and therefore this is not so certain as to make it a President and Example for Governours 2. But suppose this were so as all of us have reason to hope it is yet this is no Example to Governours in Church or State For there is a vast difference between Gods judgements in the other World and acts of Government and Discipline in this The one respects mens personal deserts and determines their final doom the other onely respects the preservation of good order and government in Church or State And therefore the final judgment considers all circumstances which may deserve reward or punishment pity and compassion not onely what was done but who did it with what intention and designe whether knowingly or ignorantly or the like the other considers onely what is done what prejudice it is to the publick and how such an example deserves to be punished and therefore it is very fitting for earthly Governours to punish those sins which God will pardon because they cannot maintain good Government withour it If through ignorance and mistake though so innocent and involuntary that God may see reason to pardon it any men should disturb the Peace and Order of Church or State it would utterly overthrow all Government if these men must not be restrained nor punished Our Reconciler might have considered that God forgives us all our sins which we sincerely repent of though they were never so great and voluntary and methinks he might as well have undertaken the Cause of penitent Thieves and Rebels and Murderers as of impenitent Schismaticks He should do well when he sees the Tears and Sorrows and Agonies of such guilty Wretches and hears their solemn profession of repentance to mind the Judge and the Jury of the mercy and pitifulness of our good God who forgives the sins of all true Penitents and therefore they who are commanded to be followers of God like dear children to be merciful as our Father which is in Heaven is merciful to put on bowels of compassion as the Elect of God should not hang up those poor penitent Wretches but forgive that on Earth which God will forgive in Heaven Now I wonder how a Judge and Jury would gaze upon such a Reconciler as this whether they would think him fittest for Bedlam or Bridewel It is certain that this good and pitiful God whose Example our Reconciler proposes does himself make a difference between this World and the next in executing Judgments he sometimes punishes those sins in this World which he himself forgives in the next and therefore certainly Earthly Governours whether of Church or State may punish those sins in this World which God will pardon in the next Thus it was in the case of David whom the Prophet Nathan upon his repentance assured that God had pardoned him and yet at the same time denounced the Judgments of God against him the rebellion of his Son Absolom and the death of the child begotten in Adultery Thus we have reason to hope that so pious a man as Vzzah though he was struck dead upon the place yet was not eternally damned for touching the Ark. 3. And yet Gods final Judgment is no Rule and Pattern for humane Judicatures because Earthly Governours do not know the hearts and thoughts of men as Gods does He knows when mens ignorance is invincible and involuntary which no man can know and therefore God can make such allowances in his last and final Judgment which no man can or ought God judges the hearts of men but man can onely judge of their actions and therefore an Earthly Governour may and ought in justice to punish that which God may very equitably pardon 4. Especially considering that this last and final Judgment of God is designed to rectifie all the necessary defects as well as miscarriages of humane Judicatures A man who is guilty of some troublesome errour and mistake may and ought for the publick good to suffer for it in this World though it may be hard that he should suffer for it in the next And this very consideration as I have observed before answers all this difficulty Schismaticks how innocent soever their mistake is ought to be cast out of the Church on â—arth or all Ecclesiastical Authority is lost and the Church left without any Government to defend it self but if the case be favourable God will make allowances for it in the other World and he who is guilty of Schism without a schismatical mind we hope may find mercy And therefore this can be no reason for the Church not to pass her censures upon such men if they are visibly guilty of that which deserves a censure A temporal Judge does not intend to damn every man whom he hangs nor an Ecclesiastical Judge to damn those whom he censures they are onely concerned to see that the Judgment and Censure be deserved in this World but they leave the final Judgment to God himself This I think is enough to answer to this Argument though our Reconciler rhetoricates upon it He observes that the Scripture represents God as very pitiful and we believe God to be very pitiful as any earthly Parent can be but not indulgent to the humour or frowardness of children But it is this God of mercy who himself goes into the mountains to save and to bring home the strayed sheep And thus the Governours of the Church ought to do to bring home stray Sheep into their Fold not to indulge them in their wandrings But God provided an Asylum for him who ignorantly committed murder accidentally he means without intending any such thing which is not the errour of the mind but of the hand and therefore does not relate to this business But God remitted the sin of Abimeleck because he did it ignorantly but Abimeleck had been guilty of no sin for he had not touched Sarah Abraham's Wife But he had mercy of St. Paul for the same reason though he persecuted the Church of Christ but the mercy consisted in bringing him to repentance unless the Reconciler will say too that he had mercy on those who crucified Christ because they did it ignorantly and on all those Jews of whom St. Paul witnesses that they had a zeal for God but not according to knowledge And indeed it is worth coâ—sidering that this Argument of the Reconcilâ—r's pleads â—or a Toleration of all Religions especially if we can suppose that there are honest and ignorant men among them such persons will be received by God according to our Reconciler's Principles whatever Religion they be of Jews or Turks or Pagans though he does none the honour of a particular vindication but onely the Papists If Charity teaches us thus to hope saith the most learned Bishop Sanderson of our forefathers who lived and died in the idolatrous acts of Worship why then should we reject
This is just as if we should charge that good Father who received his prodigal Son with all expressions of joy and made a great entertainment for his return with shutting his eldest Son out of his house because he foolishly and wickedly took offence at his Fathers kindneâ—s to his Brother and would not enter though his Father himself went out to perswade him and invite him in and to satisfie him of the fitness and decency of what he had done I doubt this does more properly belong to those Pharisaical Preachers who are satisfied in the lawfulness of what is required as St. Ierom supposes some of these Pharisees were convinc'd that Jesus was the Messias but to gratifie their own obstinacy pride and revenge will neither do what they know they may lawfully do themselves nor suffer others to do it St. Chrysostom expounds the words much to the same purpose and therefore no wonder if as our Reconciler observes he tells us That these men are called Pests and are diametrically opposed to Teachers their work being to destroy For if the Teachers business be to save what is lost to lose or cause to perish what might be saved is the work of the destroyer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which otherwise would be saved the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those who were entring that is as he expounds it the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those who were prepared and disposed to enter Now I think our Church never shut any out of her Communion who were prepared and disposed to enter But our Reconciler observes that in the same Chapter our Saviour condemns the Scribes and Pharisees for binding heavy burdens upon mens shoulders which they would not move with one of their fingers But what were these heavy burdens and grievous to be born which the Pharisees bound upon mens shoulders were they things burdensom to the Conscience which tempted men to forsake their Communion No such matter men were not so scrupulous in those days and our Saviour in that very place expresly charges his own Disciples not to forsake their Communion The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses seat all therefore that they bid you observe that observe and do And therefore our Saviour could not charge them that by these heavy burdens they frighted men from their Communion and made Schisms in the Church and therefore it is very impertinently alleadged by our Reconciler These heavy burdens did not concern the Rites and Ceremonies of publick Worship which our Saviour never blamed them for but conformed to them himself when he worshipped in their Synagogues But they were some strict and rigorous Expositions of their Law without making such allowances in cases of necessity and mercy as God intended as when they quarrelled with the Disciples for pulling the ears of Corn and eating them as they walked through the fields on the Sabbath-day being hungry or some arbitrary impositions which made a great shew and appearance of Sanctity but were very troublesome to be observed And when our Reconciler can shew any such heavy burdens imposed by the Church of England we will think of some other Answer But did our Saviour condemn the Pharisees meerly for binding these heavy burdens and laying them upon mens shoulders Not that neither The crime our Saviour charges them with was gross Hypocrisie that while they were so strict and severe in their impositions upon other men they were very easie and gentle to themselves They laid heavy burdens on others but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers Our Reconciler observes That St. Chrysostom well notes that our Lord saith not that they cannot but they will not move them Whereby he would have his Readers to understand that by moving them our Saviour meant removing them that they laid on heavy burdens but would not take them off again when they lawfully might as he expresly says â—hat not dispensing with these Traditions upon such great occasions was the sin of the Scribes and Pharisees Which is the fault he charges our Church with that she will not part with her Ceremonies for the sake of Dissenters Whereas St. Ierom and St. Chrysostom and all good Expositors understand no more by it than that they would not practise the least part of these things themselves They were very severe in their injunctions to others but excused themselves from such severities Which saith S. Chrysostom is quite contrary to what becomes a good Governour who will be very rigorous and severe in judging and censuring his own actions but a very kind and favourable judge of those who are under his care And therefore our Saviour urges this as a proof of what he before charged them with But do not ye after their works for they say and do not VI. In the next place he attempts to prove That Dissenters though not of our Communion should not be forbid to preach for the promotion of Christ's Kingdom because Christ would not suffer his Disciples to forbid the man who wrought Miracles in his Name but did not follow them that is says our Reconciler did not hold Communion with them And thus he has fairly altered the state of the Question and unwarily betrayed the secret thoughts of his heart His open and avowed designe all this while has been to plead for the removal of our Ceremonies that Dissenters might joyn in Communion with us and avoid the guilt of Schism which is a damning sin but now it seems it would do as well if not much better if Dissenters had but their liberty to preach in Conventicles for the promotion of Christ's Kingdom But is the Kingdom of Christ then promoted by Schism Will Schism damn men as he asserts and makes the principal foundation of all his Arguments and will the damnation of so many men as are seduced into Schism enlarge Christ's Kingdom Must the Church part with her Ceremonies for fear the occasion mens running into Schism and being damned for it And yet may she suffer Schismaticks to preach and allure men into a Schism I beg our Reconciler to think again of this and reconcile himself to himself But how does it appear that this man who cast out Devils in Christ's Name did preach the Gospel too There is no such thing said in the Text and if it be true what our Reconciler affirms that he was not Christ's Disciple he could not do it If he believed in Christ he was Christ's Disciple if he did not he could not preach the Gospel and I think there is some difference between preaching and working Miracles When our Dissenters can work Miracles I will never oppose their preaching But how does it appear that this man who cast out Devils in Christ's Name was no Disciple Had Christ no Disciples but those who followed him where-ever he went Our Saviour seems to prove that he was a Disciple or in a very good disposition to be one in that saying He that is not against
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-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