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; [Page 17] 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, Prot. Recon. p. 39. as they have nothing sinful in their na­ture for which Inferiours should refuse submission to them, so have they nothing of real goodness, no­thing of positive Order, Decency, or Reverence, for which they ought to be commanded. Now if he can make this good, I am resolved to meddle no farther in this Controversi [...] for it is not worth the while to spend Ink and Paper in defence of such Ceremonies as have no posi­tive Order, Decency, or Reverence, for which they ought to be commanded. For I am sure no Ceremonies in Religion, which do not serve the ends of Orders, Decency, and Reverence, ought to be commanded: for that is to trifle in sacred things.

But let us hear how he explains himself; for this is a Proposition which seems to need some explication. I call (says he) that po­sitive Order, Decency, or Reverence, which being done, renders the Service more decent, reverent, and orderly; and being undone, the Service be­comes [Page 18] irreverent, indecent, and disorderly perfor­med. So that my meaning is, that if our pub­lick Service were by the Minister performed with­out the Surplice, if Baptism were administred by him without the Cross, if the Sacrament of the Lords Supper were administred to such as did not kneel, but stand at the receiving of it; these actions would not be performed sinfully, or with defect of any real goodness which belongs to them, nor indecently, disorderly, or irreverently. So that his description of positive Order, Reve­rence, and Decency, resolves it self into two Propositions: That no Ceremonies have any positive Order, Decency, or Reverence, the use of which does not (1) make the Worship more decent, reverent, and orderly, than o­therwise it would be, i. e. than it would be in the use of any other Ceremonies, but those particular Ceremonies about which the Con­troversie is; [...] there the fallacy seems to lie: And the neglect of which does not (2) make the Worship irreverent, indecent, and disor­derly. Now though it is in my nature to be very civil to Reconcilers, yet I cannot grant him either of these Propositions.

As for the first, I suppose our Reconciler will grant that it is possible there may be dif­ferent degrees of Order, Decency, and Reve­rence; and that religious actions may be per­formed orderly, decently, and reverently, with some Ceremonies, though there may be other Ceremonies more orderly, decent, and reve­rent; and therefore there may be positive Order, Decency, and Reverence in those Ce­monies, [Page 19] the use of which makes the Worship orderly, decent, and reverent, though it does not make it more orderly, decent, and reve­rent, than otherwise it would be.

As for the second, there may be a less or­derly, decent, and reverent way of perform­ing religious actions, which yet cannot strict­ly be called irreverent, indecent, or disorder­ly; or there may be several sorts of Ceremo­nies which may equally contribute to the re­verent, decent, or orderly performance of re­ligious actions; and then the neglect of any one sort of Ceremonies may not make the a­ction indecent, irreverent, or disorderly, while we use other Ceremonies equally reverent or decent: and therefore it cannot be true, as he affirms, that no Ceremonies have any positive Order, Decency, or Reverence, which being undone, the Service is not irreverently, inde­cently, and disorderly performed.

As to explain this by his own instances. The Surplice may be a very decent Garment for Religious Offices, and it may be the most decent of any other; and yet the Worship may not be performed indecently without the Surplice, if the Minister officiate in some other decent Garment: but should he leave off the Surplice, and put on a Colliers Frock, or a Buff-coat, I should think It very indecent and irreverent; what the Reconciler would think, I cannot tell. Thus the Cross in Baptism does very much contribute to the gravity and solemnity of the action; and yet Baptism is compleat and perfect without it, and may be [Page 20] administred very reverently and decently, if all other due circumstances be observed. Knee­ling is a posture very expressive of our Reve­rence and Devotion, and therefore very pro­per for so sacred an action as receiving the Lords Supper; but standing and prostration are expressive of Reverence and Devotion al­so, and therefore those who do not kneel, but stand, when they receive, cannot be charged with irreverence. But now will any man in his wits say that there is no positive Order, Decency, or Reverence in a Surplice, or the Cross in Baptism, or kneeling at the Lords Supper, because it is possible that these religi­ous actions may be performed decently with other decent Ceremonies or Circumstances, without them?

But our Reconciler, though he may be a very charitable man, yet is not very honest, but manifestly puts tricks upon his Readers: otherwise, why does he oppose standing at the Lords Supper to kneeling, and not rather sit­ting, which is the onely posture used by our Dissenters? The French Protestants indeed receive standing; but what is that to our Dissenters, who would no more receive stan­ding than kneeling? for the same Objections which they urge against kneeling, are as good against standing: That it was not the posture used by Christ at the institution of this Sa­crament: That it is not a Table-posture, and therefore not proper at a Feast: That it is u­sed as a posture of Worship, and therefore they may worship the Host as well standing as [Page 21] kneeling; for if it be not used as a posture of Worship, it is no more expressive of Reve­rence than sitting. Now why does not our Reconciler say that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper may be received as reverently sitting as kneeling, but inst [...]ad of sitting, which is the case of our Dissenters, whose Cause he undertakes, puts in standing? I can imagine no other reason but onely this, That he was very sensible that sitting was no reverend po­sture, (nor used by them as a posture of Wor­ship; for then it is liable to the same Obje­ctions as kneeling is, for they might worship the Host as well sitting as kneeling; and yet if they do not worship sitting, they confess that they do not worship Christ no more than the Host, when they approach the Lords Ta­ble): and therefore he puts in standing which is not kneeling indeed, and yet is expressive of Reverence. And is not this a plain con­fession, that the onely case wherein decent and reverent Ceremonies may be neglected, and yet the Worship not be indecent and irreve­rent, is when other decent and reverent Ce­remonies are used in their room; but if they lay aside reverent Ceremonies, and use irreve­rent ones, the Worship becomes irreverent al­so? The external Decency and Reverence of religious actions, consists in the Reverence and Decency of those Circumstances and Ce­remonies wherewith they are performed. Where there is choice of such decent Modes and Ceremonies of Worship, the neglect of any one decent and reverent Mode or Cere­mony [Page 22] cannot make the action irreverent or undecent, but the neglect of all does. Had our Reconciler said that all those Ceremonies had a positive Order, Decency, and Reverence, without some or other of which, the Worship would be indecently, irreverently, or disor­derly performed, he had said very true; and this would have justified the Ceremonies of the Church of England, and all the decent Cere­monies of any foreign Churches in all Ages. But it is a manifest Fallacy, to say that the par­ticular Ceremonies which are used in the Church of England, have no positive Order, Decency, or Reverence, because the acts of Worship may be performed orderly, decently, and reverently without them; which our Church always owned: for she never con­demned the Worship of other Churches which do not use her Ceremonies, while by other means they secure the external Decency and Reverence of Worship. But the Question is, Whether the Ceremonies injoyned by the Church of England, or some other decent Ce­remonies in the room of them, be not neces­sary to the external Decency and Reverence of Worship? Whether we can worship de­cently and reverently, without some decent habits, postures, places, &c? Whether the Ceremonies used by the Church of England, be not as decent and reverent as any other? We do not pretend that our Ceremonies are the onely decent and reverent Ceremonies that can be used in religious Worship; then indeed his Argument had been strong, That [Page 23] those who do not use them, must worship God irreverently and indecently: but we say they have a positive Decency and Reverence, and that those who worship God according to the Prescriptions of our Church, observe an ex­ternal Decency and Reverence of Worship. But this he says not one word to, and there­fore I presume cannot; for he has given evi­dence enough, that he never wants will, but when he wants power, to be civil to the Church of England.

And therefore he might have spared his pains in proving that God may be decently and reverently worshipt, without the use of the English Ceremonies; for no body ever said otherwise that I know of: and the very Ar­gument whereby he proves it, plainly shews that the Church of England is of that mind; for she asserts these Ceremonies to be indiffe­rent and alterable: whereas, as he well urges, they could be neither, if they were absolutely necessary to the Decency and Reverence of Worship.

But before I proceed, it will be necessary, for the clearer stating of this matter, to consider the several kinds of Decency, and upon what account we assert, That our Ceremonies have a positive Decency in them. Now we may distinguish between the decency of circumstan­ces, and the decency of things or actions. No action can be performed without some cir­cumstances, and no action can be decently per­ [...]rmed without decent circumstances, such as [...]ime, and place, and posture, and habit; and [Page 24] this is as absolutely necessary as the Decency of publick Worship is. And to this Head of decent circumstances we reduce the Surplice, which is a decent habit for the Minister when he performs the publick Offices of Religion; and kneeling at the Lords Supper, which are two of the three Ceremonies of the Church of England. The Cross in Baptism, which is the third Ceremony, is not a circumstance of a­ction, and therefore has not the same kind of Decency, nor the same necessity that the other Ceremonies have; but it is to be considered as a decent thing or action. Now these two being of so distinct a nature, must be consider­ed distinctly also; and therefore I must adver­tise my Reader, that what I shall now dis­course about the Decency of Worship, and the necessity of i [...], concerns onely the decent circumstances of religious actions; such as the Surplice and knee [...]ing at the Lords Supper are. As for decent things or actions, such as the signe of the Cross is at Baptism, I shall dis­course of that distinctly by its self. Having premised this, let us now return to our Re­conciler.

This modest man, who is so sensible of his own weakness and proneness to mistake in judging, Pref. p. 2. who is so unwilling to do the least disservice to the Church of England, who has such a hearty ho­nour for his Reverend Superiours; yet with great humility ventures to confute and expose all the Savoy-Commissioners,Reconcil. p. 39. who were very grave and reverend Persons.

The Commissioners observed, That the A­postle [Page 25] hath commanded that all things be done de­cently, and that there may be uniformity; let there be [...] a Rule and Canon for that purpose: And hence, he says, they infer, that though cha­rity will move to pity and relieve those that are perplexed and scrupulous, that we must not break Gods commandment in charity to them; and there­fore we must not perform publick Services indecent­ly and disorderly for the sake of tender Consciences. Which, he adds, is expresly said, to justifie their refusal to abate the imposition of the Ceremonies, especially these three, the Surplice, the signe of the Cross, and Kneeling.

This seems to me to be very wisely and ju­diciously urged by our Commissioners; but our Reconciler thinks they have greatly over­shot themselves, when they assert, That by a­bating the use and imposition of these Ceremonies, they should break Gods Commandment, and per­form publick Service indecently and disorderly. Truly I think this is a little too much; and our Author has loaded it with a great many hard consequences, which I see not how they can answer: but the best of it is, that the Com­missioners never said any such thing: I am sure there is no such thing contained in the words cited by him, which he reduces to this absurd Proposition.

But do not they say, that they must not break Gods Command in Charity, and there­fore must not perform publick Services inde­cently and disorderly for the sake of tender Consciences? Yes, they do say so. And was not that said to justifie their refusal to abate [Page 26] the imposition of the Ceremonies? Suppose that too. Does not this then signifie, that by abating the use or imposition of these Cere­monies, they shall break Gods Command­ment, and perform publick Service indecently and disorderly? By no means. This is onely one instance of our Author's proneness to mistake in judging; which I wish he were more tho­roughly sensible of, and that would make him more modest without a complement.

The Commissioners assert very truly, That the Apostle commands that all things be done decently and in order. This they take to be Gods Command, as well they might▪ and therefore it is a breach of Gods Command to perform publick Services indecently and dis­orderly; and charity does not oblige them to break any Command of God, and therefore they must not do this for the sake of tender Consciences. All this I presume our Recon­ciler himself will acknowledge. What then is the fault? Why the Commissioners urge this upon occasion of the Dispute about aba­ting the Ceremonies of the Church of Eng­land; and therefore it proves, that they thought the Worship of God could not be de­cently and reverently performed, without those particular Ceremonies: for otherwise their Argument is not good. Yes, say I, the Argument is very good without this Supposi­tion; and therefore the Reconciler's conse­quence is not good. For I would ask him one plain Question: Can any particular Church urge this Rule of the Apostle, that [Page 27] all things be done decently and in order, in justification of their imposition of some indif­ferent but decent Rites and Ceremonies in re­ligious Worship, which are not commanded by God? If any Church may, why not the Church of England? unless he can prove that our Ceremonies are indecent, irreverent, and disorderly. If they may not, then the Apo­stles Rule signifies nothing; for it will not justifie the Governours of the Church in ta­king care of the Decency and Reverence of Worship. And if this Rule will justifie any one Church in appointing decent Rites and Ceremonies of Worship, it will equally justifie all the Churches in the World in their Rites and Ceremonies, how different soever they be from each other, so they be all decent and re­verent. And yet I suppose, should the Advo­cates of any particular Church, as for instance, the Commissioners of the Savoy, urge this A­postolical Rule in vindication of the Ceremo­nies of their own Church, no man in his wits would hence conclude, that they did believe the particular Ceremonies of their Church to be the Command of God, and that religious Worship could not be decently or reverently performed without them, which would be to condemn all other Churches which did not observe the same Rites and Ceremonies with themselves. And thus all the several Church [...]s in the World, which enjoyn nothing but what contributes to the external Decency and Solemnity of Worship, may by the Apostles Rule justifie themselves; and yet, according [Page 28] to this way of arguing, cannot justifie them­selves, without condemning all other Chur­ches: which I confess is very hard to my un­derstanding.

Does not such a general Rule for the De­cency of Worship, require that there should be some particular Rules of Decency and Order prescribed? Does not such a general Rule sup­pose that there may be several Rules given, several Rites and Ceremonies of Worship pre­scribed, differing indeed from each other, but all complying with the general Rule of De­cency and Order? for that is a strange gene­ral Rule, which contains but one particular under it. Does not such a general Rule sup­pose that the choice of particulars is left to the prudence of Ecclesiastical Governours, while they keep themselves within the gene­ral Rule? And is not the true reason of this general Rule, and consequently of those parti­cular Rules and Orders for Worship which are prescribed by vertue of this general Rule, to prevent a disorderly, irreverent, indecent performance of religious Worship? And may not Church-Governours then assigne this as a reason why they prescribe these Rules, and why they will not alter them, because they must not perform the publick Service inde­cently and irreverently? If they may, then their saying so does indeed suppose that those Ceremonies which they prescribe, are decent and reverent; but it does not suppose that there are no other decent or reverent ways of performing religious offices, and that whoever [Page 29] does not use those Ceremonies which they in­stitute and command, must be guilty of an in­decent and irreverent performance of publick Worship. For that would be to overthrow the main Principle by which they act, which is the authority of a general Rule, which does not prescribe the particular Rules of Decency and Order; and therefore supposes that there may be several, and that every Church has li­berty to chuse for her self.

In short, I would desire our Reconciler to consider, that if Church-Governours must not prescribe any particular Rites and Ceremo­nies to prevent the disorders and indecencies of Worship, while there are any other Rites and Ceremonies as decent and orderly as those which they prescribe, then this Apostolical Rule signifies nothing; for it can never be reduced into practice. As for instance, sup­pose the French Protestants enjoyn standing at receiving the Lords Supper, or at publick Prayers, as the Primitive Church did on the Lords days, and should assigne this reason for it, that they must not suffer the Worship of God to be indecently or irreverently perform­ed, and so break that Commandment, Let all things be done decently and in order; pre­sently our Reconciler has seven Arguments to oppose against them, though they may all be reduc'd to one: That this makes standing at the Lords Supper not to be an indifferent Ce­remony of humane institution,Reconc. p 39, 40. but necessary in its own nature, and by a divine command an­tecedent to all humane Authority, and that [Page 30] which no humane Authority can alter; and therefore a necessary part of Worship. For how can they say that they require their Com­municants to receive standing, in obedience to a divine command, and because they must not worship God irreverently and indecently, un­less they believe that standing at the Lords Supper is not an indifferent Ceremony, but such a necessary posture, that he who does not stand at receiving, breaks the Command of God, and receives irreverently and Indecently? And thus the French Church is utterly ruined, and must no longer enjoyn standing at the holy Communion. Well, the Church of Eng­land requires kneeling for the same reason that the French Church requires standing, and therefore the same Arguments are good against her; and should any man have the confidence to use the same reason for sitting, that they must not worship God irreverently and indecently, the same Arguments would hold good against them also. So that here is a general Rule given to Church-Governours, to take care to preserve Decency and Order in the Worship of God, and all the parts of it, and yet no Church-Governours can reduce this to practice; for a general Rule cannot be reduced to practice but by particular Rules and Orders; and yet whoever prescribes any particular Rules of Decency and Order, and insists on them to prevent irreverence and in­decency in Worship, falls unde [...] our Reconci­lers censure, and is with all humility intreated to answer seven terrible Arguments in his own vindication.

[Page 31]The plain Answer to our Reconciler then is this: That the Governours of every Church are, by vertue of this Apostolical Command, required to prevent the indecency and irreve­rence of publick Worship; and they have no other way of doing this, but by prescribing some particular Rules of Decency and Order: And though the constitutions and usages of several Churches may be very various and different from each other, yet every constitu­tion which is decent and orderly, prevents the indecent and irreverent performance of pub­lick Worship; and therefore all Church-Go­vernours may justifie such Impositions as the Commissioners at the Savoy did, by saying, that they must not break Gods Commandment, and therefore must not suffer the publick Service to be indecently and irreverently performed; and therefore must prescribe some particular Rules of Order and Decency, without either making their own Rites and Ceremonies es­sential to the Decency of Worship, or censu­ring and condemning the decent usages and customs of other Churches.

But since great part of this Controversie turns upon this hinge, that it is a very trifling and inconsiderable thing to prescribe Rules for Habits, Postures, or Gestures in the Wor­ship of God, much more to institute any sig­nificant and symbolical Rites and Ceremonies; that such things have no real and positive goodness in them, and therefore are not worth contending for: I shall discourse this matter more particularly, and shall, 1. shew how ne­cessary [Page 32] some decent Rites and Ceremonies are to the external Decency of Worship; which will justifie the Governours of the Church in such Impositions. 2. Wherein the Decency of religious Worship consists; which will justi­fie the Ceremonies in use among us, as having a positive Order, Decency, and Reverence. 3. I shall consider how our Reconciler states this matter.

First. How necessary some decent Rites and Ceremonies are to the external Decency of Worship.

For though any one particular Habit, or Posture, or Gesture in religious Worship, is so far indifferent as it is no-where expresly com­manded; yet a decent Habit and Posture, &c. is not indifferent, but as necessary as external Worship is, and expresly commanded by this Apostolical Rule, That all things be done de­cently and in order. If men will acknowledge that God requires publick, external, and visi­ble Worship, as well as the Worship of the Mind and Spirit,See Pract. disc. of religious Assembl. 6.2. which I have largely dis­coursed elsewhere; it is certain there can be no visible Worship, but by external and visi­ble signs of honour: for the internal Devoti­on of the mind cannot be seen by men, though it be seen by God; and therefore is not exter­nal and visible Worship.See Defen. of Dr. Still. Unr. of Separ. p. 30. Can that man be said to pay any visible Honour or Worship to God, whose words and actions, postures and behaviour, signifie nothing of Honour or Re­verence?

We know of what mighty consequence [Page 33] the Ceremonies of State are, and how punctu­al Princes are in exacting them; and when we remember that no Prince can be so jealous of his Honour as God is of his Worship, we cannot think that the publick Solemnities and external Decen [...]y of Worship are such incon­siderable things, when the glory of God is so nearly concerned in them. For the external and visible glory of God consists in external and visible Worship; and external Worship is nothing else but external significations of Re­verence and Devotion.

And therefore though the particular modes and circumstances of Worship are not particu­larly prescribed by God, yet some particular Rites of Worship for external Decency and Order, are necessary, and ought to be prescri­bed by those who have the care of publick Worship. For if the external Decency of Worship be necessary by an Apostolical Pre­cept, and yet this external Decency cannot be secured without some particular Rules of Decency and Order; then some such particu­lar Rules are as necessary as Decency and Or­der is; and whatever external Rites do con­tribute to the Decency and Order of Worship, have all that real goodness in them which ther [...] is in Decency and Order: and no man can truly say, that any such Rites and Ceremonies have no real goodness in them, wherefore they ought to be commanded, without asserting at the same time, that there is no real goodness in De­cency and Order: for if they are decent and orderly, they must have all that real [Page 34] goodness which is in Decency and Order. For it is a manifest Fallacy, to argue that such or such Rites or Ceremonies are in their own nature indifferent, and not commanded by a­ny positive Law of God, and therefore have no real or necessary goodness in them, when the end for which they serve is not indiffe­rent, but necessary, and expresly commanded by God. For I cannot see but that these men▪ if they pleased, might as well prove that those Rites and Ceremonies which serve the ends of Decency and Order, are not indifferent, but necessary, by vertue of that Law which enjoyns the external Decency of Worship, as that they are not necessary, but indifferent, because they are not in particular commanded by God. For the same Law which makes the external Decency of Worship necessary, makes the use of decent Rites necessary, because the end can­not be attained without the means; but the natural indifferency of things does not make them indifferent in their use, when they are to serve a necessary end.

But the fallacy of this consists in the equi­vocal use of these terms, real goodness, necessity, indifferency; which therefore I shall briefly ex­plain, and apply to the present Controver­sie.

Real goodness may respect the intrinsick na­ture, or the use of things: In the first sence we call all moral Vertues good, which have an intrinsick and eternal reason, such as Prudence, T [...]mperance, Fortitude, Justice, and all those natural acts of Homage and Worship which [Page 35] we owe to God: and in this sence, no Habits, Postures, or Gestures, have any real goodness in them; for they are no acts nor parts of Worship. This turns all these external obser­vances into superstition (which our Saviour charged the Pharisees with of old, and which we very justly charge the Church of Rome with at this day) when we place such Ver­tue and Sanctity in these things, as to advance them into proper Acts and Ministries of Re­ligion; the very doing of which, is as accept­able, or more acceptable to God, than the most real and natural acts of Homage and Wor­ship.

But then there are other things which have no natural nor intrinsick goodness in them, which yet may be properly enough called, and are really good, with respect to their use, and the end they serve, if the end be good; and such are those external Rites and Ceremonies which conduce to the decent and orderly per­formance of religious Worship: For if the ex­ternal Decency of Worship be good, then those Ceremonies wherein the external De­cency of Worship consists, must be so far good also, and fit to be commanded.

The like may be said about the different kinds of necessity, as far as it concerns this matter. For some things are necessary in their own nature; as all those things are which have an internal and immutable good­ness, and being founded on eternal reasons: other things which are not necessary in their own nature, yet may be necessary by a divine [Page 36] and positive Institution; as the Levitical Sa­crifices and Ceremonies were under the Mo­saical Law, and as the Christian Sacraments are under the Gospel: other things are nei­ther necessary in their own nature, nor by a positive Law, which yet may be necessary as means in order to a necessary end. And here are two degrees of necessity: 1. When the means is so absolutely necessary to the end, that the end cannot be obtained without it; as it is in all those cases where there is but one way of doing a thing, which makes that one way as absolutely necessary as the thing it self is; as, if there were but one Road from Lon­don to York, it would be as necessary to travel that Road, as it is to go to York: but there are very few such cases as these in matters of Morality. But, 2. There is another kind of necessity, when there are various means e­qually fitted and suited to attain the same end; as in the case before us: the external Decency of Worship is necessary, but yet there may be different Rites and Modes of Worship, which may be all very decent. Now in this case all these Rites and Ceremonies are on different accounts both necessary and indifferent. They are necessary, considered as to their general na­ture and use, as they are decent Rites and Ce­remonies of Worship, because the Decency of Worship is necessary; they are indifferent, considered as such particular Rites and Modes of Worship, because there are other decent ways of Worship besides them. As to shew this in a parallel case: All wholsom Food is [Page 37] necessary to preserve life and health, and yet no one particular kind of Food, considered as such a particular kind, is necessary to our life and health, because men may live very health­fully who use very different Diets; but yet considered as to its general nature, as whol­some Food: and so we may say of any parti­cular Diet, that it is necessary to our life and health. Every particular sort of wholsome Diet has the necessity of a means and cause, which can produce the effect, though not the necessity of an onely cause, without which the effect cannot be produced. And this is a true degree of necessity, though not an absolute ne­cessity. It is sufficient to justifie any man in using any wholsome Diet, and to justifie any Church in chusing and determining any de­cent Rites and Ceremonies of Worship. Food is necessary to preserve our lives, and external Decency is necessary in religious Worship; but no particular sort of Food is so necessary that we cannot live without it, nor any particular Ceremonies so necessary that we cannot worship God without them; but yet they have the necessity of a cause to produce the effect, which is all the necessity things of this nature are capable of, the ne­cessity of a means to an end, though not of an onely means: and therefore they cannot be called indifferent, with respect to producing the effect, for they have a proper and necessa­ry influence on the effect; but they are indif­ferent onely with respect to other causes, which can equally produce the effect.

[Page 38]But this will be better understood by con­sidering the several kinds of things indifferent. Some things are indifferent in their own na­ture, as being neither morally good nor evil; or with respect to a divine Law, as being nei­ther particularly commanded nor forbid: and upon both these accounts the particular Cere­monies of Religion may be called indifferent things. But then these indifferent things, which considered absolutely in their own na­ture, are neither morally good nor evil, nor particularly forbid nor commanded by God; yet with respect to some end they are fitted to serve, or as they are reducible to some gene­ral Law, may lose this absolute indifferency of their nature, and be capable of being advan­ced to be the Rites and Ceremonies of reli­gious Worship. Thus for instance: a white, or black, or red Garment, are all indifferent Habits; standing, sitting, or kneeling, are all indifferent Postures; the like may be said of times and places: but when they come to be applied to Religion, they may not all be e­qually fitted to the Gravity, Decency, and So­lemnity of religious Worship. And therefore by vertue of that general Law, That all things be done decently and in order, some of these Ha­bits or Postures, times and places, are more proper to be made the Circumstances of Reli­gion; and therefore are not wholly indiffe­rent with respect to the Decency of Worship, because their natural or instituted signification makes them fitter for the Service and Mini­stries of Religion, than other things are; and [Page 39] therefore antecedently to all Laws, have so much goodness and necessity in them, that they have an aptitude and fitness to serve the external Decency of Worship; and by vertue of that Apostolical Precept of Decency and Order, some or other of them must be used in publick Worship. But then since there may be different Rites and Usages which may e­qually secure the Decency of Worship, all these decent Rites and Modes of Worship may still be called indifferent, as considered in par­ticular, and as compared with each other: for till the particular Circumstances of Religion are determined by a just Authority, either of them may be decently used; but none of them are indifferent, considered in their general na­ture as decent Rites and Ceremonies, and as compared with other Rites and Modes of Worship, which are indecent. The indiffe­rency is not in the nature of the things, consi­dered as decent, and as opposed to that which is indecent; but the indifferency is onely in our choice, occasioned by the variety of de­cent Rites. It is not indifferent whether we will use any decent Ceremonies, or none; it is not indifferent whether we use decent or indecent Ceremonies; but the onely indiffe­rency is in a variety of decent Ceremonies which we will chuse.

From hence I hope by this time it appears, that all decent Rites and Ceremonies have such a goodness in them, as makes them fit to be commanded: for though they have no in­ [...]ernal nor necessary goodness, considered ab­solutely [Page 40] in their own natures▪ yet with respect to the acts of Worship, they have the good­ness of Decency, which is commanded by an express law, and is essential to publick Wor­ship: and therefore they are not absolutely indifferent, as things which can neither do good nor hurt, which we may use or may let alone; but are necessary to the Decency of Worship, as means to an end, or as a cause is to produce its effect. We may safely say in general, that decent Rites and Ceremonies are necessary to publick Worship, because publick Worship cannot be performed decently with­out them: and the reason why we cannot say this of any particular Ceremonies, is not because they are absolutely indifferent in their own nature considered as decent, but they are indifferent as to our choice and election, when there is a variety of such decent Ceremonies: for in this case the Governours of the Church are not confined to any one decent Garb or Posture, but may command the use of any one that is decent. But yet this is no Argument against any particular Ceremonies, that they have not so much goodness or necessity, that they ought to be commanded, because there are other Rites and Modes of Worship as de­cent as they: for this Argument will hold a­gainst all particular Ceremonies considered in particular, and so no particular Ceremonies of Decency must be commanded; and yet this general notion of the Decency of Worship can never be put in practice, but by the use of some particular decent Rites.

[Page 41]And I cannot but observe by the way, that the very name of indifferent things is very un­duly and improperly given to those Rites and Ceremonies of Religion, which serve the ends of Decency and Order; and I doubt not but this has in part occasioned those fierce Disputes and Contentions about them. For indeed, indifferent things, which are upon all accounts indifferent, and have neither any good nor hurt in them, are by no means fit to be commanded in religious Worship; for this is to trifle in sacred things, which is contrary to the Decency and Gravity of Worship: but those Ceremonies which serve the ends of Or­der and Decency, are not indifferent things, but necessary, considered as decent. There must, upon some account or other, be an an­tecedent Decency in things, before they are fit to be commanded: Church-Governours must take care to maintain the Decency of Wor­ship, but they must find things decent; for by their meer command they cannot make them so. All decent Rites and Ceremonies are, by the Apostolical Rule to do all things de­cently and in order, fitted and qualified to be made the Ceremonies of Religion, which no­thing purely indifferent is; and all the Au­thority of Church-Governours in this matter, is onely to determine what particular decent Rites of Worship shall be used in their Church; that is, to apply the Apostles general Rule to particular instances.

I know very well how jealous and fearful most men are of owning any other necessity or [Page 42] obligation to observe the external Rites and Ceremonies of Religion, but what is derived from the Authority of Ecclesiastical or Civil Governours; and therefore no wonder if in an Age wherein the Authority of the Church is so much despised, and the Authority of the Prince in matters of Religion is absolutely denied, they fall under such a general Contempt. But I confess, I see no reason why any man should be afraid to own some kind of necessity antecedent to all humane Authority. For, as I have already proved, 1. The external De­cency of Worship is absolutely necessary by an Apostolical Precept antecedent to all humane Authority. 2. This makes it necessary that some decent Rites and Ceremonies should be used in religious Worship. 3. This makes it necessary, that nothing but what is decent should be used. And therefore, 4. All parti­cular decent Ceremonies have this necessity antecedent to all humane Authority, that some of them must be used in religious Worship, and no other must. And therefore, 5. When the Governours of the Church have determi­ned which particular decent Ceremonies shall be used in religious Worship, these particular Ceremonies become necessary, not meerly by Ecclesiastical Authority, but by vertue of the Apostolical Command, and their own natural Decency, which brings them within the com­pass of that general Rule. Church-Gover­nours have Authority to apply that general Rule to particular Ceremonies, which have such Order and Decency as comprehends them [Page 43] within that general Rule: But these Rites and Ceremonies, when they are fixt and de­termined, do not derive their obligation meer­ly from the Authority of the Church, but from the Apostolical Canon; we must observe them not meerly because the Church has com­manded them, but because they are in them­selves decent, and so comprehended within the Apostolical Canon, and therefore the pro­per Object of Church-Authority. The Au­thority of the Church consists onely in apply­ing the Apostolical Authority to such particu­lar Rites and Ceremonies, as by their own Decency are fit and qualified to be used in re­ligious Worship▪ but it is the Apostolical Au­thority, as applied by the Church to such par­ticular Ceremonies, which gives them their necessity and obligation.

Hence Mr. Calvin observes, that those Ec­clesiastical Laws which relate to Discipline and Order,Calvin in 1 Cor. 14.40. must not be accounted humane Tradi­tions, because they are founded in this general Precept of doing all things decently and in order, and so receive their approbation as it were from the mouth of Christ himself.

This, I think, is sufficient to shew that the decent Rites and Ceremonies of Religion have such goodness and necessity, that they ought to be commanded: for they have the good­ness and necessity of Decency, which is en­joyned by an Apostolical Canon. But still the Controversie remains, what this external Decency of Worship is, and by what Rules we must judge of it: for one man may ac­count [Page 44] that decent, which another may think has no positive Decency at all; as it is in our present case. The Church of England retains the use of some Ceremonies for the sake of Decency; our modest Reconciler, who is very sensible of his own proneness to mistake, yet ventures to contradict the judgment of the Church, and affirms that there is no positive Order or Decency in the Ceremonies of the Church of England, wherefore they ought to be commanded. And therefore it will be ne­cessary,

Secondly, To consider what the general notion of Decency in religious Worship is, and by what Rules we must judge of it.

Now in general, the external Decency of religious Worship consists in performing the Duties of Religion in such a manner as is ex­pressive of Honour, Reverence, and Devotion. This, I suppose, will not be denied by any man who acknowledges any such thing as external Worship; but the difficulty is, by what Rules we must judge of external Honour and Reve­rence: and yet most men understand this ve­ry well also, when they speak of civil Honour. They know what Postures, what Actions, what Habit, what Behaviour, what Language, what Address, becomes them, when they ap­proach their Prince, and their Parents, or any other Persons, whom they ought to honour or respect. And this suggests to us two ge­neral Rules to direct us in religious Wor­ship.

1. That whatever would be deservedly [Page 45] thought a breach of good manners in com­mon Conversation, or a violation of that ci­vil Respect and Honour which is due to Prin­ces and all Superiours, can never become the Worship of God. What God tells the Isra­elites, who offered the blind, and the lame, and the sick in Sacrifice, holds good in all o­ther cases: Offer it now to thy Governour; will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person, saith the Lord of Hosts, 1 Mal. 8. Such words, and actions, and behaviour, as would be an affront to the Majesty of a Prince, do much more unbecome religious Worship, because God is much greater than the greatest Prince.

2. That whatever is a necessary expression of our Honour and Reverence to men, as far as it is agreeable with the nature of religious Worship, is in a peculiar and eminent degre [...] due to Almighty God. Many of the exter­nal expressions and signs of Honour both to God and man, must of necessity be alike, and if not the very same, yet of the same kind and nature. For whether we intend to honour God or men, it must be done by some visible signs of Honour which are not necessarily determi­ned either to religious or civil Worship, but applicable to both. If it be a signe of Honour to our Prince, to be uncovered in his presence, to deliver our Petitions upon the knee, to come in a decent apparel, to put on a grave and modest countenance, to keep our distance, &c. that is, if we must express our Reverence for our Prince in our words and gestures, in our looks, and habit, and deportment of our [Page 46] 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.
• [Page 47]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, 1 Mal. 6. 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,v. 14. 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 [Page 48] 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 [Page 49] 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, [Page 50] 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 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 [Page 51] 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,1 Cor. 11.4, 5, 6, 7. 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,ch. 14.34, 35. because they must be un­der obedience; for to teach, is an act of Au­thority, [Page 52] and therefore does not become her state of Subjection.1 Tim. 2.11, 12. 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,4 Rev. 4. are represented as clothed in white Linnen Garments: nay, that great multitude which stood before the Throne,7 Rev. 9. and before the Lamb, were clothed with white Robes. Nay, this is one priviledge which was granted to the Wife of the Lamb,19 Rev. 8. 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 [Page 53] 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 [...]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 [Page 54] 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 [Page 55] well: for there is no other Rule, that I know of,See Defen. of Dr. Still. Unr. of Separ. p. 41, 42. 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 another sort of Ceremonies which are not the necessa­ry circumstances of action, but yet may be ve­ry decently used, and do contribute to the Gravity and Solemnity of religious actions. Of this nature is the signe of the Cross in Baptism, which is no necessary circumstance, for Baptism may be very decently and reve­rently administred without it; but it is a thing very fitting and decent to be done at the time of Baptism, and which adds to the external Solemnity of it. Our Church has enjoyned no other Ceremony of this nature, but onely the signe of the Cross; but yet it will be ne­cessary to discourse something briefly about the nature, the decency, and lawfulness of such Ceremonies as these, and in particular about the Cross in Baptism.

[Page 56]First, As to the nature of these Ceremonies, I shall observe three things; which I presume will contain all that is necessary to be known about them.

1. That though they are symbolical and significant Ceremonies, they are not meerly for signification; that is, they are not meer Images and Pictures of things, which would transform Religion into an external piece of Pageantry. A great many such things indeed have been used, and are still in use in the Church of Rome; as, dressing up a Baby, and rocking it in a Cradle, as a Figure and Em­blem of Christs birth, about the time of his Nativity, and such-like childish and ludicrous shows, which unbecome the Gravity and Sim­plicity of the Christian Religion. Such mean Representations as these, are onely for the en­tertainment of Children, but do mightily de­base the Spirits of men, and detain them by earthly Figures and Similitudes from contem­plating those sublime Mysteries. God never instituted such a Religion as this, nor did Christ and his Apostles give any countenance or authority to it. The Law of Moses indeed consisted of a great many significant Rites and Ceremonies, such as Circumcision, Washings, Purifications, Sacrifices, &c. many of which were instituted purely for their signification; but then the designe of it was to teach them by such external Rites those things, which at that time he did not think fit to give any ex­press Laws about, nor to make a plain and clear revelation of. The Rites and Ceremo­nies [Page 57] of their Law were either typical of Christ and the state of the Gospel, or had a moral signification to instruct them in those Evange­lical Graces and Vertues, which God did not think fit then expresly to command. Now in such a dispensation as this, it did highly become the divine Wisdom by such external Signs and Figures to give some hints and intimations of diviner Mysteries, and a more excellent Phi­losophy, to devout and inquisitive minds: The designe of these legal Ceremonies was to teach them that by Hieroglyphicks, which it was not yet time to teach them by plain Pre­cepts and express Revelations. But to trans­form the plain Precepts and Revelations of the Gospel into earthly Figures, is to teach men backward, to draw them off from the imme­diate contemplation of pure and naked Truth to court a Picture and a Shadow, and to dote upon earthly Figures and Images of it. And therefore it is a reproach to the wisdom of the Mosaical Dispensation, to call such fooleries as these, Jewish Rites and Superstitions. There was a great deal of hidden and secret Wisdom contained in and taught by those Rites, which at that time they had no other way to learn; but such significant Ceremonies as are meerly for signification, in the Christian Religion do onely obscure and debase divine Mysteries, are wholly useless, when we are instructed in those things by plain and express Revelations, which these Ceremonies teach, or rather dar­ken by earthly Figures; and they corrupt a Spiritual Worship, which hereby degenerates into external pomp and show.

[Page 58]2. These Ceremonies therefore, though they are significant, must not be meer teaching Signs, which are out of date under the Go­spel, and a reproach to the clear Revelations and perfect light of it; but are visible signs and expressions of some Grace, or Vertue, or Duty, which we at that time exercise, or pro­fess the exercise of. As to give you some in­stances of such Ceremonies as were both al­lowed and practised by Christ and his Apo­stles.

13 Joh. 4, 5.Christ washed his Disciples feet, as an Ex­ample of Humility as well as Kindness; which he recommended to their imitation; and this seems to be literally practised by them after his death,1 Tim. 5.10. and was continued in some Churches to after-Ages. But now we must not look upon this Ceremony onely as a signe of Hu­mility, but as a real exercise of it. In those Countries, to wash the feet of any man, was a servile work, and as mean an Office as they could do for one another; and therefore it was a visible exercise of Humility in our Sa­viour to do it, and so it was in them too, who imitated him in it; but did withal signifie all other acts of Kindness, Humility, and Conde­scension, which by that act of washing the feet they did profess to each other. And should men wash each others feet still, without the exercise of that Humility with which our Saviour did it, it would not be a religious Ceremony, but a ludicrous piece of Supersti­tion.

Thus the Kiss of Charity, or the holy Kiss, [Page 59] which was used in the Apostles days, was not a meer significant Signe, but a real exercise and expression of that Brotherly love which they had, and which they expressed to each other; and those who kissed without this divine Charity, profaned the Ceremony. Thus the Love-Feast, which was in use also in the Apo­stles days, where all Christians, the rich and the poor, eat together at a common Table, was not onely a significant Signe of mutual Love, but an Exercise and a visible Profession of it; and therefore the Apostle severely re­proves them for such disorders at that holy Feast, as were inconsistent with that Brotherly Love and Charity which they profess'd in it.

Thus the signe of the Cross, as it is used in our Church at Baptism, is not meerly for sig­nification, but is a visible Profession of our Faith in a crucified Saviour, and a Promise and Engagement of our selves to take up his Cross, and to suffer as he did, rather than to deny him. In token that we shall not hereafter be ashamed to confess the Faith of Christ crucified, and manfully to fight under his Banner against the World, the Flesh, and the Devil, and to continue Christs faithful Servants and Souldiers unto our lives end.

But yet we must observe farther, that though these Ceremonies may be called reli­gious Actions or Ceremonies, yet they are not properly acts of Religion in a strict sence, as that signifies acts of Worship. They are re­ligious actions, as being done upon a religious [Page 60] account, as being the Exercise or Profession of some Vertue; but we do not properly worship God in them, no more than we do by being meek, and humble, and charitable, and professing the Faith of Christ before men. To kiss each other, and to eat together at a common Table, is a civil action, and a testi­mony of civil kindnesses and respects; but when this is done upon a religious account, as a testimony and expression of Christian Cha­rity, it becomes a holy Kiss, and a religious Feast. These Ceremonies are as acceptable to God, as those Duties and Graces are which we exercise and profess in them, if we be sin­cere; but they are no parts nor acts of Wor­ship, though performed in the time of Wor­ship.

This short account of the nature of these Ceremonies, shews us what a ridiculous pre­tence it is to charge them with being Sacra­ments of humane Institution. Some tell us, that the definition our Church gives of a Sa­crament, belongs to such Ceremonies as these; that it is an outward visible signe of an inward spiritual Grace; and here they stop, as if this were the full definition of a Sacrament: but our Church adds, given unto us, and ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and as a pledge to assure us thereof. So that there can be no such thing as a humane Sacrament, because there can be no Sacrament but what is ordained by Christ. True, say they, but that is the fault of it, that when up­on other accounts it has the nature of a Sacra­ment, [Page 61] it has not that authority which should make it a divine, and therefore it is onely a hu­mane Sacrament. These Ceremonies then it seems would be Sacraments, if they had the authority of Christ: then there is one Sacra­ment more than they think of, viz. washing the Disciples feet; which was instituted by Christ himself, and is as much an outward visible signe of an inward spiritual Grace, as the Cross in Baptism, or any other significant Ceremony can be; but it wants what our Church adds to make up the nature of a Sacrament, that it is ordained as a means whereby we receive this spiritual Grace, and as a pledge to assure us there­of: Which shews, that no Ceremony, how symbolical soever it be, can be a Sacrament, which is not the Seal of a Covenant and Pro­mise, and an instituted means for the convey­ance of Grace.

But to let that pass: the nature of these Ce­remonies does not consist in this, That they are outward visible signs of an inward spiritual Grace; but that they are the visible Exercise or Profession of some Grace or Duty. Their nature does not consist in being signifying signs to teach a Duty, but in signifying the actual Exercise or Profession of some Duty: and this, I suppose, does not make them Sa­craments.

Secondly, Let us now consider the Decency of such Ceremonies, and I cannot imagine what dispute there can be about it. For if the Exercise or Profession of such Vertues be decent, then the external Rite and Ceremony [Page 62] whereby such a Profession is made, if it be u­sed in a grave manner, and upon a solemn oc­casion, and be a proper and natural signe of such a Profession, must be decent too. If it be a decent thing for Christians to express their mutual love and charity to each other, when they come together to worship God, and to offer up their united Prayers to their com­mon Father, or to feast at the Table of their common Lord and Saviour; then, to kiss one another, and to feast at a common Table, which are proper and significant expres­sions of mutual Charity, must be decent al­so at such times. And thus they were used by the Primitive Christians; they used to kiss each other after Prayers, upon which account it is called Signaculum orationis, or the Seal of Prayer. Thus they kissed each other before their receiving the Lords Supper, and began this mysterious Supper with a Love-Feast, which was a common Table for the poor and the rich. And if it were decent at such times to express their servent charity to each other, the external Rite and Ceremony of this must be decent also: for inward Charity cannot be expressed but either by words or signs; and visible signs, which are also the external acts and exercise of Charity, are to be preferred be­fore words.

Thus if it be decent upon some solemn oc­casions to make a publick profession of our Faith in a crucified Christ, and our resolution to follow him even to the Cross, and rather to die with him than deny him; there cannot [Page 63] be a more solemn occasion for this, than at our Baptism, when we are received into the Com­munion of his Church, this being an express Condition of our Discipleship, to take up our Cross and follow him: and therefore also there cannot be a more proper signe and em­blem of this Profession, than to receive the signe of the Cross in our foreheads: for, to receive the signe of the Cross, is a natural pro­fession of our crucified Lord, and a suffering Religion; and to receive this signe in our fore­heads, which are the seat of Modesty and Bashfulness, is a visible Profession that we are not and will not be ashamed of the Cross.

And as this is decent in it self, so it contri­butes to the Gravity and Solemnity of that religious Administration, as all awful, grave, and solemn Ceremonies do. If we consider this as the profession of the Person baptised, nothing can be more decent at such a time, than to confess a crucified Christ, (under whose command we then lift our selves) and our resolution to fight under the Banner of the Cross. If we consider it as the Profession of the Church, who by her publick Ministers so­lemnly owns the Doctrine of the Cross, and declares it as the Condition of our Disciple­ship, when she receives any persons into the Communion of the Church; is there any thing unbecoming in this? Nay, can any thing be more comely and decent, than upon such solemn occasions to make such a solemn Profession of the Religion of the Cross?

Thirdly, As for the lawfulness of these Ce­remonies, [Page 64] I think there is no need to prove that, after what I have now discoursed; for they being nothing else but the visible Exer­cise or Profession of some Grace or Duty upon fit and solemn occasions, they cannot be un­lawful, unless the external Acts and visible Profession of a known Duty can be unlawful. If it is our duty to make a publick Profession of our Faith in a crucified Saviour, no time can be more proper for such a Profession than the time of our Baptism, no signe can more natu­rally signifie this Profession than the signe of the Cross. Now I would gladly hear a wise reason, why it should be unlawful to make such a Profession as this at our Baptism, or un­lawful to do it by signs as well as words. I would desire to know why we may not pro­fess our Faith in a crucified Saviour by the signe of the Cross, as innocently and decently, as make our Appeals to God in an Oath, by laying our hand upon the Bible and kissing it. Nay, I would desire to know why the Church may not as well receive men into her Communion with the signe of the Cross, as a solemn Profession of a crucified Saviour, and a suffering Religion, as Constantine make the Cross his Banner and Royal Standard; and yet would any Christian refuse to fight under a General who bore the Cross in his Banner?

If you say, that this is onely a civil Signe and Ceremony, I deny it, and affirm, that it was as much a religious Ceremony as the signe of the Cross in Baptism; unless any man think that there can be no Religion in the [Page 65] Field, but onely in the Church. That which makes it a religious Ceremony either upon a mans forehead, or in the Emperours Standard, is, that it is done upon a religious account, as a publick and visible profession of our Faith in a crucified Saviour: and I think the Cross in the Emperours Standard displayed in the o­pen Field in the sight of Pagans, is a more publick and visible Profession of the Cross, than what is privately transacted in the Church, and leaves no visible signe behind it. And I cannot imagine why any man should not as much scruple to fight under such a vi­sible Banner of the Cross, as to receive an in­visible signe of it upon his forehead, since the Profession, the Ceremony, and the Religion of it is the same.

It is true, such Ceremonies as these ought not to be numerous, nor too familiarly used, nor upon slight occasions; for this burdens Religion, and makes them degenerate into Superstition or Formality: But our Church has retained but one such Ceremony, and that used but once in a mans life, upon the most solemn occasion in the world, at our ad­mission to Baptism: and it argues very little understanding in our Reconciler, to reproach the Church for this, and scornfully to ask, Why she rejects crossing of the breast, and retains crossing in the forehead;P. 297. why she rejects crossing at the consecration of the Eucharist, and the Baptis­mal Water, and retains it at the baptizing of the Infant; why she rejects Exorcism, Chrysom, Vnction, Dipping, trine Immersion, and retains the Cross in [Page 66] Baptism. It does not become me to censure the Practice of the ancient Church in any of these Ceremonies; but I think, if the ancient Church cannot be condemned for these things, our Church cannot. One Ceremony is more easily justified than twenty, and the using of it once upon a very solemn occasion, than a too familiar use; especially where it cannot so properly be called a professing Signe: which is all I undertake for.

The onely Objection I can think of against the signe of the Cross in Baptism, as a pro­fessing Signe, is this: That there is no need of such a Profession as this, because we make the very same Profession at our Baptism, which represents and signifies our conformity to the Death and Resurrection of Christ; and there­fore this is a vain and superfluous addition to the Sacrament of Baptism, and does tacitly charge that divine Institution with defect. I answer, The same Objection, for the very same reason, might have been made against the Love-Feast, which was celebrated at the very same time with the Lords Supper, to signifie that Brotherly love and charity which was and ought to be among the Disciples of Christ: and yet that heavenly Feast of the Lords Supper does not onely signifie our Uni­on to Christ our Head, but our Union to each other, as Members of the same Body; and therefore required the actual exercise of Bro­therly love in receiving. And yet this is ac­knowledged on all hands to be an Apostolical Institution, observed by the Apostles themselves, [Page 67] and all the Apostolical Churches of those days.

The same Answer then will serve for both: That Christian Love and Unity is included in the Supper of our Lord, and a patient suffer­ing for the Name of Christ, in the Sacrament of Baptism; but neither of these Sacraments were instituted to signifie these Duties, nor do they signifie them otherwise than collaterally and consequentially. The proper use of these Sacraments is not to signifie and represent a Duty, but to convey divine Blessings and Ver­tues to us: The Pardon of our sins, and the Gift of the holy Spirit in Baptism, which in­corporates us into the Body of Christ, and the continual supplies of Grace, and renewals of Pardon in the Lords Supper, where we feast on the Sacrifice of Christ, and partake in the Merits of it. But then as we all feast on the same Sacrifice of Christ, eat of the same Bread, and drink of the same Cup, this consequenti­ally signifies, that we are Members of the same Body, and that we ought to love one another with the most tender and natural affections. But the mutual love and charity of Christians being so great a Duty of the Christian Reli­gion, and so proper to be exercised at this time (for which reason they used also to kiss each other before receiving), and yet not di­rectly and primarily represented in this holy Feast, the Apostles did not think it any dero­gation from the Lords Supper, to appoint a common Table for all Christians to eat at, as a Testimony and Exercise of mutual love and charity with each other. When we feast [Page 68] with any person, it is a direct signification that we are in a state of Friendship and Re­conciliation with him at whose Table we eat; but it does not so immediately signifie, that all the Guests who eat at the same Table are Friends to each other. It is reasonable in­deed that it should be so, and God expects and requires that it should be so; and none are welcome at Gods Table, who do not come in perfect love and charity. But I say, the Lords Supper, considered as a symbolical Rite, does not primarily and directly signifie it: and therefore the Apostles thought fit to signifie and profess this by a common Table, where Christians first eat and drank together as Friends; and having thus testified their mutu­al kindness to each other, they were the bet­ter prepared to eat together at the Table of their common Lord and Saviour, and receive the Tokens and Pledges of his love to them all. So that this Love-Feast did not at all in­trench upon the Lords Supper, it being insti­tuted for a different end, though in subservi­ency to it.

And thus it is in Baptism. It is the Sacra­ment of our Initiation, whereby we are made Members of the Body of Christ, and intituled to all the Blessings of the New Covenant; but the external Ceremony of Baptism, whereby we are said to be implanted into the likeness of Christs death, does not primarily signifie our laying down our lives for Christ, (though that be a necessary Condition of our Disciple­ship) but it signifies our new Birth, our spi­ritual [Page 69] conformity to the death of Christ, by dying to sin, and walking in newness of life; as St. Paul discourses in the 6 Rom. And therefore taking up the Cross being by Christ himself made such an express Condition of our Discipleship, the Primitive Christians thought it very fitting to make a visible Pro­fession of this, by receiving the signe of the Cross on their foreheads, at the same time that they were received into the Church by Bap­tism: which does no more derogate from the perfection of Baptism, than their forms of re­nouncing the Devil with their faces towards the West, and spitting at him. Those con­stant Persecutions which in those days atten­ded Christianity, made this a very useful and necessary Ceremony: And it may be obser­ved, that no Christians in any Age of the Church, ever scrupled to receive the signe of the Cross on their foreheads, but those who think the Doctrine of the Cross now out of date, and can as profanely scoff at a suffering Religion, as the Heathens did at a crucified Christ: None but those, who profess Treasons and Rebellions for Christ, and never think it their duty to suffer, but when they want [...]trength and power to fight for him; which [...]ives little encouragement to Christian Prin­ [...]es to part with this symbolical Signe and Ce­ [...]mony of a suffering Religion.

But there is one Objection which our Re­conciler makes against the positive Order and Dcency of these Ceremonies which a [...]e used in the Church of England, Prot. Rec. p 38 which is fit to be [Page 70] considered in this place; and that is, That Christ and his Apostles did not use them, and therefore they either worshipt God inde­cently, or the use of them is not necessa­ry to the Decency of Worship. Now this is sufficiently answered by what I have already discours'd, That though the Decency of pub­lick Worship be a necessary Duty, and some decent Rites and Ceremonies be necessary to the external Decency of Worship, yet where there is choice of such Ceremonies, which are very decent, we cannot say, that such or such particular Ceremonies are absolutely necessary, because the Decency of Worship may be pre­served by the use of other decent Rites: and therefore Christ and his Apostles might wor­ship very decently without the use of these Ceremonies, and the Church of England may worship very decently with them. But yet, to shew the folly of this Argument, we may consider,

1. That all the time Christ was upon Earth, he never set up any publick Worship distinct from the Jewish Worship. He lived in Communion with the Jewish Church, an [...] worshipped God with them at the Temple, o [...] in their Synagogues. And it is as pleasant [...] Argument to prove that there is no reason [...] using such Ceremonies now, because [...] did not use them, as it would be to proveth tht we must not use such Ceremonies as are pro [...]er to the Christian Worship, because they wre not used in the Temple or Jewish Synagog [...]es in our Saviours days: for he never performed [Page 71] any act of publick Worship any-where else.

But you will say, Christ instituted the Sacra­ment of his own Body and Bloud, but he nei­ther received kneeling himself, nor comman­ded his Apostles to do so. Now in answer to this, it is not evident to me, that Christ re­ceived at all himself, much less does it appear in what posture he received. It is said in St. Matthew and St. Mark, that after the institu­tion of this holy Supper, when he had blessed the Bread and brake it, and divided it among his Disciples, and commanded them all to eat of it, and had likewise took the Cup, and ha­ving given thanks, commanded them all to drink of it, that he added, But I say unto you, I will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the vine, 26 Mat. 29 14 Mark 25. until that day that I drink it new with you [...]n my Fathers kingdom. From whence some [...]ay conclude, that he did at that time drink [...] the Cup, though he tells them it was the [...] time he would drink of it. But St. Luke [...] us,22 Luke 15, 16, 17. that these words were spoke at eating [...] Passover, before the institution of his last Super, and then they are a plain demonstra­ti [...], that he did not drink of the Sacramental W [...]e: and it is not likely that he should fea [...] on the symbols of his own Body and Blo [...]. But suppose he had, it had been as imprper for him to have received kneeling, as it [...]s decent in us to do so; for this had been [...]n act of Worship to himself. And though we do not read in what posture the Apostle received, yet I am pretty confident they did receive in their ordinary eating po­sture. [Page 72] For it is very improbable, that our Sa­viour would require them to kneel; for he ex­acted no act of Worship from them while he was on Earth; they never prayed to him as their great High-Priest: and we may as well argue, that we must not pray to him now he is in Heaven, because he did not command his Apostles to pray to him while he was on Earth, as that we must not worship him when we approach his Table, nor receive that mysterious Bread and Wine with all hu­mility of Soul and Body now he is in Heaven; because at the first institution of this holy Sup­per, while he was still visibly present wit [...] them, he did not command his Apostles t [...] receive kneeling.

Nor is it likely the Apostles would do [...] of themselves, any more than that they [...] any other act of religious Worship to Chst on Earth: for though they heard the wrds of institution, yet at that time they understod nothing of the mystery of it; as it is impo [...]ble they should, who understood so little o [...] his Death and Passion, much less of the merori­ous Vertue and Expiation of his Bloud.

2. As for the Apostles, who founed a Christian Church, and set up Christian Wor­ship after the Death and Resurrection of our Saviour, what particular Rites and Ceremo­nies of Worship they used, we are no certain; though that they were careful of the Decency of Worship, is evident from this Apostolical Precept, That all things be done decotly and in ord [...]r. And their Love-Feasts an [...] the holy [Page 73] Kiss, are a plain proof that they were not with­out their religious Rites also. And if we may judge of the Apostolical Churches by the suc­ceeding Ages of the Church, even while they were under Sufferings and Persecutions, there was no Age of the Church: till the Reforma­tion, so free from Rituals and Ceremonies, as the Church of England is at this day.

Thirdly, Let us now consider, how our Re­conciler states this matter; and here I shall once for all examine whatever I can find in his Book pertinent to this Argument.

I. Now in the first place I observe, that our Reconciler agrees with Bishop Taylor, That it is for ever necessary that things should be done in the Church decently and in order;Prot. Rec. c. 8. p. 313. and that the Rulers of the Church, who have the same power as the Apostles had in this, must be the perpetual Iudges of it. And he adds, It cannot therefore rationally be denied, that the Rulers of the Church have power to command things which belong unto the positive Order and Decency of the Service of God. This is so fair a Concession, that me­thinks we might agree upon it: but he im­mediately undoes all again, and says, That this Command affords no ground for the imposing the Ceremonies now used in the Church of England, because it hath been proved already, that they have nothing of this nature in them; that is, no­thing of positive Order or Decency. But what he says has been proved already, I have made appear is not proved by him yet; and I hope I have proved the contrary. But if the Ceremonies of our Church, which are nothing [Page 74] else but the decent circumstances of action, or contribute to the Gravity and Solemnity of re­ligious actions, have no positive Decency, and therefore cannot be prescribed by the Church; I desire to know what that positive Decency is, which the Church has authority to com­mand: for if it does not extend to the deter­mination of the necessary circumstances of a­ction, I cannot see that the Church has any authority in matters of Decency. And if, as the Bishop says, the Rulers of the Church are the perpetual Iudges and Dictators in such matters, which he seems to assent to, how does it be­come the great modesty of our Reconciler to assert, That there is no positive Decency and Order in those Ceremonies which the Church has appointed for the sake of Decency and Order? If the Rulers of the Church be the proper Judges of this, how does our Recon­ciler come by this authority to judge his Judges?

II. Our Reconciler adds a limitation of this Rule, That all things be done decently and in or­der, in the words of the same Reverend Bi­shop,Ibid. That it is not to be extended to such Decen­cies as are onely ornament, but is to be limited to such as onely rescue from confusion. The reason is, because the Prelates and spiritual Guides can­not do their duty, unless things be so orderly that there is no confusion. But if it can go beyond this limit, then it can have no natural limit, but may extend to Sumptuousness, to Ornaments of Churches, to rich Vtensits, to Splendour and Ma­jesty: for all that is decent enough, and in some [Page 75] circumstances very fit. But because this is too subject to abuse, and gives a secular power into the hands of Bishops, and an authority over mens estates and fortunes, and is not necessary for Souls, nor any part of spiritual Government, it is more than Christ gave to his Ministers.

How much our Reconciler has injured this learned Prelate by his numerous citations of his words, to a quite different sence from what he intended, shall be made appear be­fore I leave this Argument; though he has dealt no worse by him, than he has by Christ and his Apostles, whose words [...]e has as grosly abused.

That this excellent Bishop had no designe in this or any thing else which our Reconciler transcribes from him, to reflect on the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England, I have more than one reason to believe, as will appear presently: and therefore though I could not give an account of every particular expression, yet none but such a Protestant Re­conciler would expound any of his words in contradiction to his declared sence of things. I am sure what he here says, if it be applied to the Ceremonies of the Church of England, has no reason in it; and that is a sufficient Argument to me, that he never meant it so. For,

1. Supposing this to be true, That this Rule is not to be extended to such Decencies as are onely ornament, this does not concern the Church of England, which has no such Ceremonies as are meerly for ornament. And therefore the [Page 76] Church has authority enough to prescribe the decent Rites and Modes of Worship, though she have not authority to make her Worship gay and theatrical; which indeed is not decent, and therefore not contained within this Rule. The Bishop never thought of the Church of England, when he gave this Rule, but had his eye upon the fantastick Ceremonies and A­musements of the Romish Worship.

2. But yet when he says, That this Rule is not to be extended to such Decencies as are onely ornament, it is evident that he does not ex­clude all Ornaments neither, if they serve any ends of Religion beside. For if they be re­ally such Decencies and Ornaments as become Religion and Christian Worship, I cannot i­magine any reason why they should not be in­cluded in the Rule of Decency and Order. Such Decency and Order as is opposed to con­fusion and disorder, is always necessary, and may always be had, what state soever the Church is in, while there is any publick face of a Church. Ornamental▪ Decencies cannot always be had, and therefore do not always o­blige, as in the case of Persecutions. But why any man should say that the Authority of the Church does not extend to Ornaments, when it is in her power to adorn the Worship of God, I cannot guess. Must there be no diffe­rence between the afflicted, and prosperous state of the Church? When God has made in all other things a distinction between Neces­saries, Conveniences, and Ornaments, does he allow nothing but what is barely ne [...]essary to [Page 77] his own Worship? It is possible indeed, that men may mistake in what they call the Orna­ments of Religion, as the Church of Rome e­vidently does; but if they do not mistake, and have it in their power to give an external beauty and lustre to Religion, do they exceed their Commission in this too? The Bishop acknowledges, that Sumptuousness, Ornaments of Churches, rich Vtensils, Splendour, and Ma­jesty, is decent enough, and in some circumstances very fit; and I should much have wondered, had he denied it. Now when these things are decent and fit, does it exceed the Authori­ty of the Church to appoint them? Can any thing be decent and fit to be done in any cir­cumstances, which the Church has no Autho­rity to do?

And therefore when he says, that meer Or­naments are not comprehended within the Rule of Decency and Order, he means no more by it, than that the Governours of the Church are not so strictly obliged to take care of the external Ornaments of Religion, which cannot be had at all times, as they are of the Decency and Order of Worship. Ornaments are very fitting, when they can be had; but the Bishop has not authority to oblige the People to the charges and expences of such Ornaments, unless they freely and willingly consent. And that this is his meaning, ap­pears from the Reasons he gives of it: That this is too subject to abuse, and that it gives a se­cular power into the hands of Bishops, and an au­thority over mens Estates and Fortunes: Which [Page 78] are good Arguments onely upon this supposi­tion, that the Bishop had such authority as to oblige his People to such expences as he should think fit for the Ornaments of Religi­on; but suppose devout people liberally con­tribute to such pious uses, if his Authority and Commission does not extend to Ornaments, he must not receive their money, nor adorn the Church with it; if he may, then his Au­thority extends to Ornaments, though he has no Authority over mens Estates: for he must not do any thing in the Church, which he has no authority to do. But this is not necessary for mens Souls. Right; and therefore not an absolute and necessary Duty: otherwise, how does it appear that the Bishops Authority ex­tends onely to Necessaries? Why may not the Honour of God, and the external Beauty of his Worship, be considered in Religion, as well as the salvation of mens Souls? Why may not spiritual advantages find place in our Worship, as well as what is barely necessary? But it is no part of spiritual Government. Right; not to seize mens Estates to adorn the Worship of God. By these Reasons he proves, that this is more Authority than Christ has given to his Ministers: From whence we may easily learn what kind of Authority he means, such an absolute Authority to adorn Religion, as gives the Bishop authority over mens Estates for such prous uses. But Christ has given Authority to his Ministers to take care of the Decency of Worship; and there­fore their Authority is of equal extent with the Decencies of Religion.

[Page 79]3. When that Reverend Bishop says, That Rule, Let all things be done decently and in order, must be limited to such as onely rescue from con­fusion, he must have some larger notion of con­fusion than the usual signification of that word will justifie: for men may avoid all confusion, and yet neglect all the natural Decencies of re­ligious Worship. The Meetings of Quakers may be very orderly, without any confusion, and yet without any Decency. And the rea­son the Bishop assigns for this, Because the Pre­lates and spiritual Guides cannot do their Duty, unless things be so orderly that there be no confusion, is a very good reason against confusion; but is no reason at all to prove that the Rule of Decency and Order extends no farther than to rescue from confusion, in the common accepta­tion of the word: for there is something more required in religious Assemblies, than meerly that the Bishop or Pastor may do his Duty without disturbance and confusion; viz. that the People worship God in such a decent man­ner as becomes the divine Majesty. The ex­ternal Decencies and Solemnities of Worship, are an essential part of Religion, and therefore naturally belong to the care of Church-Go­vernours, whether there had been any Law for it or no, much more when they are com­manded to do all things decently and in order, we may reasonably conclude, that their Au­thority extends to whatever is truly decent in Religion.

But our Reconciler thinks that this limita­tion of the words to matters done in confusion P. 3, 4. [Page 80] and disorder, may be plainly gathered from all the instances preceding, which gave occasion to the Rule, they being instances of great indecencies and dis­orders committed in the Church of Corinth: And from thence he tells us, This onely can be cer­tainly collected, that when any thing is performed indecently and disorderly in the Service of the Church, the Rulers of it should correct them. And to the same purpose, he urges an Argu­ment of Mr. Ieanes: The words of the Apostle, Let all things be done decently and in order, are not disobeyed, unless there be some indecency com­mitted in the Worship and Service of God, or some disorder in it: for Decency and Indecency, Or­der and Disorder or Ataxy, are privatively oppo­site; and between privative opposites in a capable subject, there is no medium; and therefore there is Decency sufficient in those actions where is no indecency. But now by the omission of symbolical Ceremonies of humane institution, such as the Cross in Baptism, Surplice in Prayer, Kneeling when we receive the Sacrament, there is committed no inde­cency in those parts of the Worship of God; and therefore the Apostles Precept is not disobeyed by the omission of such Ceremonies, and consequently this Precept cannot warrant the imposing of them.

I wonder how learned men can impose up­on themselves and others with such silly So­phisms as these: for let us consider,

1. Suppose this Precept, to do all things de­cently and in order, were given upon occasion of those disorders and indecencies which were committed in the Church of Corinth, how [Page 81] does it hence follow, that the Apostle requires no other Decency than just what will remove the indecencies of Worship? Is Decency a thing valuable for it self, or onely as it is op­posed to indecency? If the Decency of Wor­ship be a good thing, (and if it be not, In­decency cannot be a fault) then it is a ridicu­lous thing to say, that the end of Decency is onely to prevent Indecency: as if the end of seeing, were onely to prevent blindness; or the end of Vertue, onely to prevent Vice. They tell us that Decency and Indecency are privatively opposite; that is, I suppose, that In­decency is the privation of Decency, not that Decency is the privation of Indecency: and therefore though the nature of Indecency con­sists in its opposition to Decency, yet the na­ture of Decency does not consist in its opposi­tion to Indecency. Though we should allow that to be decent which is not indecent, yet it is not decent meerly because it is not indecent, but because it is agreeable to the Laws and Rules of Decency: And therefore though the Apostle gave this Precept upon occasion of these Indecencies committed in the Church of Corinth, yet the Command extends to any in­stances and degrees of Decency: for he does not command Decency meerly out of opposi­tion to Indecency, (which is to invert the natural order of things) but for its own sake, as necessary and essential to publick Worship; as he who reproves the Vices of the Age, and exhorts men to the contrary Vertues, does not mean that they should onely practise so much [Page 82] Vertue as not to be guilty of these popular Vi­ces, but that they should aim at the highest degrees and instances of Vertue.

2. And therefore those Rites and Ceremo­nies of Religion may be included in this Apo­stolical Precept, to do all things decently and in order; the omission of which, is not disorder­ly and indecent, if they be agreeable to the Laws and Rules of Decency; because the De­cency of our Actions does not consist in its opposition to Indecency, but in conformity to the Rules of Decency. This is the principal Argument on which our Reconciler and Mr. Ieanes rely, to prove that the Ceremonies of the Church of England cannot be included in that Apostolical Precept of doing things decently and in order, because the omission of these Ce­remonies is not indecent. If then (says the Reconciler) it can appear that praying without a Surplice, or receiving the Sacrament without kneeling, or baptizing without the Cross, is doing these things indecently and disorderly, then must it be confess'd that this is a good warrant for the imposition of these things; but till this can be made appear, it must be vainly pleaded to that end. But now (says Mr. Ieanes) by the o­mission of symbolical Ceremonies of humane insti­tution, such as the Cross in Baptism, Surplice in Prayer, Kneeling when we receive the Sacrament, there is committed no Indecency in those parts of the Service of God; and therefore the Apostles Precept is not disobeyed by the omission of such Ceremonies, and consequently this Precept cannot warrant the imposing of them. That the Apo­stolical [Page 83] Precept is not disobeyed by the omis­sion of these Ceremonies, I readily grant; but not for his reason, that the omission of them is not indecent; for this Precept commands the positive Decency of Worship, as well as forbids the Indecency of it; but because the Decency of Worship may be secured by other decent Rites and Ceremonies, though these were omitted: but his consequently is a far­fetch'd one. The imposing any decent Rites may be warranted by this Precept, though the neglect of them be not indecent: for every decent Rite excludes Indecency, and makes the Worship decent; which is the sum of this Apostolical Precept. Decent Rites and Cere­monies are not opposed to the Indecency of omitting such Rites, but to other indecent Modes of Worship. Kneeling at the Sacra­ment ought not to be opposed to not kneel­ing, nor wearing a Surplice to not wearing a Surplice: for they cannot be opposed as doing a thing decently or indecently, but as doing or not doing a thing which may be decent or indecent according to the nature of things; but they must be opposed to other Postures or Habits in Worship: And such Rites as ex­clude Indecency, and have a natural Decency in them, are comprehended in this Rule.

3. As for his Logick, he tells us, That De­cency and Indecency are privatively opposite; and between privative opposites in a capable subject there is no medium, and therefore there is Decency sufficient in those actions where is no Indecency. This our Reconciler calls a plain Argument, [Page 84] which is nothing else but a plain Fallacy. For suppose we grant him that Decency and In­decency, Reverence and Irreverence, are pri­vative Opposites, that is, opposed to each o­ther as a habit, and its privation as sight and blindness; how does it hence follow, that there is Decency enough where there is no In­decency? Sight and blindness are privatively opposite; but will you say, that man sees well enough, who is not blind? Though there be no medium between a habit and a total pri­vation, yet there are great degrees in habits; and no man thinks he sees well enough, though he be not stark blind, if his eye be weak and tender, or short-sighted, or wants the assistance of Spectacles, or other helps of Art. Thus though Indecency were nothing else but the privation of Decency, yet there are great de­grees of Decency. And when the Apostle commands, that all things be done decently and in order, our Reconciler must prove that he meant onely the lowest degree of Decency, which is but one bare remove from Indecen­cy; otherwise he must give us leave to con­clude, that whatever is truly decent, is com­prehended in this Precept; and the more de­cent any thing is, the more agreeable is it to the Apostles designe.

But besides this, Mr. Ieanes, and our Re­conciler after him, are grievously out in their Logick. For Decency and Indecency, Reve­rence and Irreverence, are not privative oppo­sites: for Indecency is not the meer privation of Decency, but they are opposed as Vertue [Page 85] and Vice; that is, as two extreams are op­posed to each other, which are properly called adversa, which are affirmative, not negative opposites, though the Grammatical Notation of the words Indecency and Irreverence, seems to have betrayed him into that mistake. And I suppose they will allow that there is a medi­um between two extreams: and let our Re­conciler consider how it would sound to say, That man is vertuous enough, who is not vicious. Indecent and not decent, do not signifie the same thing, no more than unlearned and not learned. I have been taught in Logick, that homo est in­doctus, and homo est non doctus, are not equipol­lent Propositions: To say, A man is learned, a man is not learned, a man is unlearned, signi­fie very differently; and so do these Proposi­tions, An action is decent, an action is not decent, an action is indecent: the first signifies a posi­tive Decency; the second, that there is no po­sitive Decency; the third, that there is a plain opposition and contrariety to the Laws of Decency. Civility and [...]udeness in common conversation, are opposed as Decency and In­decency are; but there is an untutored and undisciplined humour, which is neither civil nor rude. This, I think, is sufficient to prove, that there may be no Decency nor Reverence in such actions which cannot be strictly char­ged with Indecency and Irreverence: and therefore when the Apostle commands, that all things be done decently, he require [...] some­thing more than not to be guilty of a [...] Inde­cency or Irreverence in Worship.

[Page 86]III. To proceed: He observes, that the same Reverend Bishop proves, That beyond comman­ding that which hath a necessary relation to the express command of God, or is so requisite for the doing of it, that it cannot be well done without it by any other instrument, or by it self alone, the Bi­shops can give no Laws which properly and im­mediately bind the transgressors under sin. I confess I do not certainly understand what this learned man refers to, he having given us no particular instances; which has given advan­tage to our Reconciler to apply it as he plea­ses. But let us consider his Reasons; and by that we may guess how far we are concer­ned.

1. Because we never find the Apostles using their Coertion upon any man, but the express brea­kers of a divine Commandment, or the publick di­sturbers of the peace of the Church, and the esta­blisht necessary Order. Thus far the Bishop. To which the Reconciler adds, Men must not there­fore first make unnecessary Orders, and when men cannot conscientiously submit unto them, and there­fore do not so, cry out that they disturb the Chur­ches peace. These words he represents as the Bishops also, though they are his own; which is one of his pious frauds. But as for the Ar­gument, I think it is evident, it does not re­late to our Dispute, who pretend no other authority but to censure those who disturb the peace of the Church, and the establisht neces­sary Order: for such the Rules of Order and Decency are. But how the Apostles censured such persons, we cannot tell neither: for we [Page 87] never read that any Christians in those days disputed the Apostolical authority in such matters, or refused to obey their Canons and Injunctions; and therefore there was no oc­casion to exercise such censures.

2. Because even in those things which were so convenient, that they had power to use Injunctions, yet the Apostles were very backward to use their authority of commanding, much less would they use severity, but entreaty. It was St. Paul's case to Philemon before-mentioned, Though I might be much bold in Christ to enjoyn that which is convenient, yet for loves sake I rather entreat thee. But this does not concern us neither: for what is this to the Rules and Orders of Worship, that he would not take Philemon's servant O­nesimus from him, without his consent? for I doubt Church-authority does not extend to such matters, which are purely civil and secu­lar: and though when such things are highly expedient for the Worship of God, the Bi­shop has authority to exhort and perswade, and that man sins who disobeys, yet this is not properly the object of Church-censures, and Ecclesiastical authority, no more than when men refuse to do some pious or chari­table act at the Bishops request. Philemon's obligations to St. Paul, who was his spiritual Father, who had converted him to the Chri­stian Faith, gave him a peculiar authority o­ver him; but the bare Apostolical authority did not extend to the disposal of mens Fortunes and Servants, which in those days were part of their Estates.

[Page 88]3. In those things where God had interposed no command, though the Rule they gave contained in it that which was fit and decent, yet if men would resist, they gently did admonish & reprove them, & let them alone. So S. Paul, in case of the Corin­thian men wearing long hair, If any man list to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the Churches of God; that is, let him chuse, it is not well done, we leave him to his own liberty, but let him look to it. But this does not reach the case neither: for wearing long hair did not concern the Rites, and Ceremonies, and Uni­formity of religious Worship, (which is our onely Dispute) but was an Indecency in com­mon conversation; and a great many such things the Apostles indulged both to Jews and Heathens, till they could be reformed by Rea­son and better Instructions; though at the same time they did more severely correct the Disorders and Indecencies of Worship. And yet I confess, it seems a very odd Comment upon the Apostles words, We have no such cu­stom, nor the Churches of God; viz. let him chuse, it is not well done, we leave him to him­self. Whereas in these words the Apostle is so far from leaving them to do as they please, that he determines the Controversie against them by the highest Authority, to a Christian, next to an express Law of God, viz. the Cu­stoms and Usages of the Christian Church. The Apostle indeed does not here threaten Church-censures against them, but first tries what Reason and Argument will do; which is a very proper method for Bishops to use, [Page 89] but a very ill Argument to prove that the Church must not censure those who refuse O­bedience to her Laws and Constitutions.

4. If the Bishops power were extended far­ther, it might extend to Tyranny, and there could be no limits beyond this to keep him within the measures and sweetness of the Government Evan­gelical; but if he pretend to go farther, he may be absolute and supreme in the things of this life, which do not concern the Spirit; and so fall into Dynasty, as one anciently complained of the Bishop of Rome, and change the Father into a Prince, and the Church into an Empire. This is a plain Argument, that the Bishop does not speak here of the decent Rites and Circumstances of Wor­ship: for how the Authority of the Church to prescribe the decent Rites and Ceremonies of Religion should degenerate into Tyran­ny and secular Power, is unintelligible to me. The Usurpations of the Church of Rome, we know, came in at another door; and the Presbyter, who has little regard to the exter­nal Order and Decency of Worship, can find other pretences to get some secular power in­to his hands.

But what limit can be set to Ecclesiastical Authority, if the Church exceed what is bare­ly necessary to prevent confusion in religious Worship? I answer, Decency is the bound of it, and there needs no other. What is de­cent and orderly in religious Worship, belongs to Church-authority; what is more, is an ir­regular abuse: and there is no great danger that such a Power as this should make Bishops secular Princes.

[Page 90]This makes it evident to me, that this lear­ned Prelate intended not one word of all this against the Ceremonies of the Church of England, or the imposition of them: and it is certain he could not, unless we will say, that he contradicts himself; and then his authority is good on neither side. And I shall make this appear once for all, and thereby answer the Citations out of the Writings of this ex­cellent Bishop, to countenance this Reconci­ling Designe, all together.

I observe then, that the Bishop himself does expresly justifie the Ceremonies of the Church of England, as not offending against any of those Rules he had prescribed for Ecclesiasti­cal Laws.Duct. dubit. l. 3. c. 4. R. 20. S. 8. When he speaks of Rituals, and significant Ceremonies, and censures such Ce­remonies which are meerly for signification, which seems to come nearest to our Case, there he designedly not onely vindicates the Practice, but applauds the Wisdom of the Church of England in reference to her Cere­monies. There is reason to celebrate and honour the Wisdom of the Church of England, which hath in all her Offices retained but one Ritual or Ceremony that is not of divine Ordinance, or Apo­stolical Practice, and that is, the Cross in Baptism; which though it be a significant Ceremony, and of no other use, (though in this I cannot agree with the Bishop, and have given my reasons for it above) so it is very innocent in it self; and being one and alone, is in no regard trouble­some or afflective to those who understand her pow­er, her liberty, and reason. I say, she hath one [Page 91] onely Ceremony of her own appointment: for the Ring in Marriage is the Symbol of a [...]ivil and re­ligious Contract; it is a Pledge and Custom of the Nation, not of the Religion. And those o­ther Circumstances of her Worship, are but deter­minations of time and place, and manner of a Duty; they serve to other purposes besides signi­fication; they were not made for that, but for Or­der and Decency; for which there is an Apostoli­cal Precept, and a natural reason, and an evident necessity, or a great convenience. Now if, besides these uses, they can be construed to any good signi­fication or instruction, that is so far from being a prejudice to them, that it is their advantage; their principal end being different, and warran­ted, and not destroyed by their superinduc'd and accidental use. In other things we are to remem­ber that Figures and Shadows were for the Old Testament, but Light and Manifestation is in the New.

This is the judgment of this excellent Bi­shop about the Ceremonies of the Church of England; which I think makes little for our Reconcilers purpose; and therefore when he had transcribed that large Discourse about Rituals and Ceremonies meerly for significa­tion, out of the Bishops Writings,Prot. Recone. p. 220, &c. he stops when he comes to this, as being convinc'd in his Conscience, that the Bishop did not intend one word of this against the Ceremonies of the Church of England, which he expresly excepted and justified. Well, but though the Bishop, out of civility to the Church, made such an exception, yet there was no reason [Page 92] for it; his Arguments were as strong against the significant Ceremonies of the Church of England, as of any other Church. But it seems the Bishop did not think so; and when the Reconciler alledges the Bishops Authority, as well as Arguments against us, he ought to have urged his Arguments no farther than he himself did, or to have told his Readers what exceptions the Bishop made, and left it to him to judge whether the exception was good and reasonable, or not. And I am apt to think, that every ordinary Reader would have made some little difference, as the Bishop did, be­tween such significant Ceremonies as are with­all the necessary circumstances of religious a­ctions, and receive their Decency from their signification; and such Ceremonies as contri­bute nothing to the decent performance of re­ligious actions, but onely entertain a childish fancy with some Theatrical Shews, and arbi­trary Images and Figures of things, of which the Bishop there speaks.

And indeed, all his other Citations out of the Writings of this excellent Bishop are as little to his purpose, because none of them concern the decent circumstances of religious Worship, which is our present Dispute; and therefore we cannot from thence learn what the Bishop's judgment was in these matters: as to take a brief survey of these Arguments, as he calls them, taken out of Bishop Taylor's Ductor Dubitantium.

His first Argument is patcht up of two Say­ings,Re [...]. c. 7. p. 212. at the distance of fifteen pages from [Page 93] each other; and yet they are much nearer to each other in the book, than they are in their designe and signification: He says, The Bishop truly saith, That 'tis not reasonable to think that God would give the Church-Rulers his Authori­ty for trifling and needless purposes. This is said in one place; and to make up his Argu­ment, he tacks another Saying to it: Now Ri­tuals, saith he, and Externals are nothing of the substance of Religion, but onely appendages, and manner, and circumstances; a wise man will ob­serve them, not that they are pleasing to God, but because they are commanded by Laws.

The first of these Sayings is under the third Rule, That the Church hath power to make Laws in all things of necessary Duty, by a direct Power and divine Authority. So that this does not re­late to the circumstances of religious actions, but to some necessary Duties. The instance the Bishop gives in that place, is this: That the Bishop hath power to command his Subject or Parishioner to put away his Concubine; and if he does not, he not onely sins by uncleanness, but by disobedience too. This sure is remote enough from the Dispute of Ceremonies. But then he proves, that such men sin by disobeying the Bishop in such cases, by this Argument among others, That it is not reasonable to think that God would give the Church-Rulers his Authori­ty for trifling and needless purposes. For it is a trifling thing to have Authority to command, if that Authority have no effect; if men may disobey such commands, without sin. So that these words, whereby the Bishop proves [Page 94] the Authority of the Church to command, and that those sin who disobey, our Reconciler produces to prove that the Church has no Au­thority to command the decent Ceremonies of Religion, because in his opinion they are trifling and needless things.

The latter part of his Argument is taken from the Bishops sixth Rule, which is this: Kings and Princes are by the ties of Religion, not of Power, obliged to keep the Laws of the Church. His resolution of which, in short, is this: That such Ecclesiastical Laws which are the Exer­cises of internal Religion, cannot be neglected by Princes, without some straining of their duty to God, which is by the wisdom and choice of men determined in such an instance to such a specifica­tion; but in Externals and Rituals they have a greater liberty; so that every omission is not a sin in them, though it may be in Sub­jects: and his reason is, That they are nothing of the substance of Religion, but onely appendages, and manner, and circumstances; and therefore a wise man will observe Rituals, because they are commanded by Laws, not that they are pleasing to God. Since therefore these are wholly matter of obedience, Kings are free, save onely when they become bound collaterally and accidentally. So that the Bishop does not here speak one word of Externals and Rituals, as such trifling and needless things, that the Church has no Au­thority to command them (to which purpose our Reconciler applies it) but as such things, which being bound on us onely by humane Authority, a Soveraign Prince who owns no [Page 95] higher humane Authority than his own, is not so strictly obliged by them, as his Subjects are, but may dispense with himself when he sees fit. These are excellent premises for such a conclusion as our Reconciler draws from them.

But yet it is worth the while to consider what the Bishop means by the Externals or Rituals of Religion. Whatever our Recon­ciler finds said about Ecclesiastical Laws, or the Externals and Rituals of Religion, he presently applies to the Ceremonies of the Church of England, which (excepting the Cross) are onely decent circumstances, with­out which, or such-like, the Worship of God cannot be decently or reverently performed; that is, without which there can be no exter­nal Worship, which consists in the external ex­pressions of Honour and Devotion. It is suf­ficiently evident what a vast difference the Bishop makes between these two. Thus he expresly does in these words: To the ceremo­nial Law of the Iews nothing was to be added, Duct. Dubit. 3 b. 4 c. R. 20. S. 6. and from it nothing was to be substracted▪ and in Christianity we have less reason to adde any thing of Ceremony, excepting (N. B.) the cir­cumstances and advantages of the very Ministry, as time, and place, and vessels, and ornaments, and necessary appendages. But when we speak of Rituals and Ceremonies, that is, exterior acti­ons or things besides the institution and command of Christ, &c. Where he expresly distinguishes between the circumstances and advantages of the very Ministry (what is necessary or convenient [Page 96] for the decent and orderly performance of the publick acts of Worship) from Rituals or Ceremonies, whereby he understands exterior a­ctions or things; that is, such Ceremonies as are not the circumstances of religious actions, but are distinct acts themselves, either institu­ted as parts of Worship, and then, he says, they are intolerable; or meerly for signification, and that is a very little thing, and of very incon­siderable use in the fulness and charity of the Re­velations Evangelical. Such he reckons, giving Milk and Honey, or a little Wine, to persons to be baptized; and to present Milk, together with Bread and Wine, at the Lords Table, to signifie nutrition by the Body and Bloud of Christ; to let a Pidgeon flie, to signifie the coming of the Holy Spirit; to light up Candles, to represent the Epi­phany; to dress a Bed, to express the secret and ineffable Generation of the Saviour of the World; to prepare the figure of the Cross, and to bury an Image, to describe the 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 u [...]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: [Page 97] 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 [Page 98] 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.

Recon. p. 214.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 [Page 99] 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 [Page 100] 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, P. 227, &c. 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 [Page 101] 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,Preface, p. 53. 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 [Page 102] 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 [Page 103] 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 [Page 104] 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 [Page 105] 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 [Page 106] necks? Are there any such Rituals and Ceremonies in the Church of England, as have the least affinity with the Jewish Yoke? Did Christ, when he abrogated the Jewish Law, abrogate all Decency of Worship too? or is the bare Decency of Worship a Jewish Yoke? What correspondence is there between the Ceremonies of the Jewish Law, and the decent circumstances of Worship? between new and distinct acts, and the decent Modes of acti­ons?

But our Reconciler proceeds. Ecclesiastical Laws must not be perpetual;P. 215. that is, when they are made, they are relative to time and place, to persons and occasions, subject to all changes, &c. Now besides that the Bishop stills speaks of such Laws as concern Rituals and external Observances, not the decent circumstances of Worship; and therefore it is impertinently al­leadged in our present Controversie: yet sup­pose it did relate to our Ceremonies, what ad­vantage could he make of it? They must not be perpetual, that is, they are alterable, when the wisdom of Governours sees fit; and who denies it? But must every one who believes these Ceremonies alterable, presently grant that they must be altered right or wrong?

This is much like another mangled Testi­mony, which he cites from Rule 12. n. 9. I shall transcribe the whole, because our Recon­ciler has concealed the sence, by transcribing onely part of it. Excepting those things which the Apostles received from Christ, in which they were Ministers to all Ages, once for all conveying [Page 107] the mind of Christ to Generations to come, in all o­ther things they were but ordinary Ministers to govern the Churches in their own times, and left all that ordinary power to their Successors, with a power to rule their Churches, such as they had; and therefore whatever they conveyed as from Christ, a part of his Doctrine, or any thing of his appoint­ment, this was to bind for ever. All this our Reconciler leaves out; which is a Key to what follows. For Christ is our onely Lawgiver, and what he said was to bind for ever: In all things which he said not, the Apostles could not be Lawgivers, they had no such authority; and therefore whatsoever they ordered by their own wisdom, was to abide as long as the reason did a­bide; but still with the same liberty with which they appointed it: for of all men in the world, they would least put a Snare upon the Disciples, or tye Fetters upon Christian liberty.

To what purpose he cites this, he does not say; but I suppose it was to insinuate that there is no Authority in the Church to make any Laws which Christ has not made, because he is our onely Lawgiver; and that to make such Laws, is to put a Snare upon the Disci­ples, and to tye Fetters upon Christian Liber­ty, which the Apostles of all men would not do: but this is directly contrary to the de­signe of the Bishop. All that he says, is no more than this: That the Apostles had not authority to make such Laws as should perpe­tually oblige the Church in all Ages: for Christ onely is so our Lawgiver, that his Laws are perpetual and unalterable; and therefore [Page 108] what they taught as from Christ, that was to bind for ever; but what Laws they made as ordinary Ministers to govern the Churches in their own times, they might be altered, when the reason of them ceas'd, by the Bishops and Ministers of following Ages, who have as much ordinary authority for the government of the Church, as the Apostles themselves had. So that the Governours of the Church have au­thority to make Laws, though not unaltera­ble ones; and therefore it is not making Laws, but making perpetual Laws, which he calls putting a Snare upon the Disciples, and tying Fetters on Christian Liberty: for the more unalterable Laws there are, the less Li­berty the Church enjoys; and those Laws which were of excellent use when they were first made yet when their reason and use cea­ses, might prove Snares to Christians, if there were no power in the Church to repeal them.

All his Citations from this excellent Bishop about Ecclesiastical Laws, are of the same na­ture; they do not concern the decent circum­stances of Worship, but Rituals and external Ministeries of Religion: and I suppose I need not tell any man how impertinent his Testi­monies about Fasts, and Evangelical Councils, and Subscriptions to Articles, &c. are to this Controversie. This is sufficient to prove, that this excellent Bishop is ours; and to sa­tisfie all men, that this Protestant Reconciler is either a very ignorant and careless Reader of Books, or a shameless Impostor, in suborning [Page 109] mens words to give testimony against their own protest and avowed Principles and Do­ctrines.

There are several other little Arguments which are frequently repeated by our Recon­ciler, and confirmed with great Names and great Authorities, though it is probable enough that he has as much abused other great men, as he has done the Bishop; and I have not leisure nor opportunity to examine all; and it is no great matter, when the Argument is weak and trifling, whose Argument it is.

They tell us, that to impose such Ceremo­nies and Rites of Worship, is to come after Christ, and to mend and correct his Laws, and to require new terms of Communion which Christ hath not required. This is a great fault, if the charge be good and just: but is the Church of England guilty of any such thing? Does she require any new acts of Worship, which Christ has not required? Has not Christ required that we should worship God decently? Has he not made Obedience to our Rulers and Governours a necessary con­dition of Communion? And does the Church of England require any more? Has the Church of England imposed any thing upon her Peo­ple, but the Rules of Order and Decency? and has not Christ enjoyned this? Are the Ceremonies of our Church decent circumstan­ces of Worship, or are they not? If they be, then here are no new terms of Communion, here is no mending nor correcting the Laws of Christ, but onely a determination of some [Page 110] necessary circumstances which Christ left un­determined, and gave authority to his Church to determine.

But why should Church-Communion be suspended upon such terms as are not necessary to Salvation? Why is not that sufficient to make a man a Member of a Church, which is sufficient to carry him to Heaven? No doubt but it is; and the Church of England requires no more. The Decency of Worship is as ne­cessary to eternal Salvation, as publick Wor­ship is; which is not Worship, if it be not de­cent. Decency is necessary; and though such or such particular Modes of Decency be not necessary, yet some decent Mode of Worship is: and therefore that Church which requires no more than the Decency of Worship, re­quires nothing but what is necessary to Sal­vation.

That which confounds and blunders these men, and makes them dream of new terms of Communion, is this: That they distinguish the act of Worship from the manner of per­forming it; and because Christ hath onely in­stituted and commanded the act, but the Church directs and prescribes the manner, therefore they say the Church mends Christs Laws; and makes new terms of Communion, by requiring something more than Christ has instituted and commanded. As for instance, Christ has instituted his Mystical Supper, and commanded us to eat Bread and drink Wine in remembrance of his Body, which was bro­ken, and of his Bloud, which was shed for us; [Page 111] but has not commanded us to do this either sitting, standing, or kneeling; though it is absolutely necessary that we should do it in one posture or other. Now the Church of England commands us to receive kneeling, and will admit none to the Lords Table, who will not receive kneeling. This, say they, is to mend the Laws of Christ, and to make new terms of Communion. Why so? Does the Church require any more than Christ hath re­quired? Yes, say they, she requires kneeling, which Christ does not require. But how does that appear, that Christ does not require it? Because, say they, he has not commanded us to receive kneeling. No, say I, that is no Ar­gument at all that Christ does not require it: for he who commands us to receive, com­mands us to receive in some posture or other: for though we may logically distinguish be­tween the act of receiving and the posture wherein we receive, yet these cannot be actu­ally separate; for no man can receive, but he must receive in some posture; and therefore he who commands doing such an act, includes whatever is necessary to the doing of it right. You will say, But yet Christ has not determi­ned what posture we shall receive in, but left them all indifferent. Suppose this to be true, yet the posture must of necessity be determined before we can receive: for no man can receive but in some particular posture; and therefore either every man must determine himself, or the Authority of the Church must determine us: which seems to be much more reasonable, [Page 112] both because it is most decent and orderly that there should be some uniform posture of re­ceiving, and because the Governours of the Church, not private Christians, have the sole authority in such cases, committed to them by Christ himself. But now the question is, whether to determine what Christ, has not determined, and yet what must be determined before we can perform that Duty which Christ commands, be to come after Christ to correct his Laws, and to make new terms of Commu­nion? If it be, then whoever receives the Lords Supper, whatever posture he receives in, must of necessity correct the Laws of Christ, and make new terms of Communion, at least for himself, because he must receive in some particular and determined posture; whereas Christ has left all postures indifferent and un­determined: which shews what a senceless and ridiculous imputation this is.

No, you will say, to receive in some parti­cular posture, though it be not determined by Christ, is no correcting his Laws, nor making new terms of Communion, because Christ has left all postures indifferent and undetermined; and therefore has left it to our liberty to use which we please; and when we do so, we onely use that liberty which Christ has given us. But so to determine any one posture of receiving, as not to allow of any other, nor to admit any to our Communion who will not use that posture, this is to make new terms of Communion which Christ has not made: for if he have left all postures undetermined, [Page 113] then to be sure he has not said, that no man shall be admitted to the Sacrament, who will not kneel. And though every man may de­termine for himself, or the Church may de­termine for us all, yet it must not be determi­ned so, as to destroy the indifferency of the posture; which is directly contrary to Christ's Institution, who has left all postures indiffe­rent.

This Objection, at a distance, I confess, seems very plausible, and to bear hard upon the Church: but when we look more nar­rowly into it, it vanishes into nothing. For,

1. I readily grant, should the Church of England determine against the lawfulness of a­ny other posture but kneeling in receiving the Lords Supper, she might be charged with cor­recting the Laws of Christ, and altering the nature of things: for this would be to make some things necessary, and other things un­lawful, which Christ had left indifferent.

2. Should she refuse to communicate with any other Church which does not kneel at the Sacrament, meerly because she does not kneel, she might be charged with making new terms of Communion which Christ has not made: for she has no authority to prescribe to other Churches in matters of an indifferent and un­determined nature, and therefore cannot pre­tend her authority for such an Imposition, but must pretend the nature of the thing, that kneeling at the Sacrament is a necessary term of Communion; which being no term of Christ's making, must be a term of her own [Page 114] making; and then she would be guilty of ma­king new terms of Communion; and if a Schism followed upon it, she would be the Schismatick.

3. But yet for the Church to determine, for the regulating her own Communion,See the Vind. of the Defen. of Dr. Stilling. p. 427, &c. what Christ has not determined, but yet what must be determined, before that Duty can be per­formed which Christ has commanded, is not to make new terms of Communion, though she refuse to admit any to her Communion, who will not use the prescribed posture of re­ceiving; and my reason for it is this: because she neither prescribes kneeling as necessary in it self, but onely as a decent posture of recei­ving; nor prescribes it to any but those of her own Communion, whom she has authority to govern. In such cases the Church does not make new terms of Communion, but exerci­ses a just authority in determining what was left undetermined, and in prescribing Rules for the Decency of her own Worship.

But you will say, Does not the Church of England make that a term and condition of her Communion, without which she will not admit any man to communicate with her? I answer, No, this does not always follow; e­very such thing is a Rule of her Government, but not a term of her Communion; which are of a very distinct consideration in the con­stitution of every Church. The Laws of Ca­tholick Communion require, that she make nothing a term of her Communion, but what is necessary for the whole Catholick Church [Page 115] and she can never be charged with making kneeling a term of her Communion, while she holds Communion with such Churches who do not kneel at receiving, or at least refuses the Communion of no Church upon that ac­count; but now the Rules of Government in every Church are very distinct from the terms of her Communion, Every Church has authority to make Laws for her self, to pre­scribe the Forms and Rules of Worship and Discipline and though she have not authority to deny Communion to other Churches who will not submit to her private Laws and Rules, yet she has authority to deny Com­munion to her own Members who refuse to obey her Laws, or else she has no authority to make Laws, if she have no authority to punish the breach of them. So that here are two distinct reasons for which a Church may deny her Communion to any persons▪ either because they renounce the terms of her Communion, or because they refuse to sub­mit to her Laws and Rules of Worship: and therefore it is a ridiculous thing to say that a Church makes every thing a term of her Communion, for the refusal of which she denies her Communion to her own Members. We may call these, if we please, the terms of her particular Communion; but this is no greater fault for any Church to make such terms of Communion, than to make Laws for Government and Discipline: for such terms are nothing else.

To return then to our Argument. Since [Page 116] the act of Worship, and the necessary circum­stan [...]s of Action, though they may be distinct­ly considered, yet cannot be separated; that Church which commands nothing but a de­cent performance of those acts of Worship which Christ himself has commanded us to perform, cannot be charged with making any additions to the Laws of Christ, or with com­manding any new thing. For the decent manner of doing a thing, is included in the command of doing it, unless we think our Sa­viour was indifferent whether we worship God decently or indecently: and therefore if the Church onely enjoyn such habits and po­stures, times and places, as are necessary to the doing of the action, and are decent cir­cumstances of doing it, she commands nothing but what Christ has virtually commanded.

And this is a plain Answer to that other Objection, that the Apostles had authority to teach onely such things as Christ had com­manded them; which if it be opposed to their Authority of Governing the Church, which required the exercise of their own Wisdom and Prudence, and making occasio­nal Laws in emergent cases, is a very trifling Objection: but however, the Church of Eng­land teaches nothing but what Christ taught. She teaches all the acts of Worship which Christ commanded, and no other; and she [...]eaches the decent manner of doing this, which is involved in the very command of doing it: for though the particular decent Rites of Worship are not expressed, yet all decent [Page 117] Rites are included in the command of doing it; and therefore the Church may take her choice.

Well, but the Apostles gave Laws onely a­bout necessary things, as we see in the Council of Ierusalem, they would lay no other bur­den upon the Disciples, but what they thought necessary, at least for that time, 15 Acts 29. Now though there might several Answers be given to this, I shall say no more at present, but that I take the Decency of Worship to be necessary; I am sure St. Paul gives an ex­press Law about it. But as for the necessary things which were determined at the Coun­cil in Ierusalem, they did not concern the cir­cumstances of Worship, but some external Rituals and Ceremonies, which were matters of burden. We have nothing like it in our Church; and if ever the Church should un­dertake to determine such matters, it will be seasonable to urge the practice of the Council at Ierusalem, to determine onely necessary things.

These are the most material things our Re­conciler has urged against the imposition of the Ceremonies of the Church of England. Whe­ther upon the whole it appears that they are so useless and unnecessary, that the Church ought not to interpose her Authority in such matters, or be justly blameable for doing it, I must leave every man to judge.

CHAP. II. Concerning charity to the Souls of men; and how far, and in what cases it obli­ges Church-Governours; and what re­gard Church-Governours ought to have to the Errours, and Mistakes, and Scruples of PRIVATE CHRI­STIANS under their care.

HAving discours'd thus largely of the use­fulness and necessity of the decent Cere­monies and Circumstances of religious Wor­ship, in opposition to our Reconciler, who af­firms them to be useless and unnecessary, and to have no positive Order or Decency, for which they should be commanded; it is time now to consider the other part of his Argu­ment, viz. that charity to the Souls of men obliges Church-Governours not to impose a­ny such unnecessary things, or to alter and re­move them, if already imposed, when through the mistake and scruples of some Christians a­bout such matters, they occasion their sin and fall, and hazard their eternal Salvation: that is, when such Impositions as these, which some men believe unlawful, and others doubt whe­ther they be lawful or not, tempt men to for­sake the Communion of the Church, and lift themselves in a Schism, which is a damning [Page 119] sin. I need not point out to any particular place wherein this is said; for it is to be found almost in every page of his Book, and comes in at the tail of every Argument: and therefore I shall once for all consider these Principles also, and begin here with charity to the Souls of men, which in the method of my Discourse is the second general Principle I promised to examine. The Question then is this:

Secondly, What obligation charity to the Souls of men lays upon the Governours of the Church. That the Governours of the Church ought to exercise great tenderness and charity to the Souls of men, I readily grant; for the care of Souls is their proper work and busi­ness: and our Reconciler could not have pitch'd upon a more popular Argument to declaim upon, as he does at large, p. 187, &c. And indeed, I find his Talent lies more in some insinuating Harangues, than in c'ose reason­ing: but though he has made a fine S [...]ory of this, and said things artificially enough to move the Passions of his Readers, he has ne­ver offered fairly to state the extent and mea­sures of Charity with relation to acts of Go­vernment, but onely asserted charity to the Souls of men to be the Duty of Governours, as well as of private Christians (which no body denies that I know of); and from thence infers the alteration of our Ceremonies, and that Church-Governours act uncharitably, if they do not consent to such an alteration. Now the alteration of publick Laws and R [...]tes [Page 120] of Worship, which some men take an unjust and unreasonable offence at, whatever mis­chief they do to their own Souls by such an unjust offence, does not seem to me to be an immediate consequence from the obligations of charity to mens Souls: and therefore there should have been something at least offered for the proof of it; and, I confess, I cannot see any thing that looks like an Argument to this purpose. Since therefore I have little or no­thing to answer upon this Argument, which our Reconciler thought better to take for granted, than to prove it, I shall endeavour to state this matter so plainly, as to vindicate our Governours from this spightful and unchari­table Accusation, of want of charity to mens Souls. And to this end, I shall briefly inquire wherein the Charity of Governours must con­sist, and how it must express it self; which I shall explain by these two Principles.

• I. That the Charity of Governours is con­sistent with the Duty and Authority of Government.
• II. That the Charity of Governours must express it self in the Acts of Govern­ment.

1. That the Charity of Governours must be such as is consistent with the Duty and Authority of Government. For charity to others cannot dispense with our own duty; and therefore if Christ have given authority to his Ministers to govern his Church, whate­ver [Page 121] pretences of charity there be to the contra­ry, they must govern it, or they are very un­charitable to themselves, in neglecting their own Duty, out of pretence of charity to o­thers. Nay, all private acts of charity must give place to publick charity. Now Govern­ment is a publick good, that is, is a publick charity; and therefore must not be neglected out of pretence of charity to private Chri­stians.

Now to apply this to our present purpose: If the Governours of the Church could do what our Reconciler desires, without negle­cting their own Duty, or injuring their Au­thority and Government, I think this Plea of Charity would be more specious and plausi­ble; but that they cannot do it, is as plain to me as a first Principle. For,

1. It is their duty to direct and govern re­ligious Assemblies, and to secure the Order and Decency of publick Worship; which they cannot do, without prescribing the Rules, and determining the decent circumstances of acti­on. But you will say, Cannot the Bishops govern the Church, nor take care of the De­cency of Worship, unless they command the Minister to officiate in a Surplice, and the People to receive kneeling? Yes, no doubt they may. Then these Laws are alterable. They are so. Then in charity they are bound to alter them, according to your own Rules: for they may do this, without neglecting their duty of governing religious Assemblies. I de­ny the consequence, and that for this reason; [Page 122] because Charity does not require any man, much less Governours, to do a foolish thing which serves no good end at all. For if they should alter our present Rules and decent Cir­cumstances of Worship, they must prescribe some others, or else they neglect their Duty: for the Decency of publick Worship cannot be preserved, without the decent Circumstances of Worship; and they cannot be secured (e­specially in such an Age as this, wherein so many men think a rude and slovenly Wor­ship to be most pure and spiritual) without some fixt and standing Rules of Decency. Now whatever change they make, they can­not change for the better, nor remove any scruple by such a change. For most of the Principles upon which our Dissenters dispute against our present Ceremonies, will serve as well against any other establish'd Order of Worship: and certainly it is not worth the while for Governours to alter Laws meerly to try the humours of People, to see whether those who without reason scruple Impositions in one case, will without reason submit to o­ther Impositions, when the same reasons hold in both. It is neither consistent with the pru­dence nor charity of Government, upon such slight pretences as these, to make alterations so much for the worse, as they must be, if e­ver they alter our present Rules of Worship. If this should gratifie some humoursome Peo­ple, it might justly offend and scandalize much better men, to see a decent way of Worship changed for that which is less decent. No, [Page 123] saith our Reconciler,Recon. p. 332, 333. this cannot with any truth be pretended.—Are not things indifferent, such as may be imposed or not imposed at pleasure? And doth not our Church declare her Ceremonies to be things indifferent? Can therefore any regu­lar Son of the Church of England be offended that she doth use her liberty in matters wholly left unto her liberty, and by her first Reformers decla­red to be so? Yes, why not, for all this? Must every thing which is alterable, be altered for no reason at all? May it not justly offend a regular Son of the Church of England, to see a more decent way of Worship laid aside, and that which is less decent come in the room of it? The Church of England, I am sure, is not of this mind; she allows that her Ceremonies may be changed and altered,Of Ceremo­nies: why some abolish'd and some re­tain'd. Pref. to the Com. Pray. but they ought to be altered onely upon just causes, as she ex­presly determines: and though in such cases she allows of some alteration in her Ceremo­nies, yet she judges it necessary, that some Ceremonies should be retained, since without some Ceremonies it is not possible to keep any Or­der or quite Discipline in the Church. But, says our Reconciler, they do not desire that the Cere­monies by Law establish'd should be abolished, or that Conformists should be forbid to use them; but onely that others whose Consciences will not permit them so to do, should be dispensed with in their omission of them. This would be a greater and more just offence, than the other: for this must be either in the same, or in distinct As­semblies. If in the same, this introduces no­thing but Disorder, Confusion, and Schism [...] [Page 124] into the Bowels of the Church; if in distinct Assemblies, this is to establish Schism by a Law, and to make them onely legal Conventicles. But he says, As some sit, some stand, some kneel at Common-Prayer, P. 338. and Prayer before Sermon, and this without confusion; so may some sit, some kneel, some stand at the receiving the Sacrament. But does our Reconciler think this variety of posture at Prayer, an orderly and decent thing? especially for men to sit at Prayers? Standing may be sometimes necessary, because especial­ly in full Auditories all persons may not have the conveniency of kneeling: But is one Irre­gularity sufficient to justifie another? Does not the Church require an uniform posture at Prayer too? And is it not more decent and orderly, that it should be so? And yet there is a great difference between such various po­stures at Prayers, and at receiving the Lords Supper. For excepting the rudeness of sit­ting, when men have strength of body to kneel or stand, which is an offence to pious and devout minds; these variety of postures do not proceed from mens differing judgments and opinions about them, and therefore do not occasion mutual scandal and offence, cen­suring and judging one another in the very act of Worship. But differing postures in receiving the Lords Supper, is matter of Dis­pute and scruple; one thinks kneeling idola­trous and superstitious, the other deservedly thinks it rude and unmannerly to sit; and this must of necessity occasion mutual Emula­tions in the very act of receiving; than which, [Page 125] nothing can be more inconsistent with the na­ture of that holy Communion. And if you say, that men must lay aside this judging and censorious humour, you must either mean, that while men retain these differing appre­hensions of things, they must not judge one another; which is to say, that they must not judge of men and things as they think; which is ridiculously impossible, unless you can teach men not to think as they think: or that they must alter their apprehensions of things, and look upon all these as indifferent postures; and then there will be no reason to alter the Laws, or to allow of such different postures, when mens scruples are removed.

2. As the Governours of the Church would neglect their Duty, so they would manifestly injure their Authority by such a compliance with the ignorance, humour, and scruples of men: and therefore how charitable soever our Reconciler may think this, it is not such a Charity as becomes Governours. For pri­vate Christians to abridge themselves in the use of their Christian liberty for the sake of o­thers, is in many cases highly commendable, and a generous act of charity; but for Go­vernours to renounce their Authority to grati­fie Dissenters, is so far from being an act of charity, that it is betraying their Trust. Ei­ther Christ has committed this power to them to govern religious Assemblies, and to pre­scribe the decent Rules of Worship, or he has not: if he have (as our Reconciler has more than once owned in this very Book) then [...] [Page 124] [...] [Page 125] [Page 126] this power is a Trust committed to them, and such a Trust as they must give an account of: and therefore no pretence of charity can ju­stifie them in renouncing the exercise of it. The Reconciler indeed tells us,P. 159. That which is here pleaded for, is neither a denial, nor a dis­sembling of their imposing power in Superiours, but onely an abatement of the exercise thereof toward some weak Dissenters. Which may be done with the asserting of the power, and a profession that they do suspend the exercise thereof, not through conviction that it may not be lawfully used, but out of pure commiseration and howels of compas­sion towards their weak Brethren. But all the Protestations in the World will not salve this matter: for the great Dispute about Ceremo­nies turns upon this hinge, whether the Church have authority to command any thing relating to the Worship of God, which is not expresly instituted and enjoyned by Christ. Hence all such Rules of Order and Decency are, by our modest and peaceable Dissenters, opprobriously call'd Will-worship and Humane Inventions, and teaching for Doctrines the commandments of men: and though they had nothing to say against the lawfulness of the things themselves, (and indeed, all that they have to say, is next to nothing) yet their not being commanded by God, and their being commanded by men, though by such men as are invested with Christ's autho­rity to govern his Church, is thought a suffi­cient reason not to submit to them. Now when the Authority of the Church is the prin­cipal [Page 127]matter in dispute, and Ceremonies onely a collateral dispute, as depending upon an u­surped and illegal Authority, I would fain know of our Reconciler, how upon these terms they can give up these Ceremonies to the cla­mours of the Dissenters, without giving up their own Authority with them; which is the principal thing in question, and for the sake of which the Ceremonies are disputed.

Now let any man judge whether this be an act of charity, to part with that Authority which Christ has placed in his Church. Is this Authority for the good of the Church, or is it not? If it be not, then it seems Christ has placed such an Authority in his Church, as is not for the publick good; and this char­ges our Saviour himself with want of pru­dence or charity to his own Church, in setting such an uncharitable power over it: If Church-Authority be for the publick good, then it is no act of charity to part with it.

As to give but one instance of this, which our Reconciler is often at. He tells us,P. 323. That the Scripture-Exhortations (to Peace and Uni­ty) are so far from requiring such an Vnity and Vniformity, (as we plead for) that they per­fectly confute all those who think it fit to lay the Vnion of the Church upon an uniformity in lesser matters, and do impose them as the Conditions of Communion: for either we must all submit to some infallible Guide and Iudge of Controversies, in order to our Vnion, as R. H. thinks it necessary in order to our compliance with these Precepts, or else confess 'tis morally impossible to comply with [Page 128] them, it being visibly impossible to bring all men unto an unity of judgment and of practice in these things; and so we must reflect upon the wisdom of our Lord, and of his Precepts. And grant that Protestants have no sufficient means of Vni­ty, which is the very thing that Papists do so con­tinually upbraid us with, or must acknowledge that the way to this desired Vnity is not that of imposing and requiring uniformity in little mat­ters, concerning which the minds of men are full of doubts and scruples; but that of mutual con­descension, and forbearance, and charity in lesser differences. God help that Church, which meets with such Reconcilers as these! But that which I shall observe here, is his own con­cession, and his Dilemma upon it. He argues strongly, That while men are left to judge for themselves in the Externals of Worship, it is impossible to bring them unto an unity of judgment and practice in these things: for this, he says, must be granted, unless we own the necessity of an infallible Judge. Here indeed the Re­conciler and I differ a little about the infalli­bility of this Judge; but we agree upon the main point, that without a Judge to deter­mine these matters, there can be no Unity and Agreement among Christians; which cer­tainly is a demonstration in the Age in which we live, how strange soever it might have been thought in the Primitive times of Unity. And his Dilemma is a very sore one: For ei­ther this reflects upon the Wisdom of Christ himself, and grants that Protestants have no sufficient means of Unity; or that the way to [Page 129] this desired Unity is not requiring uniformity in little matters. Now to begin with the last first; it is demonstrably true, that there is no Church-Unity without Unity in Worship; wherein the principal exercise of Christian Communion consists; and that there can be no Decency and Order in this (which is an Apostolical Precept) without Uniformity; and no Uniformity without such Impositions. What follows then, but that we must reflect on the wisdom of Christ in not leaving Autho­rity in his Church sufficient to determine such matters, and grant that Protestants have no means of Union? These are hard terms; but I cannot see how they can be avoided, with­out granting that Christ has given, though not an infallible Judge of all Controversies of Faith, yet a supreme Authority to his Church to determine all matters of Decency and Or­der; which all Christians are bound to obey in all cases, where their Rules and Orders do not contradict some plain and express Law of Christ. And this Principle will quickly make us all of a mind in such matters.

Now then from hence I thus argue: If the wis­dom of Christ himself in instituting a Church-Society, and commanding all Christians to live in Peace, and Unity, and Love; if the Unity of Christians among themselves, and the Decency and Uniformity of Worship, are so nearly con­cerned in the sacredness of Church-Authority, that without it the wisdom of Christ is obscu­red and exposed to censure, the Peace and U­nity of Christians rendered impracticable, Pro­testants left destitute of any means of Union, [Page 130] and occasion given to Papists to cry up the ne­cessity of an infallible Judge, that which draws so many fatal consequents after it; does not seem to me to be any great act of charity: and yet thus it would be, should the Gover­nours of the Church, in compliance with the frowardness and scruples of Schismaticks, give up their authority in the Externals of Wor­ship, and leave every man to do as he pleased. While the Church maintains her Authority, a little Discipline and Government, and a few good Arguments, may in time cure the Schism; and if it will not, let Schismaticks answer for it at the last day: but if Schismaticks once gain this point, and wheedle the Church for peace sake out of her Authority, then we must bid an eternal farewel to Peace, and Order, and Uniformity in Religion: for men will never agree in these matters, without the de­termination of Authority. There is no other means left in the Church to decide these dif­ferences, when the Church has parted with her Authority; and thus the Wisdom of Christ will be reproached and censured, and the Protestant Name and Religion exposed to contempt: and this is our Reconciler's Pro­testant Charity.

Well, but suppose this compliance with Dissenters did not infer a renuntiation of their Power and Authority, but onely a suspension of the exercise of it, the case is much the same: for this forbearance must be for ever, unless we could suppose that these men will return to the obedience of the Church, when [Page 131] the Church leaves off to command. Now it is the same thing for the Church to renounce her Power, and to renounce the exercise of it. I suppose Christ gave this Power to the Church, that she should exercise it; and if the Power be necessary to the welfare and u­nity, and edification of the Church, to be sure the exercise of it is: For Authority is a meer empty name, and good for nothing, when it doth nothing. This, I think, is sufficient to prove that the charity of Governours does not require them to renounce their Government, neither in the authority nor exercise of it: And therefore,

II. The Charity of Governours must con­sist in the acts and exercise of Government; that is, as far as it concerns our present Dis­pute, in making and repealing Laws. And I dare joyn issue here with our Reconciler, and challenge him and all his dissenting Clients, to fix the least imputation of uncharitableness up­on the Church of England on this account: as to discourse this matter a little more particu­larly, to confound all such unjust Defamers of Authority and Government.

1. I shall begin with repealing Laws, and altering such Rituals and Ceremonies as were either sinful, superstitious, or inconvenient; be­cause here our Reformation began. And what Rules our Church 'observed in this, we learn from the Preface to the Common-Pray­er; where the reasons are assigned why some Ceremonies were abolish'd: As, 1. Becau [...]e some of them which were at first well inten­ded, [Page 132] did in time degenerate into vanity and superstition. 2. Others were from the be­ginning the effects of an indiscreet Devotion, and such a Zeal as was without knowledge, and dayly grew to more and more abuses; and they were rejected, because they were un­profitable, blinded the people, hindred them from a right understanding of the true nature of Christian Religion, and obscured the glory of God. 3. Some were put away, because their very numbers were an intolerable bur­den, and made the estate of Christian people in worse case concerning this matter, than were the Jews, as St. Austin complained in his days, when the number of Ceremonies was much less than it was in this Church at the time of Reformation; which was a great injury to the Gospel of Christ, which is not a Ceremonial Law (as much of Moses Law was) but a Religion to serve God, not in the bon­dage of the figure or shadow, but in the free­dom of the Spirit. And lastly, the most weighty cause of the abolishment of certain Ceremonies was, that they were so far abused, partly by the superstitious blindness of the ig­norant and unlearned, and partly by the unsa­tiable avarice of such as sought more their own lucre than the glory of God, that the a­buses could not well be taken away, the thing remaining still.

With what grave and mature consideration our Church proceeded in this affair, is evident from this account, which contains all the wise reasons that can be thought of for the altera­tion [Page 133] of any publick Constitutions. Here is charity to the Souls of men, in delivering them from ignorance and superstition, to which they were betrayed by the Rituals and Cere­monies of Religion; a tender regard to the case and liberty of Christians, which was op­pressed by such a multitude as were hard to know and to remember, and very troublesom to observe, and almost impossible to under­stand; which made them wholly useless and unprofitable. Here is a great regard to the glory of God, which was obscured by these Ceremonies; to the purity of the Christian Religion, which was transformed, by a mul­titude of Ceremonies, into a meer external and figurative Worship. And here are the true reasons why any Ceremonies which have been long used in a Church, and confirmed by Ec­clesiastical Canons, or Civil Laws, ought, not­withstanding that, to be removed, when either their numbers are excessive, or the abuses of them such as cannot be taken away, without abolishing the Ceremony it self. Several in­stances of this may be given, as to name onely Images in Churches, which could not be safe­ly retained at that time, without the danger of idolatrous Worship. For the generality of people in those days were so superstitiously addicted to the worship of Images, that had they been left in Churches, though the wor­ship of them had been expresly forbid, yet in­finite numbers of people would have wor­shipped them notwithstanding. This very reason our Church gives in her Homily against [Page 134] the peril of Idolatry, part 3. of the necessity of removing Images out of Churches, That as well by the origine and nature of Idols and Ima­ges themselves, as by the proneness and inclination of mans corrupt nature to Idolatry, it is evident, that neither Images, if they be publickly set up, can be separated, nor men, if they see Images in Temples and Churches, can be stayed and kept from Idolatry. —Wherefore they which thus reason, though it be not expedient, yet it is lawful to have Images publickly, and do prove that law­fulness by a few picked and chosen men: if they object that indifferently to all men, which a very few can have without hurt and offence, they seem to take the multitude for vile Souls, of whose loss and safeguard no reputation is to be had; for whom Christ yet paid as dearly as for the migh­tiest Prince, or the wisest and best learned of the Earth. And they that would have it generally to be taken for indifferent, that a very few take no hurt of it, though infinite multitudes besides perish thereby, shew that they put little difference be­tween the multitudes of Christians and bruit Beasts, whose danger they do so little esteem. Thus in another place of the same Homily; What shall I say of them who lay stumbling-blocks where before there were none, and set snares for the feet, nay for the souls of weak and simple ones, and work the danger of everlasting destructi­on, for whom our Saviour shed his most pretious Bloud? where better it were that the Arts of painting, plaistering, carving, or graving, never had been found out or used, than one of them whose Souls in the sight of God are so precious, [Page 135] should by occasion of Images or Pictures, perish and be lost.

This makes it very evident, that our Church in her Reformation had a peculiar regard to the care of mens Souls, and therefore remo­ved whatever might prove a snare and tem­ptation to them, and so hazard their eternal salvation. Our Reconciler transcribes these Passages out of that Homily, and endeavours from thence to prove, that the Church by a parity of Reason,Rec. p. 31, 32. and out of care of mens Souls, ought to part with all other Ceremo­nies, since the imposition of them tempts men to Schism, which is a damning sin. But is there no difference between these two cases? The Church must not retain that, which though it may possibly be innocently used by some men, yet is apt in its own nature to tempt the ge­nerality of men to sin; as Images in Churches are to tempt men to Idolatry: and the Church must not retain such Ceremonies which serve to very good purposes in Religion, and are not apt in their own natures to serve any bad one, because there are some men who will not submit to such Impositions, but will separate from the Church, and involve themselves in the guilt of a damning Schism, if such Cere­monies be imposed. Let us put a like case, and see how this Argument will look then. A Father, out of charity to the Soul of his Son, must not carry him to, nor indulge him in going familiarly to the Tavern or the Stews, because though it is possible to go to those places without being drunk or unchast, yet [Page 136] very few young men can resist such tempta­tions; and therefore he apparently hazards his Son by it. Now suppose from hence our Re­conciler should argue, that by a parity of Rea­son he ought not to command his Son to go to School, nor to do any thing which he strong­ly suspects he will not obey him in, though it be otherwise very innocent and useful, and fit to be commanded, because this involves his Son in the guilt of disobedience to his Father, which is a damning sin, and will destroy his Soul, as well as Adultery or Drunkenness; What would all Parents think of such a Ca­suist as this? At this rate a disobedient Son must give Laws to his Father, as well as a Schismatick give Laws to the Church. Su­periours must not in charity command any thing, but what Inferiours please to obey: for if they disobey, and be damned for their disobedience, those Superiours who comman­ded what their Inferiours would not obey, are guilty of their damnation.

But the plain Answer to it, is this: The obligations of Charity extend no farther than our own part and duty does: for we cannot shew our charity in that which is not our duty, nor in our power to help or hinder. Whatever evil happens to others upon the ne­glect of our duty, or the uncharitable perfor­mance of it, is imputable to us; but if other men by the neglect of their own duty, acci­dentally suffer by what we have wisely and charitably done, the sin and guilt, as well as misery, is their own. Otherwise it were a [Page 137] dangerous thing for us to do our duty, unless we were sure that other men would do theirs. For the wise and charitable discharge of our duty, may in most cases aggravate the sin and condemnation of those who will not do theirs. It may at this rate prove the most unchari­table thing in the world, to reprove an obsti­nate and incorrigible sinner, or to attempt to convince an obdurate and inflexible Schisma­tick; because such reproofs, and such means of conviction, if they do not reclaim them, make their sin more inexcusable.

Thus it is between Governours and Sub­jects. It is the duty of Governours to govern, and they must do it wisely and charitably; and it is the duty of Subjects to obey. If the Sub­jects suffer by the ill government of their Su­periours, it is their fault; if they suffer by their own disobedience, the fault also is their own. If the Governours of the Church set up Images in Churches, which is a great tem­ptation to people to worship them, especially if they have been educated in such an idolatrous Worship; this is very uncharitably done, and argues little care of mens Souls: but if they give wise and charitable Rules of Worship, and people will not obey them, but divide them­selves from the Church, and unite in a Schism; if they be damned for their Disobedience and their Schism, the fault is their own.

2. Let us now consider what Rules our Church observed in retaining Ceremonies; and if she have acted as charitably there too, I know not where our Reconciler will fix the charge [Page 138] of uncharitableness upon the Church. Now she has retained but very few; and therefore they are not burdensom by their numbers, nor do they obscure or adulterate the simplicity of the Christian Worship. She has retained onely those which are for decent Order and E­dification, since without some Ceremonies it is not possible to keep any Order or quiet Discipline in the Church. She has retained such as are venera­ble for their antiquity and age, and have a plain and easie signification; are neither dark nor dumb Ceremonies, but so set forth, that every man may understand what they do mean, and to what use they do serve. For though meer sig­nification, without any other use, is a very lit­tle thing in Christian Religion, yet when the decent circumstances of Worship, which are necessary to the orderly performance of it, have an additional signification also, suitable to the nature of the Worship we are engaged in, it is an additional ornament and advan­tage to the Ministry, as I have already dis­cours'd. Nay, the Church has taken care, as she says, to appoint such Ceremonies as are least capable of being abused to superstition. That it is not like that they in time should be abu­sed as others have been. In which case she has left a liberty to alter them, if they should be so abused; which is the onely reasonable oc­casion there can be for such an alteration. Now how any Church can be more easie and charitable in her Impositions, I confess, I can­not tell; and if that be a charitable Church, whose Impositions are easie and charitable, [Page 139] which are innocent and useful themselves, and not apt to tempt men to any sin, then the Church of England is very charitable, though Dissenters should be damned for their wilful and causeless Schism.

But besides this, as far as it is possible to pre­vent the Cavils of evil-minded men, our Church has taken care to explain the mean­ing of the signe of the Cross in Baptism, and kneeling at receiving the Lords Supper, to re­move all suspicions of any superstitious opini­ons about them; which is an Argument of great charity, and great care of the Souls of men. But you will say, Had it not been grea­ter charity to the Souls of men, not to have retained such Ceremonies as needed explicati­on, than to explain the meaning of them, which may not give satisfaction to all men of the law­fulness of their use? This were something to the purpose indeed, were there any thing doubtful in their signification: but it is not the obscure­ness of these Ceremonies, but the perverseness of men who endeavour to find out some su­perstition in them; which makes such Decla­rations of the Church more charitable still, as being a condescension not to the ignorance, but to the frowardness of her Children. Though to worship the Cross be Idolatry, to use it as a Charm and Spell savour of Super­stition, yet to use it as a venerable Badge of our Christian Profession, is neither; and no man can reasonably suspect that it is used o­therwise in Baptism. To kneel at the Sacra­ment is a decent posture of receiving, and can [Page 140] never be suspected as an act of Worship to the Bread, in those who believe that after con­secration it is Bread still, and not the natural Body of Christ: for to worship Bread, which we believe to be nothing but Bread, would be a more absurd Idolatry than the Papists are guilty of, who believe it not to be Bread, but the Body of Christ. This reason the Church assigns for it, in the second Common-Prayer-Book of Edward the Sixth: Although no Or­der can be so perfectly devised, but it may by some, either for their ignorance and infirmity, or else for malice and obstinacy, be misconstrued, depraved, and interpreted in a wrong part; yet because bro­therly charity willeth, that so much as convenient­ly may be, offences should be taken away, there­fore we, willing to do the same, declare that in kneeling at the Sacrament no adoration of the Ele­ments is intended. Recon. p. 208. Thus our Reconciler cites this passages; and I must trust him at present, because I have not the Book by me: but this sufficiently proves what I alleadge it for, that our Church did not adde this explication, as apprehending any necessity of it, but to pre­vent the absurd interpretations of ignorant or malicious Cavillers. But what our Reconci­ler adds, Who can tell why this whole Preface in our present Common-Prayer-Book is left out, is only a spightful insinuation of I know not what; since the same Declaration is as large and full in our Common-Prayer-Book, as words can make it. But he proceeds: and Why that Cha­rity which willeth, that as much as conveniently may be, offences should be taken away, should not [Page 141] will also the taking away or the abatement of un­necessary Ceremonies, or alteration of scrupled ex­pressions in our Liturgie? I am not bound to answer these trifling Cavils as often as he re­peats them; but I think every man of sense will see some little difference between making the Rules and Orders of the Church as inof­fensive as may be, and destroying all decent and orderly Constitutions: the first is such a Charity as becomes Governours, the second is nothing better than the dissolution of Go­vernment. But of Scruples, more presently.

Thus our Reconciler observes, that the Con­vocation held An. 1640. speaking of the laudable custom of bowing with the body, in token of our reverence of God, when we come into the place of publick Worship, saith thus: ‘In the practice or admission of this Rite, we desire the Rule of Charity, prescribed by the Apostle, may be observed; which is, That they who use this Rite, despise not them who use it not; and they who use it not, condemn not them who use it.’ Now, saith the Author of the mischief of Impositions, I would gladly hear a fair reason given why the Apostle should pre­scribe the Rule of Charity to be observed in this one Rite or Ceremony, more than another. And our Reconciler very modestly adds, The Apo­stle prescribes a Rule, and they will make use of it when and where, and in what cases they please; and in others, where it is as useful, lay it by like one of their vacated Canons. This is wonder­ful deference to Authority! But however, this is another instance of the Churches Cha­rity [Page 142] and moderation, at least in this one Rite; and methinks it deserved a little more civility, than to be turned into an Argument of Re­proach. But cannot our Reconciler guess at any reason for this difference, why she should grant that liberty in this one Rite, which she denies in other cases? Why then I'll tell him one; Because it is more capable of such an in­dulgence than other Ceremonies are: for it is an act of private Worship, though performed in the publick Church; and therefore diffe­rent usages in such matters do not disturb the Order and Decency of publick Worship. When we offer up our common Worship to God, which is the act of the whole Congregation, it is fitting that there should be one Rule and Order observed: for Uniformity is necessary to the Decency of Worship, and to the Unity of it; but there is no necessity that all mens private Devotions should be alike. And it is possible to think of another reason too; That this bowing the body in reverence to God, when we enter into his house, is properly a Ritual or Ceremony, that is, an exteriour a­ction or thing, not meerly a circumstance of Worship: it is it self an external Rite of Worship, not the circumstance of any other act. It may be very decent to bow our body in reverence to God, when we enter his house, but it is not a decent circumstance of religious Worship; and therefore there is not the same necessity that the Church should de­termine it, as there is that she should deter­mine the necessary circumstances of action, [Page 143] without which the Worship of God cannot be decently performed: and it seems to me to be an Argument of great wisdom in the Church, that she has not made an uniformity in this Rite, as necessary as in the other Cere­monies of Religion, since there is not an equal necessity for it. And I further adde, that the Apostles Rule of Charity, not to judge and censure one another upon such different usages, does not relate to those Ceremonies which are also the decent circumstances of religious actions, and so are necessary to the uniformi­ty of publick Worship, which must not be ne­glected out of a pretence of Charity; but it may extend to such Rites as these: which shews the great judgment of our Church in applying this Rule to one case, and not to the other; and argues great ignorance, as well as impudence, in our Reconciler to censure it: which I shall largely prove, when I come to answer his fourth Chapter.

And because our Reconciler so often men­tions not onely the abatement of the Ceremo­nies, but the alteration of some scrupled ex­pressions in the Liturgy, without mentioning what those are; I can give no other answer to it, but to represent that account which is gi­ven us of those late alterations which were made in our Liturgy, as we find it in the Pre­face to the Common-Prayer-Book. Our gene­ral aim therefore in this undertaking, was not to gratisie this or that Party in any of their unreaso­nable demands, but to do that which to our best understanding we conceived might most tend to [Page 144] the preservation of peace and unity in the Church, the procuring of Reverence, and exciting of Piety and Devotion in the publick Worship of God, and the cutting off occasion from them that seek occasi­on of cavil or quarrel against the Liturgie of our Church. — Most of the alterations were made— for the more proper expressing of some words or phrases of ancient usage, in terms more suitable to the Language of the present times, and the clearer explanation of some other words or phrases which were either of doubtful signification, or o­therwise liable to misconstruction. And what o­ther Rule our Reconciler would have the Church observe in altering scrupled phrases, I cannot tell: for if she mu [...]t alter, while some people cease to scruple, she must alter it all, or rather take it quite away.

3. But you will say, It is at least a breach of Charity to impose such Rites and Ceremo­nies as are scrupled by great numbers of Chri­stians, and the imposition of which occasions a formidable Schism in the Church. As for the Schisms and Divisions which are said to be occasioned by the imposition of these Ce­remonies, I shall consider that in the next Chapter: My designe at present leads me to consider the Mistakes and Scruples of Christi­ans, and how far Governours ought to have any regard to them; and for the explication of this, there are several things to be obser­ved.

1. I readily grant, that the Church ought not to command any thing which is of a doubtful or suspicious nature: for where the [Page 145] thing is doubtful, her Authority to command is doubtful too. Or rather, it is certain that the Church has no Authority in doubtful mat­ters: for her Authority can be no larger than her Commission; and it is no part of her Commission to teach or command things which are doubtful. Thus it may well be doubted whether it be lawful to set up Images in Churches, to pray before a Crucifix to ex­cite and quicken our Devotions, though we have no intention to pay any religious homage to them. For the same reason, the Church cannot by her Authority adopt doubtful Pro­positions into Articles of Faith, and require all Christians to believe them as the necessary terms of Communion. To this purpose our Reconciler, at his usual impertinent rate of Citations,P. 247, &c. alleadges several passages out of Mr. Chillingworth, to prove that no doubtful Propositions ought to be made Articles of Faith, or necessary terms of Communion: in which I perfectly agree with Mr. Chillingworth, but can by no means see how it follows from hence, that because the Church must not make new Articles of Faith, therefore she must not prescribe the necessary Rules of Worship; that because she must not impose things which are of a doubtful nature, therefore she must not command any thing, which some people raise doubts and scruples about.

But our Reconciler thinks that it is a suffi­cient evidence that a thing is doubtful, and that the peace and unity of the Church ought not to be suspended upon the determination [Page 146] of it, when there are a great number of men doubt of it, and the thing is disputed and controverted, and Arguments produced on both sides: and if this be so, there is not any Article of our Faith but what is doubt­ful; it is very doubtful whether there be a God, and whether Christ were the true Messias or an Importer; for we know there are a great many Atheists, Jews, Turks, and Infidels in the world. And if it be an Argument against the Ceremonies of the Church of England, that Dissenters dispute against them; if this prove, That the peace and unity of the Church ought not to be suspended upon submission to them, and that the decision of the Controversie concern­ing them, P. 239, 240. was not intended as a necessary means for the peace and unity of the Church of God in these Kingdoms; farewell to all certainty in Re­ligion.

But he proves this by an Argument tran­scribed from Dr. Stillingfleet's Irenicum, a book which certainly did such great service at the time when it was written, to draw men on to a calm consideration of things, and whose Reverend Author has done such excellent ser­vice since to the Church of England by his in­comparable Writings both against Papists and Fanaticks, that whatever fault there may be in it, both the Book and the Author have me­rited something more than a pardon; espe­cially since that Book stands now upon its own legs, and can derive no authority from that great Name, he having sufficiently declared his dislike, and, I think, sufficiently answered [Page 147] some principal parts of it himself. And though I cannot assent to every Proposition in the Irenicum, as I am pretty sure the Author himself does not, yet I can by no means think that it deserves all that clamour which some men have raised against it. I am sure it never can make any man a Dissenter; and I think it much more desirable, and more for the in­terest of the Church, that men should conform upon the Principles of the Irenicum, than that they should continue Dissenters. I could not forbear saying this once for all, out of that sincere honour I have for that excellent per­son, who has met with very ill usage from some men, who either envy his deserved prai­ses, or hope to make themselves considerable by being his Rivals. But let us hear what the Argument is.

Where probable Arguments are brought for the maintaining one part of an Opinion as well as ano­ther, though the Arguments brought be not con­vincing for the necessary entertaining either part to an unbyassed understanding, yet the difference of their Opinions is Argument sufficient that the thing contended for is not so clear as both Parties would make it to be on their own sides; and if it be not a thing of necessity to salvation, it gives men ground to think that the final decision of the matter in controversie was never intended as a ne­cessary means for the peace and unity of the Church of God.

Now I confess, I see no reason why I may not assent to all this: for if the Arguments be onely probable on both sides, and such as are [Page 148] not convincing either way to an unbyassed judgment, it is a signe the thing is doubtful, though some men may be very confident both ways; and nothing that is doubtful can be ne­cessary to salvation, nor can the final decision of it be necessary to the peace of the Church. But if the Arguments on one hand to an un­byassed and disinteressed judgment, be plain and certain, and the Objections on the other hand nothing but empty and trifling Cavils, which is the true case between the Church of England and Dissenters in the dispute of Ce­remonies; if the dissent of these men shall be thought sufficient to render this matter uncer­tain, we shall be condemned to eternal and unavoidable Scepticism.

But our Reconciler says, Let any man peruse the Arguments of the Dissenters against Confor­mity to symbolical Ceremonies, and he will find them strengthned by the suffrages of many grave and learned Divines both of our own and other Churches. As for the grave Divines of other Churches, let them mind their own business, for their Authority is nothing to us; and as for the Divines of our own Church, who strengthen the Dissenters Arguments against Ceremonies, who they are, or how many, or how grave and learned they are, I cannot tell. He has indeed transcribed several Sayings out of some of our Divines, to plead for the re­laxation of such Impositions; but none that I know of, to strengthen the Dissenters Argu­ments; which no Divine in our Church can do, who honestly conforms himself.

[Page 149]Well, but how does this Passage in the Ire­nicum countenance this reconciling designe? Suppose there be probable reasons on both sides, where yet it is necessary to act one way, what must be done in this case? must every man be left to do as he pleases? So says the Reconciler, that this is the onely way to peace; but the Irenicum says the quite contrary; That the way to peace cannot be by leaving an absolutely to follow their own ways: Irenicum, p. 3. for that were to build a Babel instead of Salem, Confusi­on instead of Peace. It must be then by convin­cing men, that neither of those ways to peace and order, which they contend about, is necessary by way of divine command (though some be as a means to an end) but which particular way or form it must be, is wholly left to the prudence of those in whose power and trust it is to see the peace of the Church be secured on lasting foundations. Which is a peremptory determination against our Reconciler, who very rarely quotes any. Author, without wresting his words to ano­ther sence, than what was intended.

If every thing were doubtful, of which some men doubt, and nothing must be determined which is thus doubtful, it were impossible that there should be any external form and consti­tution of a Church, or any external Worship. If it be a good Argument that a thing is doubt­ful, because some men doubt of it, methinks it is as good an Argument that that is not doubtful, which no body doubts of; and thus symbolical Ceremonies, as our Reconciler calls them, are past all doubt: for no Christian e­ver [Page 150] had any doubt about them for above fif­teen hundred years; which is time enough in this way to prove the certainty of any thing: And though some Christians begin to doubt, and to invent Arguments to countenance their doubts, after fifteen hundred years; yet this is no reason for the Church to doubt also.

Well, but if mens doubting be not an Ar­gument that the thing whereof they doubt is doubtful, how shall we know what is doubt­ful, and what not? I answer: Where there is no positive evidence, and the probabilities or difficulties are great on both sides, there is sufficient reason for doubting; and in such cases I think the Church has not authority to determine either way, when the doubt is a­bout the lawfulness or unlawfulness, the truth or falshood of things: for the authority of the Church cannot alter the nature nor the evi­dence of things; and therefore ought not to determine that to be lawful, which it is equally probable may be unlawful; nor that to be true, which has equal proofs of its being false. But this cannot concern the controversie about the lawful use of some Ceremonies in religious Worship, for which we have as plain and po­sitive evidence, as we can desire for a thing of this nature, as I have already shewn: and therefore any mens doubting of this, makes it no more doubtful, than their doubts about a­ny plain and necessary Article of Faith, renders that also doubtful and suspicious.

2. Though the Church must not command any thing which is of a doubtful nature, yet [Page 151] the doubts and scruples or mistakes of Chri­stians ought to have no influence upon acts of Government. There cannot be a more unreasonable and senseless Imposition upon Governours than this, which makes all Go­vernment the most arbitrary, and precarious, and useless thing in the world. If this Rule were allowed, what work would it make in Kingdoms and Families, when Princes, Pa­rents, and Masters, must command nothing which their Subjects, Children, or Servants scruple to do! That which makes Govern­ment necessary is, that the generality of man­kind do not know how to govern themselves; but this Principle makes all men their own Governours, and makes it unlawful for any Authority to impose any thing upon their Subjects which they have not a mind to: for it is an easie matter to scruple, or to pretend to scruple, whatever we have no mind to do: and yet if we will believe our Reconciler, here is no distinction to be made between men who are really weak and scrupulous, and those who pretend to it:Recon. p. 109, &c. for it is an uncharitable thing, it seems, whatever evidence we have for it, to charge those men with obstinacy, malice, or perverseness, who pretend to Scru­ples and tender Consciences. But to what purpose has God committed any Authority to some certain persons in Church or State, if they must not govern according to the best judgment they have of things, but must be governed by the mistakes or scruples of those whom they ought to govern? If they must [Page 152] not command what is innocent, useful, and convenient, when those whom they ought to command, do not think it so? This all men will acknowledge to be intolerable in the State; and I challenge our Reconciler to shew me any wise reason w [...] the Secular Powers must have no regard to mens scruples in ma­king useful Laws, and the Governours of the Church must. Whoever considers how wild, unreasonable, and fantastical some mens mi­stakes and scruples are, must needs think it a very ridiculous Constitution of Government, which has any regard to them. It is in the Government of the Church, as it is in the State, and as it must of necessity be in all Go­vernments. Those who have authority to govern, must take care to do it wisely and charitably; and those who are subject, must obey in all things lawful, without cavilling at their Superiours commands, where they are not manifestly contrary to some divine Law: and if there happens any hard case, as such cases will happen under all Governments, God, who is our supreme Governour, will take care to rectifie it, when the Governours of Church or State cannot do it, without loo­sening the Sinews of Government. As for instance: The Governours of the Church must take care to prescribe Rules for the de­cent performance of religious Worship; and in such an Age of mistakes and scruples as this, it is possible some very honest but weak Chri­stians may take offence at the best and most prudent Constitutions, and separate from the [Page 153] Church, and involve themselves in the guilt of Schism; what must the Church do in this case? Must she alter her Laws as often as any Christians pretend to scruple them? or must she make no Laws about such matters, but suffer every Christian to worship God as he pleases? This is to renounce their Govern­ment, because some Christians will not obey; or to make Government contemptible and ri­diculous, when it must yield to mens private fancies and scruples. And yet it is very hard, that the Government of the Church, which is instituted for the care of mens Souls, should prove a snare and temptation to them, and oc­casion their eternal ruine and misery. But I hope that there is no necessity for either of these. Governours must do their duty, must take care to make such Laws as are for the ad­vantage of Religion, and the edification of the Church, and are least liable to any just offence: and if after all their care, some very honest men may take offence, and fall into Schism, we must leave them to the mercy of God, who will make allowances for all favourable cases. The Church can give no relief in such cases, without destroying her Authority and Go­vernment, and giving advantage to Knaves and designing Hypocrites to disturb the best constitutions of things; but God can distin­guish between honest men and Hypocrites: and if men be sincerely honest, and do fall in­to Schism through an innocent mistake, God will be merciful to them; which secures the final happiness of good men, and yet main­tains [Page 154] the sacredness and reverence of Autho­rity. For when men know that nothing can justifie a Schism, and nothing can plead their pardon with God, but great honesty, and some invincible mistake, it will make all honest men careful how they separate from the Church, and diligent in the use of all means for their satisfaction; without which no man can pass with Almighty God for an honest Separatist: and I doubt not, but were men convinced of this, it would sooner cure our Schisms, than the removal of all scrupled Ceremonies. But in is so far from being the duty of Church-Go­vernours to take any notice of mens scruples, when there is no just occasion for them, that they ought not to allow any man to scruple their authority in such matters; which wea­kens Government, and opens a gap for eter­nal Schisms to enter.

Chap. 8. p. 259. It is very true, as our Reconciler has proved at large in a whole Chapter to that purpose, that the Church in several Ages has made great alterations in the Externals and Rituals of Religion; but how this serves his Cause, I cannot tell. No body questions but the Church has done this, and that she had authority to do it, and that she has so still, when she sees just occasion to do it: but the Question is, Whether she must do this as often as every lit­tle Reconciler, or every scrupulous Christian demands such an alteration. The Question is, Whether unreasonable scruples and prejudices be a necessary reason for the Church to make such alterations. And if he can give any one [Page 155] example in all Antiquity, that the Church al­tered her Constitutions for no other reason but to comply with the scruples of private Chri­stians, he will say something to the purpose. No, in those days private Christians did not use to scruple any Ceremonies, which the Go­vernours of the Church thought fit to ap­point; but Bishops made or repealed Laws a­bout such matters, as they thought most expe­dient for the good government of the Church. The Question is, Whether they repealed all Laws for the Order and Decency of Worship, or renounced their Authority to make such Laws, in compliance with those who denied any such Authority to the Church. Again, the Question is; Whether in the same Church they allowed all private Christians to worship God after what manner they pleased, accor­ding to their own private perswasions and ap­prehensions of these things; that those who are for a May-pole, may have a May-pole, as our Reconciler very reverently expresses it. If he can say any thing to these points, I confess, it will be to his purpose; and therefore I would desire him to consider of it, now he knows what he is to prove.

But though his History of those alterations which the Church in several Ages has made in the Rituals and Ceremonies of Religion, would not serve his main designe, yet it high­ly gratified his pride and insolence to trample upon a great man, whom he thought he had taken at some advantage.

The Reverend Dean of St. Pauls assigns [Page 156] some reasons why the Church of England still retains the use of some Ceremonies.Hist. of Sepa­ration, p. 16. His first reason is out of a due reverence to Antiquity. They would hereby convince the Papists they did put a difference between the gross and intolerable Superstitions of Popery, and the innocent Rites and Practices which were observed in the Church before. Recon. p. 297. This, says our Reconciler, is very like Hypocrisie, to pretend to retain three Ceremonies of humane institution, out of respect to their sup­posed antiquity, whilst we reject as many, which were unquestionably of a divine original, and therefore sure of an antiquity which more deser­veth to be reverenced. Truly if our Church has parted with any thing of a divine original, I think she has reformed too far: but will our Reconciler say, that every thing that was an Apostolical Practice, is of divine original? Bishop Taylor, to whom he so often appeals, would have taught him otherwise, as I have already observed; who says, that the Apostles in ordering religious Assemblies, and in pre­scribing such Rules of Worship as they did not immediately receive from Christ, acted but as ordinary Ministers of the Church; and what they prescribed, obliged no longer than the reason and expediency of the things; and the Governours of the Church in after-Ages had as full and ample Authority as the Apostles themselves in such matters.

But does the Dean say, that these Ceremo­nies were retained onely for their antiquity? then indeed the Reconciler's Objection had been strong, that other Ceremonies which are [Page 157] as ancient as they, should have been retained also. But is it not a just reverence to Anti­quity, that when our Church had for other reasons determined what number of Ceremo­nies to retain, and for what ends and purpo­ses, she chuses to use such Ceremonies as were anciently used in the Christian Church, ra­ther than to invent any new ones? for it had been an affront to the ancient Church, to have rejected those Ceremonies which had been made venerable by ancient use, when they would equally or better serve those ends we designe, than any new ones. This is the ve­ry account our Church gives of it. Having given the reason why she retained some Cere­monies still (as I have already observed) she answers that Objection why she has retained some old Ceremonies. If they think much that any of the old remain, Pref. to the Com. Prayer­book about Ceremonies. and would rather have all devised new; then such men granting some Cere­monies convenient to be had, surely where the old may be well used, there they cannot reasonably re­prove the old onely for their age, without bewray­ing of their own folly. For in such a case they ought rather to have reverence to them for their antiquity, if they will declare themselves to be more studious of Unity and Concord than of Inno­vations and new Fangleness, which (as much as may be with true setting forth of Christ's Religi­on) is always to be eschewed. Let our Recon­ciler consider whether this be Hypocrisie, or true and sober reasoning.

2. The Dean's second reason is, To manifest the justice and equity of the Reformation, by let­ting [Page 158] their Enemies see that they did not break Communion with them for meer indifferent things. Or as our Reconciler adds, That they left the Church of Rome no farther than she left the an­cient Church. Which the Dean does not say under that Head, nor any thing like it. But yet here he takes advantage, and says, It is manifest, that we have left off praying for depar­ted Saints, the Vnction of the sick, the mixing water with the Sacramental Wine, &c. with ma­ny other things which were retained in the an­cient Church, and in the Liturgie of Edward the Sixth (he should have said the first Liturgy.) and which are things indifferent retained in the Roman Church. But is our Reconciler in good earnest? I fear, the next Book we shall have from him, will be the Roman Catholick Recon­ciler. Are all these things, as used in the Ro­man Church, indifferent? Is praying for the dead, as it is joyned with the Doctrine of Pur­gatory and Merit, in the Church of Rome, a thing indifferent? Is the Sacrament of Ex­tream Unction an indifferent thing? Are their Grossings and Exorcisms, and such-like Ceremonies, abused by the Church of Rome to the absurdest Superstitions, indifferent things? Our Reformers at first, in veneration to the Primitive Church, in which some of these Ceremonies were used, did retain the use of them in the first Liturgy of Edward the Sixth; but upon more mature delibera­tion, finding how impossible it was to restore them to their primitive use, and to purge them from the superstitious abuses of the [Page 159] Church of Rome, to which their people were still addicted, laid them all aside: and for this they are reproached by our Reconciler. Some men would have been called Papists in Masque­rade for half so much as this.

But what is this to the Dean's reason, That we do not break Communion with them for meer indifferent things? For certainly to retain three indifferent Ceremonies, though we should reject five hundred more equally indif­ferent, is a sufficient proof that we do not quarrel nor break Communion for indifferent things, considered as indifferent; which is all that the Dean meant by it.

But he has a fling at some others besides the Dean, though whom he means, I cannot well tell: but he says, Some of our Church senselesly pretend we cannot change these Ceremonies, be­cause they have been once received and owned by the Church. I suppose he means the Catholick Church; and though I think it is too much to say, we cannot change what has been once received, (for the Church of this Age has as much Authority as the Church of former Ages had) yet, I think, what has been received by the Catholick Church, ought not, but upon very great reasons, to be rejected by any parti­cular Church.

But now had our Reconciler been honest, he might have made a great many useful Re­marks upon this History of ancient Ceremo­nies, for the conviction of Dissenters. He might have observed, that even in the Apostles days there were several Ceremonies used of [...] [Page 158] [...] [Page 159] [Page 160] Apostolical institution, which yet had not a divine but humane Authority; and therefore were afterwards disused or altered by the Church: That in all Ages of the Christian Church, there have been greater numbers of Ceremonies used, and those much more liable to exception than are now retained in the Church of England: That the Church has al­ways challenged and exercised this Authority in the Externals of Religion; and therefore there has not been any Age of the Church since the Apostles, with which our Dissenters could have communicated upon their Princi­ples. This had been done like an honest man, and a true Reconciler; but it is wonderful to me, that he who can find so many good words for the Church of Rome, can find none for the Church of England.

3. It may so happen, that some things must be determined by publick Authority, which are matter of doubt and scruple to some pro­fessed Christians. When I say, Authority must determine such things, I mean, if they will do their duty, and take care of the pub­lick Decency and Uniformity of Worship, without which there can be no Decency. This is evident in such an Age as this, wherein some men scruple every thing which relates to publick Worship, but what they like and fancy themselves. To be uncovered at Pray­ers, is as considerable a scruple to some Qua­kers, as to kneel at the Sacrament is to other Dissenters. This, it seems, was a Dispute in the Church of Corinth in St. Paul's days, but [Page 161] the Apostle made no scruple of determining that question, notwithstanding that;1 Cor. 11.3, 4, &c. and yet praying covered or uncovered, are but circum­stances of Worship, as kneeling or sitting at the [...]acrament are; and if I had a mind to argue this point with our Reconciler, I think I could prove them as indifferent circumstances as the other. For the reason the Apostle as­signs for the mens praying uncovered, and the women covered, that one was an Emblem of Authority, the other of Subjection, (which makes it a symbolical Ceremony, as our Dis­senters speak) is quite contrary among us, though it were so in the Apostles days, and is so still in some Eastern Countries. To be un­covered among us, is a signe of Subjection; and to be covered, a signe of Authority: and therefore Princes, Parents, and Masters, are co­vered, or have their Hats on, while Subjects, Children, and Servants, are uncovered in their presence: And therefore, in compliance with the Apostles reason, men should now pray co­vered, because that is a signe of civil Dignity and Superiority, whereas we now pray un­covered, in token of a religious Reverence and Subjection to God. Now I would ask our Reconciler, whether our Church may deter­mine that all men shall pray with their Hats off, notwithstanding the scruples of some Qua­kers? for if the Church must have respect to mens scruples, why not to the scruples of Quakers, as well as of other Dissenters, when one are as reasonable as the other, and this may as well be left undetermined as the other? [Page 162] for we have the practice of the Apostle for one side of the Question, and his reason for the o­ther. If our Reconciler can think of an An­swer to this, so can I too; and so I can also for the Objections against kneeling at the Sa­crament: but still here are scruples on both sides, and scruples, for ought I see, equally reasonable; and therefore Governours ought to have an equal regard to them, that is, none at all, if they will discharge their duty in ta­king care of the Decency of publick Wor­ship.

Dr. Falkner gave another instance of this in the Dispute about leavened or unleavened Bread in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper; where he says, The one sort is necessary to be de­termined before the administration, or otherwise the Ordinance it self must be omitted. Here our Reconciler is resolved to try his strength, be­cause the Argument, as managed by that otherwise-ingenious man, Rec. p. 339. containeth great mistakes; which being rectified, will set men right in the decision of the Controversie. Here then, if ever, we may expect that our Reconciler will say something to the purpose, because the decision of the Controversie depends on it.

1. Then, he allows there may be such cases where in genere something is necessary to be de­termined. I see we shall have fine work of it, when he begins with tricks and fallacies. The Doctor speaks of the determination of a particular circumstance, whether the Sacra­mental Bread shall be leavened or unleavened; and he talks of determining some cases in [Page 163] genere, that is, that it shall be Bread: for I know not else what he means by his in genere. The Question is, Whether any particular thing which is scrupled by some persons, may or ought to be determined; if it may, let him say so plainly, and make the best he can of it.

Well, he grants, that what is necessary to be determined, must be determined; but adds, that the Dissenters do universally deny that it is neces­sary to determine any of these scrupled Ceremo­nies; and they have perfect demonstration for the truth of that denial: for, necessatium est, quod non potest aliter se habere; that onely is neces­sary to be done, which cannot be left undone. I have seldom met with more trifling and so­phistry in so few words: For, 1. Dr. Falkner speaks of a necessity of determining some things, which have no antecedent necessity in their own natures, such as the use of leaven­ed or unleavened Bread in the Sacrament; and our Reconciler grants the Magistrate a power to determine those things which are necessary in their own natures, though that be non­sence: for what is necessary in its own na­ture, so necessary, that it cannot be left un­done, determines it self, without the authority of the Magistrate; the Magistrate may com­mand such things, but they are determined to his hand. Nothing can be determined either way by any Authority, but that which is in­different and undetermined in its own nature: and I think it a contradiction, that any thing should be indifferent in its own nature, and so [Page 164] determinable by humane Authority, which has either such a moral or physical necessity, that it cannot be otherwise.

2. Dr. Falkner proves, that there may be a necessity of determining some particular man­ner of doing a thing, before the action can be done; because though no particular mode of doing it may be necessary, yet it cannot be done without some particular mode of doing it. He that will administer the Sacrament, must administer it either in leavened or unlea­ved Bread: this is physically necessary, that it should be done in one or t'other; and this phy­sical necessity infers a moral necessity of deter­mining which way we will do it, before we can do it: for we cannot at the same time, and in the same individual act, do it both ways; and therefore we must resolve upon one way of doing it, or we cannot do it at all. To disprove this, which is as certain as any demonstration in Euclide, our Reconciler says, that nothing must be determined but what is necessary in its own nature to the doing or well doing of any action: As if so be I could travel into the Country, without determining whether I will walk, or ride, or what way I will go, because no one of these is in its own nature so necessary, that I cannot travel with­out it: for I may chuse which I will, but yet I must chuse some way or other, or I must stay at home. Now should you ask a man who is taking a journey, which way he will go, by land or by water, on foot or horseback, or by Coach; and he should tell you, it is not ne­cessary [Page 165] to his journey to determine either, for they are all equally indifferent; would you not think the man mad? for though all are indif­ferent, yet some one is necessary to his jour­ney; and if he will not determine which way he will go, he can never go. This is the case here. Dr. Falkner says, Before we can receive the Lords Supper, it must be determined whe­ther we will receive it in leavened or unleaven­ed Bread. No, says the Reconciler, any de­termination by the Magistrate is here unnecessary, because either leavened or unleavened Bread may be received. Right! and therefore there is no necessity of an universal Law and uniform practice all the world over about this matter; but still whoever administers, or whoever re­ceives the Sacrament, must do it in leavened or unleavened Bread. Suppose then in the same Church and Congregation there should be a dispute about this, as there was between the Greek and Latin Church; and some should scruple to administer or receive in leavened, others in unleavened Bread, what must be done in this case? must the Church deter­mine this matter, or not? or must there in e­very Congregation be two Ministers, and two Sacraments, one of the leavened, the other of the unleavened Communion? I know not what our Reconciler will say to this; but I am sure either this matter must be determin­ed, notwithstanding the scruples and differing Opinions about it, or there must be a Schis­matical disorder and confusion in the same Church, in the very act of Christian Commu­nion.

[Page 166]But how little regard the Apostles them­selves (whom I suppose our Reconciler will grant to be a good President for Church-Go­vernours) had to the mistakes and scruples of Christians, when there was a just reason for making any Decrees and Canons, is evident from the practice of that first celebrated Coun­cil of Ierusalem. The Jews did mightily urge the necessity of circumcising the conver­ted Gentiles, and made it a great scruple of Conscience so much as to eat or drink with them, much less to own them of the same Church and Communion, without Circumci­sion.15. Acts. Paul and Barnabas were sent to Ierusa­lem to consult the other Apostles about this Question. The Apostles accordingly met to­gether; and after a long debate, determined against the Circumcision of the Gentiles, not­withstanding the Jewish scruples about it. On the other hand, they lay a Burden (for so the Council calls it) upon the Gentile Chri­stians, without any regard to any scruples they might have about it; though, as Dr. Falkner shews, there was a fair colour and pretence for many.P. 309. The Reconciler indeed answers those pretences of scruple, which the Doctor says the Gentile Christians might have, though he sufficiently blunders in it. But what is that to the purpose? the Doctor did not pretend that they were unanswerable, but expresly says,Libertas Eccl. p. 429. That though these are far from solid Ar­guments, yet to an indifferent person (for he did not dream of the Protestant Reconciler) may possibly seem as plausible as many exceptions used [Page 167] by some men in other cases: that is, by the Dis­senters, in the Dispute of Ceremonies. But the force of the Argument (which our Re­conciler conceals, because he could not answer it) is this: That notwithstanding such plau­sible exceptions and scruples, That Apostolical Sanction was both lawful and honourable, yea though it concerned things indifferent, and was e­stablished (as many think) by that Ecclesiasti­cal Authority which they committed to their Suc­cessors in the Church.

As for what the Reconciler urges, that this Decree was onely about necessary things, it has been sufficiently answered already: for the Decency of publick Worship is a necessary thing, and I think a little more necessary than abstaining from Bloud, which is part of that Decree. And whereas he pretends that the abating our Ceremonies, is necessary upon the same reason which made that Apostolical De­cree necessary, viz. in order to avoid scandal and offence, I shall largely shew how different these cases are, in answer to his fourth Cha­pter.

I observe farther, that our Saviour himself, who certainly knew as well as our Reconciler, what indulgence was fit to be used to mens scruples and mistakes, and in what cases Cha­rity did oblige to such an indulgence, yet was so far from complying with the errours and mistakes of the Pharisees, that he seems to have done many things on purpose to oppose their superstitious conceits.

This Argument was urged by Dr. Falkner, [Page 168] and proposed as an Objection by the Recon­ciler,Recon. p. 317. though not in the Doctor's words, as he would have his Readers believe, by putting them into a different Character. The Do­ctor's Argument in his own words, are these: It is truly observed by Ursin,Libertas Eccl. p. 415. to adde confirma­tion to erroneous Opinions in the minds of the weak about indifferent things, is a giving offence, or be­ing guilty of an active scandal. Vpon this ac­count, though our Saviour knew that his healing, and commanding the man who was healed, to take up his bed on the Sabbath-day, his eating with Publicans and Sinners, and his Disciples eating with unwashen hands, were things in the highest manner offensive to some of the Iews; he practised and allowed these things, in opposition to the Scribes and Pharisees, who in their censures of him, proceeded upon erroneous and corrupt Doctrines vented by them for divine Dictates. Our Re­conciler seems conscious to himself, that this was an untoward Argument, as it was stated by the Doctor; and therefore in his Margin he refexs his Reader to the place where these words are found, which I have now cited; but yet he durst not trust his Readers with them, but puts the Objection into his own words, which he thought he could better deal with. And that every one may see how un­like they are to Dr. Falkner's Argument, I shall transcribe them also, which are these: Our Saviour knew that his healing on the Sab­bath-day gave great offence unto the Pharisees, and also ministred unto them an occasion to tra­duce his mission, and to perswade the people that [Page 169] he was not of God, because he did not keep the Sabbath, although he could as well have done it on the following day: and therefore his Embassa­dours may still persist in the imposing of our Cere­monies, though others are offended at them. Where we see he durst instance onely in his healing on the Sabbath-day, which he thought he could say something to, but slips over those other instances which the Doctor gave▪ and conceals the force of the Doctor's Argument, which consists in this, That our Saviour did not think fit by his compliance with men in their errours and mistakes, to confirm them in such superstitious conceits. But let us hear what our Reconciler answers to it.

I. He says, touching the act it self, P. 318. our Sa­viour declares affirmatively, that there was a mo­ral goodness in it; that it was to do well, to do good, to save life. But what is this to the pur­pose? Was there any moral goodness too in commanding the man whom he had cured, to take up his Bed and walk on the Sabbath-day? which we know gave equal offence to the Jews, who told the man that was cured, It is the Sabbath-day, 5 Joh. 10. it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed. Was there any moral good­ness in his Disciples eating with unwashen hands? which gave as great offence as any thing else, and yet was publickly justified by our Saviour. Was there any moral goodness in Christ's eating with Publicans and Sinners? Could not he have instructed them in the Will of God, without such a familiar conver­sation with them, as he knew gave great of­fence [Page 170] to the Pharisees? Was there any moral goodness in healing on the Sabbath-day, when there was no necessity for doing it just on that day? for our Saviour might have healed them at any other time as well. Yes, says our Re­conciler, our Saviour adds, That the neglect of doing this on the Sabbath, was to do evil, and de­stroy life. But where does our Saviour say this? He proposes this Question indeed to them,6 Luke 9. Is it lawful on the Sabbath-day to do good, or to do evil? to save life, or to destroy it? And from hence our Reconciler infers, that not to heal on the Sabbath-day, had been to destroy life; an inference worthy of his great and profound judgment! for I would ask him, Whether our Saviour could be char­ged with destroying those mens lives whom he did not heal, whether on the Sabbath-day or on any other day? Whether he were un­der a necessity of healing all that were sick? If he were not, then he might have chosen his times of healing, as well as the persons whom he would heal, without being guilty of de­stroying any mans life, and so might have for­born healing on the Sabbath-day. Nay, Whe­ther our Saviour could be charged with de­stroying life, by neglecting to heal a wither­ed hand on the Sabbath-day, which did not endanger life, and the cure of which might have been deferred till the next day, without any hazard? And therefore St. Matthew re­presents the force of our Saviour's Argument onely to prove, that it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath-day. 12 Mat. 12. And if we compare what [Page 171] St. Matthew and St. Luke say, we shall find this to be the whole meaning of it: St. Mat­thew tells us, that when the Jews asked our Saviour, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath-day, that he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the Sabbath-day, will be not lay hold on it and lift it out? How much then is a man better than a sheep? wherefore it is law­ful to do well on the Sabbath-day. For if men may save the life of a sheep on the Sabbath-day, there is such a vast disproportion between a man and a sheep, that we may lawfully do a­ny kind office for a man, though it do not ex­tend to rescue him from sudden death. To deliver a man from any bodily infirmity, though it be not mortal, nor absolutely neces­sary to be done at that time, is more pleasing to God, than to save the life of a sheep; and therefore if one be lawful on the Sabbath-day, we need not doubt but the other is. The an­swer St. Luke makes our Saviour to return, is exactly to the same sence, though in other words: Is it lawful on the Sabbath-day to do good, or to do evil? A strange kind of Question, according to the English sound of the words: for certainly it is never lawful to do evil, on no day of the week; but this is a Hebraism, and signifies this in proper English: Is it bet­ter on the Sabbath-day to do good, or to ne­glect doing good? Which is comparatively evil, because though it may have no positive wickedness in it, yet is a less good. Now [...]ertainly, the better the day is, the more does [Page 172] it become us to do the best things on it. And when he adds, to save life or to destroy it, it plainly refers to that instance St. Matthew gives of saving the life of a sheep which falls into a pit on the Sabbath-day; which proves the least real kindness done to men on the Sabbath-day to be lawful, because any kindness to a man, is more than to save the life of a Beast. So that all that our Saviour pleads in this case, is onely the lawfulness of doing it on the Sabbath-day; and though he knew that the Jews were offended at it, yet he matters not that offence, which was owing to their own superstitious mistakes: and therefore the Church may justifie her self in imposing lawful things, though some men by their superstitious mistakes are offended at it.

And yet we may joyn issue with our Re­conciler upon this very point of moral good­ness: for the Decency of Worship is morally good, and therefore not to be neglected, who­ever scruple a conformity to the Rules of De­cency and Order.

II. He answers, The end or excellent designs our Saviour had, made it not onely lawful, but expedient and necessary. So that in some cases, it seems, there may be wise reasons for doing that, which we know some men will take of­fence at. Now if it appears that the principal reason our Saviour had, was to rebuke and af­front the superstition of these men, then it is a just reason for Church-Governours to conti­nue such Impositions as some men ignorant [...]y [Page 173] and superstitiously scruple, though they might be changed and altered without any injury to Religion, because they ought not to counte­nance men in any false or superstitious opini­ons about Religion. Let us then consider the Reasons our Reconciler assigns for this.

1. His first reason, he says, is Bishop Tay­lor's: That Iesus might draw off and separate Christianity from the Yoke of Ceremonies, by abo­lishing and taking off the strictest Mosaical Rites, he chose to do many of his Miracles upon the Sabbath, that he might do the work of Abrogation and Institution both at once, and teach the people that the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath. Whether this be the Bishops reason, I cannot tell; for he has not directed us where to find it, and I dare not take his word for it. But whose Argument soever it is, there is certainly a great mistake in it: for our Saviour did not intend in this, to take off the strictest Mosaical Rites; for this Sabbatick rest, which would not allow the doing the most charitable acti­ons, was no Mosaical Rite, but Pharisaical Superstition. Our Saviour justifies himself, that he did nothing but what by the Law of Moses was lawful to be done on the Sabbath-day; and therefore he did nothing in all this towards abrogating the Law of the Sabbath, but onely to correct the superstitious observa­tion of it; that is, publickly to shame the Su­perstition of the Pharisees, though he knew they would be greatly offended at it.

2. And this is the second reason he himself assigns, That Christ is supposed to have taken [Page 174] this occasion to deliver the poor people from those superstitious and heavy burdens which the Phari­sees had laid upon them in reference to that day. And this is certainly the true reason; and why should not the Governours of the Church then impose the use of indifferent things for the Decency of Worship, to deliver poor peo­ple from those Superstitions and heavy Bur­dens which our modern Pharisees have laid on them in reference to religious Worship? For to say that we must use no Ceremonies of hu­mane appointment in religious Worship, is as gross Superstition, and as unsupportable a Bur­den, as to forbid the doing of the best actions on the Sabbath; and is as contrary to the di­rection of the Gospel, as that was to the Law: and the offence men superstitiously take at such things, ought to be despised and scorned, as we learn from the Example of Christ him­self.

319 3. He adds, This Miracle was still performed in the Synagogue, and so before a multitude of people, who by it were confirmed in the truth of our Lords Mission, and it was done when he had taught the people, and so was done in the confirma­tion of his Doctrine. Now as to matter of fact, this is false: for our Saviour on the Sab­bath-day cured the diseased man who lay at the Pool of Bethesda, which was neither in the Synagogue, nor before a multitude of peo­ple, nor when he had taught the people, 5 Ioh. 8. for no body knew of this cure, till they saw the man who was cured carrying his Bed; and he himself did not know who it [Page 175] was that had cured him. Here Christ had done a cure privately, and without offence: for it had not been known, had not Christ commanded him to take up his Bed and car­ry it away with him; which he did in open defiance to the Superstition of the Pharisees, and could have no other reason of doing it.

Had these Miracles been wrought onely in confirmation of his Mission, would not another day have served as well for that purpose? He taught the people on other days also, and wrought many Miracles; and never wanted a multitude of people to follow him, when they knew where he was. Well, but it shewed them the blindness of their Guides. This is a very good reason▪ and for the same reason the Governours of the Church ought in cha­rity to the people, to shew them the blindness of their Guides▪ and therefore not to comply with them in their superstitious scruples.

III. But the men who were offended at it, were onely Hypocrites, whose hearts were hardened a­gainst the truth. What, were they all Hypo­crites? was there not one honest man among them? Some Hypocrites there were then, and so there are still; Hypocrites in another sence than these men were Hypocrites. For the Jews did generally believe the unlawfulness of any kind of work on the Sabbath-day, and therefore were really scandalized and offended; but we have a company of Hypocrites among us, who do not really scruple what they pretend to do, but onely make a pretence of scruples an occasion to abuse the People, to stir up [Page 176] Schisms in the Church, and Factions in the State; men who can conform when they please, and be offended and scandalized when they please. But our Lord did all that could be reasonable to prevent their scandal. No, he did not abstain from working Miracles on the Sab­bath-day, which he might have done if he had pleased; but he was so far from avoiding gi­ving offence to them, that he did it on purpose because they were offended at it, and to deli­ver men from such Superstitions as made them take offence. But he first satisfies them from their own practice on a less occasion, and from the nature of the action; and that with so much evi­dence and conviction, that they were ashamed, and could not answer him one word. And has our Church been wanting in this, to give satisfa­ction to Dissenters? How many unanswerable Books have been written in justification of the Constitutions and Worship of our Church? And that our Dissenters are not ashamed, but will talk on, when they have not one wise word to say, is onely an Argument that they have less wit, and more impudence, than the Pharisees had. Our Church indeed cannot work Miracles, as Christ did, to convince them; though where plain and convincing Reasons will not do, I doubt Miracles will not do neither: for though the Pharisees were silenced by Christ, yet they were neither con­vinc'd by his Reasons nor his Miracles.

Thus I have considered what obligation Charity to the Souls of men lays upon the Governours of the Church to abate those Ce­remonies, [Page 177] which some men scruple and take offence at. But I must here briefly consider one Principle more of our Reconcilers, which he no-where pretends to prove, but takes for granted; That the Charity of Governours re­quires the abatement of every thing which is not absolutely necessary in Religion, if it prove an occasion of scruple and offence. For why must the Church be tyed up to what is neces­sary? Her Power and Authority extends to things which are useful and expedient, though not absolutely necessary; and therefore she may exercise this Power according to the mea­sures of Prudence and Charity, notwithstand­ing the unreasonable & superstitious scruples of men, which ought to lay no restraint upon the prudent Exercise of Government, as, I think, I have already sufficiently proved; and yet our Reconciler thinks it a sufficient reason why the Church should alter any scrupled Ceremonies, how decent or expedient soever they are, if we cannot prove them to be absolutely necessary.

Thus I have considered the main Principles of his Book, and shall not think my self any further concerned to take notice of them, as of­ten as I meet with them. If these Principles which I have now laid down, hold good, his Book is answered, and the Governours of the Church may exercise their just Authority; and he that is offended, let him be offended. And yet for the more ample satisfaction of all men, what a trifler our Reconciler is, I shall particularly examine his Arguments from Scri­pture, and shew how impertinent they are to our present Dispute.

CHAP. III. Concerning a more particular Answer to our Reconciler's Objections against the imposition of indifferent things, when they are an occasion of Discords, Divi­sians, and Schisms.

THough what I have already discours'd b [...] sufficient to satisfie every impartial Rea­der, that all our Reconciler's Arguments are meer Fallacies, as proceeding upon false and mistaken Principles; yet for the more abun­dant satisfaction of all who are willing to be informed, I shall proceed to a more particular examination of his Reasons, why Church-Governours ought to alter or abate such scru­pled Ceremonies.

Prot. Rec. c. 1.I. And first, he declaims very copiously a­bout the great evil and mischief of Divisions; and truly I believe Discord and Division, espe­cially among Christian Brethren, to be as bad a thing as he can possibly describe it to be: But what then? what then? the consequence is very plain: For if Conformists do not conceive it better at least that we should run the hazard of all these dreadful evils, than that we should con­sent to lay aside the imposition of a few indifferent Ceremonies, or to the altering of a few scrupled expressions in our Liturgie;P. 22. then must they yield [Page 179] up these few Ceremonies, and alter these expres­sions, to prevent all the aforesaid evils.

1. I answer: Does our Reconciler then think that every thing that is the occasion of Discords and Divisions, must be removed? Is the cause of Divisions in the nature of things, or in the minds of men? And is it not most proper to apply the remedy to the di­sease? to instruct people that they ought not to quarrel about such matters? that they ought to pay such deference to their Superi­ours, as chearfully to obey them in all things which God has not expresly forbid? Till this be done, the Church may a [...]ter her Con­stitutions every year, and be as far off from Peace as now: for while men are ignorant, scrupulous, and quarrelsome, it is impossible for the Governours of Church and State, by the most wise and prudent Constitutions, to prevent Divisions.

2. Is not the contempt of Ecclesiastical Au­thority, and the rude and unmannerly per­formance of religious Worship, as great a mis­chief as Divisions? and yet it is impossible to indulge every scrupulous person, without de­stroying the Authority of the Church, and the Decency of Worship, as I have already pro­ved. Now I must confess bonâ fide to our Reconciler, that I think all our Divisions a­bout Ceremonies, a less scandal to the Chri­stian Religion, than this would be: for it is better to have a well constituted Church with Division▪ than to have none without it.

3. Will our parting with some few Cere­monies, [Page 180] cure these Divisions which he so much complains of? This our Reconciler cannot undertake for; and it is demonstrable it will not. Is this the onely Controversie, that Presbyterians, Independents, Quakers, and o­ther Sectaries, have with the Church of Eng­land? Has our Reconciler never read Mr. Ba­xter's Pleas for Peace, and those other veno­mous Pamphlets of late date? When the Church of England was pull'd down, and these Ceremonies and Episcopacy it self removed out of the way, did it cure Divisions, or in­crease them? When the Reverend Dean of St. Pauls made some Proposals for the ease of scrupulous persons, with reference to these Ce­remonies, what thanks had he for it? How many bitter Invectives were written against him? And can we flatter our selves then, that the removal of these Ceremonies would cure our Divisions? And if it will not, why does he urge the evil and mischief of Divisions, to perswade the Church to part with these Ce­remonies? Whatever other reasons there may be to part with these Ceremonies, the cure of Divisions can be no reason, when we certain­ly know before-hand that this will not cure them; unless he thinks the Church bound to act upon such reasons as he himself and every body else knows to be no reason: for nothing can be a reason for doing a thing, which can­not be obtained by doing it.

But because our Reconciler attempts to say something to this in his tenth Chapter, I shall follow him thither.Recon. ch. 10. p. 326. His first Objection is, [Page 181] That the Church will gain little by such an In­dulgence; and this I verily believe to be true. Let us hear then what he has to say to it.

And, 1. he takes it for granted, that he has already proved it the duty of Superiours to con­descend in matters of this nature, rather than to debar men from Communion with the Church of Christ for things unnecessary, and which they no­where are commanded to impose; and if so, let us do our duty, and commit the event to God. Now I answer, 1. I can by no means grant that he has proved this; and have in part already, and doubt not to make it appear before I have done, that he has not proved it. But 2. Sup­pose he had proved that it is the duty of Su­periours to condescend in such matters, when they can do any good by their condescension; has he proved also that it is their duty to con­descend, when they know they can do no good by it? When these Divisions will not be cured by such condescension? which is the present case. The gaining of some very few Proselytes would not countervail the mischief of altering publick Constitutions, though we should suppose it reasonable to condescend to such alterations, when we can propose any great and publick good by doing it.

II. Our Reconciler answers:P. 327. Suppose that we by yielding in these matters should not reduce one of the Tribe of our dissenting Brethren, yet should we take off their most plausible pretences, and leave them nothing which could be rationally of­fered as a ground of Separation, or accusation of our proceedings against them. I doubt not but [Page 182] our Dissenters despise this Reconciler in their hearts, for thinking that they have no plausi­ble pretences, nor rational grounds of Separa­tion, but the Dispute about Ceremonies: What pretences then have the Dissenters in Scotland, where none of these things are im­posed? And are they more quiet and peacea­ble, or less clamorous in their Complaints, than our Dissenters in England? For whose sake shall the Church make this Experiment, with the loss of their own Orders and Constituti­ons? for the sake of Dissenters? And what charity is it to them, to discover their obstina­cy and hypocrisie, and render them more in­excusable to God and men? Is it to satisfie our selves that the Dissenters are a sort of pee­vish and obstinate Schismaticks, who will make Divisions without any just pretence or reason for it? We know this already; we know they have no rational grounds for their Separation, though these Ceremonies be not removed. Or do we think to stop their mouths, and escape their reproaches and cen­sures? As if any man could stop the mouth of a Schismatick, or make him blush! Those who are resolved to continue Schismaticks, will always find something to say for it; and let them talk on, the true Sons of the Church will defend her Constitutions with more rea­son, than Dissenters reproach them.

III. However, he says, This will intirely stop the mouths of the Layety;P. 330. and if they be gained, their Preachers must follow. But who told him this? I am sure Mr. Baxter often complains [Page 183] that their Layety is so headstrong and stub­born, that they cannot govern them: and in all my observation, I find that they are as fond of Schism, as zealous against Liturgies and Bishops: as obstinately addicted to the pecu­liar Opinions and Practices of their Party, as their Preachers are; though I am of our Re­conciler's mind, that their Preachers will sooner follow their People to Church, than the People their Preachers. But with what face can our Reconciler say, That these Cere­monies chiefly debar the Layety from full Communion with us, when every one knows the contrary? They can communicate with us, notwithstanding these Ceremonies, when they please, and when they can serve any in­terest by it; and their Preachers can give them leave to do so: and is it not an admirable rea­son for altering the establish'd Constitutions of a Church, to gratifie such humoursome Schis­maticks who can conform when they please?

IV. He adds, They who at first dissented from the Constitution of our Church, declared they did it purely upon the account of these things, i. e. the Ceremonies still used among us. This now is a mistake in History: for the first dislike that was taken against our Church, was for the square Cap and Tippet, and some Episco­pal habit [...], which are not talked of in our days, and some of which were used in the U­niversities, without scruple, in the late blessed times of Reformation. But the use of these Ceremonies was never scrupled till Queen Elizabeth's days, which was the fruit of the [Page 184] former Heats at Francford during the Marian Persecution:See Dr. Still. Hist. of Sepa­ration, p. 4. and these men indeed did dis­sent (as our Reconciler expresses it) that is, they expressed their dislike of these things, but they did not separate upon it. The first that made any steps to Separation, set up o­ther pretences; complained for want of a right Ministry,P. 25. a right Government in the Church according to the Scriptures, without which, there can be no right Religion; which are the pretences of our Separatists at this day.

Well, but suppose what he says to be true, what reason is this for altering our Ceremo­nies at this day? Will our Separatists conform now, if these Ceremonies are taken away? That he dares not say: but we shall gain this by it, That it will appear that they are not the genuine Off-spring of the old dissenting Protestants. As if any man, but a Reconciler, were to learn that now, when it has been so often proved upon them, and they themselves scorn and huff at the Argument, and will not have the old Puritans made a President for them.

V. In the Treaty at the Savoy, the abatement of the Ceremonies, and the alteration of some dis­putable passages in the Liturgie, was all that was contended for: That is, he means, the Dispute went no farther; but if they had gained these points, we should then have heard more of them. I am sure whoever reads their Peti­tion for Peace, will find all the Principles of Mr. Baxter's late Pleas for Peace; that so I con­fess I cannot think him so very inconsistent with himself, as some men do.

[Page 185]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, [Page 186] 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 Bar [...]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 [Page 187] 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 [Page 188] 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, P. 331. 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 [Page 189] 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 [...]udge when it is fit to stop; and every wise man will think it fit to stop, when she has cast every thing out of her Wor­ship which is a just cause of scandal and of­fence; and if she goes further to satisfie un­reasonable and clamorous demands, she can never have a reason to stop, till she has satisfi­ed all Clamours.

2. Yes, says our Reconciler, she may remove things indifferent and unnecessary; which is all at present desired. No, say I, she cannot part with all things which are in their own nature indifferent: for some such things are necessary to the Order and Decency of Worship, which must not be parted with; and the Church [Page 190] never owned the contrary. She says indeed, that her particular Ceremonies are indifferent and alterable, that we may exchange one de­cent Ceremony for another when there is rea­son for it; but the Church ought to alter no Ceremony without reason, nor part with all indifferent Ceremonies for the external De­cency of Worship for any reason. And now we are beholden to him, that, 3. He grants, with some reconciling salvo's, that we must not part with our Church-government, under the pretence of parting with indifferent things. But if we must not part with that, we may as well keep all the rest; for our Divisions will be the same. No party ever separated from the Church for the sake of Ceremonies, who did not quarrel with the Order and Authori­ty of Bishops.

The rest of his Arguments in that Chapter do not concern this business; but whatever he would prove by them, there are two gene­ral Answers will serve for them all. 1. That indifferent things, which serve the ends of Or­der & Decency, are not such unnecessary trifles as to be parted with for no reason; which I think I have sufficiently proved above. And 2. T [...]at parting with them will not heal our Divisions; and therefore, at least upon that ac­count, there is no reason to part with them.

What I have now discours'd about Divi­sions and Discords,Recon. ch. 2. p. 23. is a sufficient Answer to his next long Harangue about the evil of Schism; in which I heartily concur with him, as believing that Schism it self will shut men [Page 191] out of the Kingdom of Heaven; which is as bad a thing as can be said of it; and there­fore out of love to my Brother's Soul, I would not upon any account be guilty of his Schism. But how does this prove that Church-Gover­nours must part with the Rites and Ceremo­nies of Religion? Oh! because Dissenters take offence at these things, and run into Schism, and consequently must be damned for it; and therefore Charity obliges to part with such indifferent things, to prevent the e­ternal damnation of so many Souls. But now,

1. Suppose the imposition of these Cere­monies be neither the cause of the Schism, nor the removal of them the cure of it, what then? Why must the Church part with these Ceremonies, which are of good use in Reli­gion, to no purpose? And yet this is the truth of the case, as appears from what I have al­ready discours'd. The several Sects of Reli­gion, were Schismaticks to each other, when there were no Ceremonies to trouble them; and would be so again, if the Church of Eng­land were once more laid in the dust. No man separates from the Church of England, who has not espoused some Principles of Faith or Government (besides the Controversie a­bout Ceremonies) contrary to the Faith and Government of the Church: and will the re­moval of Ceremonies make them Orthodox in all other points? or are they of such squea­mish Consciences, that they can submit to an Antichristian Hierarchy, and an Antichristian Liturgy, but not to Ceremonies?

[Page 192]2. The Argument of Schism is the very worst Argument our Reconciler could have u­sed, as being directly contrary to the end and designe of it. All the Authority the Church has, depends on the danger of Schism, and the necessity of Christian Communion. The onely punishment she can inflict on refractory and disobedient Members, is to cast them out of the Church; and that is a very terrible punishment too, if there be no ordinary means of salvation out of the Communion of the Church: and therefore the danger of Schism is a very good Argument to perswade Dissen­ters to consider well what they do, and not to engage themselves in a wilful and unnecessary Schism. But it is a pretty odde way, to per­swade the Governours of the Church out of the exercise of their just Authority, for fear some men should turn Schismaticks, and be damned for it. The reason why the Gospel has threatned such severe punishments against Schism, is to make the Authority of the Church sacred and venerable, that no man should dare to divide the Communion of the Church, or to separate from their Bishops and Pastors, without great and necessary reason; and our Reconciler would fright the Church out of the exercise of her just Authority, for fear men should prove Schismaticks, and be damned for it. Christ has made Schism a damning sin, to give Authority to the Church; and our Reconciler would perswade the Church not to exercise her Authority, for fear men should be damned for their Schism. [Page 193] Now whether our Saviour, who thought it better that Schismaticks should be damned, than that there should be no Authority in the Church; or our Reconciler, who thinks it better that there should be no Authority in the Church, than that Schismaticks should be damned, are persons of the greatest Charity, I leave others to judge. Indeed the odium of this whole business, which is so tragically ex­aggerated by the Reconciler, must at last fall upon our Saviour himself, either for instituting such an Authority in his Church, or for con­firming this Authority by such a severe Sancti­on as eternal damnation. If Christ will at the last day condemn those who separate from the Church for some external Rites and Ce­remonies (as our Reconciler's Argument sup­poses he will) then it is a signe that Christ approves of what the Church does, in taking care of the Decency of Worship; and that he thinks it very just that such Schismaticks should be damned: and then let our Reconciler, if he think fit, charge the Saviour of the World with want of Charity to the Souls of men. The Church damns no man, but does what she be­lieves to be her duty; and leaves Schismaticks to the judgment of Christ: if he damns them at the last day, let our Reconciler plead their Cause then before the proper Tribunal; and if Christ can justifie himself in pronouncing the Sentence, I suppose he will justifie his Church too in the exercise of her Authority.

This is certain, that if the imposition of these Ceremonies be a just cause of Separation, [Page 194] our Dissenters are not Schismaticks, and there­fore in no danger of damnation upon that score: and if it be not a just cause of Separa­tion; then the Church does not exceed her Authority in it; and therefore is not to be blamed, notwithstanding that danger of Schism which men wilfully run themselves into, no more than a Prince is to be blamed for making good Laws, because some men will break them, and be hanged for it.

3. He perswades the Governours of the Church, out of Charity to the Souls of men, not to tempt them to Schism by their Impo­sitions: whereas there is no way to prevent Schism, but by maintaining and asserting their own Authority. When there is no Authori­ty in the Church, there will be as many Schisms in it, as there will be Factions in the State, without some [...]upreme Power to whom all must obey: And therefore out of Charity to the Souls of men, and to prevent their Schism, Church-Governours are bound to exercise their Authority, and not to give way to igno­rant and groundless scruples. There is no­thing occasions more Schisms, than the diffe­rent Rites and Modes of Worship, and there­fore if they would prevent Schism, they ought to exercise their utmost Authority in maintaining the Decency and Uniformity of Worship; which will prevent more Schisms than it can make. It will preserve unity a­mong those who have any reverence for the Authority of the Church, or any sense of the danger of Schism; and those who have not, [Page 195] will be Schismaticks notwithstanding. The onely way I know of to prevent Schism, is by wise Instructions, and by a strict Discipline; the one to cure their ignorance and their scru­ples, the other to curb their wantonness and petulancy: but for Governours to suffer their Authority to be disputed, and to give way to the frowardness, fullenness, or ignorance of men, to alter the Laws and Constitutions as often as any man can find any thing to say a­gainst them, would breed eternal confusion both in Church and State. Government is the onely Cement and Bond of Unity; and when Governours give the Reins out of their hands, every young Phaëton will think him­self fit to drive the Chariot of the Sun; and no man will be governed, when there is none to govern: and what Order & Unity there can be in the Church without Government, or what Government where those who are to be governed must give Laws to their Governours, I would desire our Reconciler at his leisure to tell me.

What follows in this Chapter, has already been considered in my first Chapter; and thi­ther I refer my Reader.

CHAP. IV. An Answer to the Reconciler's Arguments from the Words, the Doctrine, the De­portment of Christ, whilst he was here on Earth, contained in his third Chapter.

THere are two main Principles on which all our Reconciler's Arguments are foun­ded: 1. That these disputed Ceremonies are wholly useless and unnecessary things. 2. That the imposition of them is the cause of our Divisions and Schisms, which would be cured by the removal of them; which therefore is so great a charity to the Souls of men, that Church-Governours ought to consent to, and promote such an alteration. Now all this be­ing false, as I have already proved, his other Arguments must fall with it: but yet to a­void all Cavils, I shall particularly consider the force of what he urges. And,

First, He begins with the Doctrine and Deportment of our Saviour;Recon. p. 45. which, I confess, is a very good Topick, if he could prove any thing from it: and he has no less than eight Arguments to confound all the stiff Imposers of unnecessary things.

I. That our Lord doth frequently produce that saying of the Prophet Hosea, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, to justifie himself and his Dis­ciples, when for the good of their own bodies, or [Page 197] the souls of others, they did what was forbidden by the Law of Moses, or by the Canons and Tra­ditions of the Scribes [...]nd Pharisees, who sate in Moses Chair. This is what every body will grant; and therefore he needed not have troubled himself to prove it. And his infe­rence from hence, is this:P. 46. That Precepts which contain onely Rituals, are to give place to those which do concern the welfare of mens bodies, and much more to those which do respect the welfare of our Brother's soul; so that when both cannot to­gether be observed, we must neglect or violate the former, to observe the latter. From whence he concludes, that therefore we must part with those Ceremonies, which being made Conditions of Communion, do accidentally afford occasion to such great and fatal evils to the Souls of men. Now does not every body see that there is more in the conclusion, than there is in the premises? For,

1. Does our Saviour here speak of abroga­ting the Laws of Sacrifice for the sake of Mer­cy? How does he then hence conclude any thing about repealing the Laws of Ceremo­nies and Rituals? which neither the Prophet nor our Saviour ever thought on, when they said these words. Though God prefers Mer­cy before Sacrifice, yet he gave Laws about Sa­crifices and Ceremonies, and continued those Laws after these words were spoken; and so may the Church do also, for any thing that is here said to the contrary. For,

2. Our Saviour neither speaks here of ma­king nor replealing Laws about Sacrifices or [Page 198] Rituals, but onely prefers Mercy before Sacri­fice, when there happens a competition be­tween them: he supposes that both may be done, and that both ought to be done, but if both cannot be done at the same time, Mercy must take place of Sacrifice: And this Mercy our Church allows, as much as any man can desire. She is not so severe to exact kneeling at the Sacrament, or at Prayers, or standing at the Creed, if men have any such infirmity on them that they cannot do it without great inconvenience; she does not exact Godfathers or Godmothers, or the signe of the Cross, nor bringing the Child to Church when it is sick and in danger of death; she does not impose fasting on weak and crasie persons, nor think her Laws so sacred that no punctillo must be neglected, when it is done without offence and scandal; she will not blame any for staying from Church, or going out in the midst of Prayers, to quench a fire, or to help a sick per­son. And this answers to our Saviour's cases, wherein he prefers Mercy before Sacrifice: But how does this prove that the Governours of the Church must not exact obedience to wholsom Constitutions, because some men scruple them? Our Saviour never applies this saying to any such case; and I am sure our Reconciler has neither reason nor authority to do it.

When our Reconciler proves from these words, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, that the Church must part with her Ceremonies for the sake of those who will separate from her [Page 199] if she do not, he must either argue from the Saying it self, or from those cases to which it is applied by our Saviour. Now this Saying, as it was meant by the Prophet Hosea, 6 Hos. 6. signifies no more than this; That God preferred all acts of real and substantial goodness, before an external Religion, even before Sacrifice it self; as the Prophet Micah expresses it more at large, but to the very same sence: Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, 6 Mic. 6, 7, 8. and bow my self be­fore the high God? shall I come before him with burnt-offerings, with calves of a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousand rivers of oyl? shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord re­quire of thee, but to do justice, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? Now be­cause God prefers true and real goodness be­fore the externals of Religion, does it hence follow that there must be no external Wor­ship? or that the Church must make no Laws for the decent or orderly performance of it? or must repeal these Laws when any ignorant people refuse to submit to them? Just as much as that God did not require them to of­fer Sacrifice, because he preferred Mercy before it.

Our Reconciler obs [...]rves two Cases to which our Saviour applies this saying: 1. To justifie his Disciples, who pulled the ears of Corn as they walked through the fields,12 Mat. 7. and rubbed them in their hands and eat them, on the [Page 200] Sabbath-day; which the Pharisees expounded to be a breach of the Sabbatick rest, as being a servile work; and our Saviour does not dispute with them upon that point, but justi­fies what they did by their present necessity, and by this Rule, I will have mercy and not sa­crifice. That God, who prefers acts of Kind­ness and Mercy before Sacrifice, when they come in competition with each other, is not such a rigorous exacter of obedience to any positive Institutions, as to allow no Indulgence to necessity it self: and it becomes Church-Governours to imitate the goodness of God in this; and our Church does so, as I have alrea­dy observed: but how this proves that the Church must make no Laws about Ceremo­nies, or repeal them, if men won't obey them, I do not understand.

The next instance is our Saviour's justifying himself against the accusations of the Pharisees for his eating and drinking with Publicans and Sinners;9 Mat. 13. which, he tells them, was onely in order to reform them, as a Physician con­verses with the sick: and certainly it was law­ful to converse with them upon so charitable a designe, since God preferred Mercy before Sacrifice; and therefore certainly God will be better pleased with our conversing with Sin­ners, in order to make them good men, than with our abstaining from their company, though a familiar conversation with them up­on other accounts be scandalous. And how this proves what our Reconciler would con­clude from it, I cannot see.

[Page 201]Well, but this is a general Rule, which may be applied to more cases than one or two. Right! But if we will argue from our Savi­our's authority and application, we must ap­ply it onely to such cases as are parallel to those cases to which our Saviour applies it; other­wise we must not pretend the authority of our Saviour, but the reason of the thing: and let him set aside our Saviour's authority, and we shall deal well enough with his Reason. All that can be made of this Rule, is this: That where there happens any such case, that there is a temporary competition between two Du­ties, which are both acknowledged to be our duty, there the greatest and most necessary du­ty must take place; and particularly, that all Rituals must give place to Mercy. So that to make this a parallel case, our Reconciler must grant that it is the duty of Church-Governours to prescribe Rules for the external Decency and solemnity of Worship. what is the o­ther Duty then to which this must give way? To the care of mens Souls, says our Reconci­ler. No, say I, there is no inconsistency be­tween the care of mens Souls, and the care of publick Worship, which is the best way of ta­king care of mens Souls; and therefore there can never be a competition between these two. O but some men are ignorant, and scrupulous, and wilful; and if you prescribe any Rules of Worship, they will dissent from them, and turn Schismaticks, and be damned: and thus acci­dentally it affords occasion to these great and fatal evils. Let him prove then, if he can, from [Page 202] these words of our Saviour, that the Gover­nours of the Church must never do their duty, for fear those men should be damned who will not do theirs. Such cases as these, if they be truly pitiable, must be left to the mercy of God; but the Church can take no cognizance of them, especially when this cannot be done without destroying the publick Decency and Solemnities of Worship, and renouncing her own just Authority, the maintaining of which is more for the general good of Souls, than her compliance with some scrupulous persons would be.

I shall onely farther observe his great civi­lity to theChurch and Kingdom of which he is a Member. For his third Observation from these words is, That they were used by the Pro­phet upon the occasion of the strictness of the Isra­elites in the observance and the requiring these Ri­tuals, whilst charity and mercy to their Brother was vanished from their hearts, there being no truth, no mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land; but killing, committing adultery, stealing, lying, and swearing falsly, &c. Now certainly it was no fault in the Jews, at that time, to be zea­lous for the external Worship instituted by the Law of Moses, (though our Reconciler seems to insinuate that it was; for he matters not how he reproaches the Institutions of God himself, so he can but reflect some odium on the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church:) yet they betrayed their Hypocrisie, by their Zeal for the Externals of Religion, while they neglected the weightier matters of the Law. [Page 203] And left any man should be so dull as not to understand the meaning of this Observation, he thetorically introduces it with a God for­bid! Now God forbid that I should say, that it is thus in England: but he is pleased to put men in mind of it, if they please to think so. This is true Fanatick Cant and Charity. There must be no Rules prescribed for the Worship of God, the Church must not take care to reclaim or restrain Schismaticks, be­cause our Reconciler thinks the State does not take sufficient care to punish other Vices. Certainly there never was any Age of the Church wherein the publick Ministers of Re­ligion took more care to decry this Pharisai­cal Hypocrisie of an external Religion, and to teach men that nothing will recommend them to God without the practice of an universal Righteousness, than at this day; who will not flatter the greatest men in their Vices, nor think any man a Saint, because he expresses a great Zeal for the Church, when his life and actions proclaim him to be a Devil. We leave this, good Reconciler, to your beloved tender-conscienced Dissenters, who can strain at a Gnat, and swallow a Camel; who cannot see a Surplice without horror, but can dispence with Lying and Perjury, with Slanders and Revilings, and speaking evil of Dignities; with Treasons, and Murders of Princes; and [...]ug the most profligate Villains in their bo­ [...]om, and palliate and excuse all their Vices, [...]f they will but espouse their Interest and Quarrel. These are the men who have weak­ned [Page 204] the Churches Authority, and exposed her Censur [...]s to contempt, and then reproach her for not using her Authority to correct the Vices of the Age. The Debauchees of our days learn to despise the Censures of the Church, by the Example of Dissenters; and when they cannot shelter their Vices in our Communion, they take Sanctuary in a Con­venticle.

P. 47.II. His next Argument against the imposi­tion of Ceremonies upon Dissenters, is from the kindness and indulgence of our Saviour to his Disciples while he was with them; That he would not impose such a burden as fasting on them, because they were infirm and weak, and therefore might be prejudiced by it; that like old Bottles filled with new Wine, 9 Mat. 14, &c. they might be apt to burst, that is, by these severities imposed on them, they might be discouraged, and fall from him, and so might perish.

I confess, I have often been troubled what to make of this place; not that I ever suspe­cted such inferences from it, as our Reconci­ler has discovered; but these words being ge­nerally expounded by ancient and modern Writers, of Christ's indulgence to the weak­ness of his Disciples, I could never understand what this weakness should be, which made them less able to fast than the Disciples of Iohn, or of the Pharisees. It could not be weakness of body; for they were men of mean fortunes, who had been used to more hardship than most of the Pharisees: and what weak­ness of mind could they labour under, which [Page 205] should make fasting so grievous a burden? They were Jews, who were to observe the pub­lick Fasts of their Law, and therefore fasting was no new thing to them: and why should they be compared to old Cloth and old Bot­tles, and fasting to new Cloth and new Wine? These are difficulties which I cannot answer, and shall be thankful to our Reconciler if he can. And therefore I am apt to suspect it is all a mistake, from a misapplication of those comparisons which our Saviour brought to il­lustrate that Answer which he had given to the Question of Iohn's Disciples.

They ask'd him, Why do we and the Phari­sees fast often, but thy Disciples fast not? And Iesus said unto them, Can the children of the bride-chamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast. Christ is the Bridegroom, the Church his Spouse, the Apostles the Children of the Bride-chamber, who immediately at­tended his Person in his greatest privacies and retirements. The appearance of Christ on Earth was a time of as great joy to all that knew him, as the presence of the Bridegroom; and as it would be very indecent and impro­per for those who attend the Bridegroom, to be sorrowful and pensive, so would it be for his Disciples to mourn and fast (which is an expression of mourning and sorrow) while he was present. All this refers not to the weakness of his Disciples, but the unfitness of the season to fast. Now the Question is, [Page 206] Whether in what follows, our Saviour onely illustrates this Answer, or gives a new one. And I confess, it seems most probable to me, that our Saviour onely confirms and illustrates the same answer; which he does by two com­parisons, the first to shew the indecency of the thing, the second the impossibility of it.

The first is this: No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment: for that which is put in to fill it up, taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse. At Weddings and Fe­stival Entertainments, they used to put on new Cloths; at fasting, to wear any old [...]at­tered Garments. Now, says our Saviour, mourning and fasting in the presence of the Bridegroom, which is a time of joy, is as in­decent, as it would be to patch up a Garment of wedding and fasting Cloth, of new and old. For the new Cloth is so far from adding to the beauty of the old Garment, that the rent is made worse, more notorious and visible, and exposed to the view and scorn of all men; and so indecent would it be for the Children of the Bride-chamber to fast, as for men to go to a Wedding in such a patcht Garment.

The second comparison shews the impossi­bility of the thing, that they should fast while the Bridegroom is with them. To fast with­out mourning, is an hypocritical Fast; it is better not to fast at all, than thus to mock God; and yet it is impossible they should mourn whose minds are transported with such new and fermenting joys at the presence of the [Page 207] Bridegroom. Neither do men put new wine into old bottles, else the bottles break, and the wine rumeth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved. Wine is proper at Festival Entertainments, and very aptly signifies the joy and exultancy of the mind: For Wine maketh the heart glad; and new Wine signifies some new and present transports of joy, whi [...]h boil and fer­ment in the breast, as new Wine does upon the Lees; and therefore aptly signifies such a joy as is in the presence of the Bridegroom. Old Bottles may signifie a mournful sorrowful mind, which is as weak and dejected with grief, as men usually are with age. Now as new Wine, when it ferments, will burst old Bottles that are weak and crasie, so such tran­sports of joy as are occasioned by the presence of the Bridegroom, will dispel all sorrow from our minds, and run out in all expressions of inward satisfaction, and therefore will spoil our mourning and fasting. This is the ac­count why the Disciples could not fast while Christ was with them, but when he should be taken from them, then they should fast. If this be the true interpretation of the place, as the very aptness of the application perswades me it is, then our Reconciler is at a loss: for here is not one word of indulging the weak­ness of his Disciples; and it seems very strange to me, that any man should think that by old Bottles our Saviour should represent the weak­ness of his Disciples, and forbear putting new Wine into them, imposing the severe discipline [Page 208] of fasting upon them, for fear of breaking these old Bottles; when no man yet ever refused to put new Wine into old Bottles, for fear of breaking the Bottle, but for fear of losing the Wine: which makes the application very absurd.

But yet let us suppose that our Saviour, out of condescention to the weakness of his Dis­ciples, did not impose fasting on them, what follows hence? Why it plainly follows, that the Governours of the Church must not im­pose any Rites and Ceremonies of Worship, things much inferiour to this duty of fasting, up­on Dissenters,P. 49. when they do tend to the ruine and 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 [Page 209] 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 [...]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 [Page 210] 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.

P. 48.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, [Page 211] 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, [Page 212] 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.

P. 50.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 [Page 213] 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 are not so much beholding to him, but the present Clergy are as little, to whom he has by very broad signs and intimations ap­plied Theophylact's observation upon the Text: That our Lord complained the Labourers were but few, because the Scribes and Pharisees, the present Labourers, not onely did not profit, but did hurt the people, whereas it is the property of a good Pastor to be merciful-towards them. He knew very well this Objection o [...] the paucity of Labourers, could not well be applied to us, who have such a numerous Clergy; and therefore to make room for Dissenters, he fairly insinuates, that the present Ministers do no good, but hurt. Such an impudent Ca­lumny as needs no confutation! and let others consider what censure it deserves.

IV. His next Argument is taken from our Saviour's command,P. 51. not to scandalize or de­spise little ones, 18 Mat. where by little ones, he understands those who are weak in the Faith, or not well instructed in their Duty, or mistaken in it, though very obstinate and pe­remptory in their mistake: for so he must mean, if he will apply it to the case of Dissen­ters. And by scandalizing, offending, or de­spising them, he understands doing any action which occasions their ruine. And thus he t [...]inks Church-Governours fall under this Woe, which is denounced against those who [Page 214] offend these little ones, when they impose such Ceremonies which they cannot and will not submit to; which occasions the Schism, and consequently the damnation of their weak Brother. No man can possibly want Argu­ments, who has such an admirable faculty, not at finding, but making them: for nothing can be more remote from our Saviour's inten­tion in these words, than such an inference as this. For,

1. It is evident, that by little ones our Sa­viour understands those who are meek, and humble, and modest; who are as void of pride, and passion, and earthly ambitions, as a little Child; as is evident both from the occasion of this discourse, which was to correct the ambition of his Disciples, and from the exam­ple of a little Child, which he proposes to them for their imitation. Thus St. Chrysostom and St. Ierom expound the words, though the latter observes also, that those who are scan­dalized, are upon that account also little ones: for great and strong Christians will not receive scandal. That is, though they be humble and modest, &c. yet these Graces and Vertues are not so well rooted and confirmed in them, but that the ill usage they meet with from the world, may turn them out of their byass, and occasion their fall. But what is this to our Dissenters, who are neither in one sence nor other, little ones; who neither have the mo­desty, humility, and peaceableness of Children, nor their soft and ductile nature▪ but are stiff, and inflexible, and obstinate in their con­ceits, [Page 215] that they will neither hearken to Reason, nor yield to Conviction?

[...] ( [...]) Chrys. in lo­cum, & [...].2. To scandalize or offend these little ones, St. Chrysostom tells us, is to dishonour, to reproach, to vilifie them, to despise them, as it is expressed v. 10. which, as he observes, is a great temptation and scandal to men of weak minds. Our Reconciler observes, that St. Ierom says, We are said to scandalize, when by our actions we give occasion to their ruine. I find no such saying in St. Ierom upon the place; but however, the saying is a very good one, if we apply it right, to actions of con­tempt and scorn, of which both St. Ierom and St. Chrysostom speak; which are apt to spoil this good temper of mind, when men see them­selves onely scorned and derided for it, and ex­posed to all sorts of violence and injury. This is the usual reward of great modesty and hu­mility in this World; and therefore our Sa­viour secures these little ones from contemp [...], by denouncing severe woes against those who offer it.

But what is all this to the Church, which offers no contempt to the meanest Christian, much less to men of humble, and modest, and peaceable tempers? She is as much concerned for the salvation of the Poor as of the Rich▪ and despises no man who has a soul to be sa­ved, and will submit to wise instructions. Must the Church be charged with scandali­zing little ones, because she will not renounce her own Authority, nor suffer these little ones to give Laws to her? Certainly our Saviour [Page 216] never intended any such thing, when in this very Chapter, and upon this very occasion, he asserts the Authority of the Church even in the point of scandal, and commands us not to converse with those men, who will not hear­ken to her Counsels and Reproofs. If thy brother shall trespass against thee, v. 15, 16, 17, 18. (shall offend and scandalize thee) go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone; if he shall hear thee, th [...]u hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of one or two witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it to the Church; but if he ne­glect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven. But of the case of scandal or giving offence, our Re­conciler has given us occasion to discourse more in another place.

V. His next Argument is as wise as the rest. He tells us, [...]3 Mat. 13. Our Lord denounceth woe against the Scribes and Pharisees, because they shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men. But he should have added the whole verse: for ye neither go in your selves, neither suffer ye them that are en­tring to go in. St. Ierom expounds this two ways. 1. They shut the Kingdom of Heaven against men, by hindring their belief in Christ, in whom they would neither believe them­selves, nor suffer others to believe, who were prepared and disposed for it: which is cer­tainly [Page 217] the true exposition of the words. But then he adds, 2. That these Teachers and Rabbies may be said to shut up the Kingdom of Heaven, who scandalize their Disciples with their wicked lives, that is, who tempt them to sin by their example. But what is this to the Dispute about Ceremonies? Does the imposi­tion of Ceremonies, in its own nature, shut men out of the Kingdom of Heaven? Can none be saved then, who obey the Laws of the Church about Rituals and Ceremonies, as no man could enter into the Kingdom of Hea­ven, who followed the directions of the Scribes and Pharisees? Christ condemns the Pharisees for using their utmost endeavour to hinder men from embracing the Christian Faith, and entring into the Kingdom of Heaven: Our Reconciler draws up the same charge against the Church, because some men take unjust of­fence against the Order and Decency of her Worship, and will not enter, though she uses all manner of Entreaties, and Arguments, and wise Arts, to perswade them to enter. 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 kindne [...]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 [Page 218] 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, v. 4. which they would not move with one of their fingers. P. 54. 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 [Page 219] not to forsake their Communion: The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses seat;v. 2, 3. 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 [Page 220] 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, [...]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.

P. 56.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;9 Mark 38. because Christ would not suffer his Disciples to forbid the man who [Page 221] 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 [Page 222] 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 us, is on our part. And if he were not a Disciple, his very working Miracles in Christ's Name, was a ve­ry likely way to make him and others also the Disciples of Christ; and therefore might be permitted by our Lord for that very reason: Forbid him not, for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

But was not our Reconciler asleep, when he tells us, that this man did not hold Commu­nion with the Disciples? What Communion then was he of? Was he not a Jew, and a Member of the Jewish Church? And was he not then in Communion with Christ and his Apostles? For did not Christ, all the time he was on Earth, live in Communion with the Jewish Church? Did he set up any distinct Church and Communion of his own? But I perceive our Reconciler is of Mr. Baxter's mind, that Church-Communion is a presential Communion: And because he did not always follow Christ, and give his personal attendance on him, therefore he could not hold Commu­nion [Page 223] with him. And now let our Reconciler try again how from this Example he can prove that Schismaticks must be suffered to preach for the promotion of Christ's Kingdom.

VII. And yet it is wonderful to observe how he turns the Tables in his next Argu­ment, and proves, from Christ's being the good Shepherd, who lays down his life for his Sheep, that the Governours of the Church should part with their indifferent things, to preserve the Sheep from such Thieves, that is, Schismatical Preachers, those who, if his last Argument be good, ought not to be forbid to preach, though they do not profess Commu­nion with us. But I must tell him, That for the Church to destroy her Constitution, to pull down all her Hedges and Fences, is the way to let in these Thieves, as he calls them, not to keep them out.

VIII. His last Argument is of the same na­ture: That because Christ prays for the unity of the Church, therefore to procure this unity and concord, we must part with all unnecessary things, which do not in the least advance his Kingdom. And truly I think so too: but if the external Decency of Worship is not so unnecessary a thing, nor easily to be parted with; if parting with these Ceremonies will not heal our Schisms and Divisions, of which I have dis­cours'd largely already, there needs no other Answer to be returned to this Argument.

He concludes this Chapter with retorting some of these Arguments upon the Dissenters. I have answered for the Church, let the Dis­senters [Page 224] now try how they can answer for themselves; for he very truly observes, that they fall with more weight upon them. To pre­fer some arbitrary Platforms of Worship and Discipline which God has nowhere instituted or commanded, before the substantial Duties of Peace and Unity, and Obedience to Go­vernment, looks more like an offence against that Law, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, than what he charges upon the Church; and to forbid the observation of the decent Rites and Ceremonies of Worship as unlawful and superstitious, is a much more intolerable yoke and burden than the imposition of them. But I shall leave the Dissenters and our Reconcile [...] to adjust this matter among themselves.

CHAP. V. Containing an Answer to our Reconciler's Arguments drawn from the 14th and 15th Chapters to the Romans.

THough our Reconciler makes a great flou­rish with a multitude of Arguments, as usually those men do, who cannot find one good one; yet he seems to put the greatest confidence in those Arguments which are drawn from that condescension and mutual forbearance, which St. Paul requires the Jew­ish and Gentile Converts (who differed a­bout the observation of the Mosaical Law) to exercise towards each other. And this I con­fess, were a very good Argument, if it were a parallel Case. But I suppose our Reconciler will grant, that there are some cases, wherein it is very reasonable to exercise such forbear­ance; and yet there may be other cases, where­in it is not prudent and reasonable to allow the same Indulgence: and therefore it does not follow, that because St. Paul required the Jewish and Gentile Christians to forbear each other in their Disputes about the Mosaical Law, therefore the Governours of the Church must forbear Dissenters, and not prescribe the decent Rites and Ceremonies of Worship, nor exact Conformity to them; unless it appear that these two cases are the same, or so like to [Page 226] each other, that we may fairly argue from one to the other. That these cases are not alike, and that the Apostle's Arguments for mutual forbearance are not applicable to the case of our Dissenters, I doubt not but I shall make so plain, as to satisfie all impartial Readers. And this, I hope, may pass for an Answer to his fourth Chapter.

I. Then I observe, that St. Paul in the 14th Chapter to the Romans, onely exhorts the Jewish and Gentile Christians to mutual for­bearance in such cases which had been already decreed and determined by the highest Autho­rity in the Church. There is a great Dispute between our Reconciler and Dr. Womack, now the Reverend Bishop of St. Davids, to whom this Epistle was directed, Whether onely to the private Christians at Rome, or to Church-Governours also, and consequently whether it be the duty onely of private Christians, or of Church-Governours also, to exercise this for­bearance towards Dissenters. The Bishop sup­poses, that there was no Presbytery setled at Rome at this time, and offers several Argu­ments to prove it. Our Reconciler attempts to answer these Arguments, and to prove the contrary, that the Church of Rome, whose Faith was spoken of throughout the World, could not be without a setled Ministry at that time. I am not willing to interpose in this Dispute: for though it would be of great mo­ment to answer all our Reconciler's Arguments from this Chapter, were it certain that St. Paul did not designe these directions for Church-Governours, [Page 227] but onely for private Christians, as an Expedient to preserve Peace and Unity till these Disputes should be determined by a just Authority; yet whatever fair probabilities there may be of this, I doubt there is not evi­dence enough for it to convince a Reconciler, or an obstinate Dissenter.

And indeed, upon the principle which I have now laid down, there is no need of this: for whether these Exhortations to forbear one a­nother, and to receive one another, and not to judge, condemn, or despise one another, con­cern private Christians, or Church-Gover­nours, or equally both, yet since this forbear­ance extends onely to such cases as were de­termined by Ecclesiastical Authority to be the proper matter for the exercise of this Christian charity and forbearance, every one sees how impertinently it is alleadged by our Reconciler to prove that the Governours of the Church must not impose any indifferent Customs and Usages which are scrupled by our Dissenters. For what consequence is there in this? that because private Christians or Church-Gover­nours must allow the free exercise of 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,15 Acts. should not [Page 228] 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 [Page 229] 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 Bishop [...] 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 [Page 230] 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,Chap. 2. 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 [Page 231] 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,P. 73. 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.P. 71. And thus St. Paul falls under our Re­conciler's lash, as well as Dr. Womack, As if [Page 232] 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 [...]hristians; but a whole Council of Apostles did not think fit to deny this liberty to the Gentiles, which might prove [Page 233] 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 [Page 234] 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 [Page 235] 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 [Page 236] 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.P. 79. 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:

Ibid. p. 80.1. 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, [Page 237] 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. [...]. Chrys. in Loc. Be­cause if they had onely abstained from Swines-flesh, and other forbid­den meat, they would have discovered their Reverence for the Law [Page 238] 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 [Page 239] 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 [Page 240] 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 [Page 241] 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: 21 Acts 24. 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 Exposi [...]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 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 [Page 242] 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,21 Acts 21. 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 neces [...]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 every­where indulged the Jews, as well as in this Chapter under debate.

Having thus cleared the way, and proved [Page 243] 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 [Page 244] 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? 5 Gal. 1. Why does he so diligently caution the Colossians both against Jewish and Pagan Superstitions,2 Col. 5.8, &c. 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 [Page 245] 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 [Page 246] therefore this Example does not concern our present Dispute.

But you will say, Were not these things in­di [...]ferent? Does not the Apostle expresly say, I know, 14 Rom. 14. and am perswaded by the Lord Iesus Christ, that there is nothing unclean of it self? Was not the Law abrogated which made the di [...]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, 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 [...]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 [Page 247] 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,P. 77. 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, [Page 248] 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 sen [...]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.

[Page 249]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;14 Rom. 1. 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, v. 2. 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, v. 3. despise [Page 250] 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: [Page 251] 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;P. 83. 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,Libertas Ec­clesiastica. P. 437. 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 [Page 252] 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 [Page 253] 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;Acts 10. 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. 2 Gal. 11, 12. The opinion the Jews had about the Law was, that the observation of it was necessary [Page 254] to salvation. So the Jews taught the Brethren at Antioch, 15 Acts 1. 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 [Page 255] 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, P. 84. Were the designes of the Apostle that which Dr. Falkner doth imagine, (that is, that when the Apostle commands them to receive the weak, he means, they should own them for Christian Brethren, and as such should receive them to Communion) seeing the Schismatick is by the Doctrine of the Church, without that Catholick Church in which alone Salvation can be had: Since therefore we do censure him as one who hath no inward relation to, or communion with Iesus Christ, and therefore no relation to his Body; since we do think him wor­thy of exclusion from Communion with the Church, it seems not easie to conceive how we shall escape the condemnation of the Apostles Discourse, were the designe of it that onely which he doth imagine. As if it were the same thing to deny Commu­nion to any persons, as wanting something es­sential to Christianity, and so having no right to Church-Communion; and to [...]hut those [Page 256] men out of our Communion who are disorder­ly in it, or separate themselves from it: as if it were the same thing to deny Communion to those who are not or are judged not to be Christians, and to cast disorderly and irregular Christians, who will not submit to the Rules and Government of the Church, out of our Communion. The first makes the Dispute upon which we part, to be essential to Chri­stianity, as the Doctor well observed; the se­cond proceeds onely upon this Principle, that those who will live in the Communion of any particular Church, must be subject to the Rules and Orders of Worship and Discipline esta­blish'd in it. Which may instruct our Recon­ciler in the difference between the Jews and Gentiles not receiving one another upon the Dispute of the Mosaical Law, and the Chur­ches rejecting those from her Communion,P. 79. who will not conform to her Rules of Wor­ship; which he endeavours to make parallel cases.

And as for the Reason he assigns, why the Apostle cannot by receiving mean, that they should own each other as Christian Brethren, because the Arguments he uses to perswade them to receive one another, do suppose that they did own each other as Christians, is plainly false: for the Apostle perswades them to receive each other, and to own one another for Christian Brethren, because God had re­ceived them, because he owned them for Christians; and therefore if God received the weak Jew with all his weakness, and the ir­regular [Page 257] Gentiles (as they judged them) with all their irregularities, certainly both Jews and Gentiles ought to receive each other. But this will better appear by considering the A­postles Arguments, and shewing how peculiar they were to that case, and that they cannot be applied to the case of Dissenters. Now there are two or three Arguments which St. Paul uses to this purpose, to perswade them to receive one another, though our Reconciler has made a great many of them, by applying all the Arguments in this Chapter, which con­cern Christian forbearance and condescension, and the avoiding scandal, to this purpose.

1. His first Argument is, That God has re­ceived them;14 Rom. 3. 15 Acts 7. which plainly refers to what is more largely discours'd in the Council at Ie­rusalem, where St. Peter gives an account of the descent of the Holy Ghost upon Cornelius, and those who were with him, all uncircum­cised Gentiles, while he preached the Gospel to them; which was such a visible demonstra­tion of God's receiving them even in their uncircumcision, that he durst not deny Water-baptism, when God had already baptized them with the Holy Ghost. This was confirmed by Barnabas and Paul, who declared what won­ders 12 God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. And the same Argument served for the circumcised Jews, who still observed the Law, that God had owned them also, by bestowing his holy Spirit in a visible manner on them. Now if either Circumcision or Uncircumcision had signified any thing in this [Page 258] matter, God would not have indifferently be­stowed his Spirit upon believing, but circum­cised Jews, and uncircumcised Gentiles.

By sending his Spirit on Jewish and Gen­tile Converts in such a visible manner, God did evidently declare that both circumcised Jews, and the uncircumcised Gentiles, who believed in Christ, should be received into the Communion of Christs Church; which is here called Gods receiving them. For the gift of the Spirit belonged onely to the Disciples of Christ, and therefore God did in a visible manner own all those for the Disciples of Christ, on whom he bestowed such visible Gifts.

But how does this concern our Dissenters? Yes, says our Reconciler, it rationally follows, that none should be excluded from Communion with us, P. 85. who will not by our God and Saviour be excluded from Communion with them. But he should have said, whom God has in such a vi­sible and miraculous manner received into Communion. And if our Reconciler can prove that God has determined this Controversie a­bout Ceremonies in as visible a manner as he did the Dispute about Circumcision, he will say something to the purpose.

But this is all a mistake, from the beginning to the end. For I know no way of judging whether any man be in communion with Christ, but by his communion with the Church. There is no visible communion with God and Christ, but by a visible communion with the Church; and as for any communi­on [Page 259] with Christ which is invisible, certainly the Governours of the Church, who can see onely what is visible, are not concerned about it: and it is this visible Church-membership and Church communion of which the Apostle speaks. He proves that God had received both Jews and Gentiles into the visible com­munion of his Church by the visible gifts of his holy Spirit; and therefore that they ought not to deny external and visible communion to each other, since God had received them both not meerly into an invisible communion with himself, but into the visible communion of the Church; which gave them a right to all acts of Church-communion. And from hence our Reconciler proves, that the Church must alter her Constitutions to receive those Dissenters into the Church who are not in the Church, and will not communicate with her, because God has received them: but how does it appear that God has received them into the communion of the Church, who shut them­selves out of it?

Yes, says the Reconciler, P. 86. the plain result of this first Argument is this, That either we without breach of charity may judge of all Dissenters, that they are not received into communion by God, and that they are no living Members of Christ's Body, but a pack of damned Hypocrites, worthy to be ex­cluded from the Church of God, and to be under a severe Anathema; or if we cannot charitably judge so hardly of them, that we ought to receive them into communion with us, notwithstanding their different conceptions and practice about lesser matters.

[Page 260]But what have we to do with the judgment of charity in this case? for the Apostle speaks not of a judgment of charity, but of a visible proof and demonstration of Gods receiving them, from the visible signs and effects of it, viz. the miraculous effusions of the holy Spi­rit. What have we to do to pass any judg­ment at all concerning those mens internal communion with God and Christ, who for­sake the external and visible communion of the Church? since the Apostle speaks here of Gods receiving them into visible Church­communion. Must the Church alter the most prudent and wholsome Constitutions for the sake of every one, whom she does not believe a damned Hypocrite? May we not hope cha­ritably, that God will be merciful to the pre­judices and mistakes of some well-meaning men, without destroying all Order in the Church, and all the Decency of Worship, to let such men into our Communion? When God shall as visibly declare that he receives all those into the communion of the Church, who dissent from the Constitutions of it, and will not conform to its Worship, Discipline, or Go­vernment, as he did, that he had received both Jews and Gentiles into the visible com­munion of the Church, then the Reconciler's Argument may be worth considering; but till then, it is nothing to the purpose. And I cannot but observe what dreadful apprehen­sions our Reconciler has of the evil and guilt of Schism, who believes that such Schismaticks as wilfully separate from the communion of [Page 261] the Church, may still be in communion with God and Christ. This his present Argument necessarily supposes: for otherwise it does no way appear that God has received them; and then it does not follow, that the Church must receive them: and yet certainly Schism cannot be so damning a sin, as at other times he pretends it is, if such Schismaticks are still in communion with God and Christ. So that great part of his Book is nothing but putting tricks upon the Church. And when he de­claims mostt ragically about involving so many precious Souls in the guilt of a damning Schism, and destroying those with our Cere­monies for whom Christ died, he secretly laughs in his sleeve at those silly people who are so credulous as to believe it: for he believes no such matter himself, but thinks it want of charity to believe that Schismaticks are not in communion with God, nor living Members of Christs Body. So that whatever strength those may conceive to be in his Book, who be­lieve Schism to be a damning sin, it is plain, he cannot think there is any strength in it himself: for upon this supposition, that a man may be saved as well in a Schism, as in Church-communion, (as certainly all those shall, who are in communion with God and Christ) it is not worth disputing about these matters. The Church may keep her Consti­tutions, and Schismaticks may divide and sub­divide into infinite Factions, and no great hurt done; but that it makes Protestant Re­concilers of no use. It had been a much more [Page 262] honourable undertaking in him, to have con­vinc'd the Church of her mistake about the damning nature of Schism, and to have satis­fied Dissenters that they might continue in their Schism without any danger, than to scare them both with panick fears, and to pelt them with such Arguments as are not worth half a farthing, if this Argument be worth a­ny thing: for if God and Christ have received such Schismaticks into communion, I know no reason they have to be concerned about the communion of the Church.

2. The next Argument the Apostle uses, or rather a continuation of the former Argument, is contained in the fourth verse. Who are thou that judgest another mans servant? 14 Rom. 4. to his own master he standeth or falleth; yea he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. To the same purpose, v. 10, 12. But why dost thou judge thy brother? (that is, whom God hath made thy Brother, and declared him to be so by visible effects, though thou refusest to own him for such) or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ.—So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

This Argument our Reconciler thought fit to pass over: for though it was very much to the Apostles purpose, it was nothing to his. For what is the meaning of judging another mans servant? Are not private Christians sub­ject to the Authority of the Church, and liable to be judged and censured by their Gover­nours? No doubt of it, if Christ have esta­blish'd [Page 263] any Government in his Church. And yet it seems this was such a matter, as no man had any authority to judge in, but was reser­ved wholly to the judgment of God.

For the plain case was this: God had pub­lickly declared his Will, by the visible effusion of the holy Spirit both on Jews and Gentiles, that he indulged the believing Jews at that time in the observation of the Law of Moses, but would not impose that Yoke on the be­lieving Gentiles. Now when God had so vi­sibly determined this Controversie, neither private Christians, nor Church-Governours had authority to determine it otherwise, or to judge, or censure, or deny communion to each other upon that account; for God may accept Jews and Gentiles upon what terms he plea­ses: and to judge and reject the Jews for ob­serving the Law of Moses, when God is pleased to indulge them in it; or to judge and reject the Gentiles for not observing the Law, when God has so manifestly declared that he receives them without it, is as if we should judge a­nother mans Servant for doing or not doing what his own Master either allows or permits. In such cases as these, as St. Iames speaks,4 Jam. 11, 12. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the Law, and judgeth the Law; but if thou judge the Law, thou art not a doer of the Law, but a judge. There is one Law­giver, who is able to save and to destroy; who art thou that judgest another? That is, when we judge and condemn our Brother for doing or not doing such things which God has by a po­sitive [Page 264] Law, or some other publick declaration of his Will, allowed them to do or to omit, we are not doers of the Law, that is, do not be­have our selves as those who are to receive Laws, and to obey them; but as judges, as those who have authority to make Laws, or to censure and controul them. So that this Argument against judging another mans Ser­vant, relates onely to such matters which God has determined by his own authority; and therefore cannot concern the case of our Dis­senters, unless our Reconciler can prove that God has plainly determined that the Church shall not prescribe the Rules of Order and Decency in publick Worship. What God has left to the authority of the Church in such cases, the Church may judge, and censure, and reject the disobedient, because private Chri­stians in all such cases are subject to Church-authority, and the Church does not exceed her authority in judging them. And this is the Dispute between the Church and Dissen­ters, Whether they should obey the Authority of the Church in such matters which God has not determined by his own Authority: where­as the Dispute between Jews and Gentiles was actually determined by God, that the Jews should be indulged in the observation of the Law, but that it should not be imposed upon the Gentiles; and therefore when they judged and censured one another upon this account, they exceeded their authority, they judged over Gods judgment, and judged ano­ther mans Servant; which the Church can­not [Page 265] be charged with, when she judges and cen­sures her own refractory and dissenting Mem­bers for their disobedience in such things as are subject to her authority.

3. The Apostle perswades both Jews and Gentiles to receive one another to Christian communion, because though they differed in their practice, yet both of them acted out of reverence to the divine Authority. The Jew knew that the Law of Moses was given by God, and could not be satisfied that it was re­pealed, and therefore still observed the Law in reverence to the Authority which first gave it. The converted Gentiles knew that the Law was never given to them, and were assured by the same persons, upon whose authority they embraced the Gospel, that they were not un­der the obligation of the Law, and therefore they thankfully accept that liberty which Christ had purchased for them: And there­fore since both of them at that time could tru­ly plead a divine authority for what they did, and not meerly some unaccountable humour and prejudice, they ought not to judge and censure one another for such different practi­ces. One man esteemeth one day above another, another esteemeth every day alike; let every man be fully perswaded in his own mind. He that regardeth a day, regardeth it to the Lord;14 Rom. 5, 6. 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; (which would be a profane and impudent mockery of God, did he not believe that God had given him liberty [Page 266] to eat indifferently of any thing) and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

Our Reconciler represents the Apostles Ar­gument thus:P. 87, 88. These persons, saith the Apostle, ought to be received into communion, although they differ in practice and in judgment about these mat­ters, because it was from conscience towards God, and a desire to do what was most pleasing to him, that some did eat, and others not, that some did regard a day, and others not— If charity therefore will teach us to conclude of such as do observe, or do refuse observance of the Constitutions of our Church in these inferiour matters, that as they outwardly profess, so do they really observe or not observe them out of conscience towards God, which they who cannot know mens Consciences but by their own professions, cannot well deny; then must they both by the Apostles Rule receive each other to communion, and not reject each other on the ac­counts of differences in judgment, or in practice, in these lesser matters.

Let us then consider what the consequence of this Doctrine would be, if it were true, viz. that the Consciences of men are under no Go­vernment; and when we consider what is u­sually meant by Conscience, viz. mens private Opinions and Judgments of things, the plain English of it is, that every man must do as he list: and thus all the Authority of Govern­ment is over-ruled by the more soveraign Au­thority of Conscience. This is so extreamly absurd, that it is wonderful to me that men of common understanding should not blush to [Page 267] own it. For 1. It is plain, that God will judge the Consciences of men, and condemn them too, if they be erroneous and wicked. The Jews crucified our Saviour and persecu­ted his Apostles out of zeal for God, as St. Paul witnesses; but God destroyed their City, Temple, and Nation for it. I suppose our Re­conciler will not charge all the Heathen Idola­ters, even after the Empire was turned Chri­stian, with being a pack of damned Hypocrites. Many of them no doubt very sincerely follow­ed their Consciences, and yet were damned not for Hypocrites, but for conscientious Idolaters. All the Laws of God oblige the Consciences of men, whatever their particular Perswasions may be; and if mens Consciences will not comply with the Laws of God, the Law will judge and condemn them; and yet it seems as hard a thing, that God should condemn men who act out of conscience, and a desire to do what is most pleasing to him, as that Earthly Gover­nours should condemn and punish them.

No, you'll say, God is the sole Lord and Judge of Conscience, and he alone has autho­rity to give Laws to the Consciences of men, which no humane power can; but all this is senseless Cant: for what is it to be the Lord of Conscience? and to give Laws to Consci­ence? Does it signifie any more than a Sove­raign Authority to command, under the guilt of sin, if we disobey? And have not all Go­vernours then, who have received authority from God to command, the government of mens Consciences too, as far as their autho­rity [Page 268] reaches? But this is not the Question, Who has authority to give Laws to Conscience: for whoever has authority to make Laws, has au­thority to make Laws for Conscience, unless they have authority to make Laws without obliging any body to obey them: But the Question is, Whether after Laws are made either by God or men, every man may equitably challenge a liberty to follow the guidance of his own Con­science, though his Conscience mistake its rule. Now it is plain, that God does not grant this liberty: for he punishes such erro­neous Consciences, and will eternally damn those who do wicked actions out of a mistaken Zeal for his glory; and yet if there were any reason or equity in the case, it would more o­blige God than any Earthly Governours, be­cause such misguided Zealots are supposed to intend Gods glory in what they do: And if God will not indulge such men in the breach of his Laws, though they intend to please him by it, what reason have Earthly Gover­nours to do it, who receive their authority from God, and cannot imitate a better Exam­ple in the exercise of it than God himself?

2. Civil Magistrates ought to take no no­tice at all of mens Consciences in making or executing Laws for the good government of the Nation. If the Saints should think it their priviledge and prerogative to rob and plunder and murder the ungodly, if they should think themselves bound in conscience to pull down earthly Princes to set up King Jesus on his Throne, should Magistrates be afraid of hang­ing [Page 269] such Villains as these, as commit such hor­rid Outrages from a Principle of Conscience? Nay, if men refuse to give security to the Go­vernment, or a legal testimony in any civil cause, out of a scruple about the lawfulness of Oaths, is the Government to take notice, or to make any allowance for this? If God does not, Magistrates have less reason to do it, be­cause God knows what mens Consciences 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, [Page 270] &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 [Page 271] 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, [Page 272] 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 [Page 273] 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.

[Page 274]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,14 Rom. 13. from v. 13. to the end of the Chapter.

These two, to receive into communion, and [Page 275] 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 [...]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 [Page 276] 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 ag [...]eed was given by God, but which was not yet repealed in so visible a manner as to sati [...]fie the believing Jews that it was repealed. Now this was a [Page 277] 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 [Page 278] 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, P. 77. 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 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 [Page 279] 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,18 Mat. 6, 10. 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 th [...]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 [Page 280] 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,1 Cor. 8.10 ch. 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. 15 Acts 29. 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 [Page 281] 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 [Page 282] 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.14 Rom. 13. Now this he expresses, by laying a stum­bling-block or occasion to fall in our brothers way; 15 by destroying him with our meat for whom Christ 21 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 [Page 283] oblige the believing Gentiles. But yet had the believing Gentiles not onely refused to obey the Law themselves, but scorned and despised the Jews for doing it, and used their Chri­stian liberty in an open contempt and defiance of them and their Law, this would have been very apt to have alienated their minds from the Christian religion; which the Apostle therefore calls laying a stumbling-block or occa­sion to fall in our brothers way, and destroying him with our meat (by tempting him to infidelity and Apostacy) for whom Christ died. Thus St. Chrysostom expresly tells us, that St. Paul was afraid, [...], &c. Chrys. in Locum. lest this contemptuous u­sage of the believing Jews should tempt them to re­nounce the Faith of Christ. But what is this to the case of our Dissenters? are they tem­pted to renounce the Christian Religion by the Ceremonies of the Church of England? It is so far from this, that they learn to de­spise their Teachers, and to think themselves a more perfect and excellent sort of Christi­ans.

But you'll say, it makes them Schismaticks, and Schism is as dangerous to mens Souls as Infidelity; and therefore the same charity which obliges us to prevent the one, obliges us also with equal care to prevent the other. Now though I think every good Christian will and ought to do what he reasonably can to prevent a Schism; yet the difference be­tween the case of Schism and Infidelity in point [Page 284] of scandal, is very great. While men are weak and unsetled in the Faith, and apt to take of­fence, and apostatize from Christ, they ought to be treated with all manner of tenderness and condescension, because they are not yet capable of being governed; they must be hu­moured for a while as Children are, who must be managed by Art, not by Rules of Disci­pline; but when men are well rooted and confirmed in the Christian Faith, they are no longer to be humoured but governed; they must be taught to submit to that Authority which Christ has placed in his Church, and to obey, not to dispute the commands of their Superiours, when there is no plain positive Law of God against them. This is the onely way to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Christian Church; and if men will take of­fence at the exercise of a just Authority, and turn Schismaticks, it is at their own peril. And this indeed I take to be the true notion of the weak in the Faith, whom the Apostle in this Chapter commands the strong Christians to treat with so much tenderness, without gi­ving them the least offence; those who are not well confirmed in the truth of the Christian Reli­gion, and therefore are apt to take offence at eve­ry thing, and to renounce the Faith: And so his stumbling, and being offended, and made weak, signifies his being shaken and unsetled in the Faith. Every one who is an ignorant and uninstructed, is not therefore a weak Christi­an; his Understanding may be weak, but his Faith may be strong; that is, he may very [Page 285] firmly and stedfastly believe the truth of the Christian Religion, though he do not so well understand the particular Doctrines of it. But these two sorts of weak persons are to be used very differently; you must have a care of offending those who are weak in Faith, but you must instruct and govern those who are weak in Understanding, or else you prostitute the Authority of the Church, and the truth of Christianity, and the just liberties of Christi­ans, to every ignorant, and yet it may be conceited obstinate and censorious Professor: which is a plain demonstration that those di­rections the Apostle gives in this Chapter, not to offend those who are weak in the Faith, cannot concern our Dissenters; who though they are weak enough, as that signifies igno­rant, yet are not weak in the Faith, as that signifies those who are not thoroughly per­swaded of Christianity, or not well confirm­ed in that belief; and therefore are not to be humoured like Children, but trained up to greater attainments by wise Instructions, and a prudent Discipline.

Secondly, Having seen what this Scandal and Offence was, let us now consider by what Arguments the Apostle perswades those who were strong, not to offend the weak. Now our Reconciler has turned almost every word into an Argument. One Argument is,Reconciler, p. 88, &c. That it is our duty not to judge, or lay a stumbling-block before our Brother: That it is contrary to charity, and evil in it self: That it caused Chri­stianity to be blasph [...]med: That it is contrary to [Page 286] the concerns of Peace, and the edification of the Church, &c. Now I have no dispute with our Reconciler about this, that it is a very ill thing, and very contrary to the duty of a Chri­stian to give any just offence or scandal to a weak Brother: if we were as well agreed what it is to give offence, as that giving this offence is a very evil thing, the Dispute were at an end: And yet by this artifice he imposes upon his Readers, is very copious and rheto­rical in his Harangue on this Argument, and transcribes several passages out of St. Chryso­stom, and some other ancient Writers, to shew the great evil and manifold aggravations of scandal, which every one would grant him to be very good, when rightly applied; but we deny that the Church of England is guilty of giving offende to the Dissenters in that sence in which St. Paul and other ancient Writers meant it: and if our Reconciler had pleased, he might have found enough in St. Paul's Ar­guments to have convinced him that the A­postle spoke of a case very different from ours; which because he has been pleased to over­look, I shall be so charitable as to mind him of it.

Now I take the sum of the Apostles Argu­ment to be this: That the reason why they were not to offend the Jews by an unchari­table use of their Christian liberty in eating such meats as were forbidden by the Law, is because their eating or not eating such meats in it self considered, is of no concernment in the Christian Religion, and therefore is the [Page 287] proper Sphere for the exercise of charity. For when we discourse of offence and scandal, the first and most natural inquiry is, of what mo­ment and consequence the thing is in which we are required to exercise our charity: for there are many things which we must not do, nor leave undone out of charity to any man, whatever offence be taken at it; but if it be of that nature as to admit of a charitable con­descension and compliance, then all the other Arguments against scandal and giving offence are very seasonably and properly urged.

And this is the case here, as will appear from considering the series of the Apostles Argu­ments. In the 13th verse he perswades them not to put a stumbling-block and occasion to fall in their Brothers way. And to inforce this Ex­hortation, he adds in the 14th verse, I know and am perswaded by the Lord Iesus, that there is nothing unclean of it self; but to him that e­steemeth any thing unclean, to him it is unclean: That is, all distinction of 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 [Page 288] 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.v. 17. 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 [Page 289] 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 approba [...]ion of all men:v. 18. 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 19 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 20 [Page 290] 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 21 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.

22 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 [Page 291] in so ill a manner, as to bring condemnation upon himself.

But then as thy believing it lawful for thee 23 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 cen [...]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 [Page 292] than to forbid offering scandal and offence in the exercise 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 [Page 293] (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 [Page 294] 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,Prot. Recone. p. 59. 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 [Page 295] 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 [Page 296] 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 liber [...]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 [Page 297] 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 [Page 298] 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 [Page 299] 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 [Page 300] 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 [Page 301] 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 [Page 302] 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:Prot. Reconc. p. 99. 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 [Page 303] 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 mans 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 [Page 304] 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 [Page 305] 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 [...]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, [Page 306] 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;14 Rom. 5. 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 [Page 307] 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 [Page 308] 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: [Page 309] 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 [Page 310] 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 will allow that Christian Princes ought to take any care of the Christian Church, we must grant them so much autho­rity as is necessary to suppress Heresie and Schism, and to punish those who are disobe­dient to the Censures and Authority of the Church. How far this may extend, is ano­ther Question: I think all Protestants with great reason reject sanguinary Laws in this case; but whoever grants any authority in these matters to Christian Princes, must grant what may reasonably be thought sufficient to attain the end.

Thus I have, as plainly as I could, given an account of the Apostle's discourse in this Chap­ter about Scandal and Offence, and proved that it cannot be applied to the case of indif­ferent things in the Worship of God by any parity of reason. I grant St. Chrysostom and some other ancient Writers, do accommodate this Doctrine of Scandal to other cases, some of which passages our Reconciler has transcribed [Page 311] from them; that if we must not scandalize our weak Brother by using our innocent liber­ty, much less by our wicked examples, by do­ing things evil in themselves, which aggra­vates the guilt of the offence. And I grant, such accommodations as these are very allow­able in popular Harangues: but I hope our Reconciler does not take them for Arguments; and yet if he did, he could no more apply them to the case of the Church and Dissenters, than he can the case of which St. Paul speaks.

But because this Discourse has been some­what long, (though as plain and methodical as I could contrive it) I shall reduce some of the most material things in it into a narrow­er compass, and compare the Apostle's Argu­ments with the Reasonings of our Reconciler; which will enable every ordinary Reader to judge how unlike they are.

CHAP. VI. Containing an Answer to the fifth Chapter of the Protestant Reconciler, or his Ar­guments taken from St. Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians.

HAving in the former Chapter so particu­larly answered our Reconciler's Argu­ments taken, as he pretends, from that conde­scension and forbearance which St. Paul ex­horts the believing Jews and Gentiles to ex­ercise towards each other in that great Dis­pute about the observation of the Law of Mo­ses, there seems little occasion to answer the rest of his Arguments from Scripture, which e­very ordinary Reader may do from the Prin­ciples already laid down. But that our Re­conciler may not complain that he is not an­swered, I am willing to undergo the trouble of a needless Answer, if my Readers will be pleased to pardon it.

His first Argument is from St. Paul's dis­course, 1 Cor. 6.Argum. 1. P. 122. Where he condemneth the Co­rinthians because they went to law before the heathens—which was a blemish to the Christian Faith, and ministred scandal to the heathens, and made them apt to think that Christians were covetous, contentious, and prone to injure one another, &c. Since therefore our Conten­tions about these lesser matters do minister far greater Scandal to the Atheist, the Sceptick, &c. [Page 342] our Governours should rather suffer themselves to be restrained a little, and even injured in the ex­ercise of their just Power about things unnecessary, than by their stiffness to assert and to exert it, to continue to give occasion to so great a Scandal to the Christian Faith.

This is an admirable Argument, if it be well considered. The Christians must not go to law before Heathen Judges, therefore the Go­vernours of the Church must not prescribe the decent Rites and Ceremonies of Worship. Yes, you will say, the Argument is good, be­cause the reason is the same, to avoid Scandal. Let us then suppose this was the reason, if we will make these two cases parallel, it must be thus: To go to law with our Christian Bre­thren is scandalous, and therefore must be a­voided; to prescribe the decent Rites and Ceremonies of Religion is scandalous, and therefore Church-Governours must not exer­cise this Authority. Will our Reconciler now stand to this Proposition? No, that he durst not affirm that the exercise of a just Authori­ty in these matters is scandalous, but the con­tentions about such Rites and Ceremonies are scandalous, and therefore Governours must not insist on their Authority to prescribe them. But now this way of stating it does not make the case parallel, and therefore he cannot ar­gue by any parity of Reason from one to the other. St. Paul exhorts the Christians not to go to law before Heathen Judges, because it was scandalous to the Christian Profession to do so; and therefore if our Reconciler will [Page 343] make a parallel case, he must instance onely in something which is scandalous, and then by a parity of reason he may prove that to be for­bidden also: But neither the Authority to pre­scribe the decent Rites of Worship, nor the prudent exercise of it, is scandalous; and therefore he cannot prove this to be forbid by any parity of Reason. But contentions indeed in the Christian Church, whatever be the cause of them, are very scandalous; and there­fore all scandalous contentions are forbid, as all scandalous going to law is. For we must observe, that though the Apostle in the seventh verse tells them, There is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another, yet he does not absolutely forbid going to law, as that signifies using some fair and lawful means of righting our selves, when we suffer wrong even from our Christian Brethren, but onely as it signifies going to law before the Vnbelievers or Heathen Magistrates: for he requires and exhorts them to have their Causes heard and tryed before the Saints, that is, either the Go­vernours of the Church, or any other Christi­ans, whom by joynt consent they shall make Judges and Arbitrators among them. But to go to law in those days, did properly signi­fie to implead one another before the Heathen Tribunals, because there were no other Magi­strates at that time, who had any legal autho­rity; and this going to law was scandalous. Thus by a parity of Reason, it is onely that contention which is scandalous, that can be forbid; and therefore for the Governours of [Page 344] the Church to assert their own Authority in ordering the Externals of Religion, and for private Christians to defend the Authority of the Church, though with some vehemence and earnestness, is not scandalous, for it is what they ought to do; but to contend a­gainst the Authority of the Church, is a very scandalous contention, because it is against the Duty which private Christians owe to their Superiours: and therefore whatever Scandal is given by such contentions, is wholly owing to the scandalous Contenders, that is, to the Dissenters, who scandalously oppose the Au­thority and Constitutions of the Church. And therefore our Reconciler ought to have re­proved the Dissenters, and exhorted them to leave off their scandalous contentions; not to lay a necessity on the Governors of the Church not to exercise their Authority which these men so scandalously oppose; as we find the Apostle in this very place turns the edge of his reproof against those who did the wrong, and gave oc­casion to these scandalous contentions: Ye do wrong and defraud, and that your brethren. Contentions either about the Doctrine, Dis­cipline, or Worship of the Christian Church, are very scandalous; but is this a good rea­son not to contend for the Faith, not to op­pose Heresies and Schisms, because these Dis­putes represent Christianity as a very uncer­tain thing, and give scandal and offence to Atheists and Infidels? then the Orthodox Christians did very ill to meet in such frequent Councils to condemn Arianism and other [Page 345] pestilent Heresies. Where there is a Scandal onely on one side, and Contention is the onely Scandal, this is a good reason against such contentious Disputes; but when it is more scandalous to suffer Heresies in the Church, to see Ecclesiastical Authority despised, to permit any indecencies and disorders, different customs and practices in Christian Worship, than it is to contend for the Truth, and for the Order and Uniformity of publick Worship, we must not be afraid to contend for these things, the onely scandalous contention being to contend against them.

His second Argument,Argum. 2. which he draws out to a great length,Recon. p. 123. is taken from 1 Cor. 7. where he tells us, that the Apostle grants it is good for a man not to touch a wife. The Apo­stle says, Not to touch a woman: And why our Reconciler says wife instead of woman, I cannot tell. I am sure it is a corruption of the Text, and contrary to the Apostolical command, Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence, and likewise also the wife unto the husband, v. 3. But to let that pass, his Argument in short is this: The Apostle declares, that a single life has many advantages in it as to the purposes of Religion, especially in that afflicted and persecuted state of the Ghuach, above Marri­age; and therefore he recommends a single life to them: But knowing, as our Saviour had before declared, that every one could not receive this saying, he does not impose it up­on them; and therefore the Governours of the Church should not impose our Ceremonies, [Page 346] 125 though it could be proved that there is like profit, decency, or tendence to perform Gods service bet­ter, as the Apostle says there was under the pre­sent circumstances in keeping their virginity.

Now I would onely ask our Reconciler, whether the Apostle had any authority to im­pose Virginity on the Christians of those days, or to forbid them to marry? If he had not, (as I think our Reconciler will not say that he had) then his Argument runs thus: The A­postle would not impose that upon the Chri­stians which he had no authority to impose; therefore the Governours of the Church must not impose that which they have authority to impose. Some things may have great profit and advantage in them, which yet are instan­ces of so perfect a Vertue, as is above the common attainments of Christians, and there­fore not fit to be made a standing Law; they may be proper matter for an Exhortation, but not for a Command. But what a wide diffe­rence is there between the instances of a raised and perfect Vertue, and the decent Rites and Ceremonies of Worship? It is too severe an imposition to command the one, but there is no difficulty in observing the other. But the difference between Laws of burden and Ec­clesiastical Ceremonies,Vide Supra. ch. 4. p. 209. has been already ob­serv [...]d.

Thirdly, His next head of Arguments for condescension to Dissenters, is taken from that Dispute about eating of those meats which were offered to Idols, 1 Cor. 8. & 10. Now there is no need of any other Answer to this,Recon. p. 127. [Page 347] but to state this case right, which will con­vince every ordinary Reader, how unapplica­ble any thing which the Apostle here discour­ses is to the case of our Dissenters. And to do this plainly and briefly, we must consider, 1. Who those were who out of a pretence of extraordinary knowledge, went to the Idol-Temples, and eat of those meats which were offered in sacrifice to Idols. 2. Who the weak were who were offended with this, and what the scandal and offence was. 3. How the Apostle reasons about this matter.

1. Who these knowing Persons were who eat in the Idols Temples. Now it is very plain that the Apostle in this place taxes the Gnostick Hereticks, who had occasioned that first Schism [...]n the Church of Corinth, and taught the People to despise St. Paul as very ignorant of the Mysteries of the Gospel, and what the just extent of Christian liberty was. For 1. it is plain that he here taxes a vain and arrogant pretence of knowledge, v. 2. If any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet, as he ought to know;1 Cor. 8.2. which is pur­posely to warn the Christians against those men who boasted so much of their knowledge. assuring them that they were very ignorant, notwithstanding all their brags of knowledge. 2. It is evident that these men out of pre­tence of greater knowledge, did eat in the I­dols Temple; If any man see thee which hast knowledge (who dost so much boast of thy knowledge) sit at meat, [...],v. 10. in an I­dols Temple. Now this St. Paul in the tenth [Page 348] Chapter absolutely condemns, not onely as sinful upon account of scandal, but as sinful in it self, as partaking with Devils by eating of their Sacrifices. No true Orthodox Christi­an ever did this; but the Gnostick Hereticks did, partly out of luxury, to partake in these splendid Entertainments, and to defile them­selves with those impure lusts which were part of their Mysteries, as the Apostle insinuates, ch. 10.6, 7, 8. v. These things are our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted; neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them, as it is written, The people sate down to eat and drink, and rose up to play; neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed: and partly out of fear of perse­cution, against which the Apostle warns and encourages the sincere Christians, v. 13. There has no temptation (no tryal by sufferings and persecutions) taken you, but what is common to men; but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above what you are able, but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it. And to justifie this practice of theirs in eating at an Idols Temple, they pretended that an Idol is nothing in the world;v. 4. that the Gods whom the Hea­then worshipped, were not Gods, but dead men; or according to the Mythology of the Stoicks, (which prevailed in that Age among the Philosophical Idolaters, and therefore most probably was embraced by the Gnosticks) were onely the names of some divine Powers and Attributes of the one eternal God, which [Page 349] the errour and superstition of these People had formed into several distinct D [...]ies; and therefore an Idol being nothing, it could not pollute the meat which was offered in sacrifice to it, but it was as lawful to eat of that as of any other ordinary Feast.

2. Let us consider who these weak persons were, who were offended and scandalized at this liberty which the Gnosticks took. Now it is as plain, that these were a sort of very imperfect Christians, who together with the Faith of Christ, retained many of their old Pagan Superstitions, as the Jews did the ob­servation of the Mosaical Law. This appears from that account St. Paul gives of them, that they were men who did not understand that an Idol is nothing, but look'd upon them at least as some inferiour Gods, and frequented their Temples, and eat of the meat offered to them, under the notion of Sacrifices, and thereby did defile and pollute themselves with Idolatrous Worship. Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: v. 7. for some with con­science of the Idol to this hour eat it as a thing offered unto Idols, and their conscience being weak (a sick, misinformed, corrupt conscience) is defiled with Idolatry. And therefore the scandal which was given to these men, was this; that when they saw those who preten­ded to such perfect knowledge in the Myste­ry of Christianity, eat of the Sacrifice in the Idols Temple, this confirmed them in their er­rour and Idolatry, and made them conclude that such Pagan Superstitions as these were [Page 350] reconcilabl [...] with the Faith of Christ: For if any man [...] thee, v. 10, 11. which hast knowledge, sit at meat in an Idols Temple, shall not the conscience of him that is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to Idols, and through thy know­ledge shall thy weak brother perish for whom Christ died, by being confirmed in his Idolatry by thy Example?

3. Now the Apostle disputes against this practice of the Gnosticks, of eating in the I­dols Temple, two several ways: 1. Upon the supposition of the lawfulness of it: 2. By proving it unlawful.

1. Upon the supposition of the lawfulness of it; and this he does in the eighth Chap­ter. He allows that Principle of the Gnosticks, That an Idol is nothing in the world; and supposes for argument sake, that this would justifie those who have this knowledge in eat­ing at an Idols Temple, (for that the Apostle himself was not of this mind, appears from the tenth Chapter, of which more presently): yet since there were so many professed Chri­stians among them who were still leavened with their Pagan Superstitions, and could not presently renounce that kind of Worship which they had been so long accustomed to, (as some Copies read it [...] inde [...]d of [...], v. 7. that some out of custom to the Idol, instead of with conscience of the Idol) it was very uncharitable by doing the same thing which they did, though with very dif­ferent notions and apprehensions, to confirm them in their Idolatrous Practices. Though [Page 351] these knowing Gnosticks who believed an Idol to be nothing, might eat in the Idols Temple without being guilty of Idolatry, yet th [...]y must acknowledge that those who believed these Idols to be Gods, and did eat that meat which was offered to them under the notion of Sacrifices, were guilty of Idolatry, and therefore they were guilty of a very great sin; when by doing the same thing, though with­out Idolatry, they encouraged those to do so too, who were certainly guilty of Idolatry in it.

And the guilt of this is so much the greater, because though they should suppose it lawful to eat at an Idols Temple, yet they were un­der no necessity of doing it; if they did not sin in it, yet neither did they please God meerly by eating such meats as were offered to Idols: for meerly to eat or not to eat any kind of meats, is not in it self an acceptable service to God. Meat commendeth us not to God: for neither if we eat are we the better, v. 8. neither if we eat not are we the worse. And therefore cer­tainly we may abstain from it without any o­ther injury than laying some little restraints upon the exercise of our private liberty; and this is therefore a proper matter for the exer­cise of Christian charity, as the Apostle had discoursed in the case of the Jews and Gen­tiles.

And though the Gnosticks thought that eating in an Idols Temple was a great argu­ment of the perfection of their knowledge, yet the Apostle tells them, that charity and the [Page 352] care of their Brothers soul, was to be preferred before such a vain boast of knowledge: Take beed lest by any means this liberty of yours be­come a stumbling-block to them that are weak—and through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, v. 8, 10. for whom Christ died. For which rea­son in the beginning he told them, Knowledge puffeth up, v. 1. but charity edifieth.

This is the sum of the Apostle's reasoning in this eighth Chapter, upon a supposition that it were lawful to eat in an Idols Temple. Now what affinity is there between this case and that of our Dissenters? Those who knew that an Idol was nothing, and therefore that it could not pollute the meat which was of­fered in sacrifice to it, might eat in an Idols Temple without Idolatry; but yet ought not to do it, when their Example, though inno­cent in it self, would confirm others in a­ctual Idolatry: therefore the Governours of the Church must not prescribe the decent Rites and Ceremonies of Worship, because Dissenters will not obey them, but turn Schis­maticks. If our Reconciler be not ashamed to argue at this rate, I am ashamed to confute him.

But it is plain, he mistook the case. For he says, The Apostle grants that it is lawful in it self for Christians to eat of things offered to Idols, Prot. Reconc. p. 127. (he should have added, in an Idols Temple, where it had an immediate relation to the I­dol, which was the matter in dispute between the Apostle and the Gnosticks) because an I­dol was nothing in the world. But now the [Page 353] Apostle does not grant this, but onely at pre­sent supposes the lawfulness of it: for in the tenth Chapter he professedly confutes it. He tells them that to partake of a Sacrifice, signi­fies our communion with that being to whom the Sacrifice is offered.1 Cor. 10. Thus it was with the Jewish Sacrifices: Behold Israel after the flesh, 18 are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? Thus it is in the commemora­tive Sacrifice of the Lords Supper: The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion 16 of the bloud of Christ? the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? And thus to eat of the Idols Sacrifice in the Idols Temple, is communion with the Idol. Well says the Gnostick, what commu­nion can there be with that which is not? or will you say, That an Idol is any 19 thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to Idols is any thing? Will you say, that there are a­ny such Gods as the Heathens worship? Or will you say, that that is a Sacrifice, or that that meat is polluted which is offered to no­thing? No, says the Apostle, I do not say that there are any such Gods as the Heathens wor­ship; for they worshipped dead men and wo­men, who cannot be present at their Sacrifices to receive their Worship, or it may be they worship onely some fanciful and poetick Names and Fictions: but this I say, that though Iupiter and Bacchus, Minerva and Di­ana, and the rest of the poetick Deities, are meer fictitious Gods, yet wicked Spirits sup­ply their places, receive their Worship, and [Page 354] attend their Sacrifices; and therefore though these Heathen Idolaters be not in communion with those fictitious Gods whom they pre­tend to worship, yet they are in communion with Devils, who assume the names of these 20 Gods. But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to Devils, and not to God; and I would not that ye should have fellowship with Devils. Whether this can be reconciled with the lawfulness of eating in an Idols Temple, because an Idol is nothing in the world, let our Author consider.

But he proceeds. He (the Apostle) more­over grants, that they who out of conscience did abstain from eating of such things, had a weak conscience, and that their conscience was defiled by eating of such things, onely because they wan­ted knowledge, or were not well perswaded of this truth, that Christians had a liberty or power to be partakers of these things, v. 7, 9. He therefore grants, that the weak brother was mistaken, and that the strong gave him no just occasion of offence. Which is every word false, as appears from what I have already discoursed.

His interpretation of a weak Conscience, to be such a Conscience as did abstain from eat­ing of such things, is directly contrary to the Text, which affirms that they did eat: For some with conscience of the Idol, unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an Idol, and their con­science being weak is defiled. They were such as were encouraged and emboldned by the ex­ample of the Gnosticks, to eat those things which were offered to Idols: So that they did not do [Page 355] this with a fearful, timorous, scrupulous, doubt­ing Conscience, but with a full assurance and perswasion of the lawfulness of it. And there­fore this weakness did not consist in the ten­derness, but in the corruption and debauchery of their Conscience, that they believed they might still sacrifice to their Heathen Gods, and that Christianity did allow them to do so; in which Perswasion they were confirm­ed by the Example of those professed Christi­ans whom they saw sit at meat in the Idols Temple. Nor therefore were their Conscien­ces defiled, as our Reconciler asserts, onely because they wanted knowledge, or were not well perswa­ded of this truth, that Christians had a liberty or power to eat of these things: for they were too well perswaded not of this truth, but of this great and fatal errour, that it was lawful for Christians to sacrifice to Idols, and to eat of their Sacrifices. And thus their Consciences was defiled, not by acting doubtfully, but by committing Idolatry. So that the weak Bro­ther was mistaken indeed, but the mistake lay quite on the other side; and those Gnostick Hereticks whom our Reconciler calls the strong Christians, did give just occasion of offence, not by perswading, much less compelling the weak to do what he suspected to be unlawful, but by confirming him in these Idolatrous Practi­ces to which he was so strongly addicted by their Examples.

And therefore when, as he observes, the A­postle exhorts those Christians who had attained to this knowledge (or rather who pretended to [Page 356] such extraordinary knowledge, which indeed they had not) not to use it so as to give offence to the weak Conscience of their Brother, who had this knowledge, his meaning is not, that they should indulge such persons in their weakness and mistakes, but that they should have a care by their examples of confirming them in such mistakes. They must not use their liberty, which they supposed they had, of eating in an Idols Temple, not because some ignorant Christians scrupled the lawfulness of it, but because those imperfect weak Christians who were still addicted to the Worship of their Country Gods, would be confirmed in their Idolatrous Worship by seeing them eat of the Heathen Sacrifices, which was a known and ve­nerable part of the Pagan Worship. And how this pleads for indulgence to the errours and mistakes of Dissenters, I cannot guess, when the onely scandal the Apostle here mentions, and exhorts them to avoid, is the confirming such weak Christians in their errours and wic­ked practices; which our Reconciler, who has contributed so much to harden these men in their Schism, should do well to consider.

But let us proceed in St. Paul's discourse a­bout eating those meats which were offered in sacrifice to Idols. Having in the eighth Chapter disputed against the practice of eat­ing in an Idols Temple, upon supposition of the lawfulness of it: for how lawful soever it was, it was very uncharitable, when hereby they confirmed their weak Brother in his Ido­latrous Worship. And in the tenth Chapter [Page 357] (as I have already shewn) having proved the unlawfulness of eating in an Idols Temple, notwithstanding that pretence, that an Idol is nothing in the world, he comes to give a more particular decision of this Controversie, to prevent those scruples which otherwise might disturb very good Christians.

For in that Age and place wherein they li­ved, without infinite care and scrupulosity, they could not avoid eating of meats offered to Idols: for what was not spent in the I­dols Feast, was sold in the Shambles, or spent at their private houses; and therefore they neither could buy any meat in the Market, nor eat at the private house of any Pagan or Hea­then Idolater, but they were in danger of eat­ing meats offered to Idols.

To salve this difficulty, the Apostle tells them,1 Cor. 10.25, 26, 27. that they should eat any meat which was sold in the Shambles, or set before them at private houses, without asking any questi­ons for conscience sake; that is, without en­quiring whether that meat had been offered in sacrifice to an Idol, or making any scruple about such matters: for the earth is the Lords, and the fulness thereof; that is, all Creatures are Gods, who has freely given them to us for our use, and we may as freely use them, when they have no relation to any Idolatrous Wor­ship, as to be sure they have not, when they are exposed to sale in the Shambles, or used for private Entertainments.

But yet if any person present acquaint you that this was offered in sacrifice,v. 28. then you [Page 358] must abstain for his sake that shewed it: and there is no great damage in this, since the earth is the Lords, and the fulness thereof: God has made such ample provision for us, that we are not confined to any one dish, but when it is inexpedient to eat of one thing, we need not be a hungry for all that, having such variety of provisions, which there can be no scruple a­bout to support and refresh us.

Who these were for whose sake the Apostle exhorts the Corinthians to abstain from eating, of meats offered to Idols, even at a private Entertainment, which yet he asserts they might lawfully do, is not plain in the Text: If any man say unto you, this is offered in sacri­fice to Idols, eat not. But whether this man for whose sake they should abstain be a Chri­stian or an Infidel, is not said. The unbelie­ver, at whose house the Christian is supposed to eat, might accidentally take notice that such meat had been offered in sacrifice to such a God, and in this case the Christian might be obliged to forbear, to shew his ab­horrence and detestation of Idols, that he might not do any thing which seems never so little to countenance Idolatry. If it were a Christian who gave this information, it might either be one who did really scruple the law­fulness of [...]ating any meat that was offered to an Idol, though out of the Idols Temple, and then he who understood his liberty, ought to forbear for his sake who did not; or it was one of those weak and imperfect Christians whom the Apostle mentioned in the eighth [Page 359] Chapter, who was so far from scrupling the lawfulness of eating such meats at a private house, that he thought it lawful to sacrifice to these Heathen Gods, and to partake of the Sacrifice in 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 [Page 360] 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: 1 Cor. 8.8. 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.

[Page 361]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.Ibid. v. 13. 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 [...]o Jews and Gentiles, he exercised himself. Vnto the Iew I became as a Iew, that I might gain the Iews;1 Cor. 9.20, 21, 22. 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 withou [...] 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, [Page 362] 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.

Prot. Recon. p. 138.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,1 Cor. 9. 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 [Page 363] 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, v. 14 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 allotted them out of those Sacrifices which are offered there; and thus the other Apostles were maintained. But St. Paul in Corinth, and all the Regions of Achaia, preached the Gospel freely; took nothing of them, but partly supplied his wants by his own labour, partly was supplied by the Contributions of other Churches, as he expresly tells them, I robbed other Churches, taking wages of them to do you service; when I was present with you and wanted, I was chargeable to no man; for that which was lacking to me, the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied, 2 Cor. 11.8, 9. What then was the reason why the Apostle who [Page 364] made no scruple to receive from other Chur­ches, yet preached, and was always resolved to preach the Gospel freely at Corinth? Now he has hinted two reasons of this: 1. That he observed something so saving in the tem­per of that People, that he greatly suspected it would hinder the progress of the Gospel a­mong them, if it should prove matter of charge, especially at the first preaching of it. This reason he assigns for it in those words, Nevertheless we have not used this power, v. 12. but suf­fered all things, lest we should hinder the Gospel of Christ. This is no universal reason against the publick maintenance of Gospel-Ministers, that it hinders the Gospel of Christ; for then God would not have ordained, as the Apostle tells us he has, that those who preach the Gospel, should live of the Gospel: and therefore it must have a particular respect to the temper of that People, as he sufficiently intimates, when he so often repeats, that he preached the Gospel freely to them, and without charge, and was not chargeable to any of them, that he kept himself from being burdensome to them, e­ven when he was in want; which plainly taxes them with a niggardly temper, that they could see so great an Apostle who preached the Gospel to them, in want, and not supply his wants themselves, but suffer those of Macedo­nia to do it. We cannot imagine that he who was ready to receive from other Churches, should chuse rather to want at Corinth, than to ask them for any thing, or freely discover his wants to them, if they would not take no­tice [Page 365] of it themselves, had he not perceived how unwilling they were to part with any thing, and what a prejudice they had against a chargeable Religion. And St. Paul gives too much jealousie of this temper in them, even where he commends them for their charity. There was a Collection to be made for the relief of the poor Christians in Iudaea; the Churches of Achaia had done something al­ready, and it seems had promised more; and St. Paul took the advantage of this to work an emulation in the Churches of Macedonia to do the like, and it seems it had the effect he hoped for; for their zeal of which he had boasted, had provoked very many, that is, had excited them to very liberal Contributions. And now some Brethren of Macedonia were to go to Corinth with St. Paul to receive their Collections; and it seems after all his boasts of them, he was very jealous how he should find things when he came, and therefore sent before-hand to give them notice of it, that they might be in a readiness: Therefore I thought it necessary to exhort the Brethren that they would go before unto you, 2 Cor. 9.1, &c. and make up be­fore-hand your bounty, whereof ye had notice be­fore, that the same may be ready as a matter of bounty, and not as of covetousness; lest if it should prove otherwise, both he and they should be ashamed of it, as he speaks in the former verse: and therefore he uses several Arguments to perswade them to a liberal Contribution. And indeed it is a sufficient Argument that they were not very forward to part with any [Page 366] thing, that they did not take care of the A­postles maintenance, as it is plain they did not: for had they been of a generous and liberal temper, they would have made provision for the Apostle, whether he had asked it or not; and it does not appear that at least at first he ever refused any thing from them, but onely that he did not challenge it, as of right he might.

TheApostle having discovered this to be their temper, was resolved not to disgust them at the first preaching of the Gospel, by making it chargeable, but rather chose to work for his living, and to endure some want, than to ask any thing of them; which being a voluntary service, and more than God himself required of him, he expected a great reward for it. This was matter of glorying to him, that he had not used that power which God had given him to require maintenance from those to whom he preached. To preach the Gospel was his duty, and this he could not glory in, because he was under a necessity to do it; but it was not matter of strict duty to preach the Go­spel to a People who would not supply his wants: for God had ordained that those who preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel. But says the Apostle,1 Cor. 9.15, 16, 18. I have used none of these things, (he had not challenged this right) neither have I written these things, that it should be done so unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make any glorying void. For though I preach the Gospel, I have nothing to glory of; for necessity is laid upon me, and wo is unto [Page 367] me, if I preach not the Gospel. What is my re­ward then? verily that when I preach the Gospel I may make the Gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the Gospel. Our Reconciler fixes upon these last words, That if in these circumstances he had used his power, he should have abused it; whereas [...] signifies to use as well as to abuse, as abutor does in the Latine; and it can signifie no o­therwise here: for what abuse had it been of his power, to have demanded a supply of his necessary wants, which God had ordained he should have? or what glorying had it been to him not to abuse his power in the Gospel, any more than it was to preach the Gospel, which being a necessary duty, was no matter of glo­rying to him? and yet not to use his power, was as much his duty as to preach the Gospel, when to use it was an abuse, that is, a fault; but it was matter of glory not to use the power he had, which was such a voluntary service as deserved a reward.

Now is not our Reconciler a man of a won­derful reach, who from hence can prove that the Governours of the Church ought not in like circumstances to exercise that power, which he acknowledges they have, to impose indifferent things? for what likeness can there be between these two cases? The power to challenge a maintenance, is a personal right which men may use, or may not use if they please; it is their right, but it is not their duty: but the power of imposing indifferent things, as he calls it, or the power of prescri­bing [Page 368] the Rules and Orders and Circumstances of Worship (if there be any such power, as he grants there is) is the power and autho­rity of an Office, is a Trust and a Duty, the prudent and faithful discharge of which, they must give an account of; and therefore must not, when they please, either part with the power or the exercise of it. St. Paul was con­tented to part with the temporal rewards of his Ministry, that he might the more success­fully discharge the Ministry it self; therefore Church-Governours must not exercise their Authority in the discharge of their Ministry, to humour Dissenters. St. Paul did more than his strict duty required, that he might have something to glory in; therefore the Governours of the Church must neglect their duty, and lose their reward. Indeed our Re­conciler talks as if the Churches Authority in indifferent things, were onely a personal right, a Complement to Church-Governours, an ornamental power, which they may use or may let alone, as they please; and if this were so, I should presently be of our Reconci­ler's mind: but I believe they have no such kind of useless Authority as this; Christ has not complemented his Ministers with any power which is not for the use and service of the Church: and therefore if they have power in indifferent things, this is a useful power, and that which they ought to use, when there is reason for it, whoever be offen­ded at it.

Another reason why St. Paul preached the [Page 369] Gospsl freely at Corinth, he gives us in the 2 Cor. 11. 12, 13. What I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them that desire occasion, that wherein they glory they may be found even as we: for such are false Apostles, deceit­ful workers, transforming themselves into the A­postles of Christ. The meaning of which is this: There were several false Teachers who crept in among them, and used all manner of arts to recommend themselves to the Corin­thians; and among others this seems to be one, that they preached the Gospel freely to them, onely as they pretended out of love of their Souls; which was a very popular art, e­specially to that People; and therefore St. Paul resolved to persist in preaching the Gospel free­ly to them, to cut off occasion from them that de­sire occasion, that is, to disappoint those arts of deceit whereby these false Teachers endea­voured to recommend themselves, that where­in they glory they may be found even as we: that whereas they glory in preaching the Gospel freely, this may give them no advantage, since it is no more than what I my self have all a­long done, and still continue to do. Our Re­conciler paraphraseth these words, thus: To cut off occasion from them that de­sire occasion; that is, lest his enemies should take occasion from the exercise of this his liberty, to charge, Prot. Recon. p. 138. or to traduce him as one who more consulted his own profit than the glory of God, and the propagation of the Go­spel. But what occasion had there been for this, though he had taken Wages of them, as he says he did of other Churches, to supply his [Page 370] necessities? it was sufficiently evident notwith­standing, that he did exact nothing from them to serve the ends of covetousness and ambi­tion: for certainly a man may desire the sup­ply of his wants, without being charged with covetousness; but the Apostle would not suf­fer these false Prophets, by a pretended and hypocritical Zeal, to outdo him in any thing. Now the Apostle's care to give no advantage to false Teachers, is a good Example to the Governours of our Church not to do so nei­ther; and I am sure they cannot give them greater advantage, than to sacrifice all Order and Decency to their pretended Scruples.

Well, but says our Reconciler, the Rulers of the Church, by the exercise of this power in indifferent things, do 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 of poor Souls from damning Schisms, and the Church from sad Divisions, &c. These are very spightful, but very foolish Insinuations. As for Schisms and Divisions, we have alrea­dy considered where that charge must rest; and then how do Ceremonies come in compe­tition with the Souls of men? Does the ap­pointment of some Ceremonies for the de­cent and orderly performance of Religious Worship, hinder the salvation of mens Souls? Cannot men be saved who observe the Cere­monies of our Church? Then indeed our Re­conciler might well complain, that those who impose such damning Ceremonies, have more [Page 371] regard to a Ceremony than to an immortal Soul; otherwise there is no competition be­tween Ceremonies and the Souls of men, and those who will be Schismaticks for a Cere­mony, will be Schismaticks without it, and will be damned for their Schism, whether there be any Ceremonies or not.

All that remains in this Chapter, are his Answers to Meisner's Arguments, which I have already considered, as much as is necessary to my purpose.

CHAP. VII. Containing an Answer to the Motives to Mutual Condescension, urged in the sixth Chapter of the Protestant Reconci­ler.

I Find nothing in this Chapter, besides some Harangues and Popular Declamations, but what has been sufficiently answered already: The whole proceeds upon those general To­picks, of the smalness of these things, the dan­ger mens Souls are in by these Impositions, the obligations to Love and Charity; which have been particularly discoursed above in the first and second Chapters, where the reasons of these things are particularly examined. But however, I will briefly try whether I cannot give an Answer to all this, which may be as popular as his Objections are.

I. His first Argument or Motive is from considering how small the things are which cause our Discords and Divisions, Prot. Recon. p. 166. when they are set in competition with the more weighty duties and con­cerns of Love, Peace, and the Churches Vnion and Edification, and the avoiding the offence and scandal of Iew, Gentile, and the Church of God; which he very pompously proves to be great Gospel-duties. Now suppose the things in dispute be never so small, if they are of any use in Religion, and the Object of Ecclesiasti­cal [Page 373] Authority, (as our Reconciler owns they are) what will he conclude from hence? that the observation of such little things must not be enjoyned? What, not when Christ has gi­ven authority to enjoyn them? Does Christ then give any authority to his Church, which she must not use? Must nothing be enjoyned, which is little in comparison of Love, and Peace, and Unity? or must they be enjoyned, and left indifferent at the same time? Must the Church appoint them to be observed, but command no body to observe them but those who please? In all well-governed Societi [...]s there must be Laws about little as well as a­bout great things; and if there be no Autho­rity to determine the least matters both in Church and State, it will necessarily occasion very great inconveniences.

Well, but we must not set these little things in competition with the more weighty duties and concerns of Love and Peace: No, God forbid we should. But does our Reconciler know what a competition between two Laws means? I know but of two ways that this can happen; either when they contradict each each other, or are so contrary in their natures that they can never be both observed; or when there is a competition of time, that it so happens that we cannot observe both at the same time; as when we cannot at the same time go to Church to serve God, and stay at home to attend a sick Father or Friend; in which cases our Saviour has laid down a ge­neral Rule, That God prefers Mercy b [...]fo [...]e [Page 374] Sacrifice. But now upon neither of these ac­counts can there be any competition preten­ded between the Rites and Ceremonies of Re­ligion, and the great duties of Love, and Peace, and Unity, and Edification. For cannot men observe the Orders and Constitutions of the Church, as to the external Rites of Worship, and love one another, and preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church at the same time? Indeed, can there be a better means to preserve Love, and Peace, and Unity among Christi­ans, and to promote mutual Edification, than an Uniformity in Religious Worship, since it is evident that nothing breeds greater Dissen­tions, and Emulations, and Envyings among Christians, than different and contrary Modes of Worship? And if this be so, then there is no competition between the Ceremonies of Religion, and the Love and Peace of Chri­stians; and consequently, no reason why the Governours of the Church may not com­mand both, though the particular Ceremonies of Religion be acknowledged to be small things in comparison with the great duties of Love and Peace.

Yes, you'll say, the imposition of these Ce­remonies does come in competition with these great duties of Love, and Peace, and Unity, because there are a great many who quarrel at them, and divide the Church upon that ac­count; and if these controverted Ceremonies were removed, Love and Unity would be re­stored among us.

Now supposing this to be true (which I [Page 375] have already proved not to be true) what is this to the Governours of the Church?See chap. 3. If they impose nothing which is inconsistent with Love, and Peace and Unity, then the imposi­tion of these things, in it self considered, can­not be inconsistent with these great Gospel-duties: for if what we command be consi­stent with Love and Unity, then the Command (otherwise called the Imposition) must be so too. It is not the command or imposition of these things, which is inconsistent with Love and Unity, but refusal of obedience to such lawful Commands; which is not the fault of the Governours, but of the Subjects; not of those who command, but of those who will not obey: and therefore these are Arguments proper to be urged against Dissenters, but not against the Governours of the Church.

As to give you a familiar instance of this: A Master commands his Servant to put on a clean Band to wait at Table, the Servant re­fuses to do it; upon this the whole Family is divided, some take part with the Master, o­thers with the Servant: in steps a Reconciler, and tells the Master he did very ill to cause such Divisions in his Family; that Love, and Peace, and Unity were more considerable du­ties than a Servants wearing a clean Band, which therefore ought not to come in compe­tition with them: Pray Sir, says the Master, preach this Doctrine to my Servants, and not to me; I have commanded nothing but what was fit to be done, and I will have it done, or he and all his Partners shall turn out o [...] my [Page 376] Family. Now let one who is a Master, judge whether the Master or the Reconciler be in the right. The breach of Love, and Peace, and Unity, is not the effect (though it be the consequent, which our Reconciler I perceive cannot distinguish) of the Command or Im­position, but of the disobedience; and there­fore when the Command is fit and reasonable, cannot be charged upon him who commands, but upon him who disobeys.

But besides this, I observe, that Christian Love,See Defence of Dr. Still. Separat. about Church-unity. and Unity, and Peace, in the Writings of the New Testament, signifie the Commu­nion of the Church; and how kind soever they may be to each other upon other accounts, men do not love like Christians, who do not worship God together in the Communion of the same Church wherein they live, and there can be no Edification out of the Church. Now if there be no way of uniting men in one Communion, but by an uniformity of Worship, then to prescribe the Rules and Or­ders and Ceremonies of Worship, is as neces­sary as Christian Love, and Peace, and Unity is. Men who worship God after a different manner, must and will worship in different places too, and in distinct Communions; and those who will not submit to the Injunctions of a just Authority, will never consent in any form of Worship: and therefore this may multiply Schisms, but cannot cure them. This is all perfect demonstration from the experi­ence of our late Confusions, when the pulling down the Church of England did not lessen our Divisions, but increase them.

[Page 377]But our Reconciler confirms this Argument, that the Governours of the Church ought not to insist on such little things, when they come in competition with Love, and Peace, and U­nity, &c. from the example of God himself, who was not so much concerned for the ceremoni­al part of his Worship, but that he would permit the violation of what he had prescribed about it upon accounts of lesser moment than these are. Recon. p. 170. He instances in the Law of Circumcision, which was not observed in the Wilderness, because this would hinder the motion of the Camp: In the Law of the Passover, which was to be observed on the first month, and the 14th day of the month, but God expresly pro­vided, that if any man were unclean, or in a journey far off at that time, they should ob­serve it on the 14th of the second month: in the Sabbatick rest, which admitted of works of necessity and mercy, which were never for­bidden by God in that Law, nor intended to be.

Now are not these admirable proofs, That God is not so much concerned for the ceremonial part of his Law, but that upon some accounts he would permit the violation of what he had pre­scribed, when it does not appear that he ever did so? As for the neglect of Circumcision in the Wilderness, I doubt not but God had given express order about it, otherwise Moses who was faithful in all his house, and a pun­ctual observer of all the divine Laws and Sta­tutes, would never have neglected it: and this I may say with as much reason, as our Re­conciler [Page 378] can produce for Gods permission of it without an express Order, and somewhat more. As for the Passover, let our Reconciler consider again whether the observation of 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.16 Numb. To which we may adde the case of Vzzah, who was struck dead upon the place for touching the Ark of [Page 379] God; which was not lawful for him to do, though he did it with a very pious intention to preserve it from falling.2 Sam. 6.6, 7. Thus Saul's of­fering Sacrifice in Samuel's absence,1 Sam. 13.9, 10, &c. though he had a very plausible excuse for it, and his spa­ring Agag the King of the Amalakites, 15 ch. 7, 8, &c. 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,23 Mat. 23.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 the [...]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 interes [...]s of Love, and Peace, and Unity; but yet God institu­ted these Ceremonies, and commanded the observation of them, and punish'd the breach [Page 380] 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, Recon. p. 178. 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 [Page 381] 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 [Page 382] of the Church to renounce their Authority too in imitation of the love of God.

Ibid.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 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 [Page 383] 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 [Page 384] 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,2 Sam. 12. 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. [Page 385] 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 [...]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 [Page 386] 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;P. 179. 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;20 Gen. 6. 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 co [...]sidering, that this Argument of the Recon­cil [...]r's pleads [...]or a Toleration of all Religions, [Page 387] 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 them from Communion, whom God will receive? So that the poor Church of England must receive Papists into her Commu­nion, as well as the Phanaticks; where we must observe the Charity is Bishop Sanderson's, the Inference and Application the Reconci­ler's.

III. His next Argument is from one great purpose of Christ's Advent, P. 180. 2 Phil. 14, &c. and the effusion of his precious bloud, to make both Iew and Gentile one, by breaking down the middle wall of partition that was between them, and abolishing the Law of Commandments contained in Ordinances. Now the conceit of it is this: He supposes the Ce­remonies of the Church of England to be such a Partition-wall between Conformists and Nonconformists, as the Mosaical Law was be­tween Jews and Gentiles; and therefore as Christ has broken down one Partition-wall, and made Jew and Gentile one Church, so our Governours ought to break down the other Partition-wall to make Conformists and Nonconformists one Body and Church; which is such a dull conceit, and argues such [Page 388] stupid ignorance in the Mysteries of Christia­nity, that I do not wonder he is so zealous an Advocate for Ignorance and Errour.

The Partition-wall is an Allusion to that Partition in the Temple which divided the Court where the Jews worshipped, from the Court of the Gentiles; and that which made this Partition was Gods Covenant with A­braham, when he chose his carnal Seed and Posterity for his peculiar People, and separa­ted them from the rest of the World; and the more effectually to separate them from other Nations, gave them a peculiar Law, which was to last as long as this distinction did. For God did not intend for ever to confine his Church to one Nation, but when the promi­sed Messias came, to enlarge the borders of his Church to all mankind. And therefore this Law was so contrived as to typifie the Messias, and to receive its full completion in the per­fect Sacrifice and Expiation of his Death, which put an end to the former Dispensation, and sealed a Covenant of Grace and Mercy with all mankind. Thus Christ by his death broke down the Partition-wall, because he put an end to the Mosaical Covenant which was made onely with the Jews, and to that exter­nal and [...]ypical Religion which was peculiar to the Mosaical Dispensation, and made a distin­ction and separation between Jew and Gen­tile▪ that is, as Christ made a Covenant now with all mankind, so he put an end to all marks of distinction between Jew and Gen­tile, and to that typical and ceremonial Worship [Page 368] which was peculiar to the Jews, as a distinct and separate People.

Now indeed any such Partition-wall as this, which confines the Covenant and Promises of God to any particular People or Nation, and excludes all others, is directly contrary to the end and designe of Christs death, and ought immediately to be pulled down; but must there therefore be no Partion to distinguish be­tween the Church of Christ, and Infidels, and Hereticks, and Schismaticks? Must there be no Walls and Fences about the Church, this Vineyard and Fold of Christ? Must there be no Laws made for the government of Religi­ous Assemblies, and the Decency and Order of Christian Worship, for fear of keeping those out of the Church who will not be orderly in it? How come the Ceremonies of our Church to be a Wall of partition? the Church never made them so; for she onely designed them for Rules and decent Circumstances of Worship, which it is her duty to take care of. Let those then who set up this Wall of partition, pull it down again; that is, let those who se­parate from the Church, and make these Ce­remonies a Wall of partition, return to the Communion of the Church, which no body keeps them from but themselves.

As for his modest insinuations, that our Ce­remonies are carnal Ordinances, weak and beg­garly Elements, and therefore ought to be remo­ved for their weakness and unprofitableness, as the Mosaick Ceremonies were, I have already largely shewn the difference between a Ritual and [Page 390] Ceremonial Religion, and those Ceremonies which are for the Decency of Religious Wor­ship; which are as necessary, and must con­tinue as long as External Worship, which re­quires external Signs of Decency and Honour, does.

Recon. p. 182.IV. His next Motive to Condescension, is from the Example of Christ and his Apostles in preaching the Gospel; which in short is this: That when Christ was on Earth, he did not instruct his Disciples in such Doctrines as they were not capable of understanding, till after his Resurrection, and therefore left the revelation of such matters to the Ministry of his Holy Spirit, whom after his Ascension into Heaven, he sent to them. And the Apostles, when they converted Jews and Gentiles to the Faith of Christ, did not immediately tell them all that was to be known and believed, but instructed them in the plainest matters first, and allowed some time to wear off their Jewish and Pagan prejudices: therefore the Governours of the Church should forbear im­posing of some practices, at which our Flocks, by reason of their prejudice and weakness, will be apt to stumble and take offence. But how this fol­lows, I confess, I cannot understand; if it proves any thing, it proves that the Gover­nours of the Church must not instruct their People in any thing which they are not willing to learn; that our Reconciler should never have published his second part, to convince Dissenters that they may lawfully, and there­fore in duty ought to conform to the Cere­monies [Page 391] of the Church when they are imposed: for if notwithstanding the Example of our Saviour and his Apostles, we may instruct our People in such things, we may require their o­bedience too, otherwise we had as good never instruct them.

But did Christ and his Apostles then intend that Christians should be always children? Did not St. Paul testifie that he had declared the whole Will of God to them? And when the Gospel has been fully published to the World for above sixteen hundred years, must the Church return again to her state of infancy and childhood, to humour Diss [...]nters? But indeed is the duty of obedience to Gover­nours in all things which Christ has not for­bid, such a sublime and mysterious Doctrine, that it ought to be concealed as too difficult to be understood? Is it not a pretty way of reasoning, that Euclid's Elements is too diffi­cult a book for a young child to learn, there­fore his Master must not teach him to ob [...]y his Parents neither? I am sure this was one of the first Lessons which the Apostles taught their Disciples, whatever else they concealed from them: for there can be no Church founded without Government, and there can be no Government where Subjects must not be taught Obedience.

But however, there is a great difference be­tween the first publication of any Doctrine, and the preaching of it after it is published. The first requires great prudence in the choice of a fit time to do it in, and of fit persons to [Page 392] communicate it to; which was the case of Christ and his Apostles, which made it neces­sary to reveal the Gospel-mysteries by degrees, and to persons well disposed and qualified to receive them; but when a Doctrine has been fully published and confirmed by all necessary evidence, and universally received as a Chri­stian Doctrine, the Governours and Pastors of the Church must continue to preach it, whether Dissenters will hear or no; for else we may lose all Christian Doctrines by degrees again, and return to our Milk, which he says is the Doctrine of Christs Humanity; and leave off feeding on strong Meat, which he says is the Doctrine of Christs Divinity, P. 183. because Jews and Socinians cannot bear it. Whatever has been published by Christ and his Apostles, as Chri­stian Doctrine, is the sacred Depositum which is committed to the Church, and which all Bi­shops,1 Tim. 6.20. as well as Timothy, are commanded to keep.

P. 185.5. His next Motive to condescension is from the consideration of that great Rule of Equity, which calls upon us to do to others, as we would be dealt with. Now I confess, this is a very good Topick to declaim on, as our Reconciler doth: for as it is usually managed, it con­tains an Appeal to the Passions and Interests, more than to the Reason of mankind. It is a sufficient Answer to this, to observe, that this Rule obliges no man to do any thing but what is in it self just and equitable to be done: for what is more than this, how passionately so­ever men desire it, is owing to their fondness [Page 393] and partiality to themselves, not to a true reason and judgment of things; and there­fore unless it appear upon other accounts to be in it self reasonable to grant this Indulgence, this Rule cannot make it so.

To discourse the true meaning of this Rule at large, would be too great a digression from my present designe; and therefore in answer to what our Reconciler says, Would we be con­tented if we were inferiours, to be punished, impri­soned, and banished for Opinions which we can­not help; or shut out from the means of Grace for such Opinions? Or should we not be glad that o­thers would bear with us in some lesser matters in which we by our judgments are constrained to differ from them? and would not pass upon us the s [...]verest censures because we are constrained thus to differ? I say in answer to these, and such-like Popular Appeals, I shall ask him some other Questions: as, Whether ever any Of­fender or Criminal is contented to suffer for his fault, or does not earnestly desire to be par­doned, and to escape? Whether it be unrea­sonable to punish any man, because all men are unwilling to be punished? Whether every mans love to himself in such cases, or that natural pity which all men have for those who suffer, be a Rule for the exercise of publick Discipline and Government in Church or State? Whether any man in his wits can think it reasonable that mens private Fancies and Opinions should over-rule the Authority of Church and State? Whether is the most pitiable sight, to see a flourishing and truly [Page 394] Apostolick Church rent and torn in pieces by Factions and Schisms, or to see such Schisma­ticks suffer in the suppression of their Schism? Whether it be reasonable for the Civil Pow­ers to punish Schismaticks, when their Schism in the Church threatens the State, and makes the Thrones of Princes shake and totter?

The truth is, this Rule, To do to others as we desire they should do to us, may be a good Rule to direct our private Conversation, but it does not extend to publick Government; and my reason for it is this: That this Rule has respect onely to every mans private happiness, and supposes an equality between them. For that which makes this a Rule of Equity is, that equals (as all men are, considered as men) ought to have equal usage; and there­fore that natural sense which every man has of happiness, that natural aversion to suffer wrong, and that natural desire to receive good from others, should teach every man to deal by others, who have the same sense of happi­ness, and aversion to misery, as they desire to be dealt with themselves. But now publick Government has a greater respect to the Pub­lick, than to any mans private good; and a mans private and particular good, must give place to the publick Welfare: and therefore what aversion soever there is in mankind to suffering, it is very fit and just that private men, when they deserve it, should suffer for the publick Good; and it is not every mans love to himself, or what he is willing to suffer, which is the Rule here, but a regard to the [Page 395] publick Good. And though all wise and good men ought to prefer the publick Good before their own private Interest, yet whate­ver reason there is for this, it is certain mens natural love to themselves (to which this Rule appeals) will never make them willing to suffer, especially when the sufferings are great and capital, upon any considerations; and therefore to do as we would be done by, is not our Rule in such cases, for then no fault must ever be punished.

Nor is there an equality between Gover­nours and Subjects either in Church or State: Civil Magistrates are invested with the Autho­rity of God, who is the supreme Governour of the World; and the Governours of the Church with the Authority of Christ, who is the supreme Head of the Church: and there­fore they are not to consider the private pas­sions and affections of men, that because they themselves are not willing to suffer when they are in a fault, therefore they must not punish others: for they act not as private men, but as publick Ministers of Justice and Discipline; and where there is an inequality, this Rule of Equity will not hold. Governours and Sub­jects are equal considered as men, but very unequal, as Governours are invested with the Authority of God, which sets them above o­ther men. This I take to be the true reason why the same men pass such different judg­ments on the same thing, when they are Sub­jects and when they are Governours, because when they are Subjects, they have a principal [Page 396] regard to a private and particular good, and consult the desires, and weaknesses, and passi­ons of humane nature; when they are Go­vernours, they have a greater regard to a publick good, and consider what their Cha­racter, and Office, and Authority requires them to do. Thus we know, when some of our Dissenters had got the Power in their hands, they were as severe in pressing Con­formity to their new Models and Platforms, as loud and fierce in their Declamations against Toleration, as now they are against Conformi­ty and for a Toleration: When they had the Power in their hands, they saw plainly what the necessities of Government required; now the Power is out of their hands, they consider what is necessary to their own preservation; which makes them dislike those things, when the Government is against them, which they saw a necessity of before.

This is universally true of all 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 [Page 397] 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,Prot. Recon. p. 197. 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 [Page 398] 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 [Page 399] 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, P. 198. 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 [Page 400] 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, [Page 401] 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 very foolish Argument against either. The true Argument against the Dissenters, is this: That they are bound to obey their Superiours in those things which God has not forbidden: for where God has not interposed his Autho­rity, they are subject to the Authority of their Governours. The Argument is not, That they are in all cases bound to do what God has not forbid them to do; which is ridicu­lously absurd: for what is not unlawful, not forbidden by God, may either be done or may be let alone, without sin, unless some other consideration, besides its being not forbidden, alter the case: But the Argument is this, That what God has not forbidden, Governours may command, and Subjects are bound in Consci­ence to obey.

Let us see then how he applies this to our Imposers, as he modestly calls our Governours in Church and State. It is not unlawful, as not forbidden by God, to leave these Cere­monies indiff [...]rent; so far indeed it agrees with the case of the Dissenters, that the Cere­monies are not unlawful, as not being forbid­den by God: but now where is the superior Authority over Governours to make it unlaw­ful for them to impose that which it is not unlawful not to impose, then the case of Im­posers would be exactly parallel with the Dis­senters, who are under the Authority of their [Page 402] Governours; which makes that their duty which God had left indifferent, and that un­lawful which God had by no express prohibi­tion made unlawful: but here the Parallel fails, and therefore the Argument is not the same. For the supreme Authority of Church and State, can have no superiour Authority on Earth to make that unlawful to them which God has not made unlawful. All that our Reconciler offers to this purpose, is onely this: That the avoiding scandal and offence, and the preservation of Charity, Peace, and Vnity in the Church, lays as necessary an obligation on Go­vernours to forbear what they may lawfully forbear, for the promoting these ends, as the Authority of Governours obliges Subjects to obey them in all things wherein they lawfully may; that is, that Governours are bound not to command any thing which they may law­fully not command, when hereby they serve the ends of Charity and Peace. Now if this were the case, yet so the Argument would not be the same; for then we must state the case of Governours thus: That they must not do that which is unlawful to be done, not that they must not do that which is not unlawful not to be done. The Authority of Gover­nours does not alter the intrinsick nature of things, and therefore we may very properly say, that Subjects must obey their Governours in all things which are not unlawful; and that the things commanded are not in their own natures unlawful, is a good Argument to o­blige them to obey: but the end and circum­stances [Page 403] of action alters its moral nature, and that which in some circumstances is not un­lawful, in other circumstances becomes abso­lutely unlawful. And if this be the case here, that the imposition of these Ceremonies is un­lawful, when it gives scandal and offence, and disturbs the Peace and Unity of the Church; then the Argument to disswade Governours from such Impositions is not, that it is not unlawful to forbear imposing, (which is pa­rallel to the Argument used against Dissenters, that it is not unlawful to obey) but that it is unlawful to impose in such circumstances; which differ as much as to perswade men not to do what they lawfully may not do, differs from disswading them from doing what is not lawful to be done. This I think is a­bundantly enough to shew that our Reconciler is very much out in his Logick, when he makes this Argument against Dissenters and Imposers to be the same: as for the Argument it self, that it is unlawful for Governours to impose these Ceremonies, when it gives offence and scandal to weak Brethren, &c. I have sufficient­ly answered that already.

3. His next Argument, which he says e­qually holds against the Dissenters and Impo­sers, is taken from the littleness and small impor­tance of the things upon which we are divided; and it is in short this: That Dissenters ought not to disturb the Peace of the Church, by refusing obedience in such little things; nor the Governours of the Church, by imposing, such little things. Now I need not concern [Page 404] my self about this Argument, which is not likely to have any effect either upon Dissenters or Imposers; who, if they understand them­selves, and act honestly, it is plain, do not think these things so little and inconsiderable, that they are not worth contending about. That the decent Ceremonies of Religion are not such very contemptible things, I have al­ready proved at large in the first Chapter; that they are not so little that Governours ought not to impose them, I have proved at the beginning of this Chapter, and that suf­ficiently proves that this is no Argument a­gainst Governours; and if, as our Reconciler says, it be an unanswerable Argument against Dissenters, I am contented to leave it so.

However, our Reconciler is mightily out, when he thinks the littleness of a thing to be as good an Argument against the imposition of Governours, as against the disobedience of Dissenters: for Governours are bound to take care of little as well as of great things, be­cause things which are little in themselves, may have very great effects, either good or bad; but there is no excuse for the disobedi­ence of Subjects in such cases: for the less the command is, the less reason have they to refuse obedience. I believe all Parents and Gover­nours in the world think so, excepting our Reconcilers.

In the next place, our Reconciler argues from many general Topicks received and owned by all Casuists:Prot. Reconc. p. 200. As,

1. Qui non vetat peccare, cùm possit, ju­bet. [Page 405] Which he translates thus: He that be­ing a Superiour, a Father, a Master of a Family, &c. doth not what lawfully he may for the pre­vention of the sin of those who are subject to his government, becomes partakers of their sin. Now suppose all this, what care can be taken to prevent sin, which it becomes Governours to take, which is neglected by the Church of England? Yes, says the Reconciler, they may abate those Impositions which occasion the Schism. But this has been so often answered already, that I shall now onely direct my Rea­ders in the Margin where to find the An­swer.See chap. 2. p. 131, &c.

2. He says, Divines, concerning the right in­terpretation of the Ten Commandments, and of the Laws of Christ, do generally lay down these Rules, viz. That when any thing is forbidden by these Laws, all those things are forbidden also which follow from that forbidden action, and for whose sake it was forbidden. Now I think this is a very good Rule; and if he can prove that the imposition of these Ceremonies is a forbidden action, I will grant that the Schism which is consequent upon it, is imputable to the Church; but if it be not forbidden, if the Church has this Authority, and ought to take care of the decent circumstances of Worship, then the Schism can be charged onely upon the disobeying Schismatick. But this I have largely discoursed in the place before cited.

And now I come to those shrewd Questions which our Reconciler says he has met with in the Books of the Dissenters, Recon. p. [...]02. to which he finds no [Page 406] answer in the Replys of any of their Adversaries, and which he entreats the Champions for the Church of England, as they respect the credit of our Church-Governours, the reputation of the Church, and of her Discipline, not to pass by with­out the least notice taken of them, as hitherto they have done. Now though I do not pretend to the honour and character of a Champion, yet I have such a hearty love and reverence for my dear Mother the Church of England, that I cannot deny so easie a Request as this; the most troublesome task being to transcribe all these Questions.

Quest. 1. The first Question is, Whether they do well that unnecessarily bring Subjects into such a straight by needless Laws for additions in Religion, that the Consciences of men fearing God, must unavoidably be perplexed between a fear of treason and disobedience against Christ, and disobedience to their Prince and Pastors?

Ans. I answer, Such men do certainly very ill in it; but then this is not the case of the Church of England, for she has made no need­less Laws: for Laws to direct and determine the external circumstances of Worship, accor­ding to the Rules of Order and Decency, are not needless, but necessary, as I have already proved. Our Reconciler grants, that the Church has this Authority; and if the exercise of it be needless, the Authority is so too; and then Christ has given his Church a needless Authority: for I suppose he will not own, that the Church has any Authority but what she has from Christ.

[Page 407]Nor does the Church make any additions in Religion: for the decent circumstances of Worship are no additions to external Wor­ship, but as necessary to it as Decency is; un­less our Reconciler thinks that it is an addi­tion to the Law of God, which commands us to reverence our Prince, and Parents, and Su­periours, to command Children, Servants, or Subjects, to stand bare before them.

Nor need the Consciences of men fearing God be unavoidably perplexed between a fear of trea­son and disobedience against Christ, and of diso­bedience to their Prince and Pastors: for a great many men, who fear God, are not thus per­plexed, and therefore it is not unavoidable. I will instance onely in the Reconciler himself, if he will give me leave to reckon him among those men who either fear God, or reverence their Prince and Pastors. And there is ano­ther good reason why this is not unavoidable, because there is no competition in this case be­tween obedience to Christ, and obedience to our Prince and Pastors; and therefore no man need to be perplexed about it: and if there were a plain competition, there were no need of being thus perplexed neither, because all men, who fear God, do or ought to under­stand, that where Christ commands one thing, and our Prince another, inconsistent with the command of Christ, we must obey God ra­ther than men.

Quest. 2. Whether Rulers may command any (indifferent and unnecessary) thing which will notably do more harm than good, or make an un­necessary [Page 408] necessary thing a means or occasion of excluding the necessary Worship of God, or preaching of the Gospel?

Ans. If by indifferent and unnecessary things, he means things wholly useless, and by their notably doing more harm than good, that they are in their own nature hurtful as well as useless, it is certain Governours ought not to com­mand such things; but what is this to the Church of England? The Ceremonies of our Church, though upon some accounts they may be called indifferent, yet are very useful as contributing to the Decency of Worship, which is as necessary as publick Worship is; and are not apt to do any hurt at all, and therefore are the proper Object of Ecclesiasti­cal Authority. And with what face can our Reconciler pretend that they exclude the necessa­ry Worship of God, or preaching of the Gospel, when God is still worshipped, and the Gospel preached in all the Parish-churches of England? unless he thinks that God is not worshipped, nor the Gospel preached any where but at a Conventicle.

Quest. 3. Whether is it more to common good and the interest of Honesty and Conscience, that all the Parsons in a Nation be imprisoned, ba­nished, or silenced, that dare not swear, say, and practise all that is imposed on them, than that un­necessary impositions be altered or forborn?

Now I think I may have the liberty to ask our Reconciler a Question now and then. I ask therefore, Whether is most for the com­mon good, that there should be any setled Or­der [Page 409] and Government in the Church, or that there should be none? Whether it is possible to maintain any Order or Government, with­out rejecting and censuring those who will not conform to it? Whether is most for the publick good, to maintain and encourage a loyal and conformable Clergy (when there is no scarcity of such men) or to nourish Shism and Schismaticks, to say no worse?

Quest. 4. Had Images been lawfully used in places or exercise of Gods Worship, yet whether was it not inhumane and unchristian in those Bi­shops and Councils, who anathematized all that were of a contrary mind, and ejected and silenced the Dissenters?

Ans. The bare lawfulness of any thing does not make it a fit matter for a Law; but what­ever is both lawful and useful, if it be enjoyn­ed by a just Authority, ought to be obeyed by the Members of that Church where it is en­joyned, and Dissenters ought to be censured according to the nature of the offence: for without this, there can be no government in the Church. But why he particularly instan­ces in Images, I cannot tell, unless it be to in­sinuate that the Ceremonies of our Church are of the same nature with them; but our Church, which retains Ceremonies, removed Images, as just matters of scandal and offence.

Quest. 5. Whether Christ who made the Bap­tismal Covenant the test and standing terms of entrance, did set up Pastors over his Church to make new and stricter terms and Laws, or to pre­serve Concord on the terms that he had founded [Page 410] it, and to see that men lived in Vnity and Piety according to those terms; and when they, as Christs Ministers, have received men on Christs terms, whether they may excommunicate and turn them out of the Church again for want of more, or onely for violating these?

Vide Supra. p. 104. Ans. The Baptismal Covenant is sufficient for our admission into the Church, but Church-communion requires our submission to Church-authority, as I have already shewn: and to say, that nothing more is required of us in a Society than what is necessary to our admission into it, is contrary to the nature of all Societies in the World, wherein the terms of admission are very different from the Rules of Government. That a man has served an Apprentiship to a Trade, and is made free by his Master, is sufficient to make him a Mem­ber of such a Corporation; but though he understand his Trade very well, and behaves himself honestly in it, yet if he prove a diso­bedient and refractory Member to the go­vernment of the Society, he may be cast out again: and I wonder what the Master and Wardens of such a Company would say to the Reconciler, should he come and plead in the behalf of such a disobedient Member, that they ought not to make any thing necessary to his continuance in and communion with the Society, but what was necessary to his first admission. The Charter whereon the Society is founded, is very different from the particu­lar Laws of the Society, whereby it is govern­ed, as it must be, where there is any power of [Page 411] making Laws committed to the Governours of it: and therefore if Christ has committed such a power of making Laws to his Church, as our Reconciler himself acknowledges, it is a ridiculous thing to say, that they must not excommunicate, or cast any man out of the Church, who believes the Christian Religion, and lives a vertuous life, which is the sum of the Baptismal Covenant, how disobedient so­ever he be to the Laws and Government of the Church. Which is a sufficient Answer to

Quest. 6. His sixth Query, Whether anathe­matizing men for doubtful actions, or for such faults as consist with true Christianity, and conti­nued subjection to Iesus Christ, be not a sinful Church-dividing means? Onely I shall observe farther, that as he has stated this Query, it does not concern the Church of England. She anathematizes no man for doubtful actions, for she commands nothing that is doubtful, though some men are pleased to pretend some doubts and scruples about it. But I have al­ready shewn, that there is a great difference between a doubtful action,Chap. 2. p. 144, &c. and an action which some men doubt of; the first ought not to be commanded, the second may. And then our Church excommunicates no man, who lives in a continued subjection to Iesus Christ; which no Schismatick does, whatever pretences he makes to holiness of life: for sub­jection to Christ requires subjection to that Authority which Christ has set in his Church, as well as obedience to his other Laws.

[Page 412]Quest. 7. As for his next Question, about imposing heavy burdens, Supra. p. 105, &c. and intolerable yokes, when Christ came to take them away, it has been at large answered already.

Quest. 8. Whether Christ hath not made Laws sufficient to be the Bond of Vnity to his Church, and whether any man should be cut off from it, who breaketh no Law of God necessary to Church-unity and communion?

Ans. Christ has made Laws sufficient to be the Bond of Unity to his Church: for he has commanded all Christians to submit to the Authority which he has placed in his Church, which is the onely Bond of Union in a parti­cular Church; and therefore those who are cut off from the Church for their disobedience to Ecclesiastical Authority, while nothing is enjoyned which contradicts the other Laws of our Saviour, cannot be said to break no Law of God necessary to Church-unity or commu­nion: for they break that Law which is the very Bond of Union, and deserve to be cut off, though they should be supposed to break no other Law of Christ.

Quest. 9. Whether if many of the children of the Church were injudiciously scrupulous, when fear of sin and Hell was the cause, a tender Pastor would not abate them a Ceremony in such a case, when his abating it hath no such danger?

Ans. A tender Pastor in such cases ought to instruct such children, but not to suffer such childish fancies to impose upon Church-au­thority. For to disturb the Peace and Order of the Church, and to countenance mens in­judicious [Page 413] scruples by such indulgence, is a much greater mischief, and more unpardonable in a Governour, than the severest censures on pri­vate persons. If a private connivance for a time in some hard cases would do any good, it might be thought reasonable and charita­ble; but to alter publick Laws and Constitu­tions for the sake of such injudicious people, is for ever to sacrifice the Peace and Order and good Government of the Church, to the hu­mours of children; which would not be thought either prudent or charitable in any other Go­vernment.

Quest. 10. If diversity in Religion be such an evil, whether should men cause it by their unne­cessary Laws and Canons, and making Engines to tear the Church in pieces, which by the ancient simplicity and commanded mutual forbearance, would live in such a measure of Love and Peace as may be here expected?

Ans. Whoever cause a diversity of Religi­ons by their Laws and Canons, or make En­gines to tear the Church in pieces, are cer­tainly very great Schismaticks; but Laws for Unity and Uniformity can never make a di­versity of Religions, nor occasion it neither, unless every thing produces its contrary; heat produce cold, peace war, and love hatred. Men may quarrel indeed about Laws of Unity and Uniformity, but it is the diversity of Re­ligions or Opinions, which men have already espoused, not the Laws of Unity, which makes the quarrel. The plain case then is this: Whether when men are divided in their opi­nions [Page 414] and judgments of things, and if they be left to themselves, will worship God in diffe­rent ways, according to their own humours and perswasions, it be unlawful for Church-Governours to make Laws for Unity and U­niformity, because whatever they be, some men will quarrel at them? Or whether the Church may justly be charged with making a diversity of Religions, by making Laws to cure and re­strain that diversity of Religions which men have already made to themselves? It is certain, were men all of a mind, the Laws of Unity could not make a difference; and therefore these Laws and Canons are not the Engines which tear the Church in pieces, but that diversity of opinions which men have wantonly taken up, and for the sake of which they tear and divide the Church into a thousand Conventicles.

But had it not been for these Canons, by the ancient simplicity and mutual forbearance, they would live in such a measure of love and peace, as may be here expected. But what anci­ent simplicity does he mean? The Church of England is the best Pattern this day in the World of the Primitive and Apostolick simpli­city: for a Phanatick simplicity was never known till of late days; there never was a Church from the Apostles days without all Rites and Ceremonies of Worship, till of late, when men pretended to reform Religion by destroying all external Order and Decency of Worship: and therefore he is fain to take in a commanded mutual forbearance to patch up Church-unity; that is, if men be permitted [Page 415] to worship God as they please, and are com­manded not to quarrel with one another, and are not permitted to cut one anothers throats, this is such a measure of Love and Peace as may be here expected, that is, among Schismaticks and Dissenters. But this is not such a Love and Peace as makes the Church one, for that consists in one Communion; which can never be had, where men differ in the Rites and Modes of Worship, and every man is permit­ted to worship God as he pleases.

Quest. 11. If a Patient would not take a Me­dicine from one mans hand, whether would not a good Physician consent that another should give it him; whether would the merciful Father let the Infant famish that would take food from none but his Mother? And if the People culpably will hear no others but Dissenters, is it better to let them hear none at all, than that they should preach to them?

Ans. Now I would ask our Reconciler one Question, Why all this will not hold as well in Civil as Ecclesiastical Government? If the People culpably will be governed not by a King and Parliament, but by some select and trusty Members of a House of Commons, or by another Oliver, is it better these poor People should be without any Government, than that they should be governed by Rebels, or a new modelled Commonwealth? Now here is an excellent Argument to perswade the King, out of great charity to his People, to resigne up the Government, and let them chuse their own Governours; though I am afraid then, [Page 416] they would be cantoned into as many little Independent Kingdoms, as there are now In­dependent Pastors. But let us consider his comparisons.

He says, If a Patient would not receive a Me­dicine from one mans hands, whether would not a good Physician consent that another man should give it him? Yes, why not, so long as the Phy­sician prescribed the Physick? But would such a Physician suffer such a humorsome Patient (could he hinder it) to go to a Quack or a Mountebank? or to take Physick very hurt­ful and pernicious to him? I believe the Colledge of Physicians are of another mind, who have been as industrious to suppress such Quacks, as the Church has been to silence Dissenters.

But whether would the merciful Father let the Infant famish that would take food from none but his Mother? But suppose he is as fond of a Strumpet as he is of his Mother, what would the Father do in that case? It is a pretty in­ [...]inuation this, that dissenting Preachers are the true Mother, and therefore it is very pardo­nable in the People to long after them.

But is not our Reconciler a great Politician, who thinks it reasonable that publick Govern­ment should humour Subjects, as a Physician does a sick Patient, or an indulgent Father a froward child? that the Hospital or the Nur­sery should be the best Platform of Govern­ment in Church or State? But now our Re­conciler speaks out, and in down-right terms pleads for the toleration of dissenting Prea­chers, [Page 417] that the People may have somebody to hear, and it is better to let them hear them, than that they should hear none at all. But there is no necessity of either that I know of: for thanks be to God, there are other excel­lent Preachers to hear, though the Dissenters were never to preach more; and there is no danger that those People who have such itch­ing ears, should ever grow so sullen as to hear none at all: when they cannot hear whom they would, they will hear whom they can; and by hearing wise and honest instructions, may in time grow wise themselves; which I suspect some men are afraid of, whatever our Reconciler be.

These Queries our Author has borrowed from Mr. Baxter, and made them his own by his approbation of them; and now he tells us, That Mr. Barret hath offered many Questions of the like nature, Recon. p. 20 [...]. which he being slow of understan­ding (which I believe the Reader by this time will take his word for) cannot answer to his own satisfaction; and therefore in a great fright crys out passionately for help, Men of Israel help. And I will endeavour to help him out here too.

Q. 1. Might not Conformists with a good Conscience have forborn those needless Impositions which they very well knew would be so needless and burdensome to many? Was ever Schism made so light a matter of, and the Peace and Vnity of Christians valued at so low a rate, that for the prevention of the one, and the preservation of the other, the imposing of things indifferent, and not [Page 418] necessary in their own judgment, but things doubt­ful and unlawful in the judgment of others, might not be forborn?

Chap. 1. p. 24, &c. Ans. This I have sufficiently answered al­ready in the vindication of the Savoy-Com­missioners, and therefore shall onely adde here, that it does become the Governours of the Church to secure the external Order and De­cency of Worship, and the good government of the Church, though they know a great many men will be offended at it, and turn Schismaticks; and when men quarrel with those Ceremonies which have been anciently received and practised in the Church, upon such Schismatical Principles as equally over­throw all decent and orderly Constitutions, there ought to be no regard had to them, nor any alteration made upon their account. When these Ceremonies were appointed to be retained in Religious Worship, as they were purged from all superstitious uses in the refor­mation of King Edward the sixth, they were scrupled by no body, nor could the Governours of the Church foresee that they would be scrupled: and as for the happy resettlement of the Church under our present gracious Sove­raign, whom God long preserve, to which I suppose Mr. Barret and our Reconciler refer, it was very unreasonable to justifie the late hor­rid Schism and Rebellion, by yielding to the unjust clamours of those men who had by a pretence of Conscience once already overtur­ned both Church and State; such Conscien­ces ought to be governed and chastised, not indulged.

[Page 419]Q. 2. Whether they pray as they ought, Thy Kingdom come, or whether indeed they act not a­gainst their own Prayers, who endeavour to hin­der the preaching of the Gospel (by making these unnecessary things the conditions of so doing.) Let us bring the case before our supreme and final Iudge, and bethink your self whether of these two things he will most likely have regard unto; the saving of Souls which he bought with his bloud, or the preserving inviolate certain humane Institu­tions and Rules confessed by the devisers of them not to be necessary?

Ans. As for their being confessed not to be necessary, that has been often enough answer­ed already; and as for his Appeals to the final Judgment, we are very well contented with that, as being satisfied that no popular Cant will pass currant there. That the imposition of these Ceremonies does not hinder the prea­ching the Gospel, is evident to sense: for the Gospel is still preached, and I hope to better purpose than in the late days of Rebellion. And as for the Kingdom of God in this World, it signifies the Christian Church; and to pray for the coming of his Kingdom, is to pray for the enlargement of his Church, which was ne­ver enlarged yet by the preaching of Schisma­ticks, which divides and lessens the Church, but will never enlarge it: and therefore those who pray heartily Thy Kingdom come, must take care to suppress all Schisms and Schismatical Preachers, who are the great Obstacle to the enlargement of Christ's Kingdom.

[Page 420]Q. 3. Can you or any mortal man prove that others may not be allowed to differ from you in such things, wherein you differ from the Apostolick Primitive Church?

Ans. I dare put the final decision of this Controversie upon this issue, whether the Church of England or Dissenters come nearest to the Pattern of the Apostolick Primitive Church.

But though it should be granted that we do not use all those Ceremonies which were in use in the Apostles times, and that we use some which were not then used, yet this will not justifie Dissenters: for the Church in all Ages has authority to appoint her own Rites and Ceremonies of Worship, while they comply with that general Rule of Decency and Order; but private Christians have no authority to dissent from the Church, while she enjoyns nothing which is contrary to the divine Laws.

Q. 4. What if the old Liturgie, and that new one compiled and presented to the Bishops at the Savoy, 1661. had both passed and been allowed for Ministers to use, as they judged most conveni­ent; might not several Ministers and Congrega­tions in this case have used several Modes of Wor­ship, without breach of the Churches Peace, or counting each other Schismaticks? What if our King and Parliament should make a Law, en­joyning Conformists and Nonconformists, that a­gree in the same Faith and Worship for substance, to attend peaceably upon their Ministry, and serve God and his Church the best they can, whether [Page 421] they use the Ceremonies and (scrupled expressions of the) Liturgie or no, without uncharitable re­flections, or bitter censures upon one another in word or writing, where would be the sinfulness of such a Law?

Ans. This is much like Mr. Humphrey's Project of uniting all Dissenters into one Nati­onal Church by an Act of Parliament under the King, as the accidental Head of the Church; which is largely and particularly an­swered in the Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separa­tion. The onely fault in short, is this: That it destroys the Unity of the Church, by divi­ding Christians into distinct and separate Communions, and lays a foundation of eternal Schisms and Emulations, which no Laws can prevent. As for Mr. Baxter's Liturgy, I con­fess, I do not see why men may not as well be allowed to pray ex tempore, as to use a form of Prayer which was written ex tempore. It argued very little modesty in those men to pre­sent such crude and indigested stuff to the Commissioners, and it argues as little under­standing and honesty in our Reconciler to plead for it.

Q. 5. Dissenters ought, for the Peace and V­nity of the Church, to yield as far as they can without sinning against God and their own Souls, and should not Imposers do the like? Were this one Rule agreed on, what Peace and Vnity would soon follow? And if the obligation to preserve the Churches Peace, extend so far as to the Rulers and Governours of the Church, there may be as [Page 422] much Schism in their setting up unnecessary Rules, which others cannot submit to, as in mens varying from such Rules.

Ans. I wonder what these men mean by the Dissenters yielding? as if they stood up­on equal terms with the Church, and that the Church and Dissenters, like two Equals to compose a difference and quarrel, should yield and condescend to each other. The Dissenters ought not to yield to, but to obey the Chu [...]ch; the Church ought not to yield to Dissenters, but to govern prudently and charitably. The Church has done her part, as I have already proved,See chap. 2. and the onely quar­rel is, that Dissenters will not do theirs. But what an admirable Rule is this to make Peace, when they do not, they cannot tell us how far the Dissenters will yield, and what the Church must yield, to make Peace: but for ought I perceive, this is a great secret, and like to continue so. I suppose the Dissenters, a [...]ter all, think they can yield nothing, and the Church sees no reason to alter any thing; and here is an end of this Project. Indeed it appears, that the designe is to perswade the Church to yield every thing, all her unnecessary Rules which others cannot (otherwise called will not) submit to; that is, at least all the decent Ceremonies of Worship, if not her own Authority too. And the onely Argu­ment he uses to prove that the Church ought to yield, is because Dissenters ought to yield; that is, it is the duty of Governours to submit to their Subjects, because it is the duty of [Page 423] Subjects to submit to their Governours.

I do not much care to be an Undertaker, and yet I will venture for once to propose this Expedient for Peace: Let the Dissenter, as in duty bound, yield as far as he can without sin­ning against God and his own Soul, and the Church shall yield every thing else that is ne­cessary to this desired Union. This is but a reasonable Proposition, not onely because Sub­jects ought first to yield, but because the Church knows not what is necessary to be yielded, till she sees how far the Dissenter can yield.

Indeed would the Dissenter yield as far as he can, without sinning against God and his own Soul, there would be no need for the Churches yielding any thing: for the Church enjoyns nothing which is a sin against God, or injurious to the Souls of men: and there is great reason to believe that the Dissenters themselves do not think she does. Both dis­senting Preachers and Hearers, when it serves a secular interest, can hear the Common-Prayer, receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper kneeling, though the Minister officiate in a Surplice; and I am so charitable as to hope that when they do so, they do not be­lieve that they sin in it, and therefore all this they can yield without sinning against God or their own Souls: and therefore this they ought to yield, and then there will be little left for the Church to yield.

His two next Questions, Whether the Wor­ship of God cannot be performed decently and in [Page 424] order, without these Ceremonies? and whether if men must be without the Word, and without Sacraments, rather than without these Ceremo­nies (which yet there is no necessity of, nor is it the intention of the Church, that it should be so,Chap. 1. p. 79, &c. & p. 109, &c. as you have already heard) this do not make them of equal necessity with divine In­stitutions? have been already answered at large in the first Chapter.

Q. 8. Whether the constitution of the Church should not be set as much as may be for the incom­passing of all true Christians, and whether the ta­king of a narrower compass be not a fundamental errour in its policy, and will not always hinder its stability and increase?

Ans. The plain meaning of which Questi­on, is this: Whether it be not the best way to s [...]cure the Church against her Popish Ad­versaries, to unite all Protestants of what de­nomination soever into one body? and whe­ther it be not more probable, that a little Church which has not many Members, nor a­ny worldly strength and interest to support it, should be sooner destroyed than a numerous, flourishing, and potent Church? In answer to which, we may consider,

1. It were very desirable, that the Church could be so modelled, as to receive all Prote­stants and Papists also into our Communion, that the Christian Church might have no E­nemies who call themselves Christians; but this is impossible to be done, while both of them recede so far from the Principles of Ca­tholick Communion.

[Page 425]2. The Unity and Peace of the Church within it self, how small soever it be, is a bet­ter security to it, than Schisms and Discords in its own bowels; and make the foundation of the Church as large as you please, if the building be not closely united in all its parts, it will fall with its own weight. While men are possess'd with Schismatical Principles, it is not enough to make a lasting Union to re­move those particular things about which they differ at present; for when men are given to quarrel, they will never want occasions for it. Take away every thing which our Dissenters quarrel at, and you leave no remains of a Church of England; and thus indeed you may enlarge the Church by pulling it down, by plucking up all its Hedges and Fences, that it shall be no longer an Inclosure, but a Common. A Church which makes no new Articles of Faith, nor rejects any old one, which sets up no idolatrous and superstitious Worship, which observes all the Institutions of our Saviour, and secures the decency of pub­lick Worship, and exercises her Authority for the government of Religious Societies, and the acts of Discipline prudently and charitably, has laid her foundations as wide as she can, and as she lawfully may; and those who will not embrace her Communion upon these terms, must stay out.

3. For at best, this is nothing more than carnal Policy, to think to secure the Church by our strength and numbers. The preserva­tion of the Church is not owing to an arm of [Page 426] flesh, but to the protection of Christ. His Flock is but a little Flock, but all the united strength and power of the World cannot de­stroy it, the gates of Hell cannot prevail against it.

4. When we speak of enlarging the Con­stitutions of the Church so as to incompass all true Christians, we ought to have a principal regard to the Communion of the Catholick Church; and those who take any other com­pass than what is consistent with Catholick Communion, though they should inclose a whole Nation of Dissenters, they would migh­tily straiten the foundations of the Church.

Those who reject all external Rites of De­cency and Order, as unlawful in Christian Worship, and reform and enlarge the Church upon these Principles, reject the Communion of all Christian Churches that ever were in the World for 1500 years, and of most Chur­ches at this day; and if this should enlarge the Church in England, the Catholick Church would gain little by it, when it unchurches most other Churches in the World.

The Church of England is modelled by such Principles, that she can hold Communion with all sound and Catholick Churches that are now, or ever were in the World, and all Ca­tholick Churches may have Communion with her; which is as large a compass as she ought to take: for that Church is a little too large, which takes in Schismaticks to her Commu­nion; and too narrow, which excludes any true Catholick Churches.

[Page 427]Thus I have answered those Questions which our Reconciler borrowed from Mr. Bax­ter and Mr. Barret; and to these he has added some of his own, which I must consider also.

Q. 9. Whether Baptism being requisite for the new birth of Infants, Recon. p. 207. and their regeneration by the Holy Spirit—it be not hardship to lay such an unnecessary Condition on the Parents, who have power to offer or withold the Child from Baptism, which shall cause them to deprive their Infants of so great a benefit; may not such Children com­plain in the language of St. Cyprian, Nos par­vuli quid fecimus?

Ans. Now though this may be easily an­swered by observing, that in danger of death Children are allowed to be baptized privately without the signe of the Cross, and therefore no Child in ordinary cases can die without Baptism, but by the great neglect and careles­ness of Parents, how scrupulous soever they are of the signe of the Cross; yet since it is so much in fashion to ask Questions, I know not why I may not ask a few Questions too, which I would desire our Reconciler to resolve; and they shall be but very short ones.

As, 1. How do Children come to have any right to Baptism? is it an original right of their own, or in the right of their Parents? 2. If Children have a right to Baptism onely in the right of their Parents, how do the Children of Schismaticks, who though they are baptized themselves, yet have renounced the Communion of the Church, come to have any right to be received into the Communion [Page 428] of the Church by Baptism? 3. How is the Church obliged to receive those children into Communion by Baptism, whom she certainly knows, if their Parents live, will be nurst up in a Schism? 4. How is the Church more concerned to alter her Constitutions for the children of Schismaticks, than for their Schis­matical Parents? When he has answered these Questions, I will answer his; in the mean time I will proceed.

Q. 10. If men conceive themselves obliged to do all they can for the securing and restoring of the civil Peace, when it is once disturbed, and would not stick to lay aside a civil, if unnecessary Ce­remony for the prevention of civil Broils, and the effusion of Christian bloud, how frivolous soever were the exceptions of the seditious against it; must they not be as much obliged to do the like for the prevention of Ecclesiastical Confusions, and the effusion of the bloud of precious and immortal Souls?

Ans. No doubt but they are. But as a wise Prince ought not to part with that Pow­er and Authority which is necessary to pre­serve Peace, and to prevent civil Wars and Confusions for the future, onely that he may allay and prevent some present Heats and Commotions; no more ought the Church to heal a present Schism, by laying a foundation for eternal Schisms. The example of our late martyred Soveraign will teach all Princes to beware of the one, and those infinite Schisms which followed the dissolution of the Church of England, will convince any man [Page 429] how impossible it is to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church, without the exercise of Ecclesiastical Authority.

Q. 11. Would not our Reverend Bishops once have condescended to these terms of Vnion? would they not have rejoyced to have seen the Church re­stored, and themselves readmitted to the execu­tion of their sacred Function, upon such terms as the abatement of such trivial things?

Ans. I judge it very likely they might; as a banished Prince would be glad to be resto­red to his Crown again, though he parted with some Jewels out of it. But when the providence of God restores them to the exer­cise of their Function, without any such re­straints and limitation of their power, it is their duty to use their whole power as pru­dently and charitably as they can. The re­storing of Episcopacy, restored the face of a Church again, which was nothing but a Schism without it; and no doubt but all good men would be very glad of this, though upon hard and disadvantageous terms: but surely to restore the Church to its ancient beauty and lustre, in a regular and decent administra­tion of all holy Offices, is more desirable than nothing but the meer being of a Church, still deformed with the marks and ruines of an old Schism; and therefore when this can be had, it ought to be had: and it is a ridiculous thing to imagine that Bishops must use no other au­thority in the government of the Church, when they are in a full possession of their pow­er, than barely so much as they would have [Page 430] been contented to have bargained for with Schismaticks, when they were thrust out of all power. Though whether St. Cyprian would have made any such bargain with Schisma­ticks as inferred a diminution of the Episco­pal Authority, I much question.

Had the Wisdom of the Nation at the hap­py return of his Majesty to his Throne, thought fit to have made any tryal and experiment what some condescensions and abatements would have done, the Reverend Bishops no doubt would have acquiesced in it, not out of any opinion they had of such methods, but to satisfie those who do not see the events of things at a distance, by making the experiment. But that factious and restless Spirit of Phana­ticism, which began immediately to work, convinced our Prince and Parliament how dangerous such an experiment would be, and prevented the tryal of it; and now we have such fresh and repeated experiments how dan­gerous these Factions are both to Church and State, our Reconciler would perswade our Go­vernours out of their senses, to cherish those men, who if they be not suppressed, will most infallibly involve this unhappy Church and Kingdom in Bloud and Confusion.

As for what our Reconciler adds concerning the Rubrick about kneeling at the Sacrament, Chap. 2. p. 140, 141. and the Canon about bowing of the body in token of our reverence of God, when we come into the place of publick Worship, have been sufficiently an­swered already.

CHAP. VIII. Containing some brief Animadversions on the Authorities produced by our Recon­ciler in his Preface: and the Conclusion of the whole, with an Address to the Dissenters.

THus I have with all plainness and sincerity examined the whole reason of this book: for as for the remaining Chapters, whatever is of any moment in them, I have answered before in the first and second Chapters of this Vindication: whether the Answer I have gi­ven be satisfactory or not, I must leave to o­thers to judge; but I can honestly say, I have used no tricks and evasions, nor have I used any Argument but what is satisfactory to my self.

All that remains now, is a brief examina­tion of those Authorities our Reconciler has produced in his Preface, to prove that our own Kings, and many famous Doctors of our own Church, besides many foreign Divines, have pleaded for that condescension for which he pleads in this Book. Now I thought it the best way in the first place to examine his Reasons for this condescension: for if there be no reason to do this, it is no great matter who pleads for it without reason; and yet I should be very unwilling to leave such a re­proach [Page 432] upon so many great men, that they declare their opinions and judgment for a Cause which has no reason to support it. And therefore to give a fair account of this al­so, I reviewed his Preface, and found there were two ways of answering it, either by ex­amining his particular Testimonies, (we ha­ving no reason to believe any thing upon his credit) or by taking the Testimonies for granted, and shewing that this does not prove that they were of his mind. The first of these I had no great stomach to, as being a te­dious and troublesome work, which would swell this Vindication to a great bulk; which is grown too big already; and the onely end it could serve, is to prove that the Protestant Re­conciler does not quote his Authors faithfully: but I have already given such evidence of this in my Vindication of Bishop Taylor, as will spoil his credit with all wary men. And therefore I resolved upon the other way of answering him, to shew that the Testimonies produced by him, as he produces them, do not prove what he intended them for. But I called to mind that I had a Book written upon this very subject, entituled Remarks upon the Preface to the Protestant Reconciler, in a Let­ter to a Friend, which I read over, and to my great comfort found my work done to my hand: for that Author has with great judg­ment said whatever I can think proper to be said in this Cause; and therefore I shall onely give some little hints of what I intended more largely to discourse, and refer my Readers to [Page 433] those Remarks for further satisfaction.

The intention of this Preface our Reconciler tells us, p. 3. was to strengthen the designe of his Book, by the concurrent suffrages of many worthy Persons both of our own and other Chur­ches, who have declared themselves to be of the same judgment, and have pursued the same de­signe which he has done in his Book.

Now the designe of his Book, as I have shewn from his own words in my Introducti­on, p. 13, 14. is to prove that it is utterly un­lawful for the Governours of the Church to impose the observation of indifferent Rites and Ceremonies in Religion, especially when these Ceremonies are scrupled, and many pro­fessed Christians rather chuse to separate from the Church than submit to them.

Now to prove this, he first alleadges the Authority of three Kings, King Iames, King Charles the first, the Royal Martyr, and best of Kings and men, as he is pleased to stile him, and our present Soveraign; and I know not where he could have named three other Kings more averse to his Reconciling designe. What King Iames his Judgment was, is evident from the Conference at Hampton-court, where he so severely determined against Dissenters, and kept his word all his reign, without gran­ting any liberty to these pretended scruples; which is very strange, had he been of our Re­conciler's mind, that it is unlawful to impose these Ceremonies upon a scrupulous Consci­ence. How much King Charles the first suf­fered for denying this liberty and indulgence, [Page 434] is known to all men; and it is hard to think then that he was a Reconciler, for never any Reconciler was a Martyr for the Church. And methinks the Act of Uniformity, and the pro­secution of Dissenters upon that and former Acts, might convince any reasonable man that our present Soveraign is none of his Protestant Reconcilers. But if notwithstanding all this, he can prove against plain matter of fact, and the evidence of sense, and the experience and complaints of Dissenters, all these to be Recon­ciling Kings, I am resolved I will be a Prote­stant Reconciler too; and I hope I may pass for as good a Reconciler as any of these re­nowned Kings, without recanting this Book. Let us hear then how he proves these great Princes to be Reconcilers.

As for King Iames, he proves him to be a Reconciler,Preface, p. 4. from Casaubon's Epistle to Cardi­nal Perroon. Now how faithfully Casaubon represented the Kings Judgment, is more than our Reconciler can tell; onely I am certain, he did misrepresent him, if he made a Reconciler of him.

But there is no reason to take Sanctuary in this: for whoever considers the occasion of those words, may put a very sober constru­ction on them, without giving any counte­nance to our Reconciler: for the Dispute did not concern the Rules of Order and Decency in Religious Worship, but the unscriptural In­novations of Popery, which they imposed up­on all Churches as terms of Catholick Com­munion. Now in this Controversie any man [Page 435] may safely say what Casaubon says for the King, without being a Protestant Reconciler. For there is no nearer way of concord, than to se­parate things necessary from unnecessary; to call nothing simply necessary, but what the Word of God commandeth to be believed or done, or which the ancient Church did gather from the Word of God by necessary consequence; that other humane Constitutions, whatever antiquity or authority is pretended for them, might be changed, molli­fied, antiquated, and that this may in the general be said of most Ecclesiastical observations introdu­ced without the Word of God. Now this does not refer to the decent Circumstances and Ce­remonies of Religion, but to such Ecclesiastical observations as are in dispute between us and the Church of Rome; as the Celibacy of the Clergy, Prayers for the Dead, Pilgrimages, Monastick Vows, the Worship of Saints, and Angels, and Images, and the like; for which the Church of Rome pretends the Authority of ancient Councils, or the ancient practice and usage of the Church. Now in these ca­ses I am perfectly of the Kings mind, and yet do not take my self to be a Protestant Recon­ciler in our Authors way.

Our Royal Martyr, when he saw what dan­ger Church and State and his own Royal Per­son was in from the outrageous zeal of dissen­ting Protestants, who did not now humbly beg for Indulgence and Toleration, but con­tended for Rule and Empire, was willing, if it were possible, to allay these Heats, and divert the Storm, by yi [...]lding somewhat to their boi­sterous [Page 436] and threatning importunities; and if he had yielded a great deal more at that time than he did, I think it had been no argument of his own setled judgment of things. The Reconciler might hence prove, that the King thought it much better to yield a little at that time, than to ruine Church and State by too much stiffness, not that he thought it unlaw­ful to impose any thing on his Subjects in matters of Religion which they were pleased to scruple.

And yet what is it that the King yielded under these necessities? For that, our Recon­ciler produces these words: As for differences among our selves for matters indifferent in their own nature concerning Religion, we shall in ten­derness to any number of our loving Subjects, very willingly comply with the advice of our Parlia­ment, that some Law may be made for the exem­ption of tender Consciences from punishment, or prosecution for such Ceremonies, and in such cases, which by the judgment of most men are held to be matters indifferent, and of some to be absolutely unlawful. Does the King in these words pro­mise to alter the Constitutions of the Church, to abolish all Ceremonies, &c? By no means; he onely says, that he will comply with the advice of his Parliament to exempt such ten­der Consciences from punishment: And how can our Reconciler hence conclude, that the King believed it unlawful to impose these Ce­remonies, because at such a critical time he was contented there should be some provision made to secure Dissenters from the execution [Page 437] of the penal Laws? And yet that ill usage which so excellent a Prince met with from these dissenting Protestants after such a conde­scension as this, gives no great encouragement to Princes to try this Experiment again.

Thus he proves our present Soveraign to be of his mind, by his Declaration from Bre­da, which he prints at large, I suppose, for fear People should forget that there had been such a Declaration, or what were the contents of it. How the present circumstances of affairs at that time might incline his Majesty to such a condescension, is not my business to inquire; it is sufficient for us to know, that the House of Commons presented their Reasons to the King against that Declaration, which so far satisfied him, that he gave his assent to the Act of Uniformity; and therefore I suppose is not of our Reconciler's mind now, and in­deed never was, notwithstanding that Decla­ration: for he never asserted it unlawful to impose scrupled Ceremonies upon Dissenters, but thought it expedient at that time to in­dulge their weakness. And while matters were under debate for the re-establishment of the Church of England, no wonder that the King and his great Ministers should make Pro­posals of Accommodation, and offer their Rea­sons and Arguments for it; but I always thought that what is said by any person on one side or other, while the matter is under debate, is not so good an Argument what his judgment and opinion is, as what he agrees and consents to, when the Reasons on both [Page 438] sides have been heard and scann'd.

Thus our Kings are our own again, and of all men in the world have the least reason to countenance such a designe as this, which serves onely to encourage a busie and restless Party among us, who first strike at the Church, but will never be quiet till they have usurp'd the Throne.

What the sence of our Church is in this matter, is evident from her Articles, Canons, and Constitutions; and this signifies a great deal more to me than the opinion of any pri­vate Doctors, of what note and eminency so­ever. It is unreasonable to oppose the authority of any particular Doctors to the Judgment of the Church, and it would be an endless work to number the Votes and Suffrages of private Doctors on both sides; indeed their authori­ty is no greater than their reason is: and if any of them be of our Reconciler's mind, I am sure they speak without book, unless they have something more to say than our Reconci­ler has; and when we know what it is, we will consider it.

And yet those private Doctors of the Church of England, to whose judgment our Reconciler appeals, say nothing to his purpose; not a man of them affirm that it is unlawful for the Church to impose indifferent things, no not when they are scrupled; as any one may ob­serve, who carefully reads their Testimonies. Some of them indeed do think it advisable, if it would heal our present Schisms, to part with some things of less moment for so good an [Page 439] end. And there seems to be two sorts of these men. 1. Those who think this might be done, were there good evidence and assurance that such abatements would cure the Schism, and lay a foundation of a firm and lasting Peace in this Church. 2. Those who think this way ought to be tryed, whether it will effect the cure or no.

1. As for the first, if this were the case, that the exchange of a Ceremony or two, while the external Order and Decency of publick Worship might be otherwise secured, would certainly heal our Schisms, God forbid that I should ever be the man who should oppose so good a work. But if I may speak my thoughts freely, that which I take to be the fault of these great men, is this, that they trouble themselves and the world in declaring their judgments unasked about an imaginary case, which it is demonstrably impossible should o­ver be a real case.

This is evident not onely from the present temper and complexion of the Schism, which even among the most moderote Dissenters is improved far beyond the dispute of a Ceremo­ny, but from this very consideration, that their Principles whereon they demand such an alte­ration, are schismatical, and it is impossible that the Peace of the Church should be built upon Schismatical Principles. Though it were possible that the removal of our Cere­monies might for the present quiet our Dis­putes, yet this Peace would last no longer than the men are in a good humour, because those [Page 440] very Principles which disturb the Peace of the Church now, will also disturb the best Order and Constitution of the Church that can pos­sibly be devised; and while the Principles re­main, the seeds of Discord remain also, and there will never want men or Devils to im­prove them into open Contentions.

Whoever believes that nothing must be done in the Worship of God, but what we have an express divine Law for; that things lawful or indifferent in their own natures, are sinful when they are commanded, though by a law­ful Authority; that neither the Governours in Church nor State have any authority in indif­ferent things; which are the great Principles on which men oppose the Ceremonies of our Church, will as inevitably be Schismaticks un­der any constitution of things, as those who believe that the Soveraign Powers are accoun­table to the People, will be Rebels whenever they are not pleased, and have power to re­sist. Take away these Principles, and we may keep our Ceremonies; and while these Principles last, it is to no purpose to part with the least Ceremony.

2. As for those who think the Church ought to try this Experiment, whether such Abatements and Condescensions will recon­cile Dissenting Protestants to the Church, it is in my opinion a very dangerous, as well as a very unreasonable Experiment. All changes and innovations, unless they be made on great and urgent necessities, and with wonderful wisdom and caution, are of very dangerous [Page 441] consequence, and the greatest Polititians can­not always foresee what the event will be; but to change lightly and wantonly, without a certain prospect of a good effect, is a reproach to the wisdom and gravity of Government; it is onely like the uneasiness of a sick man, who seeks for some present relief by changing sides, though when he has done he finds him­self as uneasie as he was before. If such A­batements do not take effect, we part with the external Decencies of Worship to no pur­pose, we expose our selves to the scorn and de­rision of Sectaries, make them more bold and clamorous, and weaken the Authority and Si­news of Government, which loses it due re­verence, when it is not steady and true to it self. Of all persons in the world, Governours ought to make the fewest Experiments, and to confess the fewest faults and mistakes, if there were any, much less to seem to confess a fault when there is none: for Government ought to maintain its own Reverence and Authori­ty; and nothing can maintain the Authority of Government, but a great Opinion both of its Power and Wisdom, that it can defend it self, and direct others; whereas all such changes and alterations, though they may be called a charitable condescension to the weak­ness and importunities of others, are always expounded as an Argument of the weakness or mistakes of Government, that it cannot de­fend it self against popular Clamours and Op­positions, or that they mistake their Rule. The first makes their Authority precarious, [Page 442] and teaches people not to fear their Gover­nours when they see their Governours are a­fraid of them; the other destroys the Reve­rence of their Laws, and teaches people not to obey, but to dispute: And of all mistakes, the mistakes in Religion are most unpardonable, and the greatest blemish to the Wisdom of Government, because here is a standing Rule which is plain and certain, and does not alter with accidental and mutable events. So that if things be well setled at first, there is no rea­son ever to change, as may be in all other Laws, which must be fitted to times and pla­ces, and other changeable circumstances; but even the external circumstances of Religion must not vary with the unreasonable humours and fancies of men in every Age; or if it does, Religion it self, as well as Ecclesiastical Autho­rity, suffers by it. Now whatever private Doctors are of another mind, it is all one to me: for those who assert any thing without Reason, assert it without Authority too.

His next Testimonies are borrowed from some foreign Divines, such as Beza, Zanchy, Iunius; and it were easie to oppose other foreign Divines against them, if not to answer them out of their own Writings; but I do not think this worth the while, for it is cer­tain these men are not infallible. I will ne­ver value those mens judgments about Cere­monies, who can be contented to change the Apostolical Order of Bishops for a Presbyteri­an Parity.

In the next place he insists at large on those [Page 443] terms of Concord, which have been proposed both by our own and by foreign Divines be­tween distinct Churches; and hence very wisely concludes, that the same liberty is to be granted to the Members of the same Church. But this I have considered already, and refer my Readers for further satisfaction to the Re­marks upon the Preface to the Protestant Re­conciler. Chap. 1. p. 100, &c.

Thus I have done with our Reconciler, and shall conclude this Work with a short Address to our Dissenters, lest they should not rightly understand how much they are beholden to our Reconciler for pleading their Cause.

O ye Dissenters! when will you be wise? when will you learn understanding? when will you be able to distinguish between a De­fence and a demure Abuse? I blush to think that you do not blush for your selves, when you read such an Apologie as this, which casts all the Dirt upon you imaginable, and yet you read; and admire, and applaud your Reconciler as a man of wonderful charity and tenderness for you. And yet if you believe that he has said any thing to the purpose, you must own your Cause to be very bad, and your condition to be very dangerous.

He all along supposes that you are Schis­maticks, and in very great danger to be dam­ned for your Schism; which is his principal Argument to perswade Governours, out of charity to your Souls, to abate those Ceremo­nies which are very harmless and innocent in [Page 444] themselves, but abused by you for an occasion of Schism. He confesses the fault is your own, for our Governours command nothing but what is lawful to be obeyed; and the onely Apologie he can make for you is, that you are Children, and that you are froward and humoursome Children too, who will be sullen and refuse your Victuals, unless you can receive it from what hand you please: That you are very weak in understanding, very ig­norant of your Religion, and this makes you so fearful and scrupulous, that you start at your own shadows, and stumble as men do in the dark, and are almost scared out of your Wits, if any knavish Wag make you believe that there are some Hobgoblins or Fairies in the way.

Now do you indeed believe that this is the true state of your Case? If you do not, then our Reconciler has said nothing for you, nor a­gainst your Governours (which I know you like as well as an Apologie for your selves) for which you ought to thank him, but has most grosly abused you. If you be not Schis­maticks, if you be not in danger of damnation for your Schism, if you be not fools and chil­dren, silly, ignorant, humoursome people, then all those Arguments which our Reconciler draws from these Topicks, to perswade Go­vernours to humour you with Abatements, have no force in them; and if you be, I will leave you to consider how reasonable it is, that Schismaticks should govern the Church, or Fools and Children give Laws to their Parents, Masters, and Governours.

[Page 445]And if you say, that your Reconciler onely urges this as an Argument ad Hominem, that those who do think you to be such persons as he there pleads for, should grant you your li­berty, and condescend to your weakness; it is a signe then that he would have our Gover­nours take you for weak, ignorant, humoursome Schismaticks; which is a wonderful Argu­ment of his charity to you, and a great signe of your wit and understanding, to be conten­ted to be thought so. But if you would be thought so (to exercise the charity and con­descension of your Governours) I must ad­vise you by the way, never to boast more of your profound knowledge and attainments in Religion, nor to despise your Governours and Teachers as ignorant carnal men, lest you con­fute your Advocate, and spoil his Reconciling designe. This is a hard case indeed, but there is no help for it; if you will enjoy your liber­ty upon such suggestions as these, you must mortifie your pride; if you would be indul­ged as Fools and Children, you must never more pretend to be wise men, and then there is no danger of any other discovery: for whatever indulgence is due to the weak and ignorant, yet (I think all men will grant, that) a proud conceited fool is not to be in­dulged, but to be humbled, and made to know himself.

Nay, if you will stand to your Reconciler's Plea for you, you must never write any more Books to justifie your Separation, you must never talk more of Antichristian Ceremonies, [Page 446] and unscriptural Impositions, nor pretend to teach your Teachers and Governours: for no man can in modesty make two such contra­ry Pleas at the same time, to plead his know­ledge, and his ignorance, the weakness and indiscretion of a child, and the understanding of a man, at the same time and for the same thing: which is to plead, that Governours must yield to you, because you are in the right; and that in charity they must conde­scend to you, because through ignorance and weakness of understanding you are in the wrong.

Indeed though we should grant that a Re­conciler might honestly make such a Plea as this for Dissenters, yet no Dissenter can ho­nestly make this Plea for himself, because he does not believe it: He does not think himself a Schismatick, nor weak and ignorant (though possibly he may be conscious to himself that he is froward and humoursome enough) and therefore cannot honestly pretend that he is so, and that he ought to be indulged for that reason. St. Paul pleaded [...]or condescension to the weak Jews, but the Jews never pleaded this for themselves, but scorned the Plea: for if men know their own mistakes, they must rectifie them; if they are sensible of their own weakness, they must submit to their Go­vernours, not plead their weakness to excuse their disobedience. In short, no man can ho­nestly make this Plea, but he who is sensible of his own weakness and ignorance; and he who is sensible of this, cannot modestly do it: [Page 447] for it is an immodest thing for any man to de­sire to be indulged in his ignorance and mi­stakes. So that though a Dissenter may like the general Doctrine of the Reconciler, yet he cannot like the application of it to himself, and ought never to plead it in his own case; which is to put tricks upon Government, and to cheat them with false and counterfeit Pleas, which when it is known, as it is certainly known in this case, is an insolent contempt of the Wisdom of Governours.

And since no Dissenters can honestly or modestly use this Plea, I have much wondered to hear them so mightily applaud our Prote­stant Reconciler, when they cannot justifie themselves in his way. If they think our Re­conciler did really speak his Conscience, when he charges them with a damning Schism, with weakness and ignorance, and a childish folly, he has given as bad a character of them, as the worst Enemy they have can do; onely he has broken their heads and given them a Plaister, and it argues great tameness and mortification in them to take it so patiently: if he did not believe this (as I presume the Dissenters charitably think he did not) he has put a great abuse upon his Governours, re­proaches them for not indulging Dissenters, who, as he suggests, through weakness and ignorance, and tenderness of Conscience, fall into Schism, and destroy their Souls, when he himself believes no such thing of them; and yet this would prove a very fatal mistake in Government, to grant that liberty to an ob­stinate, [Page 448] conceited, incurable Schismatick, which may in some cases be charitably pleaded for a weak, and ignorant, and scrupulous Consci­ence.

And I wonder what service our Reconciler could think to do, by pleading for the Dissen­ters under such a character as they will neither own themselves, nor their Governours believe of them. He takes it for granted, that they are guilty of Schism, and that their Schism is owing to a weak and ignorant, tender and scrupulous Conscience. Now Dissenters dis­own all this; they do not think themselves Schismaticks, or at least are too wise to own it; much less do they think themselves igno­rant, but the most knowing and understand­ing Christians, the very Gnosticks of the Age; nor are they scrupulous, but fully assured that they are in the right, and their Governours in the wrong; and therefore if they be wise, they will give him no thanks for his pains. And our Governours know indeed that they are Schismaticks, and that they are ignorant or worse; but do not take them for weak, ten­der-conscienced, scrupulous Schismaticks, but know the quite contrary, that they are proud, conceited, troublesome, factious; that they de­spise Dominions, and speak evil of Dignities; that they are restless Underminers of the setled Constitutions of Church & State, wherein they live; that they despise instruction, and think themselves too wise to learn, or receive better information; and this they are as certain of, as forty years experience can make them. So [Page 449] that were our Reconciler's Arguments never so good to perswade Governours to indulge weak, and scrupulous, and tender Conscien­ces, yet they fail in their application to Dis­senters, and are not so much as an Argument ad hominem, because our Governours do not, and have no reason to believe our Dissenters to be such persons; and I cannot imagine what makes our Dissenters so fond of this Re­conciler, unless it be that they find so much of their own temper and spirit in him, to unsettle the present Constitutions of the Church, and to censure and reproach the Wisdom and Charity of his Governours.

And therefore I would advise Dissenters to act like men, and if they are resolved to con­tinue Dissenters, to keep their Post, and stand upon their defence, and not to take Sanctuary in such lame Apologies, as no considering man can make for himself without blushing. If they are in the right, they may justifie them­selves against all Imposers, without the help of a Reconciler; and if they are in the wrong, no Reconciler can help them. And therefore they are bound in their own defence to answer the Second Part of the Protestant Reconciler, as I have done the First in the defence of my dear Mother the Church of England; which God Almighty long preserve and defend against all, whether Popish or Protestant, Dissenters and Reconcilers. Amen.