SECT. I.

SECT. II.

SECT. III.

BUt I observe farther, That the Re­conciler hath inserted divers passages, that tend to prove the utter unlawfulness ☜ of imposing any Ceremonies, especially that are insignificant, without respect had to such Restrictions, as he at other times pro­pounds; and such as slander our Refor­mation and the Defenders of it.

Of this nature is that Citation out ofPref. p. a. Beza's 8th. Ep. to which he puts an Hand in the Margin, and marks it out in di­stinct Letters.

Again, out of the same Author. ‘As P. 26. to the Rite of Crossing, though it be most Ancient, I cannot see what good it doth: I would by no means reckon it among things indifferent; but think it less so, than the brazen Serpent of He­zekias, the Example of which good King in this matter, that is, in destroying the Idols of the Cross and Crucifixes, it behoves all Christian Princes to imitate.’

[And upon this the Reconciler after­wards expostulates, ‘Why do we not ra­ther follow the Example of good King P. 43. Hezekiah, who broke the brazen Ser­pent, and carefully removed that occa­sion of the Idolatry of Israel, &c?’ This indeed is an Instance, which the non-Conformists have all along been copious in dilating on.]

Again, from the same Epistle, with another hand in the Margin. ‘[They in­deed P. 26. seem to me to do best of all, who, no less diligently than open Idolatries, do abolish such things, which, though they are not impious of themselves, yet are unnecessary, and profitable for little, if a man use them aright, but very noxious when abused.]’

And, according to this rigor of Re­formation, the Reconciler afterwards ap­plies that serious Question in the Homily of the Peril of Idolatry, directed there a­gainst Ch. 1. p. 31 the makers, setters-up, and main­tainers of Images in Churches, to the case of imposing our few indifferent Ceremo­nies; ‘How is the Charity of God, or Love of our Neighbour in our hearts, if when we may remove such dangerous stumbling-blocks to the weak and simple people, we will not remove them? &c.]’

Again, out of Mr. Baxter; ‘It is a Cruelty next to Diabolical to lay before men an occasion for their damnation for nothing. p. 327.]’

Again, from the same Author Beza still. Pref. p. 27. ‘If the Apostle did rightly chide the Ga­latians, that they, having begun in the Spirit, fell back unto the Flesh, with how much greater reason may this be said of you of England, if, when you have begun in the Spirit, you fall back, not as they to the Flesh, that is, unto the Coremonies of Moses, but to the Trifles and Refuse of humane Traditions? which God forbid!]’

Then he cites Zanchius his vehement Declamation against the Surplice to Queen Elizabeth, upon the mis-Information gi­ven him by some male-contented Bre­thren. P. 28.

‘The fire of Contention about certain Garments, is now again to the incredi­ble offence of the Godly, as it were raised from Hell, and kindled afresh in your Majesties Kingdom; and that the occasion of the Fire is, because your most Gracious Majesty, being perswa­ded by some, otherwise great men, and carried with a zeal, but certainly not ac­cording to knowledge, to retain Unity in Religion, hath now more than ever resolv'd and decreed, yea, doth Will and Command, that all Bishops and Mi­nisters of the Churches [here we have an Hand in the Margin] shall in Di­vine Service put on the white linnen Garments, which the Popish Priests use now in Popery: Yea, it is to be feared, that the Fire is so kindled, and casts its [Page 23] Flame so far and wide, that all the Churches of that most large and mighty Kingdom, to the perpetual disgrace of your most Renowned Majesty, will be set on a flaming Fire.’ [Here the Recon­ciler ☜ inserts, Oh true Prophet! Though never Prince reigned with greater Quiet, Security, and Honour] ‘Seeing the most part of the Bishops, men greatly renown­ed for all kind of Learning and Godli­ness, had rather leave their Office and Place in the Church, than, against their own Conscience, admit of such Garments.’

[And upon this the Reconciler be­stows a N. B. thought it be, in truth, an evil Note and false Suggestion concerning the most part of the Bishops; for we read of but one, Bishop Hooper by Name; who also, though he for some time stood it out, yet upon long Conference at last reformed himself, and yielded to the publick judgment of the Church.]

Of the same nature is that other rash assertion of Zanchius. ‘It is out of all doubt, P. 30. that by This Law concerning Apparel all Godly men will be offended.’

And as vain was the Fear of the Re­turn of Popery by This means, which he so Rhetoricates upon. ‘Methinks I see P. 31. and hear the Monks crying out with [Page 24] loud voices in the Pulpits, both con­firming their followers in their ungodly Religion by the Example of your Maje­sty, and also saying; What, doth not the Queen of England also, a most lear­ned and prudent Princess, begin by lit­tle and little to come back to the Church of Rome? The holy Vestments of our Clergy being again received, we are in good hope the day will come, where­in she will at length recal all the other Rites and Sacraments of the holy Church of Rome.]’

Then, upon the Instance of the brazen Serpent before mentioned, taken away by godly King Ezekias, he assumes, ‘How much more then are those unclean P. 32. Garments to be banished out of the Church of God, seeing the Apostles never used them, but the Whore of Rome hath used them in her Idolatrous Worship, and to seduce men?’

Again, [which the Reconciler marks out in distinct Characters] ‘All men know, that the most part of all the Chur­ches, Ibid. who have fallen from the Bishop of Rome for the Gospel's sake, do not only want, but also abhor these Gar­ments.]’

The contrary to which is to be seen in ☞ [Page 25] the learned Mr. Durel's View of the Go­vernment and publick Worship of God in the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas, wherein is shewed their Conformity and Agreement with the Church of England, as it is established by the Act of Unifor­mity.

Next I challenge that passage from Mr. Baxter's Dispute of Humane Ceremonies, P. 45. which the Reconciler thus introduceth. ‘'Tis shrewdly argued by Mr. Baxter, This seems to be coming after Christ to amend his Laws, and make better Laws and Ordinances for his Church, than he hath done, &c.]’ which is only the old Argument varnish'd afresh, ‘There is but one Law giver.’

Next, That of Acontius, which goes farther, to the excluding any publick Con­fession of Faith in the Church besides the Reading of the holy Scriptures to the Peo­ple.

Here now is a Door wide enough to ☞ send the three Creeds packing with the three Ceremonies; and some, I fear, would be well enough contented so to do.

I cannot excuse these Passages from some unkindness, and dis-service to the Church of England, and those Reverend Superiours, whom the Reconciler profes­seth from his heart to acknowledge the true Apostolick Guides and Rulers of it. I cannot but think, that those, who thus modestly plead for Condescension, do want somewhat of due Reverence to our Dear Mother, as he yet vouchsafes to Pref. p. 9. own her. I must needs tax him as some­what transported beyond the measures of his Station, as his own heart, it seems, mis­gave him that he might be. Pref. p. 59.

And I have some farther Reasons so to judge.

And so, for ought I find, he is willing to leave them; not without an Applause of the Triumphs of their Adversaries upon this Occasion.

[As the Jews of Asia did, when they saw Paul in the Temple, ‘stirring up all the people, crying out, Men of Israel help;’ This is the man that teacheth all men eve­ry where against the People and the Law, and This Place, &c. Acts xxi. 27. 28. This is the unluckie Pattern, which the Reconciler here, unwittingly I am per­swaded, writeth after.]

Among these Questions one is,

Here now is a plain Confession (to the contrary of what we heard before) that somewhat else was insisted on at the Sa­voy, than the Abatement of Three Cere­monies, and some scrupled Expressions of the Liturgie. And here is a door set open for those independent Schismaticks, our Reconciler saith, he dare not, and cannot plead for, agreeing, as they also al­ledge, in the same Faith and Worship for substance. And the truth is, They who scruple the Ceremonies, do for the most part scruple the Liturgie; and they who scruple some Expressions, had, it may be, as lief be without the whole. And, in the case of these two Liturgies allowed, what must be done, where one part of the same Congregation is for the old and another for the new? What, where the Minister is for the old, and the People for the new? Or, the Minister for the new, and the People for the old? Or, the Minister for neither, new, nor old? &c. At this rate it were easie to multiply Questions, and there is a Proverb in that case, which I list not now to mention.

I pass by divers other things, at pre­sent, some of which we shall meet with, by the way, hereafter.

There are two smart Inferences, where­in the Excellent Dr. Stilling fleet is parti­cularly concerned, as he will justifie his Truth and Sincerity.

And he chews the Cud upon it, and goes over with it again in the close of his Post-script.

Thus he treats the Ingenious and most Judicious Dr. Stillingfleet, as he some­times P. 270. P. 81. P. 109. Pref. p. 15. caresses him, the Reverend Dr. Stil­lingfleet, the Learned Dr. Stillingfleet, the Excellent Dr. Stillingfleet—and, through him, I fear, casts some dirt up­on his Dear Mother the Church of Eng­land in her publick Declarations.

The reading of some Dissenters Books, seems unto me to have a little inspeevish'd him, and disturbed the more calm and temperate disposition of his nature; so that he treats his Adversaries, now and then, with too much slighting and con­tempt. Thus, what Dr. Womock alledg­eth [Page 32] out of Meisner, a Learned Lutheran, P. 155, &c. he calls trifling Arguments, giving the lye to St. Paul, Falshoods and Fooleries, mi­serable Trifles.

But particular persons may the better bear with him, since he sometimes forgets himself in his Duty of Reverence to the Church and the Apostolical Governours thereof. That passage, I think, is some­what scandalous and vain, where he ta­citly resembles the Ceremonies (which he elsewhere calls trivial things) unto the P. 208. May-pole. ‘Let him, that will have a May-pole, have it, and he, that would P 341. not have it, have no May-pole.’

Sect. IV.

I Desire, it may be well considered, by how great and sacred Authority, and that upon the maturest examination, the things excepted against stand established; Authority both Civil and Ecclesiastical, that of the Convocation, which is the Church of England Representative, and of the Parliament, which includes King, Lords and Commons, the Consent of the whole Nation involved; and This, not once, but often, time after time, the Ob­jections to the contrary frequently canvas­sed and deliberated upon. All sorts of Authority meet here with Advantage.

This the Reconciler had in his eye, when he said, with a deal of Reason for it.

All the Arguments therefore, which the Reconciler doth so copiously insist upon, for an enlarged Charity in the cen­suring and judging of others, whose Con­sciences, as he saith, we cannot know but by their professions, (he should have added, and open practices) do reach P. 88. more strongly against the harbouring, or insinuating of undue Fears and Jealousies concerning our Superiours, whom the fifth Commandment enjoyns us to honour. We cannot be too careful of all unjust and uncharitable Imputations to our Go­vernours.

Let me here call to mind some few Clau­ses of the Act of Uniformity, in the first year of Queen Elizabeth of blessed Memo­ry, confirmed again in the eight year of her Reign.

And, now, I have occasion to remem­ber, that the first step of the Reconciler's Apology is in these words; ‘[Since what I plead for in this Book is only the Reli­gion of my King, &c.]’ And that he Pref. p. 58. begins his Preface with some remarkable Sayings (ad amoliendam invidiam) of King James, King Charles the Martyr, and his present Majesty. It may not be amiss to shew a little more particularly, how far it may be said with ingenuity and truth, that he hath learned of them, or pays a deference to their Judgements and Authorities.

‘[To begin therefore (saith he) Pref. p. 3, 4. with the Testimonies of our Learned and Judicious Kings; That excellent Determination of King James is worthy [Page 38] to be had in perpetual Remembrance, Apud Cau­sab. Ep. ad Card. Per­roon. viz. His Majesty thinketh, that for Concord, there is no nearer way than diligently to separate things necessary from things unnecessary; and to bestow all our labour, that we may agree in the things necessary, and that in things un­necessary there may be Christian Liberty allowed. Now His Majesty calls those things simply necessary, which the Word of God expresly commandeth to be believ­ed or done, N. B. or which the ancient Church did gather from the Word of God by necessary consequence,’ [here he had done as well to have added a N. B. too] ‘But those things, which by the Constitution of men without the Word of God were for a time received into the Church of God, though piously and prudently introduced, His Majesty con­ceives, they may be changed, mollified, antiquated: And what Pius the second said of the Celebacy of the Clergie, that being anciently established by good Right, by better it might now be antiquated; that His Majesty believes may in the ge­neral be said of most Ecclesiastical Obser­vations introduced without the Word of God.] This, saith the Reconciler, is a golden Sentence, and fully justifies all that I plead for in these Papers.]’

Now here I observe, (1.) That this was proposed by His Majesty, for Con­cord between different Churches: And whereas the Reconciler, elsewhere, de­mands, ‘What Reason can be given, why Pref. p. 57. the Conditions of Communion betwixt Reformed Churches, should not obtain amongst the members of the same Chri­stian Church?] I think, That Reason, which the Church in her 34th. Article, assigns, is here considerable: [Every particular and National Church hath Authority to ordain, change, and abo­lish Ceremonies or Rites of the Church, ordained by mens Authority, so that all things be done to edifying,]’ which words he sets down in another place.—Ch. 2. p. 36 And This our Parliament in the Act of Uniformity had an eye unto. ‘Provi­ded, That the Penalties in this Act shall not extend to the Forreigners, or Ali­ens 14 Car. 11. of the Forreign Reformed Churches, allowed or to be allowed by the King's Majesty, his Heirs and Successors in England.]’ The Laws of every Church and Kingdom are for their own mem­bers. ‘In these our doings we condemn no other Nation, nor prescribe any thing but to our own People only, &c.]’ Second Pref. to the Liturgie.

But then (2.) I note farther, That King James his opinion was, That even things by the Constitution of men without the Word of God, might be piously and prudently introduced into the Church of God, as well as upon occasion changed, mollified, or antiquated. And, what he asserts in the close, is ( [...]) of most Ecclesiastical Observations introduced without the Word of God, not of all of them.

That useful distinction of King James between things necessary and unnecessary, is well declared by one of the eminent Di­vines of our Church.

Mr. Ma­son's Serm. on 1 Cor. 14. 40. P. 4. ‘Necessary I call That, which the eter­nal God hath in his Word precisely and determinately commanded or forbidden, either expresly or by infallible conse­quence. Indifferent, which the Lord hath not so commanded, nor forbidden, but is commanded in the holy Scrip­ture rather potentially than actually, comprehended in general Directions, not precisely defined by particular De­terminations. Whatsoever God hath in his Word precisely commanded, is necessary to be done, for not doing of it is a sin. Whatsoever God hath forbidden, so long as it is forbidden, is necessary to [Page 41] be left undone, for the very doing of it is a sin. Whatsoever is neither com­manded nor forbidden, that (whether it concern Church, or Common-wealth) is left to God's Vice-gerents upon Earth, who, according to the exigence of the State, may by their direction command it to be done, or to be left undone, and both without sin.’

And this is much more distinct, than, what the Reconciler cites from the Lord Falkland's Reply to White. ‘[I am con­fident, Pref. p. 12. that all, who receive the Scrip­ture for the only Rule, and believe, what is there plain to be only necessary, would, (if they truely believed, what they pro­fessed, and were not led aside, either by prejudice, or some Popish reliques of hol­ding what they have been long taught, or following the Authority of some persons either alive or dead by them much esteemed) soon agree in as much as is necessary, and in concluding no necessity of agreeing in more, there being no doubt, but it would soon appear plainly, what is plain.]’

There is need of a great deal of Caution in declaring the Scripture to be the only Rule, that it be restrained to matters pe­culiarly of divine Revelation, and necessary [Page 42] in order unto salvation. ‘[Haec senten­tia fuit omnium piorum patrum, qui etsi in liberis ritibus agnoscebant Autho­ritatem Ecclesioe, tamen in Dogmatibus Fidei eam ad solius Scripturoe Regulam alligatam putabant.’ Bishop Davenant ad Colos. 4. 4.]

But to return again to King James.

What his Judgement was in these mat­ters, he particularly declared at the fa­mous Conference at Hampton-Court in the beginning of his Reign; where one of See, Summ of the Con­ference (by Dr. Barlow, Dean of Chester) 1603. P. 86. the Lords said, ‘He was fully perswaded, His Majesty spake by the instinct of the Spirit of God.’ The then Lord Chan­cellor said, ‘I have often heard and read, that Rexest mixt a persona cum Sacerdo­te, but I never found the truth of it till this day.’ And the Archbishop of Can­terbury affirmed, That ‘undoubtedly P. 96. His Majesty spake by the special assist­ance of God's Spirit.’

Now His Majesty there declared, ‘It was his happiness above others, (his Pre­decessors) because they were fain to al­ter all things they found established, but he saw yet no cause so much to al­ter and change any thing, as to confirm that, which he found well setled already, not without Gratulations to Almighty God for it.’

When Mr. Knewstubs took excepti­ons to the Cross from the offence of weak P. 67. Brethren, grounded on the words of St. Paul, Rom. 14. and I Cor. 8. (which P. 68. the Reconciler so industriously amplifies in his Treatise.)

The Question afterwards being put, ‘Whether the Church had power to insti­stute an external significant Sign?’

‘Mr. Dean of the Chappel alledged the Practice of the Jews, who unto the Institution of the Passover prescribed by P. 69. Moses, had, as the Rabbins witnessed, added both Signs and Words, eating ☞ sowr herbs and drinking wine, with these words to both, Take and eat These in Remembrance, &c. Drink This in Remembrance, &c. Upon which ad­dition [Page 45] and Tradition of Theirs our Sa­viour instituted the Sacrament of his last Supper, in celebrating it with the same words, and after the same manner, thereby approving That Fact of Theirs P. 70. in particular, and generally, That a Church may institute and retain a Sign significant;’ which satisfied his Majesty, saith Dr. Barlow, exceeding well.

Here his Majesty enquired of the An­tiquity of the Sign of the Cross. Dr. Rey­nolds confess'd it to have been ever since the Apostles time; but, of what ancient use in Baptism, was the Question. The Dean of Westminster answer'd, out of Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen and others, that it was used in immortali lavacro; and some other affirming obit [...]r, that in Con­stantine's time it was used in Baptism, ‘What, saith the King, and is it now come to that pass, that we appeach Con­stantine P. 71. of Popery and Superstition? If then it were used, I see no reason, but that still we may continue it.’

Then, the Question being put, ‘How P. 72. far such an Ordinance of the Church was to bind them, without impeaching their Christian Liberty?’

His Majesty seemed much moved, and told Mr. Knewstubs, ‘He would not [Page 46] argue That point with him, but answer therein, as Kings are wont to speak in Par­liament, Le Roy s'avisera; adding with­al, that it smelt very rankly of Anibap­tism’—And, in the close, ‘I will have N. B. none of That. I will have one Doctrine P. 73. and one Discipline, one Religion in Sub­stance and in Ceremony. And therefore I charge you never to speak more to That Point, (How far you are bound to obey?) when the Church hath ordain'd it.’

Dr. Reynolds afterwards objecting the Ibld. example of the brazen Serpent demolish'd and stampt to powder by Ezekias, be­cause the people abused it to Idolatry, wishing that in like sort the Cross should be abandoned, because in time of Popery it had been superstitiously used. (As the Reconciler also, with many others, ar­gues.)

His Majesty answer'd. 1. ‘Though I be sufficiently perswaded of the Cross in Baptism, and the commendable use thereof in the Church so long; yet, if there were nothing else to move me, This very Argument were an Inducement to me for the retaining of it, as it is now by Order established: For, in as much, as it was abused, (so you say) to Super­stition in time of Popery, it doth plainly [Page 47] imply, that it was well used before Pope­ry. I have liv'd among This sort of men, (speaking to the Lords and Bi­shops) ever since I was Ten years old, P. 74. but I may say of my self, (as Christ did of himself) though I have liv'd among them, since I had ability to judge, I ne­ver was of them. Neither did any thing make me more to condemn and detest their courses, than that they did so peremptorily dislike of all things, which at all had been used in Popery. For my part, I know not how to answer the ☜ Objection of the Papists, when they charge us with Novelties, but truly to tell them, that their Abuses are new, but the things which they abused we retain in the primitive use, and forsake only the novel Corruption.’

[King James, it seems, is here lyable to the Reconciler's double Charge against Dr. Stillingfleet.]

Then for the wearing of the Surplice, P. 76. whereas it was objected to be a kind of Garment, which the Priests of Isis used to wear.

[Here His Majesty again falls under the Lash of the Reconciler.]

It is there farther noted, that all the P. 79. Dissenters approved of the Corner'd Cap.

And, in the close, His Majesty, (not without some commotion from the Idleness of their Exceptions) said, ‘If This be all P. 84. they have to say, I shall make them conform themselves, or I will—’

Then, touching Subscription, His Majesty intimated, ‘1. How necessary P. 93. Subscription was in every well-govern'd Church, that it was to be urged for the keeping of the Peace. For as Laws to prevent Killing did provide there should be no Quarelling, so to prevent greater Tumults in the Church Subscrip­tion was requisite. 2. Because the Bi­shop is to answer for every Minister whom he admitteth into his Diocess, it were sittest for him to know the affecti­on of the Party before his Admission. And the best way to know him, and to prevent future Factions, was to urge his Subscription at his first entrance; for Turpius ejicitur, quam non admittitur hospes. 3. As Subscription was a good [Page 50] means to discern the affection of the persons, whether quiet or turbulent, withal it was the principal way to avoid confusion.—’

Concluding, ‘That, if any, after P. 94. things were well order'd, would not be N. B. quiet and shew his obedience, the Church were better without him. Praestat ut pe­reat unus, quam unitas.—Only ad­ding at last, That the weak were to be P. 97. informed, the wilful to be punished.’

If any thing farther be desired of King James his Judgement, we may read it in the Constitutions and Canons Ecclesia­stical 1603. ratified and confirmed by his Authority, among which we have Those that require Subscription; a Defence and Explication at large of the Cross in Bap­tism; the last Three declaring a National Synod to be the Church Representative, concluding the absent, as well as present, with a Censure upon all the Depravers of it. And, touching the Rites and Ceremonies, the 6th. Canon runs in these words: ‘[Whosoever shall hereafter affirm, that the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church Canon 6 Jacobi. of England, by Law establish'd, are wicked, Antichristian, or superstitious, or such as being commanded by lawful Au­thority, men, who are zealously and god­lily [Page 51] affected, may not with a good Con­science approve them, use them, or as oc­casion requireth, subscribe unto them, let him be excommunicated ipso facto, and not restored, until he repent and pub­lickly revoke such his wicked Errors.]’

The Reconciler indeed tells us, from Ch. 1. P. 7. Josias Nichols, Plea of the Innocent, 1602. (a worthy Witness in the Case against his dear Mother) ‘That some five years toge­ther, before the unhappy time, that Sub­scription was so generally offer'd, there was such unity between the Ministers, and they joyned in all Places so loving­ly, and diligently together, that many Thousands were converted from Athe­ism [The Dis­senters have been all along gi­ven to Multipli­cation, by Thousands and Myri­ads, many Thousands. and Popery; but when Subscription came abroad, how many godly and wor­thy learned Preachers were silenced, de­prived, and distracted? How were the Christian Subjects grieved and offended? and the Papists and wicked men encou­raged and emboldned? What a Damp brought it to all Godliness and Religi­on?]’ And This the Reconciler quotes, as true History, (for what else doth it there?) who yet begins his Preface with the Honour of King James his Judge­ment.

☞ Mr. Calvin would have pronounced otherwise in This Matter. ‘Let it be de­nounced, saith he, that he is no longer to Ep. ad Fa­rell. be holden for a Brother, who disturbs the common Discipline with his Contumacy. This hath been always of force in the Church, as being decreed by ancient Coun­cils, That whoever will not be subject to the Laws of common Discipline, [munere abdicetur] be deposed from his Office. And there is not any need, saith he, here to seek for humane Authority, since the Holy Ghost hath pronounced concerning such, Ecclesiam non habere morem con­tendendi. Let them therefore bid him Adieu, who refuseth the Rights of common Society.]’

And here let me drop a Note of a Re­verend Mr. Masvn's Serm. p. 23. Divine of our Church, worth the considering.

Now, if any one shall enquire, How, notwithstanding the care of King James, as well as Queen Elizabeth, the Sectaries yet increased so much? We have the obser­vation of a wise and learned Prelate of the Church of England, (as the Reconciler calls Bishop Tay­lor Disswas. him, though he was an Irish Bishop, one, whom he cites abundantly out of) ‘That in the days of Queen Elizabeth and of King James, This Nation was so watch­ful to prevent the Growth of Popery, that they neglected other Sects, till by conni­vance they became too numerous, and over­ran both Church and State.]’ And This I have quoted from the Reconciler.—But Ch. 1. p. 9. enough of King James, and his golden Sen­tences, which, notwithstanding the stamp of his Learning, Judgment, and Authority upon them, will hardly pass for currant in our days.

Sect. V.

WE come next to King Charles the First, the Royal Martyr, p. 4. and best of Kings and men, as the Re­conciler deservedly calls Him.

‘[The Royal Martyr, and Best of Kings and men, in His Declaration made with Advice of His Privy-Council, in An­swer to the Remonstrance of the State of the Kingdom, Jan. 1641. speaks Thus, saith he.’ ‘As for Differences Biblioth. Reg. among our selves, for matters Indiffe­rent in their own nature, concerning Religion, We shall in tenderness to any 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.’

I confess, I like not the Arguings from 41. to 82. (whatever be to be said of Those from 60. Pref. p. 9. [It looks ill, when men in­cline with any degree of affecti­on, to the Beginnings of the last War, or the Capitu­lations of some upon His Maje­sties Re­turn.] Ch. 1. p. 16.) And the greatest check upon my mind against the Condescensions pleaded for, is the dreadful prospect of what that Incomparable King at the long Run was brought unto by His Condescen­sions; whilest they continually made the Granting of one thing, the founda­tion only of asking another with the like importunity.

Infandum Regina jubes.—But, whoever were the cause, the Best of Kings and men, I hope, was Innocent. He was at all times willing to comply wit the Advice of Parliament, for the case of His loving Subjects, in all mat­ters of Indifferency. But That would not content or satisfie; till he had yield­ed so much, that he was forced at length to yield His Sacred Head to the Block; [Page 56] and Those, whose tender Consciences bog­led at a Ceremony, could well enough dis­pense with the shedding of that Royal Blood.

'Tis very well known to every one, how grounded a value His Majesty had of the Church of England, and all the Establishments of it, which he did, upon all occasions, as ably defend and vindi­cate, as at last meekly and Christianly dye for.

His judgment was for the setled con­tinuance of the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England established by Law, ‘from which, saith He, We will D [...]la [...]. before XXXIX Articles. not endure any variance or departing in the least degree.]’—And the Re­conciler's thoughts might easily have re­flected back from 41, to the Constitutions and Canons the Year before made in Con­vocation, summon'd by His Majesties Writ, and afterwards Ratified and Con­firmed by His Letters Patent thereto an­nexed, Among which we know, what Offence the Oath injoined for prevent­ing innovations in Doctrine and Govern­ment, was entertained with by them, who pretended at first as modestly, as the present Dissenters do. And the viiith. Canon was of Preaching for Conformity, in These words.

This lay immediately next to another Canon which the Reconciler hath taken some notice of, but to expose it to deri­sion, rather than to recommend it; and by it, indeed, to vilifie all other Consti­tutions of the Church concerning Rites and Ceremonies.

‘[The Convocation held An. 1640. P. 208, 209. 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 [it should be Omission] of This Rite, we desire the Rule of Charity prescribed by the Apostle may be observed, which is, that [Page 58] they, who use this Rite, despise not them who use it not; and they who use it not, condemn not them that use it.’ Now saith the Author of the Mis­chief Pref. of Impositions, [The Buffoon of the Nonconformists, who pleads against a National Church for Those Independent Congregations, which the Reconciler owns to be Schismatical] ‘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, why the Rule of Charity should take place in bowing towards the Altar, (for so he, contrary to the very Canon, speaks) and yet the Rule of Severity in the sign of the Cross, and kneeling at the Lord's Supper. The Apostle prescribeth a Rule, and they will make use of it, when, where, and in what cases they please; and in others, where it is as useful, lay it by like one of their vacated Canons. Is it, because we are bound to walk accord­ing to the Rule prescribed by the Church? Why, are not they bound to walk ac­cording to the Rule prescribed by the A­postle? Are we more bound to obey them, than they the Lord Christ, speaking in and by his immediately inspired Servants? [Page 59] Why could they not have relaxed the other Canons to the moderation of This? or screw'd up This to the inflexible rigor of the others? Was it for Peace-sake, that we were indulged in This one? Let the same Motive prevail for the same Indulgence in the Rest.]’

This is one of Those shrew'd Things, P. 202. which the Reconciler observ'd in the Books of Dissenters, and which he in­treats the Champions of the Church of England, as they respect the Credit of our Church-Governors, the Reputation of our Church and her Discipline, [which, it seems, he is not concern'd for] not to pass by without Answer.—And doth not This strike at the Royal Martyr, the Best of Kings and men, as well as the Church of England Representative?

Doth such Stuff, as This, in good ear­nest deserve or need an Answer? Is it not evident enough, that the Apostle himself did not prescribe That particular Rule of Charity for all Cases? Is it not evident, that This charitable Apostle pre­scribes a decent Rite and Ceremony else­where, without leaving the matter to This Liberty of using it or no? 1 Cor. xi. 2. 7. 10. Is it not evident, that the Rule [Page 60] of Severity, may be sometimes the Rule of Charity too And there are some other Rules besides, such men should do well to study and think on a little bet­ter. There is the Rule of Modesty and Humility; and the Rule of Peace, and the Rule of Obedience, &c. What an odd kind of perversness is This, to argue, that, because the Church thinks meet to shew her Indulgence in forbearing to impose one Rite or Ceremony, which yet she seriously recom­mends; that therefore she can­not as charitably shew her Au­thority in imposing others, as she appre­hends to be for Edification? Because St. Paul saith, I beseech Evodias, and be­seech Syntyche, &c. Phil. 4. 2. might he not, consistently with the Rule of Charity, have commanded also? Might he not have been bold in Christ, to injoin Phi­lemon that which was convenient, though for Love's sake he did rather beseech him? Philemon xi. 8, 9. What will please This humorsome sort of men? Forbear them in One or Two, or Three Points, for Peace-sake: That will signifie Nothing, unless you do so in all the Rest.—But, to return to what I before sug­gested.

Hear we the Royal Martyr, the Best of Kings and men, in His Ratification of Those Canons and Constitutions.

‘Forasmuch as we are given to un­derstand, that many of our Subjects, being misled against the Rites and Cere­monies now used in the Church of Eng­land, have taken offence at the same, upon an unjust Supposal, that they are not only contrary to Our Laws, but also introductive unto Popish Superstitions; whereas it well appeareth unto Us, upon mature Consideration, that the said Rites and Ceremonies, which are now so much quarrel'd at, were not only ap­proved of, and used by Those Learned and Godly Divines, to whom at the time of Reformation under King Ed­ward the Sixth, the compiling of the Book of Common-Prayer was commit­ted, (divers of which suffer'd Martyr­dom in Queen Mary's days) but also again taken up by This whole Church un­der Q. Elizabeth, and so duly and or­derly practised for a great part of her Reign, (within the memory of divers yet living) as that it could not then be imagined, that there would need any Rule or Law for the observation of the same, or that they could be thought to savor of Popery. And, albeit since those times, for want of an express Rule N. B. therein, and by subtile Practices, the said [Page 62] Rites and Ceremonies began to fall in­to disuse, and in place thereof, other foreign and unfitting usages by little and little to creep in; yet, forasmuch as in Our own Royal Chappels, and in many other Churches, most of them have been ever constantly used and observed, We cannot now but be very sensible of This matter, and have cause to conceive, that the Authors and Fomenters of these jea­lousies, though they colour the same ☞ with a pretence of zeal, and would seem to strike only at some supposed iniquity in the said Ceremonies; yet, as We have cause to fear, aim at Our own Royal Per­son, and would fain have Our good Subjects imagine, that We Our Self are perverted, and do worship God in a su­perstitious way, and that We intend to bring in some Alteration of the Religion here established. Now, how far we are from That, and how utterly. We detest every Thought thereof, We have by many publick Declarations, and other­wise, upon sundry occasions, giv'n such assurance to the world, as that from thence We also assure Our Self, that no man of wisdom and discretion could ever be so beguiled, as to give any serious entertainment to such Brain sick jealou­sies; [Page 63] And for the weaker Sort, who are prone to be misled by crafty Seducers, We rest no less confident, that even of ☜ them, as many as are Loyal, or indeed but of charitable hearts, will from hence forth utterly banish all such causless fears and surmises, upon These our Sacred Profes­sions, so often made by Us, a Christian Defender of the Faith, their King and Soveraign. And therefore, if yet any person, under whatsoever Mask of Zeal, or counterfeit Holiness, shall henceforth by speech or writing, or any other way, (notwithstanding These our right hear­ty, faithful, and solemn Protestations made before Him, whose Deputy We are, against all and every intention of any Popish innovation) be so ungracious and presumptuous, as to vent any poyso­ned conceits tending to such a purpose, and to cast These devilish aspersions and jealousies upon our Royal and Godly Proceedings, We require all Our Loyal Subjects to make the same known to some Magistrate, Ecclesiastical or Civil, &c.—’ Read the Rest before and after the said Book of Canons, too long to be here transcri­bed. See we the very Image and Tran­script of This Royal Martyr's Soul in the midst of all His Sorrows and Sufferings; [Page 64] And when He had Death before His Eys, in some of His Last words to the Then Prince of Wales, our Now most Gracious Soveraign.

Thus the Royal Martyr, the Best of Kings and men. And may we not say upon it, with the Widow of Tekoah, ‘As an Angel of God, so is my Lord the King, to discern good and bad? 2 Sam. xiv.’

Sect. VI.

WE are now come to the Suf­frage of His present Majesty, the Living Image of the Royal Martyr, whom God preserve, as the Reconciler well prayeth, in the Contents of his Preface.

‘[His present Majesty in His Dechb­ration Pref. p. 5. from Breda to all His loving Sub­jects, April 4. 1660. speaks thus, We do declare a Liberty to tender Con­sciences, and that no Man shall be dis­quieted, or call'd in question for Dif­ferences of Opinion, which do not disturb the Peace of the Kingdom; and that We shall be ready to consent to such an Act of Parliament, as upon mature doliberation shall be offered to Vs, for the full granting that Indulgence.] And, in His Declaration concerning Ec­clesiastical Affairs, Octob. 25. 1660. When We were in Holland, We were, saith he, attended by many Grave and Learned Ministers from hence, who were look'd upon as the most able and principal Assertors of the Presbyterian [Page 68] Opinions: And, to Our great satisfa­ction, We found them [and I would His Majesty had always found them so in England, as well as There!] Per­sons full of Affection towards Us, of Zeal for the Peace of the Church and State, and neither Enemies to Episco­pacy nor Liturgy, but modestly to de­sire such Alterations in either, as, with­out shaking the Foundations, might best allay the present distempers, which the Indisposition of the Time, and the Tenderness of some mens Consciences had contracted. For the better doing where­of, We did intend to call a Synod, and, in the mean time, We published in Our Declaration from Breda, a Liberty to tender Consciences, &c.’ [The Declaration from Breda then is here ☞ acknowledged to have been an Interim or Temporary Concession onely, until a Synod was call'd; and as it was limited to such differences of Opinion, as do not disturb the peace of the Kingdom, so it had re­ference plainly to an Act of Parliament, which upon mature deliberation should be offered to His Majesty. But there was no such Act thought sit by the Wisdom of the Nation to be offered. 'Nay, the Henourable House of Commons, in their [Page 69] Address to His Majesty, did Thus express themselves, Febr. 28. 1663. ‘We have consider'd the Nature of Your Maje­sties Declaration from Breda, and are humbly of Opinion, that Your Majesty ought not to be pressed with it any far­ther.]’

'Tis This Other Declaration there­fore, which we are particularly to at­tend unto: and, though it be somewhat long, I will not forbear the representing of it again to view, so far as the Re­conciler refers unto it. So then he pro­ceeds.]

‘And again, we must for the honour of all those of either Persuasion, with whom we have conferred, declare, that the professions and desires of all for the advancement of Piety and true Godliness are the same, their professi­on of zeal for the peace of the Church the same, of Affection and Duty to us the same, They all approve Episcopacy, N. B. They all approve a set Form of Litur­gy, and they all disapprove and dislike the sin of Sacriledge, and the alienation of the Revenue of the Church. And, if upon these excellent Foundations, in submission to which there is such an Har­mony of affections, any Superstructures [Page 70] shall be raised to the shaking Those Foundations, and to the contracting and lessening the Blessed Gift of Chari­ty, which is a vital part of Christian Religion, we shall think our self very unfortunate, and even suspect that we are defective in that Administration of Government, with which God hath intrusted us. We need not pro­fess the high Affection and Esteem, which N. B. we have for the Church of England, as it is established by Law: Nor do we think That Reverence in the least de­gree diminish'd by our Condescensions, not peremptorily to insist upon some par­ticular Ceremonies, which, however introduced by the Piety and Devotion, and order of former times, may not be so agreeable to the present, but may even lessen that Piety and Devotion, for the improvement whereof they might happily at first be introduced, and consequently may well be dispensed with. 'And we hope This charitable compliance of ours, will dispose the minds of all men to a chearful submission to that Authority, the preservation whereof is so necessary for the Unity and Peace of the Church.—And we have not the least doubt, but that [Page 71] the present Bishops will think the pre­sent ☜ Concessions now made by us to al­lay [Have They not well An­swer'd This Hope? Even as they did His Majesty's most Hearty desire, ‘that in the mean time They would not Totally lay aside the Book of Common-Prayer, but Read the parts against which there can be no Exception, &c.]’ the present distempers, very just and reasonable, and will very chearfully con­form themselves thereunto.’

‘These, saith the Reconciler, are the very terms of Peace, which here I plead Ib. & p. 8. for, and which I humbly conceive would very much conduce unto the heal­ing of our Breaches. And, if ever a Divine Sentence was in the Mouth of a King, and his Mouth erred not in judg­ment,’ [which I hope is not doubted of, because it is Scripture] ‘I verily believe Prov. xvi. x. (saith he) it was thus with Our present Majesty [which is a meer [...], we have again, p. 9.]’ for His present [Page 73] Majesty] ‘when he composed that ad­mirable Declaration, which, next to Holy Scripture, I Adore, and think, that the Ʋnited judgment of the whole Nation cannot frame a better, or a more unex­ceptionable Expedient for a firm and last­ing concord of these distracted Chur­ches.]’

Now I observe, (1) That His Gracious Majesty did here sufficiently Testifie and express his high Affection and Esteem for the Church of England, as it is established by Law; and suppose, that the Ceremo­nies scrupled were introduced by the Piety and Devotion, and Order of former Times, ann for the improvement of the same; and assert, that He would not utterly abolish any which are by Law established, but only by a Dispensation and Indulgence gra­tifie the private Consciences of Those, who were grieved with the use of some of them.

(2.) That His Majesty did testifie an extraordinary charity in his Opinion of the persons to whom This Indulgence was de­signed, as full of Affection towards Him­self, of Zeal for the Peace both of Church [Page 74] and State, and neither Enemies to Epis­copacy or Liturgy, (without Equivoca­tion or Mental Reservation, of Parochial Episcopacy, or Directorian Liturgy) but modestly desiring such Alterations only in either, as might not shake the Founda­tions, and best allay the present distempers. And pity it is so extraordinary a Charity should in any thing be imposed upon. I wish heartily, that we had once Reason to believe, or that we could persuade the People to believe, as His Majesty upon the Professions of some then did; That the most able and principal Assertors of the Presbyterian Opinions, did with an Har­mony of Affections submit to These ex­cellent Foundations, which were to lie unshaken at the bottom of all His Maje­sties designed Superstructions; that we might pronounce of them to their perpe­tual Honour, ‘They are all zealous for the Peace of the Church; They are all ☞ Loyal in their Duty to their King; They all approve Episcopacy, English Diocesane Episcopacy; They all approve a Set Form of Liturgy; and do only with modesty desire such Alterations in the Common-Prayer-Book, as may not shake the Foundations of it; They [Page 75] all disapprove and dislike the sin of Sacri­lege, as well as Rebellion, and the Alie­nation of the Revenue of the Church, the Sale of Bishops, Deans and Chapter-Lands.’—Did their Followers thus think and believe of them, they would, I am persuaded, be soon reconciled to a good Opinion of us of the Church of England by Law established, and cry out of them, as the strangest Assertors of Presbyterian Opinions in the world.

(3) In order to this Indulgence, Com­missioners, we know, were under the Broad Seal Appointed, and the Result of their Debates commended to the Convoca­tion or Synod; and so tendred to the ex­amination and consent of Both Houses in Parliament, the Product whereof we had at last in the Act of Uniformity, which His Majesty did pass into a Law. And it is, to me, a Transport of Admiration in the Reconciler, so to adore a Declaration of His Majesties by the Advice of His Council only, as to prefer it beyond tho maturer Thoughts of That Sacred Person upon the united judgment of the whole Nation.

We have liv'd in days, wherein a Vote or Ordinance of Parliament hath born down both the Obligation of Laws, and the Repute of His Majesties most solemn De­clarations; And, how the Reconciler may scape, I know not, but, sure I am, that some others would be look'd upon with a very evil Eye, as Popishly affected, and so many Friends to Arbitrary Government, should they presume almost to Deifie a Proclamation from the King, at This Rate, beyond an Act of Parliament, wherein the United Wisdom of the King, and all Estates of his Subjects, the Wisdom both of Church and State is concerned. What a miraculous Cure would it be to our pre­sent Convulsions, were the Dissenting Populace but a little leaning to the Re­conciler's mind, ‘That a Divine Sentence is in the King's Mouth, and his Lips transgress not in Judgment, even where the United Judgment of the whole Na­tion may possibly Opine otherwise?’—But we will leave him undisturb'd in his Extatical and Rapturous Loyalty, and content our selves with That of the more Currant Stamp, which is like best to hold.

It will not be amiss therefore, here to take notice, how the Wisdom of the Nation did utter it self in the afore­named Act of Uniformity, not without some reference made to This Declaration: XIV. ca­rel. II. And so to add This other Text of Solo­mon to the Precedent. 'In the multi­tude of Counsellors there is safety, Prov. 11. 14. And This properly too, while the Sentence is still the King's, and the Council his Subjects.

‘Provided also, that the Book of Common-Prayer and Administration, [The Book of Q Eliz. continued till This was to take place.] &c. heretofore in use, and respectively established by Act of Parliament in the First and Eighth years of Queen Eliza­beth, shall be still used and observed in the Church of England, until the Feast [Page 83] of St. Bartholomew, which shall be in the year of our Lord God 1662.]’ when by This Act the other Book aforesaid was to take place in the room thereof; so that there was no period of time, wherein there was a Liberty or Exemption from the Legal Obligation to Unifor­mity.

Such now is That August Authority, by which the Things in Question are deter­mined and established: And as the Re­conciler cites it out of Bishop Taylor, ‘A peaceable mind, and willingness to learn, P. 224. and a charitable Exposition, are the just Dispositions of Subjects.] God Grant they well perform it! As He there de­voutly and piously adds.’

This was the Religion of Queen Eli­zabeth, ☜ whose Motto was, Semper ea­dem. This was the Religion of King James, whose Motto was, Beati Paci­fici. This was the Religion of King Charles, The Royal Martyr, and best of Kings and Men. And This is the Religion of His Gracious Majesty, the Inheritor of his Fathers Kingdoms and Princely Vertues, who calls aloud upon his Subjects to make the established Laws Their Rule, because he protests, They shall ever be His. And the Re­conciler [Page 84] hath told us, that it is only the Religion of His King, which in This Book he pleads for.

SECT. VII.

IN the next place, before I leave §. VII. This Subject, I desire all my Coun­try-men diligently to hearken unto the Church Her self in her publick Apologies about These Matters, in the Book so established; which, because so few do observe in Their Common-Prayer-Books; I will here present them with,

Sect. VIII.

I Will now resume a little the Question of Ceremonies, & the Imposition of them.

The Church, as we have seen, pleads for her general Warrant, ‘Let all things be done among you in a seemly and due Order;’ [...] decently, and according to order.

And the Apostle St. Paul, whose Canon this was, himself practised accord­ing to it; He gave out Ordinances of this nature to the Corinthians, Quum ge­nuisset illam Ecclesiam Do­mino, certam Politiam tra­diderat, qua gubernaretur; Calv. in loc. and prai­seth them who kept the same, 1 Cor. 11. 11. And hereunto we must, as I con­ceive, refer that First Disorder, which he there undertakes to correct among them, for the Men to be Covered, and the Women Uncovered in the time of Di­vine Service. The Apostle doth evident­ly there preseribe the contrary; and that as a significant Ceremony too, the Man to be uncovered, to express both his Sub­jection to Christ alone, and Authority over the Woman; the Woman to have a Covering on her Head, to express her Subjection to her Husband, or Inferiority unto Man. The Covering or Veil was a sign of that Po­wer under which the Woman was; and thence called by a Metonymy; [...].

Castalio tells us, that he had this Ex­position from a certain Italian: ‘Things that are base and vitious ought to be covered; and on the other side, such as are comely and perfect, to be unco­vered and shown. Now therefore, if the Man prayeth with his Head co­vered, he intimates a defect in his Head worthy to be hidden. But Christ is the Head of the Man, who is without all fault. The Head of the Man there­fore (saith he) ought to be uncovered, hereby to shew forth the perfection of Christ, who is his Head. But the Head of the Woman is the Man, who, seeing he is defective and vitious, the Woman, in confession of this his imper­fection, is to cover her Head.’ But this may seem too much strained and fanciful, since the Apostle recommends the Covering or Veil to the Woman, not to argue the Defect, but the Authority and Preheminence of the Man.

I rather think, with the learned Cap­pellus, That this Apostolical Prescript or Canon of good Order was founded up­on some civil custom then obtaining a­mong the Corinthians and elsewhere; from whence he concludes, that, accor­ding to the difference of several Coun­tries, [Page 111] such an Habit and Deportment is to be used in Divine Service, which is commonly used to express Reverence and Decency in conversation.

The Reconciler, to evade the convi­ction of this Instance, saith:

To which I answer, That there was, undoubtedly, a great Decency in the thing signified, that Men and Women should respectively own the difference of their Sexes, and demean themselves a­greeably thereunto; but this particular sign expressive thereof, by the Man's being unco­vered and the Woman covered, could only be topical, and according to the custom of that Countrey (which [...] here questi­onless denotes, the custom of every place [Page 112] being as a second Nature to the Inhabi­tants) And therefore the Rite was in it self indifferent, and the peculiar signifi­cancy of it in Divine Service very much depending upon the Apostle's prescripti­on. [He, that will see the different Customs of Nations in this matter, both in and out of Sacred Uses, may consult Grotius and Cappellus at large on the Place.]

To this I answer, That the Apostle doth here impose it as a Rite, which they ought to conform unto; he puts a Non debet on the Man's part, ‘He ought not [Page 113] to cover his Head:’ and a Debet on the Womans, ‘For this cause ought the Wo­man to have power on her Head.’ And hereby he calls them to an Uniformity with other Christian Churches; and de­nounceth them, that will not acquiesce in his Reasons, nor yield to his Authority, to be contumacious and stubborn Dispu­ters, Lovers of Contention; and as such to be marked and censured for opposing the Customs of the Church.

‘He is contentious, saith Mr. Calvin on the place, who is stirr'd up with the Lust of Controversy, and doth not care to yield unto Truth. Such are all those, who without necessity carp at good and profitable Rites, who move Disputes of things that are not doubtful, who ac­quiesce not in Reasons given for their just satisfaction, and suffer not them­selves to be brought into order. Such are also [...], an unsociable sort of Men, who are carried out with a foolish affectation to innovate. Such as these, saith he, St. Paul thinks not worthy an Answer, because Contention is a pernicious thing, and therefore to be driven from the Churches of God; Q [...] [...] Auth [...]ita [...]e m [...]g [...] co [...] ­scend [...] esse [...] and hereby, saith he, he teacheth, that perverse Men, and such as are gi­ven [Page 114] to wrangle, are rather to be re­pressed with Authority, than to be re­futed with long Disputations; for there will never be an end of Contentions, saith he, if you strive with a quarrel­some Man; though he be overcome an hundred times, he will not yet be wea­ried or give over.’

And, saith the Learned Grotius, ‘The Apostle here cuts off all Disputa­tions, with these two Axes, as it were, Apostolical Institution, and the Custom of the Churches. And, to call that in­to question, which is received through all the Churches, is the part and character [...] of those that are contentious.’

And such I esteem to be the Deter­mination ☞ of this matter about Ceremonies.

The Instances are very many, which the Learned Reconciler himself affords us; I will only here refer to two of of them. The former is about the [Page 115] trine Immersion or threefold Dipping in P. 282, 283. Baptism, as a Symbolical Ceremony, to signify the Doctrine of the Trinity, or the Death and Resurrection of Christ after three days. ‘This thing, saith the Reconciler, was so much the Practice of the Church, that, in the 49th Canon of the Apostles, he, that doth not use this trine Immersion, is sentenced to be deposed from his Dignity.’ Here then we have, confessedly, a severe Im­position of a Symbolical Ceremony.

He tells us indeed afterwards, ‘How, P. 284. the Arrians expounding this Custom to their Advantage, as signifying the Substantial Difference of the Father from the Son and Holy Ghost, the Bi­shops of Spain used a single Immersion, and Pope Gregory commends them for doing it upon this Occasion; And this was brought into a Law there by the 4th Council of Toledo.’ [Here still is a Symbolical Ceremony brought into Law and Practice; a single Immersion in Ba­ptism to signify the Unity of Essence in the Trinity. And this only proves the former Ceremony not to be necessary in it self, as the former doth this; and, that either of them may be enjoined, as the Church sees occasion.—And whereas [Page 116] he adds, ‘Though the trine Immersion P. 284. be yet continued in most Churches, yet ours doth take the Liberty wholly to va­ry from them, and from the Antients in this matter.]’

This only recommends the singular Indulgence of our Church, which hath made no Determination for, or against either of those Ceremonies, misliking nei­ther for their Significancy, and allowing of both to be used, as to her Sons shall seem at any time best.

The other Instance is of the Custom in the Primitive Church to pray stand­ing P. 278. on the Lord's-day, and from the time of Easter to Whitsunday symbolically to represent the Resurrection; And such was then the reputed Obligation of this Ceremony, taken up among them; that Tertullian saith, ‘We account it Wickedness to kneel on the Lord's-day at Ibid. Praier.’ Which I would not censure in him for a superstitious conceit of the Ceremony in its own nature, as necessary; but the value then set upon it for its sig­nificancy; And, ‘When some began to vary from it, saith the Reconciler, the great Council of Nice took notice of it,Ibid. and declared their pleasure, that all Churches should uniformly observe it; [Page 117] but yet, saith he, such was their Mo­deration, they imposed no Penalty on the Neglecters of this Custom.]’

Now their Moderation I blame not in the Sanction, though they might also have imposed a Penalty too in the case, without the impeachment of it; but, such was the Reverence in that Age to their Authority, that a superadded Penalty might possibly be thought needless. That, which I hence remark, is, That Uni­formity ☜ in a Symbolical Rite was imposed by no less Authority than the great Coun­cil of Nice.—And, however this Observance now hath ceased by De­suetude, yet we retain, as I conceive, some prints of its Resemblance, in our standing up at the Creed and the Gospel.

The substance of what I here argue for, is granted, upon occasion, by the Re­conciler, in the Answer he gives by way of correction in the Words of the excellent P. 313. Bishop Taylor, ‘That it is for ever ne­cessary, that things should be done in the Church decently and in order: And since the Question of Decency ☜ will for ever have Variety and Flux, Succession and a Relative Uncertainty; It is necessary, that of this there should be perpetual Judges and Dictators, and [Page 118] these can be no other than the Rulers of the Church, who have the same power that the Apostles had in this. It cannot therefore (saith the Reconciler) be ra­tionally denied, that the Rulers of the Church have Power to command things which belong unto the Positive Decency and Order of the Service of God; But then, saith he, it hath been proved al­ready, P. 313. that the Ceremonies, now used in the Church of England, have nothing in them of this nature, and consequent­ly, that this Command affords no ground for the imposing of them upon that Account.’ So that in the Issue, the☞ Dissenter directly opposeth his private Opinion and Judgment to that of the Ru­lers of the Church, whom yet he ac­knowledges to be of all right the perpe­tual Judges and Dictators in the case. They say, these things imposed are De­cent and Orderly; He saith, they have nothing of Positive Decency and Order in them: And this, he saith, he hath al­ready prov'd. Let us look back here a little to it.

‘[I call that Positive Order, Decen­cy, P. 38. or Reverence, saith he, which, be­ing done, renders the Service more de­cent, reverent, and orderly, than other­wise [Page 119] it would be, and being undone, the Service becomes irreverent, indecent and disorderly performed;’ (he shouldNB. have said, Less decently, reverently, and orderly performed, than otherwise it would be.) ‘So that my meaning is, that if our Publick Service was by the Mini­ster performed without a Surplice, if Baptism were administred by him with­out the Cross, if the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper were administred to such, as did not kneel, but stand,’ (he should have added, or sit, as at an or­dinary Meal; for that is the great scruple in this Controversy) ‘at the receiving of it; These Actions would not be performed sinfully, or with defect of any real Goodness, which belongeth to them, nor yet indecently, disorder­ly, or irreverently.]’ (He should say, not less decently, disorderly, or irreve­rently, NB. than now they are.) Thus he conceives; but the Church (which is to be Dictator in the case) pronounceth otherwise. Let us hear his Reasons.

‘1. Saith he, if the Omission ofIbid. these Ceremonies renders those Acti­ons, to which they are annexed, sin­ful, indecent, irreverent, or disorderly perform'd,’ (he should have said, less [Page 120] decently, reverently, or orderly) ‘then Christ and his Apostles, in the perfor­mance of them, did worship God in such a manner, as was sinful, indecent, irreverent and disorderly: For it is certain, they used not the Surplice in Publick Prayer, the Cross in Baptism, or Kneeling in the act of Receiving.’ To this I answer, by denying the Conse­quence: For, 1. it is not de fide certain, that neither Christ, nor his Apostles used the Surplice, Cross, or Kneeling spoken of, all, or some one of them. This Negative cannot certainly be proved. 2. What was perhaps decent and order­ly then, may cease to be so, or be less so in after-Ages, and other Countries. For the Question of Decency (as he hath well granted out of Bishop Tailor, had he as☞ well considered it) will for ever have Variety and Flux, Succession and a rela­tive Uncertainty. And upon this ac­count we are not confined to follow or imitate Christ or his Apostles in uncom­manded Circumstances of this nature, which might be in them occasional on­ly.

‘2. Saith he, [Then are not these Ce­remonies Ibid. indifferent, and alterable by the same Power which enjoins them, as is [Page 121] asserted by the Church of England?]’ I answer still, by denying the Consequence: These Ceremonies do yet remain in their own nature indifferent, that is, they are not particularly and determinat­ly required or commanded, nor any where forbidden by God: And the Church of England may alter them, whensoever she sees as just Grounds and Causes so to do, as to enjoin them.

‘3. Saith he, [Then must the Omissi­on Ibid: of these Ceremonies be a Trans­gression of those Precepts, which do command us, to serve the Lord with Reverence, and to let all things be done decently and in order, which cannot be affirmed by them, who confess these Ceremonies to be Indifferent?]’ I answer still, by denying the Conse­quence. The Omission of these Ceremo­nies upon a just occasion, or in them­selves considered, may not be a Trans­gression of those General Precepts; and yet the observing of these Ceremonies too may be a Compliance with those General Precepts; because the Particulars, which they refer unto, are various and inde­terminate: And in things indifferent (that is, which are not particularly com­manded or forbidden by God) there may [Page 122] be yet degrees of more remote or nearer Approaches to Good or Evil, Decent or Undecent. There are [...], and [...]. There may be Reasons, Aptitudes and Tendencies to some or other good and fitting Purpose, sometimes to recommend one, and some­times to recommend another. And in these matters too, we may be said then to do well, when yet, it may be, we might do better. As the Apostle plainly asserts in the case of Marriage, 1 Cor. 7. 36. ‘Let him do what he will, he sin­neth not.—He that giveth her in Marriage, doth well; but he, that giveth her not in Marriage, doth bet­ter.’

Nor, after all, do I see any Reason, why the Power of Church-Governours ☞ should be confined to matters of Posi­tive In his rebus, de quibus ni­hil certi statu­it Scriptura Divina, Mos populi Dei, vel Instituta Majorum pro lege tenenda sunt. St. Aug. Ep. 86. Quod neque contra Fidem, neque contra bonos mores injungitur, in­differenter est habendum, & pro eorum, inter quos vivitur, societate servandum. Id. Ep. 118. ubi plura vide. Decency, as he explains it. A La­titude, me-thinks, might here do as well, as in other cases. A Latitude of Power in the Church, as well as a Lati­tude in the Conformity of her Children. Considering especially, how universal­ly [Page 123] the Commands run. ‘Children obey your Parents in all things. Servants o­bey your. Masters in all things.’ Which we cannot safely bound with any other Restriction, than this, that it be ‘in the Lord,’ that is, so far, as may consist with our Obligations to him as our Abso­lute Supreme, so far, as is not contradi­ctory to his Commandments.

Whereas therefore he tells us; ‘[TheP. 3 [...]. Dissenters not only allow that there are many cases, wherein somewhat is, in genere, necessary to be determi­ned; but also add, That in all cases truly such, the Magistrate Civil or Sa­cred, not only may, but must deter­mine; And indeed no Man in his wits can doubt, that what is necessary to be determined must be determined; And, seeing par in parem non habet potestatem, it follows, that they can­not be determined by any other but Supe­riours; that is, they cannot obligingly be determined by others. But then, saith he, they 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 necessarium est, quod non potest aliter se habere, That only is [Page 124] necessary to be done which cannot be left undone; That only necessary to be de­termined in order to the Performance of an Action, without which the A­ction cannot be done, or at least not well done.]’

The Result of this Discourse, in myNB. thoughts, is but this great Absurdity, That Magistrates, Civil and Sacred, may do that only without Sin, which they must do of necessary Duty. And I shall not stay to make further Remarks upon it.

Only let the People note, that when☞ we speak of Ceremonies, as indifferent and unnecessary in themselves consider'd, we do not mean, as the Reconciler and the Dissenters commonly represent them, Trifles and needless Things, but such, as the Divine Law hath not laid any parti­cular Restraint of Necessity upon by its Commands or Prohibitions, but left to be freely determined by our own Prudence, or the publick Authority. And that, which is not necessary by a Divine Command, may yet have other Necessities, or high Conveniences, which are next of kin thereunto to recommend it: It may be necessary to do the Action with greater Order, and Solemnity, and Uniformi­ty, &c.

It is well noted by a Reverend Per­son, Dr. Frank. serm. at St. Paul's Cross. in the Obedience of the Rechabites to their Fathers Commands, not only uni­versally to all of them, but omnino pro­ut, according unto all in every circum­stance. ‘You find this Requisite in your several Corporations, saith he, where the omission of a Punctilio draws after it intolerable Defaults. The Hedg is easily press'd through, where but one Bush is wound aside; And the Breach of one Circumstance is but the disposition to another. Things that in themselves seem of no considerable moment, within a while appear consider­able by the neglect; as the Error, that appears not at the first declining Line of the Workman, a while after mani­fests an irrecoverable Deformity. [Ac­cording to all.] That's the surest Rule to go by: you know it your selves in your own Corporations: you know it in your own Families, if you know any thing. Give an Inch, and they will take an Ell, is your own Proverb; and cannot you judg as equally for the Church? &c.’

There is no end of those Questions, what is Decent? what is Necessary? if we quit the publick Standard and Deter­minations. [Page 126] One saith, Episcopacy is not necessary. Another, Common-Prayer it self, or any Prescribed Form is not ne­cessary. Another saith, It is not neces­sary that we have any Creed but the Bible. Another, that a National or Parochial Church it self is not necessary. Another, that Infant-Baptism is not necessary. An­other, that Material Churches, or Tem­ples are not necessary. Another, that Holy Daies and Stated Fasts are not ne­cessary. Another, that Tithes are not necessary, &c. One can be well enough without this; Another without that; And some without all.

'Tis worthily observ'd elsewhere by the Reconciler, ‘that the Apostle doth inP. 303. the space of seven Verses thrice repeat the Command, that every Man abide in that Calling, to which he was called, at least so far, as not to desert it un­der pretence of Christianity; quippe quod in co plurimum situm est, as being an Admonition of great moment to pre­vent that invidious Accusation which was laid on the Christian Doctrine, that it did innovate in Civil Matters, and tended to dissolve the Relation betwixt Man and Wise, Masters and Servants.’

The Opposition, which is made a­gainst our established Ceremonies, hath, I fear, too great a tendence this way, to innovate in Civil Matters upon the pre­tences of Christianity, and therefore it may be of no small moment, to give some Admonition against it. For (to say nothing of the Ring in Marriage, which is now, I perceive, well enough digested) is not the significant Ceremony of a corporal Oath, to lay the Hand on the Book, and afterwards to kiss it, ☜ every way as exceptionable, as the Cross in Baptism? Is not Swearing a Religious Act? Is not that Ceremony as Symboli­cal, and in it self as indifferent? Is it not commanded on a severe Penal­ty? No Right at Law, no Justice ad­ministred without it, no Priviledg of the Subject without so taking the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, &c.

Then, may not the Robes of Judges, and the Liveries of Companies, and the Habits of Universities, and Inns of Court, the Corner'd Cap, and Hoods, &c. be as reasonably challeng'd, as the Surplice?

Then, for Kneeling, no Scruple ought to be made of that, when it is remembred, that we use it towards [Page 128] our Parents, and our Princes, and that as a Gesture properly expressive of Reverence to Superiours.

SECT. IX.

BUt because Kneeling at the Recei­ving of the Lord's Supper is the on­ly imposed Ceremony, that the Laity are concerned in, I will stop a while more particularly to consider of it.

These Ceremonies, which he speaks so tragically os, as debarring the Laity, dwindle at last into this one Ceremony of Kneeling as the Sacrament.

Now concerning this Gesture it self, there can be no possible Scruple; for it is particularly expressive of Reverence, and under the Recommendation of a gene­ral Drome Precept, or Exhortation. [Page 129] ‘O come, let us worship, and fall down and kneel before the Lord our Maker! And of Christ it is foretold, That every Knee shall bow unto him.’ And this is a peculiar part of that Honour, whereto God hath highly exalted him, in this sort to be worshipp'd and acknowledg'd in the World, Phil. 2. 10. But that no Divine Honour is hereby given, or intended to be given to the Sacramental Elements, or any Corporeal Presence of Christ in them, will be evident from the solemn Declaration of the Church, which we shall produce afterwards.

The only Doubt in the Accomoda­tion of it to the Act of Receiving is, that it seems to be a Variation from the first Copy of our blessed Saviour's Administring to his Apostles.

Now as to that, it deserves to be considered, that so are the two other Po­stures pleaded for in competition with it, Standing or Sitting.—More par­ticularly,

1. 'Tis certain the Jews did vary in After-Ages from the first Gesture appoint­ed to the Passover, Exod. 12. 11. ‘Thus shall ye eat of it, with your Loins girded, your Shoes on your Feet, and your Staff in your Hand, and ye [Page 130] shall eat it in haste: It is the Lord's Pass-over.’—Whereas after­wards it came, in their Setled State, to a Discumbency, or Lying along upon Beds, which is still used in the Eastern Countries: And this our blessed Saviour and his Apostles freely complied with.

2. 'Tis not yet possible to demon­strate, so as Conscience may build upon it, that he and his Apostles used the same Tricliniary Gesture at the Eucharistical Supper. It is, at best, but a Probabi­lity, that they did not change their Ge­stures from what it was before.

3. Though this were de side certain, yet who sees not, that this same Gesture might be then only occasionally used from the Custom or Practice at the Pass-over? Who can tell what Gesture might have been used by them, had this Sacrament been celebrated by it self, and not in conjunction with that other Feast?

4. Christ's binding Pleasure cannot possibly be fetch'd from the Historical Relation of a variable Gesture, but one time, nay, though often used. He sate daily teaching, as we reade in the Evan­gelist St. Matthew: yet is there no Preacher that thinks himself bound to that Gesture now.

5. There is no account to be given, why this Circumstance alone by it self, were it never so certainly determined, what it was in the first Pattern, shouldSee Bp. San­derson de con­scient. Plaelect. 3 § 16, &c. be more binding than any other in that Example; which are yet every-where now freely omitted. For 'Persons, for Actions, for other Circumstances of Time, and Place, &c. which I shall not here enlarge upon.

If in all these we are at liberty, why is there any Scruple left of a single Ges­ture?

6. There is a confessed variation al­lowed of by all Dissenters in the other Sa­crament of Baptism from the first Copies, I mean from Immersion or Dipping, in­to Suffusion, Aspersion or Sprinkling. And this is well observed and urged by the Reconciler.—‘If notwithstan­ding Baptism by Immersion is suitable P. 289. to the Institution of our Lord and his ☜ Apostles, and was by them ordained and used to represent our Burial with Christ, as St. Paul explains the Mean­ing of that Rite: I say, if, notwith­standing this, all our Dissenters do a­gree to Sprinkle the Baptized Infant, why may they not as well submit to the significant Ceremonies imposed by [Page 132] our Church? For since it is as lawful to add unto Christ's Institutions a signi­ficant Ceremony, as to diminish a signi­ficant Ceremony, which he or his Apo­stles instituted, and use another which they did never institute, what Reason can they have to do the latter, and yet refuse Submission to the former? Why should not the Peace and Union of the Church be as prevailing with them to perform the one, as is their Mercy to the Infants Body to neglect the other?’

7. It is very remarkable, that other Protestant Churches of great Name do continue the Gesture of Kneeling as well as we, from whose Communion we must on this account as well separate; And the Reformed Divines of Polonia, not☞ only of the Bohemian, but the Augustan and Helvetian Consession, have with one Consent, in three General Synods, con­demned the Ceremony of Sitting at Re­ceiving the H. Sacrament; as a less decent, and less Religious Rite, and proper to the Arrians, or Arrian-Baptists, who de­nied Christ's Divinity, and accordingly handled his Sacraments irreverently, placing themselves cheek-by-jowl, as Fellows with their Lord at his Table, and introduced this Gesture into their [Page] Churches contrary to the customary and allowed Practice of all the Evangelical Churches throughout Europe. (Synod. General. Cracov. An. Dom. 1573. Act. 6. Synod. Petricov. General. An. Dom. 1578. Syn. Wlodislav. Gen. An. Dom. 1583. Act. 5. which were again con­firmed Syn. Torunens. Gen. 1592.) This is discoursed more at large by the Rev. Mr. Ashwel, in his learned Books de Gestu Eucharistico, and de Socinianismo.

And he hath no less demonstrated the Antiquity of this adoring Gesture, however the Reconciler is pleased to call it, more than once, our Novel Cu­stome p. 293, 294. of receiving in a Kneeling Posture. Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Ephes. [...], saith St. Chrysostom, ‘Fall down and participate.’ And St. Augustin notes, that the Apostle St. Paul represents those as unworthy Receivers, Ep. 118. who did not discern or difference that sacred Food from other Meals (veneratio­ne singulariter debitâ) by a Veneration peculiarly due unto it. And elsewhere heIn Ps. 98. tells us; Nemo Panem istam mandu­cat, nisc prius adoraverit: No Man eats that Bread, until he have first adored.

8. Let the Declaration of the Church be heard for the preventing, as far as is possible, all manner of Scruple, or Of­fence at this Ceremony.

‘[Whereas it is ordained in this Of­fice for the Administration of the Lord's Supper, that the Communi­cants should receive the same Kneeling, (which Order is well meant for a signi­fication of humble and grateful Acknow­ledgment of the Benefits of Christ there­in given to all worthy Receivers, and for the avoiding of such Profanation and Disorder in the H. Communion, as might otherwise ensue) yet lest the same Kneeling should by any Persons, ei­ther out of Ignorance and Infirmity, or out of Malice and Obstinacy, be misconstrued and depraved, it is here declared, that thereby no Adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread and Wine there bodily received, or unto any Cor­poral Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and 'Blood. For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their natural Substances, and therefore may not be adored; (for that were Idolatry to be abhor'd of all faithful Christians) and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here, it being against the Truth of Christ's Natural Body to be at one time in more places than one.]’—And [Page 135] with such an Explication as this, Mr. Calvin allows of Adoration at the Sacra­ment. ‘Such Adoration, saith he, IInst. 1. 4. §. 37. would call legitimate, which stops not in the Signs, but is directed to Christ in Heaven.’

Now I cannot but observe a want of ☜ Candor in the Reconciler (as in some o­ther matters relating to the Church, so) particularly with reference to this De­claration.

Had he with Ingenuity and Truth transcribed that whole Rubrick of King Edward's Book, as it lies, it would more See Mr. Ha­mon L'Es­trange. P. 207, 208. evidently appear, that there is no mate­rial difference between it, and the pre­sent. I do not think it worth the while to take that pains here. For, as he re­presents it, 'tis visible enough, that the full Scope and Importance of that Preface is sufficiently included in the fore-recited Declaration, wherein the Church, so far as she thought convenient, hath chari­tably obviaied that Offence, which might otherwise have been taken by those, who either for Ignorance and Infirmity, or else for Malice and Obstinacy misconstru­ed and depraved her Appointments. And it is not consistent with Truth, to assert, that this whole Preface was left out, nor ingenuous, to insinuate, that it was done upon any evil design.

Some mistake the Reconciler could not chuse, upon reflection, but be con­scious of here: And therefore when he repeats it again, and calls it the Prote­station concerning this Gesture, he ex­presseth himself a little more warily: ‘Part of which Words are now omittedp. [...]. in our present Luturgy: viz. that im­portant Truth, that so much, as conve­niently [Page 137] may be, Offences should be taken away.’ Where yet I see no reason for the challenge of this Omission of a Truth every-where acknowledged, and which was the Foundation and Purport of the whole declaration.—But enough of this.

Lastly, The Appointment of the Church touching Kneeling at the Sacra­ment is so much the more reasonable and unexceptionable, because at the very Act of Receiving she hath also ordered a de­vout Prayer on the Communicant's be­half, which by a fervent Amen he is concerned himself to ingeminate. ‘The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy Bo­dy and Soul to everlasting Life.’ [And here, saith the Scotch Liturgy, shall the Receiver say, Amen.] ‘The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve thy Body and Soul unto everlasting Life.’ [Here a­gain, saith that Liturgy, the Party re­ceiving shall say, Amen.] Now there­fore, if the Dissenters scruple not to Kneel at their solemn Praiers, they need not so to do in the Act of Recei­ving the Lord's Supper, as it is by the Church of England appointed to be ad­ministred.

Upon the whole I may well say, con­sidering the Plainness of the thing, and the frequent Apologies made by the Church and her Sons for it, that if any shall yet oppose his own conceited Opinion against all this Evidence, and Charity, (as Mr. Calvin saith upon a like occasi­on touching Church-Orders) Viderit ipse In [...]. 1. 4. c. 10. quâ morositatem suam ratione Domino ap­probat, ‘Let him see what defence he can make before God for his Sturdi­ness or Frowardness.’

And yet after all I do humbly con­ceive, the Church of England would beThe Chur [...]h of England would do [...]b [...] ­les [...] [...], could [...] so do­ing reasonably [...] [...]: which is the [...] [...]ecommen­d [...]d from [...] in th [...] [...] of [...] [...] content even to injure her imposing Po­wer in this most reasonable matter, could she hope by so doing to reclaim the Dissenting Laity to her Communion. And I think it might deserve to be pro­pounded, with submission to her Wis­dom, whether, as matters with us stand, the Punishment however for the Omissi­on, might not be rather commuted by the sanction of the Civil Magistrate into some Temporal or Pecuniary Mulct for charitable Uses: And one Reason here might be taken from the common Ob­servation of the great success of the Test of late, which brought so many to the Church-communion, whom the dread of [Page 139] any spiritual Censures had but little in­fluence upon.

I will close this Controversy about the Imposition of Ceremonies in the Words of Bp. Gauden, when His Ma­jesty's Considerati­ous touching the Liturgy. P. 38. Condescending Declaration was yet fresh; ‘Certainly Humane Ecclesi­astical Ceremonies, like Shadows, nei­ther fill, nor burthen any Conscience of themselves. That which is consi­derable in them is, as they are in their nature and use comely for the Duty, and Instances either of Obedience, or of Charity and Unity. And it is no less certain, whatever Indulgence as to the Penalty, or Practice of Ceremonies, His Majesty's Clemency may please to grant to some Men of weak Minds and scrupulous Consciences in these things; (which Royal Charity no good Christian will repine at, pro­vided it be used with Meekness and Humility, not Insolence and Factious­ness) yet as to the Principle, whichNB. the Church of England went by in matter of Ceremonies, it is most true, and undeniably to be maintain'd even to the Death, that this National Church, as all others, hath from the Word of God Liberty, Power and [Page 140] Authority within its own Polity and Bounds, to judg of what seems to it most agreeable and decent as to any Circumstance or Ceremony in the Wor­ship of God, which the Lord hath left unconfined, free and indifferent in its nature, and only to be regulated and confined by every such Ecclesiastical Po­lity within it self; where the Consent of the major Part of Church and State, both in Councils and Parliaments, in­cludes the whole, and may enjoin its Rules and Orders in these things upon all under its Jurisdiction, and within its Communion; As well as a Master of a Family may appoint the Time, Place, Manner, and Measure, Ge­sture, and Vesture, wherein he will have all his Family to serve God with him.’

And very few, I think, if any, do☞ scruple our Ceremonies, (which are, as St. Augustin would have them, few in Number, easy in Practice, apt in Signi­fication) who do not also strike at this Doctrinal Principle, upon which the Church hath proceeded, and which she cannot discharge without a wrong to her self, and the whole Catholick Church of Christ.

And this is a sufficient Vindication to the Reverence and Respect by the Church of England born unto Antiquity in this case; that she retains and goes upon that General Rule, whereby the Cu­stoms and Canons of the Churches of God have been founded from the Begin­ning. Nor is it any prejudice to her Sincerity in this Reverence, that she hath also shewed her Liberty in forbearing some Ceremonies then in use, as well as her Authority in enjoining others, and a­bove all her Moderation, in that she hath been content with so small a Num­ber; so small a number, I say, that she is not liable to be charged in any thing so much, as in this: but that she hath also reserved to her self a Power of Ordaining Act of Uni­form. 1 Eliz. and Publishing such farther Ceremonies, as may be most for the Advancement of God's Glory, the Edifying of his Church, and the due Reverence of Christ's holy Mysteries and Sacraments.

And this again is Compurgation enough to her Equity in departing from the Church of Rome, that (Abuses removed) she continues some indifferent Ceremonies still in common with her, as a stand­ing Testimony, that she would never have been divided from her Communion [Page 142] upon the account of things indifferent, no Holiness or Superstition placed in them. But how monstrously unreason­able is it for any now to fly in the face of this Church on the score of three Ce­remonies only (but one of which is impo­sed on the Laity) when the Reconciler can tell them of twenty more, that she might have vouched Antiquity for?

It may be said, I think, of the three, what Dr. More confesseth of one of them, (which some yet above the restSee Reconc. P. 254. object against, the Cross in Baptism) ‘If the Church cannot make such Ad­ditionals as these, she can make none at all.’—And she must, I fear, for ever despair of demonstrating her Id. P. 153. imposing Power in any, lest subject unto Scruple.

For what may they not scruple here, who are no great Friends to external Decency, or Order, or Uniformity in the Church?

This is the Answer the Reconciler somewhere gives to certain Texts of Scripture alledged for Unity and Uni­formity, ‘[If all these Places be con­sidered seriously, saith he, they will be found not to exhort so much toP. 320. Unity of Judgment, but of Affection, [Page 143] not to Uniformity, but to Unanimi­ty, Peace and Concord.]’ But is it not evident, that they exhort as much as may be unto both? to be of the same mind, and to speak the same thing, and to walk by the same Rule; and as with one Mind, so with one Mouth to glori­fy God?

Nor is it any more prejudice toNB. Uniformity, that Unanimity is somewhat preferr'd before it, than it is to all exter­nal Worship; that the internal is of both of greater Value and Necessity. As we are to glorify God both in Body and Spi­rit, which are his, but chiefly with the Spirit and Inward Man; so we must labour to glorify him also in the Chri­stian Assemblies both with Faith in the Heart and Confession of the Mouth; by Unity both of Judgment and Affection in the Heart, and by Uniformity, as much as we can, of external Expressions of the same, as so many genuine Pledges and Testimonies of it; by one Mind and Heart, and by one Mouth; though principally still by the Unity of Faith and Charity within, if we respect the Judgment of God, who is the Father of Spirits; but if we regard the Judg­ment ☜ of Men, before whom we are to glo­rify [Page 144] God, it must be chiefly, as by ex­ternal Worship, so by the Witnessing our 1 Cor. 14. 23. Unanimity of Soul in the same by our vi­sible Order and Uniformity. And this is not only a natural result of being of one Heart and Mind, but tends very much to the producing and nourishing of Peace and Concord in the Church. I am not, I confess, in love with the Re­conciler's Notion of Reverence and Or­der; ‘that as some sit, some stand, some kneel at Common-Prayer,—and this without confusion, so mayP. 338. some sit, some kneel, some stand, at the receiving the Sacrament,—]’ The Church of England is of another Opinion, which calleth upon her Children all to Strange it is to consider; We commend the Beauty of Uniformity everywhere almost b [...] in the Church. kneel at the Confession, and stand up at the Greeds, and say Amen at the Pray­ers, &c. And this Uniformity is ac­cording to the Practice of the Church of God both under the Old and New Te­stament.

But should such a Liberty as this be introduced by the Abatement of pub­lick Impositions, we should certainly open a gap to this Inconvenience. Ma­ny who new conform in obedience to the P. 342. Laws (Cassandrian Conformists, I think, the Reconciler somewhere calls them, [Page 145] and such he represents himself to be, ‘asPref. p. 59. arose from Super-conformity, even in Cathedrals,’ as from Half-conformity) when the Laws and Canons requiring this Conformity shall be suspended, will also vary in their Practices, and be as careful of doing no more than shall be then exacted of them, to the full, as now they are of doing no less: And from this Variety and Change must needs ensue Censures and Animosities on either side; while some will be judged superstitious for their Fondness to old Ceremonies, P. 341. the Law which enjoined them being relaxated or abrogated; and others re­flected upon as mutable Weather-cocks, and Apostates from their former Profes­sion, &c.

SECT. X.

ANd after all it is questionable, What one of the Dissenters we should here­by gain over to our Communion, that will not as readily be reduced some other way? The Reconciler, I perceive, dare not engage far for them. But then he adds;

I am not desirous to urge any thing against the gracious Condescensions of our Superiours, wheresoever, and to whom­soever they judg it reasonable: And it cannot be denied, but if the Laws were removed, there could be no pos­sible Pretext to be made against them; but whether as plausible Pretences may not still as rationally be offered against what shall be yet left standing, I am somewhat in doubt. We have to do with a sort of Men, that will never want some alledgment or other to ac­cuse the Publick Proceedings. And 'tis ingenuously confess'd by the Reconciler, that whatsoever they now clamour a­gainst the Impositions, they have no­thing reasonably to object against their own Submission to them, much less as a ground of Separation, because of them.—Again, saith he,

‘They who at first dissented from theP. 330. Constitution of our Church, decla­red, they did it purely on the account of these things: If therefore the for­bearance to impose them will not pre­vail upon them to embrace Communion with us, we shall have the Advantage over them, that to all reasonable Men it will appear, that they are not the [Page 148] genuine Off-spring of the Old Dissenting Protestant, but a New upstart Faction, which call for such Conditions of Com­munion, as their more sober Brethren never dream'd of.]’ This, I think, appears unto reasonable Men pretty well already by those separate Assemblies which the first Dissenters did not dare to plead for. Yet I esteem it no great Glory for any to be the genuine Off-spring of those Old Dissenters neither, who were but an upstart Faction then, as the worst of these are now; nor do I think we have any Obligation to a kind Remem­brance of them, who first led the Dance, and broached those Principles, which our [...] Dissenters do only improve a little, and build upon.

This hath been long since urged inMr. Mason Serm. p. 67, 68. the case, ‘[As you rejoice the 'Papists, so you encourage the Brow­nists, who build their Conclusions upon your Premises, and put your Specula­tions See more to this purpose in [...] in practice. For have not your Ring-leaders proclaimed, that our Government by Bishops is Popish, our Liturgy Popish, our ministring of Ba­ptism with the Cross Popish, our Kneel­ing at the Communion Popish, our Ho­ly Duties Popish, and almost Every [Page 149] Thing Popish? Wherefore the Brow­nists having learnt that the Pope is Antichrist, and the present Church of Rome Babylon; and hearing a Voice from Heaven, crying, ‘Go out of her, my People, that ye be not Partakers of her Sins, and that ye taste not of her Plagues,’ have upon your former Premises gathered a Practical Conclu­sion, ☜ and made an actual Separation and Rent from the Church of England. And surely, my Brethren, as they had their Original from your Positions, so now are they strengthned by your Practices. For they may well think, that such learned and vertuous Men, so famous and renowned Preachers, knowing a Wo pronounced against them, if they preach not the Gospel, would never suffer themselves to be silenced for matters which they judged indiffe­rent. And therefore they will take it as granted, that the things you stick at are in your opinion simply unlaw­ful. And upon this dangerous Positi­on they will build another: For if the Liturgy of the Church of England, as it is enjoined at this day to be performed, be such, as a Minister cannot execute his Function with a good Conscience, then [Page 150] they conclude, that neither may the People hear it with a good Conscience, because their Presence were an Appro­bation of it. Thus the unquiet Will of Man will still be working, even till it run it self upon the Rock of its own Destruction.]’

Here we see the true Occasion and Rise of all those separate Congregations in the Nation, whom the Reconciler him­self (notwithstanding his abundant Cha­rity to Dissenters) believeth to be schis­matical. Pref. p. 59. ‘[And 'tis agreed on all sides, Book, p. 23. saith he, that Schism is a very great Of­fence, and by the Writers of the Church of England, and by the Primitive Fa­thers it is declared to be a Sin in its own nature damnable.]’ How little Encouragement then have we to in­dulge unto, or confide in such Men, or their genuine Off-spring, or (whatsoever may be urged for the Men) their schismatical Principles.

With what Reason and Zeal have the most learned and pious Sons of the Church of England appeared all along, even against those first Dissenters, and leading Patriarchs of the Non-conforming Brotherhood?

And again, ‘To come to the Form Id. Serm. p. 22. of Common-Prayer, as it was establish­ed by Queen Elizabeth, O what Bles­sings hath the Lord vouchsafed the People of this Land by means of that Book! How many Millions of Souls have received comfort by it! How many thousands of Learned Men have commended and defended it! You shall hear one for all, even that Judi­cious Jewel, in whose opinion it con­taineth nothing, either disagreeing from Holy Scripture, or misbeseeming sober [Page 152] Men. And yet it hath pleased our Gracious Soveraign, that some things should be explained, that the Publick Form of Prayer might be free not only from Blame, but from Suspi­cion.]’

This excellent Book, we know, hath been since deliberately reviewed, and certain Alterations made in it by the best Advice and Authority in the Kingdom: And yet some Men raise fresh Objections, even from those Altera­tions. What can we suppose will ever satisfy them, unless they may them­selves prescribe and govern all? Let me here recommend to an impartial Consi­deration the Words of a very Reverend Person on this occasion.

Nevertheless if it shall still be thought expedient, for mere pitty and commisera­tion-sake to some weak and prejudiced Dissenters, to importune the Church and State for some Condescension farther in scrupled Ceremonies and certain disputa­ble Clauses of the Liturgy (which is the professed Design of the Reconciler alone to plead for in certain Passages of his [Page 155] Treatise) it ought certainly to be done without any affront to the Establishments, ☜ or Reflection upon the Authority of those that are to govern us. We should not at the same time endeavour to extort that by plain dint of Argument and Ne­cessity, which we sue for as an Act of special Grace and Favour. And I do readily enough subscribe to the Words of Bp. Taylor, which he makes use of in the case. ‘If the Question be, Who P. 224, 225. shall yield? The Governours certainly have Authority, and others say, they have Reason. The one ought to be pittied, and the other to be obeyed, but both ought to yield. Only the Subject must yield outward Obedience, though otherwise it were not necessary: yet if it be lawful, it accidentally be­comes so. And if it be not lawful, or if he thinks it is not, yet he must be careful he give no offence, but modest­ly, humbly, and without reproach offer his Reasons against the Law. But then the Governours also must yield; (so far as they apprehend Reason so to do) They must not consider, how much is possible for them, but how much is fit; they must meditate no­thing of Empire, (doing things meer­ly [Page 156] because they have Power in their Hands) but much of Charity; they must consider, which will do most good to the Souls to which they relate; they must with Meakness instruct the Gain­sayers, and with Sweetness endeavour to win them, and bear with the Infirmities of the Weak, if they can perceive the Weakness to be innocent.]’

SECT. XI.

I Have now finished my Animadver­sions upon the first Proposition of the Reconciler, which he prosecutes so largely, and with so many reflecting Passages upon the Church of England in this his Book, against the Imposition of unnecessary Ceremonies, (as he calls them) and retaining some Disputable Passages in the Liturgy, which he nowhere rec­kons up. It only remains, that I press him to a speedy Dispatch of his promised Endeavours upon the second, wherein he undertakes to prove, with Words of Truth and Soberness, That Separation from Communion with us on the account of those few scrupled Ceremonies and Dispu­table Expressions is sinful and unreasona­ble as well as mischievous.

I will only remember him, that this is one of the best Periods in his Apology or Preface for a favourable Construction of what he hath already done; and that Disservice as well as Disrespect, which the Application of some Arguments and Phrases in his Treatise may do the [Page 158] Church of England and her Honoured and Apostolical Governours.

He hath given us some taste here and there of his great Abilities this way; I will only touch upon a few Passages, and so conclude.

Once more, ‘The great Rule ofP. 187. Equity, if duly weighed, would migh­tily conduce unto the Satisfaction of Dissenters in many of their Scruples, and let them see, that in those mat­ters, which are not apparently forbid­den by the clear Word of God, they ought to yield Obedience to the Com­mands of their Superiours; for do not they expect Obedience from their Chil­dren in like cases?’

I have done both the Reconciler and the Church Justice in the exhibi [...]ing these excellent Passages again to view. And I must conclude, that I have not any-where offended him, who hath so­lemnly declared, ‘That there is nothing Pref. p. 3. in the World, in which he shall more heartily rejoice, than in a clear Convi­ction, that in that Part of his Dis­course, which doth concern his ever honoured Superiours, he hath been [Page 162] (somewhat at least) mistaken.—’ However it prove, I have endeavour­ed and offered at it without Gall and Bitterness, or any such Transports, which are unbecoming a Loving and Dutiful Son in wiping off the Reproaches cast up­on his Dear Mother, the Church of Eng­land, with her true Apostolick Guides and Rulers, and Supreme Governour.

And in some things, I am sure, I may justly challenge his Promise both of Thanks and Retractation; or expect however a better Explanation of more doubtful Passages, than any that are to be found in our Common Liturgy.