S. Paul foretold that after his departure grievous Wolves should enter in (with a design and malice) not to spare but to devour the Flock: these were Wolves in Sheeps cloathing, whose business was to steal, to kill and to destroy; but these were not all, and perhaps not the most pernicious of the Churches Ene­mies: He foretells further, that also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things to draw Disciples after them. And this Prophecy is fulfilled in [Page 2] our Reconciler. For among others he is risen up, with his perverse Principles, to make and engage a Party.

Had he intended the satisfaction or information of his Superiors, his Duty would have prompted him to have pre­sented his Papers humbly into their hands and with a modest submission to have expected the result of their wise Councils. But a Noverint Ʋniversi was fitter to carry on his popular Design, and to caress his dear Vain-glory.

He should have come in the Spirit of Elias, to turn the hearts of the Fathers unto the Children, the Holy Fathers Mind and Principles, their Faith and Af­fections into the Children: and the Dis­obedient to the Wisdom of the Just: That what the Fathers have believed and pra­ctised, [...] L. Brug. ad [...]uc. 1. 17. & Paul. de Pala­ti [...] in Mal. 4. 6. the Children may also embrace and follow.

He could have told them, that Christ ha­ving assured his Disciples that God, who hears the Addresses of His Church, he streightly commands them also to hear Her, upon pain of forfeiting Her (which is the same with His) Blessing; being deservedly (for their contumacy in their Disobedience) turned out of Her Communion as Publicans and Heathens.

He might have been pleased to take notice, how Christ resolves the case of Conscience about the Tythe of Mint and Cummin, and the weightier matters of the Law, saying unto such as were con­cerned to be well informed, These things Matth. 23. 23. ought ye to have done and not to have left the other undone. How Christ observed not only the service solemnly established, but such Customs and Festivals as had no divine Institution, laying down this for a Rule of Conscience; Thus it behoves us to fulfill all Righteousness.

He might have put them in mind (asMatth. 3. 15. Tit. 3. 1. St. Paul exhorts) to be subject to Prin­cipalities and Powers, and to obey their Spiritual Guides in their Conduct and to submit to their Orders; in regard thatHeb. 13. 7. 17. 1 Cor. 14. the spirit of the very Prophets ought to be subject to the greater authority of the Prophets.

He knows very well, that we ought not to be contentious about the Customs and Practices of the Church, when they do not supersede the Commands of God, nor interfere with them. That the Governors of the Church have a great Authority from our Lord, and are intrusted in his stead to set things in Or­der for Edification and Decency in Gods [Page 4] public Worship and Service. And when they have done this with great prudence and deliberation, that the sub­jects are to do their duty without mur­muring or disputing, and to honour such their Governors very highly for their work-sake.

If not, he could have informed his Readers, That Christ hath furnisht those Governors with the power of the Keys to shut the door as well as to open it, with a Rod for Discipline, Authority to mark and censure, to admonish and rebuke sharply, to stop their mouths who speak preverse things, and to reject them from the Communion of Christ's Church, if they will neither obey her commands, nor regard her admonitions.

Are they not entrusted by our Lord to make Orders for Discipline, and to take the measures of Decency by their own Judgment and Prudence? and when they have estabished all things to God's Glory, the Peace and Edification of the Church, is it our Duty to follow our Guides or to controul them? to con­front our Governors or to obey them?

When a difference arose betwixt the Jews and Gentile Converts, 'twas thought the most prudent and likely [Page 5] Way to compose it, to have recourse toActs 15. Acts 16. 4. the Apostles and Elders about it, and the Holy Ghost did assist them in the Decision; and S. Paul himself carried about the Decrees to be kept. But our Reconciler takes another course to buoy up a sinking Cause and Faction; He Censures all the Governors of Church and State; decrys their Impositions and directly quarrels their Authority.

Yet 'twas the Resolution of the Brit­tish Acta Synod. in jol. De ae­quitate Decreti Synodici. pag. 139. Divines at the Synod of Dort, In adi­aphoris Supremus Magistratus vice Dei ostendit quid expedit & decet: The Su­preme Magistrate, declares in God's stead what is decent and expedient, in things indifferent. This the whole Synod assented to; and by this Rule they justi­fied their Proceedings against the Re­monstrants.

And if the pretence of Christian Li­berty be allowed to retrench the Kings Prerogative in Church-matters; 'twill soon follow the Pope's Practice (in Ordine ad Spiritualia) and invade his Authority in Temporals. All times have afford­ed examples of turbulent Spirits, who thought their Christian Liberty could not consist without the downfall of the Ci­vil Power. That their Religion did [Page 6] exempt them from all the Laws and Or­dinances of men, and gave them a Pri­viledge to oppose and banish the very Office of the Magistrate from amongArgument. Ep. ad Rom. 6. Ad Rom. 13. them. This Calvin as well as Bullinger has observed. And Gualter tells us, that the Jews elated with the conceit of their Ancient Dignity, took it in great disdain, that the Posterity of Abraham, E [...] ad Rom. 13. and the Elect people of God, should be in Subjection to the Romans; where­fore they made frequent Insurrections to recover their Ancient Liberty; and [...] had not quite cast off these Prin­ciples of Sedition, when they embraced the [...] of the Gospel. Many also of the [...], did with no less impa [...]e bear the Yoak of such as were the Professed Enemies of Christ and [...] Gospel.

And [...] these, a sort of subtil [...] did insinuate themselves; and having [...] the Grace of God into [...], that they might enjoy [...] c [...]rnal satisfactions with the great­er license and impunity, as St. Jude ob­ [...], they made it their business to [...]bolish Government.

By this means the Christian Religion [...] among such as were in [Page 7] Authority, as the Parent and Breeder of Tumults and Seditions; as at this very day, says Gualter, many render our Religion suspected and odious to Princes upon the very same account.

For this reason the Apostle does so fre­quently extol Authority, and so earnest­ly inculcate and press that Subjection and Obedience, which is justly due to it:

Thus St. Peter commands the Jews 1 Pet. 2. 13. to 17. Tit. 3. 1. 1 Tim. 2. 1. to obey Kings and such as Governed by their Commission. And St. Paul enjoyns Titus to admonish those under his charge to obey the higher Powers; And Timothy to make publick Prayers for them. And this he does with the greatest care and concern, when he writes to the Christians at Rome; be­cause their Animosities and Disputes a­bout their Christian Liberty were high, and nothing could be acted by the Pro­fessors of the Gospel there that looked so like Sedition, without the apparent hazard of the whole Church.

And this Doctrine, saith he, is no less needful now than heretofore, to re­press the rage and madness of those tur­bulent Spirits, the Anabaptists and Liber­tines, who abuse their Christian Liberty to overthrow the Power of the Civil Magistrate.

For they presume, They are Abraham's Seed too, not Semen Carnis, but Semen Foederis, The Spiritual Israel of God, and his peculiar People; and consequently intituled to all the Prerogatives, which the Scripture attributes to those under that Character. And being puft up with the con­ceit of their Spiritual Dignity, they look upon all Princes as Gods Enemies, and Usurpers of a Spiritual Jurisdiction, which they think does not belong unto them. Hereupon they are ever rea­dy to mutiny, and raise Sedition to shake off that Yoak, which they falsly conceive to be Ty­rannical, and to assert that Lawless Liberty, which they mistake for their Christian Priviledg.

Does not the Reconciler too much favour such Factions, and encourage the like Anabaptistical Outrages and run into the same excess of Riot, upon the like unjust account of Christian Liberty? I am sure he has given the Alarm to awaken the Jealousie of Princes, by abetting such peevish quarrels at their commendable Impositions.

For what is his Practice and the business of this Book? He speaks faintly of the Subjects Du­ty, but falls foul upon his Superiors; whom he condemns for their care to keep out the Wolf and the little Foxes; and attempts to overthrow their Authority by such weak and fallacious Ar­guments as have been baffled twenty times over; or else they are nothing to the purpose; or may be retorted with greater force upon the Party he takes upon him to plead for.

For (1.) He supposes men to be weak, and then he pleads stifly for a Toleration for them; yea, he supposes them to be such weak ones, and under such [Page 9] circumstances, as those were in S. Pauls time, and then alledges S. Paul's Argu­ments on their behalf. These are gra­tis dicta and false suppositions, which he can find no ground for among all the Fathers he heaps together to counte­nance his Hypothesis; for which of them did ever condemn the Customs and Ce­remonies of the Church in their times, upon the account of any thing deliver­ed to the contrary in St. Paul's Epi­stles?

Yet (2.) He supposes a Multitude of Rites and Ceremonies among us, and such as have nothing in them of real goodness, or of positive Order, Decen­cy and Reverence; but such as are burdensome and scandalous, and these unjustly imposed, (which would be true enough if he could prove them to be such) and then as such he disputes against them. And indeed his design is to destroy all Authority in matters of indifferency; and to extend this false and Seditious Doctrine to the utmost, to blind and harden such as have rashly (I will not say maliciously) kickt at their Governors, and taken a vain oc­casion to stumble into Schism, He reck­ons not only the symbolical protestation [Page 10] of Christianity by the sign of the Cross, but the external worship of God, by bowing and kneeling, amongst things indifferent. p. 39. 76, iii.

We are therefore concerned to take into consideration, (1.) The Persons supposed to be weak and (2.) the Things they take occasion to scruple at.

I. Men may be weak either in their Faith or in their Morals. These last come not under our consideration in this Controversie.

Him that is weak in the Faith, saithRom. 14. 1. the Apostle; Faith is here taken for knowlege of Divine matters, especiallyRom. 12. 3. 6. of our Christian Liberty; that a man understands the difference of days and meats establish'd by the Ceremonial Law of Moses to be taken away by Christ under the dispensation of the Gospel. (Calixt. ad Rom. 14. 1.) The Apostles observation was that all men had not this Knowledge. And these were the1 Cor. 8. 7. Apostles weak ones.

For (1.) they had been bred under another dispensation, the Discipline of a Ceremonial Law, which stood by Di­vine Right, and being of Gods own ap­pointment, it had the greater force and tye upon the Conscience, and prevailed [Page 11] the more by bearing the Image of a ve­nerable Antiquity, for Custom which had inured them to the practice of it had a Prepossession and made it little less than Natural.

(2.) On the other side they were cal­led off to another Dispensation which totally evacuated the force of that Law, and rescinded all those Rites and Cere­monies to which they had been so long accustomed.

Now, that an Institution established with so much Grandeur, Dread and Majesty should quite lose its Authority; and that they should have a power to shake off that Yoak which had been put upon the Necks of their Reverend and Holy Fathers by God himself; this was the great stumbling-block, and the Objection they scrupled at.

They were but Novices in Christia­nity, but newly called to the Profession of the Gospel; and they did not per­fectly understand the Nature of the Christian Liberty; this was their weak­ness; and their persons are recommend­ed to us under the title of little ones, of Babes in Christ, and of weak Brethren.

Such little ones, tho their judgments were weak, if their hearts were sound [Page 12] and their Faith unfeigned, Christ had a great compassion for them. Take heed ye offend not one of these little ones that believe in me: And so S. Paul for his Babes in Christ; Him that is weak Rom. 1 [...]. 1. in the Faith receive into your Communi­on: but not so as to encourage him in his own prejudices, to quarrel with the course of other mens Conversation.

But did either St. Paul or Christ cock­er them up in their childish weakness, and indulge them to continue Babes al­ways (as our Reconciler does?) Did not our Blessed Lord chide his Disciples Duncery in his School? O ye of little Faith! How long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? O fools and slow of heart to believe! Luke 24. 25. And did not St. Paul check the dulness and non-proficiency of his Disciples? And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto Spiritual, but as unto Carnal (He leaves out the word men, and adds) even as unto Babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk and not with meat. For when 1 Cor. 3. 1, 2. for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which he the first Principles of the Oracles of God; and are become such as have need Heb. 5. 12. of milk and not of strong meat. Did not [Page 13] he and the rest of the Apostles charge us to be strong in the Lord and in the power of his might: to grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; and to be always building up our selves in our most holy Faith, and soEph. 6. 10, 2. Pet. 3. 18. Jude v. 20. 21. to keep our selves in the love of God.

But our Blessed Saviour knew there were and ever would be Wolves in Sheeps cloathing, and a generation of men that would not be satisfied either full or fasting: that would take of­fence at his own freedom as well as at theMat. 11. 18, 19. Baptists austerity. Does he dandle these upon his lap for little ones? No, for such he has severer methods; an ex­probration: O Generation of Vipers; andMatth. 12. 34.—23. 13. an increpation; Wo unto you Scribes Pha­risees Hypocrites. And does not S. Paul also mark them which cause Divisions and Offences? And does he not tell us suchRom. 16. 17. are false Apostles, deceitful workers, trans­forming themselves into the Apostles of Christ 2 Cor. 11. 13. and to inhance the mischief we are told farther, that many shall follow their perni­cious ways. Does S. Paul flatter or con­nive at such as these? no, his pious zeal breaks out into a just indignation a­gainst such disturbers of the Churches peace and safety. I would they were even 2 Pet. 2. 2. [Page 14] cut off which trouble you: and he tells them plainly, he that addicts himself to such a practice, he shall bear his judge­ment, (and that a sad doom from the mouth of an Apostle) whosoever he ibid. v. 10. be.

'Tis a very severe conclusion of Mr. Calvin, and he takes it from Christs ex­ample in curing the blind man which gave so great a scandal to the Pharisees. By this example (saith he) we are taughtJohn 9. 14. that such as are enemies to the truth of the Gospel, may be exasperated, ac eos prorsus desipere, and those Reconcilers do but play the fool, who do attempt to coaks the World into a fellow-ship with Christ, as to condemn all emergent Offences; when Christ himself does ra­ther wittingly and willingly nettle and provoke the wicked. Tenenda ergo, quam alibi praescribit, regula, we must therefore observe that Rule which He prescribes in another place, that the blind leaders Mat. 15. 14. of the blind are to be neglected.

We must be very careful therefore to observe as Hemmingius doth (ad Rom. 14. 1.) that in this point of tenderness, St. Paul speaks of such weak ones as had not yet fully learned the nature and use of their Christian Liberty, & non de [Page 15] praefractis: and speaks not of the refra­ctory, who stubbornly set themselves in opposition to the truth. And Bul­linger observes that the Apostle speaksAd Rom. 15. [...]. And Beza ad Rom. 14. 2. ait, Non eos qui ma­litiose & prae­fractè resistunt Evangelicae li­bertati, sed qui sola igno­rantia peccanti hic infirmos vo­cari. remarkably of regarding the infirmities of the weak, nam malitiam nemo pius tu­lerit aut non oderit etiam, for no good man will endure such a ones malice, but rather hate it. Add yet that learned Protestant makes a further observation, Porro placent sibi hoc loco, qui suo ser­viunt commodo, & quod agunt, ad suum Hi scandali­zantur quia ve­ritatem nesci­unt: illi quia veritatem ode­runt. Hemming. Syntag. de Scandalo. trahunt compendium: That they who study to serve their own ends, and do nothing but what they can draw to their own advantage, do wonderfully please themselves in that piece of Scripture; and so doth our Reconciler.

But (2.) willful and affected Igno­rance does excommune us from the pri­vilege of a weak Brother as well as ma­lice and stubbornness: We must notChrysost. ad Rom. 14. Ho­mil. 26. think (saith St. Chrysostome) that igno­rance will be sufficient for our Defence: for there will come a time when we shall be punish'd for our ignorance; that is to say, when ignorance it self shall find no pardon. For the Jews were ignorant, but they were ignorant of those things, the ignorance whereof deserves (or shall [Page 16] obtain) no pardon: the Greeks also were ignorant, but they have no excuse. For if thou art ignorant of such things as cannot be known, thy ignorance is not culpable: but if thou be'st igno­rant of those things which are both pos­sible and easie to be known, thou do'st deservedly suffer extreme punishment.

Let us take heed therefore that we be not imposed upon by the vizor or fraud of pretended little ones. These Dissenters would (one while) be account­ed weak Brethren: but upon what ac­count can we esteem them so? were they bred up (as the Jews were under Moses) under another Dispensation? Were they taught another Gospel than what S. Paul Preached? If they were; I am sure they have not so learned Christ. If they were nursed up in false Princi­ples from their Childhood, is it not high time for them to put away those childish things? have they not had time enough and means enough to be better informed? are they not of age and of capacity to understand the do­ctrine and practice of the Christian Li­berty? what it is in it self, and the ex­tent of its nature, and what it is in its use, when it is limited and determined by Authority.

But they study to contend, and to build themselves up in Faction. They give themselves up to vain jangling and perverse disputings, instead of an hum­ble and modest address unto their duty,Phil. 2. 13. which they are obliged to perform with­out mumuring and disputing. If these be S. Paul's Babes in Christ, I am sure they are very froward ones. But they assume the title of weak Brethren for o­ther ends, their weakness improves in­to Faction, and therein they strengthen themselves, and boast of their might a­gainst all Right and all Authority and Power, nothing will serve their turn but Christ on his Throne, and that must be one of their own make, according to their own imagination; and therefore 'tis no wonder, they think he can ne­ver ascend it without the help of their Sedition.

Just such weak ones were those Fa­naticks which infested Germany in the infancy of the Reformation, well esteem­ed they were at first for their presump­tive well-meaning, pitied for their sim­plicity and countenanced for their zeal and fair pretensions unto Godliness: but when they began to set up themselves in their taking Arms for Jesus Christ, [Page 18] and to oppose all establisht Order and Government but their own; the Prin­ces thought it high time (when they had unmasq'd their hypocrisie) to lay aside their own compassion and kindness and to deal with them according to their deserts, at the rate of head-strong and sturdy Rebels.

But from the Persons he pleads for, under the feigned notion of weak Bre­thren (whose pulse and temper we may be called upon to feel and examine a lit­tle more precisely hereafter) let us pass on to consider the things he pleads a­gainst, as things indifferent, whihc he thinks to be no less imprudently than un­charitably imposed.

And here I must premise, that, this Reconciler, is as like to be an [...]; such a busie-body in mat­ters which he has no concern to inter­meddle in, as any of those, whom the Apostle tells us do deservedly suffer (as1 Pet. 3. 17. chap. 4. 1 [...]. it is sit they should) amongst evil doers.

For has he any order from his Superi­ours to undertake the part of a Recon­ciler? did they furnish him with instru­ctions and give him his Rules and Mea­sures to guide him in a matter of this importance to Church and State? or has [Page 19] he any Commission from the Dissenters to act and play the Advocate on their behalf? have they made their last Will and Testament about things indifferent? Does he know what they are content to bequeath to the Church, or what they are resolved to take from it? Can he tell what will fully satisfie their scrupu­losity, and bring them into so hearty a compliance with us as may settle a hap­py and a seasonable conformity amongst us? if he can produce no delegation to this effect (the design he goes upon run­ning Counter to the Laws and Customs establisht) his attempt will be ridicu­lous, and appear to consist of as many and as impertinent fooleries as those he has so civilly charged the Learned Meis­ner with. But let us proceed.

When Moses the great Law-giver was about to make the Tabernacle (a Type of the Church) he was admo­nished thus of God, see that thou make Heb. 8. [...]. all things according to the Pattern shewed to thee on the Mount. But I do not find that ever he called the people to consult whether they approved of this or that part of the pattern; nor do I find any attempt of theirs to question or dispute the decency of any particular piece of [Page 20] that pattern. Now parallel to the Pat­tern on the Mount, the Apostles had the mind of Christ after his frequent Sermons and private discourses. AndActs 1. Gal. 1. S. Paul had it also by a special revela­tion. And a prospect of this Pattern, we have in those General Rules of the Apostles, let all things be done decently and in order, to publick edification and the Glory of God.

These were the Pattern on the Mount under the New Testament, the Ritual Law of the Holy Gospel, by which a­lone the Authority of Governors is li­mitted and directed. And when mat­ters of Ecclesiastical Discipline are esta­blished by their Prudence according to this Rule, the subjects Duty is to sub­mit and follow their steps and practice. And if this were well observed it would presently free them from all their doubts and scruples as well as from their Schism; which can never be excused, unless they can prove, that their Governors do act contrary to the divine Canon, in which case only, they may plead with S. Peter whether it be right, &c. ButActs 4. 19. the Reconciler can never make use of that Plea against our Governors in favour of the Dissenters (if he reck­ons [Page 21] them amongst S. Pauls weak ones) because he confesses (p. 73.) the A­postle has made as perfect and full a de­termination against them as words can make.

And 'tis a little strange to observe the want of Ingenuity in this Reconciler: (according to the wonted practice of the Party) he repeats their Cavils and Objections, but never takes notice of the Answers that have been returned; it seems they have been refuted with so much strength of reason, that he thought himself not able enough to grapple with it. But this is not all, he makes a great cry against the imposition of unnecessa­ry Ceremonies, as if the Constitution of this Church were over-burthened, and the good Seed of the Gospel choak­ed with the multitude of them, when in truth upon a strict examination they will not amount unto a number. For we may observe

That he reckons some observances among things indifferent, which really are not so. He does instance in bowing and kneeling, which are parts of Gods external Worship, suggested by the light of nature, and enjoyned by the second precept of the Moral Law; which [Page 22] command binds always (semper non ad semper) but because this exter­nal Worship may be exhibited in se­veral gestures of the Body, which can­not be all performed at once, therefore it is left to the wisdom of the Church to determine it (pro hic & nunc) for place and season; for which notwithstan­ding She wants not Her sufficient dire­ctions in holy Scripture.

2. We may observe that all things are not alike indifferent. As in those Hea­venly bodies, there is one Glory of the Sun, another of the Moon, & another of the Stars and one Star differeth from another Star in Glory: So a great disparity there was betwixt the State and Magnificence of the first and second Temple, for even that which was made glorious, had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glo­ry that excelleth. And to bring the di­scourse2 Cor. 3. 10. more close to our concern; a Surplice is generally a thing indifferent; and yet, when we come to specialties, who sees not that there is a great diffe­rence betwixt one of Cambrick and one of Canvas: and the richer it is in va­lue according to common estimation, the greater respect it shews to the person to whom we do therein administer. And this [Page 23] is God's own account as well as mine; when the people made the Table of the Lord contemptible by their lame and blind Sacrifices, God upbraids them for their profane ingratitude; Offer it now unto thy Governor: will he be pleased with Mal. 1. 7. 8. thee, or accept thy person, saith the Lord of Hosts? And we must remember that it was the Poverty of the Offerer which God condescended to, when he accep­ted of a pair of Turtle-doves or two young Pigeons for an Oblation; and this was only in case of a private per­son, who was able to present no more; and so must not be brought into exam­ple, when we are concerned for pub­lick Administrations. And we may con­sider further that

The estimate of Veneration and Re­verence is taken from the customs of se­veral Places and Countrys: to put off our shooes in holy places among us would be undecent; and so it would be thought to kiss the Kings hand upon our tails. Whatever they do in other places, our Governors have adjudged the Gestures and Observances in use among us to be the most Reverent; and 'tis left to their judgment by Christ himself to deter­mine it; and I know no Goverment of [Page 24] State or Church in the World, that will lightly change their Country Customs to gratifie the designs or importunity of any impetuous Faction, that is crept in, or risen up amongst them.

3. 'Tis to be considered that there are some things indifferent in the Gene­ral, and yet there is a necessity for their specification. And herein 'tis left to the prudence of Governors to determine. This is so evident of it self, that the Dissenters acknowledge it, in the instan­ces of time and place. There can be no publick Administration, no solemn As­sembly without them; herein therefore they will allow Authority to determine.

And why not as well in the matter of Habit? For to go naked is against the Law of natural decency; and to go in a Fools Coat is ridiculous: wherefore if Modesty has virtue enough to make a thing necessary, some Habit ought to be appointed for publick Officers in their publick and solemn Administrati­ons; and who should determine this but the Governors?

And the like we may plead for our Gesture, for some Gesture in the per­formance of Gods Worship and Service is of absolute necessity (there can be [Page 25] nothing done without it) Authority therefore must determine; and (as was hinted even now) Holy Scripture does suggest enough for the direction of the Church herein, in the Revelation made to the Holy Evangelist, we find the Saints and Elders in three several po­stures; they were sitting, Rev. 4. 4. (2.) They were standing, Rev. vii. 9, 3. they were falling down upon their knees or faces, Rev. iv. 10, & 5, 8, 14. their sitting was a posture wherein they did attentively hear and receive the Ho­ly Oracle and Instructions of the Gospel (as Rev. iv. 4.) their standing was, to profess their Faith in Christ and to singRev. 7. 9. 10. & Rev. 5. 9, 10, 11, 12. compar'd with v. 8. and 14. Rev. 4. 10. 5. 8. 14. 7. 11. God's Praises: their falling down (whe­ther upon their knees or faces) was to Adore and Worship.

No doubt their behaviour was seemly and Reverent in all these several Po­stures or Gestures: but sitting (as to hear) was not so Reverent as standing, and standing (as to sing lauds and prai­ses) was not so Reverent as prostrati­on (or falling upon their knees or faces) when they offered up their prayers (Rev. v. 8.) or when they did adore and worship God and the Lamb, they performed it with the profoundest Ve­neration [Page 26] and Reverence: and from this Pattern on the Mount, the Church does take and prescribe Her practice.

For kneeling at the Sacrament, the penitent and devout soul must needs be convinced that it is expedient Quia opus habemus stimu­lis, non parum valet genuflexio. V. Calvin ad 6 Dan. 10. m. p. 73. in med. not that g [...]nu­flexio per [...]se ne­cessaria in pre­cibus. for (1.) does not the profoundest adorati­on become us at the performing of our greatest Duty and Service? And do we not here commemorate the most bitter Passion and Death of our dearest Lord and Master; and shall not this humble us? And (2.) upon what account did he suffer that shameful and accursed death? Was it not for our guilt? Did not God lay on him the iniquity of us all? Was he not wounded for our trans­gressions? And shall not this bring us upon our knees? 3. Do we not here ad­dress our selves for Grace and Pardon? And shall we expect such blessings upon our tails? Is it not a custom with us, and do we not think it highly decent to kneel down when we kiss our Prin­ce's hand to receive a Temporal Benefa­ction? For my part, when I expect to receive the greatest blessings of heaven from the ever blessed Jesus, by the hand of his Minister, to sit then upon my taile (which may be decent enough in [Page 27] their conceit, who can prophane the holy Sacrament in lambs-wool) seems a most vile irreverence, and to deal freely, I cannot find in my self the least inclina­tion to communicate at our Lords Ta­ble in such a posture of good-fellow­ship.

4. We are to consider, that where the Scripture is silent it is left to the pru­dence of Governors to determine what things are most expedient; and with­out this power there can be no Unifor­mity, nothing but Disorder and Confu­sion. The very first Convention at Je­rusalem, was to determine a Case of this nature; for the things there specifiedActs 15. 28, 29 were not necessary antecedently to the decree of that Council. The Apostle commends highly such as observed Tra­ditions and Ordinances of that kind,1 Cor. 11. 2. 2 Thes. 3. 6. and such as did not observe them, He censures as disorderly persons. Indeed the scene of the Governors Legislative power lyes chiefly in expedients. For as to sin and moral vertue, therein they are but Executors to perform the will of the Supreme Law-giver.

And now, because our Protestant Re­conciler upon all or no occasion lashes out upon the Surplice and the sign of [Page 28] the Cross (taking no notice at all of what has been offered elsewhere in their vin­dication) I shall add a word or two more for the satisfaction of the ingenu­ous Reader. How did the Saints and Elders appear before the Throne of God to the great Divine? It was inRev. 4. 4, 7, 9 white Robes: if they had been cloath­ed in Linsey-Woolsey, a Levitical Con­science might have taken offence and bogled at it: but in representing the state of the Church and Priesthood, in a Vision to his beloved Disciple and E­vangelist, we may assure our selves he would not make use of such a Habit as were scandalous.

And for the sign of the Cross (tho they cry out of many) 'tis the only Ce­remony in all our practice of Religion; and it is but once apply'd to any single person in his whole life, and that is done too, for the most part, without his consent or knowledge (which there­fore cannot be his sin) by the hand of the publick Minister. This is the only symbolical sign we have, that is under no necessity and of no Divine Instituti­on: yet this is a real protestation of our Faith in Christ Crucified; which Faith we must not keep to our selves as we [Page 29] may do some private opinion about matters of indifferency, wherein the Church has made no determination.Rom. 14. 21. That this is innocent and justified by the practice of those Tribes in build­ing their symbolical Altar, and of Da­niel in setting open his windows, (which are approved by all Divines, and by God himself) and that these very ex­amples are written for our learning we are taught by Mr. Calvin ad Dan. 6. 10. in p. 73. princ.

Discamus itaque, &c. & Lavater. in Librum Josuae c. 22. p. 72. 2. m. exem­plum piae solicitudinis parentum pro filiis, &c. as hath been sufficiently declared elsewhere (tho the Reconciler thought fit to pass it over in silence.)

But the Presbyterians are highly obli­ged to own that proof if they will main­tain their own publick Communion and protested Doctrin; for in their, Jus Di­vinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici, pag. 16. they lay down this for a Rule in Divini­ty, That the ordinary examples of the Godly approved in Scripture, being a­gainst no general precept, have the force of a general Rule, and are to be follow­ed; and p. 22. they say, Those exam­ples in Scripture are obligatory, whose [Page 30] ground, reason, scope or end are obli­gatory, and of a Moral Nature, and as much concern one Christian as another; whether they be the examples under Old or New Testament.

Now I say that by a parity of Rea­son, the command and practice of the Church for the use of the sign of the Cross in Baptism is obligatory; because the ground, reason, scope or end of it, which is the confession of our Faith and Pro­testation of our Christianity, is obliga­tory and of a moral nature, and as much concern one Christian as another, one Church as another, one time as ano­ther.

Having thus briefly shewed the na­ture of those impositions, which this Reconciler does condemn; and given a short account of the temper of those weak Brethren on whose behalf he so earnestly solicites an indulgence; I can­not but reflect upon his Preface; wherein he does little less than traduce many worthy Persons by alledging their con­descentions, as if they had been the yield­ing up of a Right to those Dissenters against that Authority and Government, which themselves did constantly assert and manage.

Indeed their Charity and Compassion carried many of them very far that way. They saw us in a storm; and our condition to be much like to theirs in the 27th. of the Acts (15. 18, 19, 20.) When the Ship was caught (the Church assaulted hy a violent Faction) and could not bear up into the Wind, we let her drive. And being exceedinly tossed with a Tempest, the next day they lightned the Ship: and the third day we cast out with our own hands the takling of the Ship. And when neither Sun nor Stars, in ma­ny days appeared, and no small tempest lay on us, all hope that we should be saved was then taken away. And this, upon the matter, was the case of the Epis­copal and Loyal Party, who were Em­barqued in the Established Church of England; their crafty Adversaries to raise a Storm against them, had put a conceit into the light heads of the Rab­ble, that they were bound for Rome too, as S. Paul was in another sense; Hereupon their Frantick Zeal push'd them with an impetuous fury into Tu­mults, wherein the poor distressed Barque was so tossed, She was in dan­ger to be sunk, or split and dash'd to pieces. In this forlorn condition no won­der [Page 32] their danger should prompt them to cast Anchor upon the unsteady sands, or comply with any course or method, that might be thought expedient for their present safety. Sometimes empty Casks are thrown out by the skilfull Mariner to make diversion for the un­governable Leviathan, when he threat­ens to overturn their Vessel. And if a liberty of Prophesying be not sufficient to divert their rage and make them at a loss, and stop their cry; then an Ireni­cum may be thought a pious charm to allay their heats, to appease their ani­mosities and to bring them to a more calm composure.

Perhaps this Reconciler thinks we are in a Storm still; and 'tis no wonder if he be of that opinion having taken so much pains to raise a blustering wind to blow up his Euroclydon of Fanatick Zeal amongst us. But 'tis observable in experience, that such well-meant at­tempts, at such a season, do for the most part give advantage to the watch­ful Adversary, seldom answer their ex­pectation, and never take effect, to the obtaining that pious end, which their worthy and learned Authors aimed at.

2. I find, that learned and good men may be mistaken; and 'tis an error of the right hand when Charity leads them to it. We are told that Mr. Hales found occasion to bid John Calvin good night: and whatever Essays of wit might come to his Friends hands when his Fancy was brisk and sprightful, I doubt not, when he came to a more mature judg­ment he took a solemn leave of many of those unhappy hallucinations, which had been more to his honour, if they had been buried in his ashes. I am sure his Tractate of Schism has been confuted no less than three four times over. And for some others of a much higher rank than He, to my knowledge, they re­tracted those opinions which had given so much encouragement to the Factious Party, and bewailed their mistaken cha­rity with great remorse upon all occasi­ons, to make amends for the Scandal their well-meant tenderness had given to the Loyal and true Conformist.

3. There are none of them, I dare be bold to say, that ever intended such dismal disapidations of the Church as the Dissenters had Projected, dream'd not of the introduction of such confu­sions as were the necessary product of [Page 34] their pernicious practices; and were so far from adhering to them in the prose­cution of their wicked Designs, that for the most part of them, they were sufferers under that 11th. Persecuti­on.

For (4.) Their constant Practice in the use of the Liturgy as it witnessed their stedfast affection to the Church Established, so it betrayed them to the Spight and Malice of the Faction, who were carrying on a design to over­throw it. To say they acted herein a­gainst their Judgment, would bring their sincerity into question, and make their Authority of no value, and con­sequenty insignificant as to that purpose this Reconciler produces it for. We must conclude therefore, that whatever their condescentions were, they were intended meerly to gratifie the present weakness of such as they believed to be conscientious; but not all to counte­nance their Non-conformity.

5. For Foreign Churches and Univer­sities, we very well understand both their Principles and their Practice. And we are well assured that the Doctrine and the Discipline, the Customs and Obser­vances of the present Church of England [Page 35] are fully justified by them both; what esteem they had for us, before the late times of Deformation we may learn from the pen of the learned and noble Deodate in his Epistle to the late Assem­bly; wherein he gives us this Encomium, That Flourishing England, the very eye and excellency of all the Churches, Christs own choice, purchase and peculiar, the Sanctuary of the afflicted, the Arcenal of the faint-hearted, the Magazine of the needy, the Royal Standard of good hope (p. 6, 7. & p. 17.) He does acknowledge and solemnly declare it, That on the Thea­tre of the Ʋniversal Church, the Kingdom and Church of England have hitherto ex­celled and out-shined all the Churches upon Earth in Holiness and Glory.

Such as well understand the happy constitution of this Church of England cannot but have the like value for Her; and they that are of that perswasion, can never with a sober judgment and deli­beration, utter any thing in Derogation to Her Dignity. If this Reconciler can produce any thing from their example to our prejudice (tho 'tis far more fit that we should be a Pattern and Law to them, than they to us) let him give us but one instance, wherein they destroy­ed [Page 36] their own Establishment to gratifie a discontented and Dissenting Faction: the contrary whereof, has been suffici­ently proved to be the obstinate resolu­tion of those Churches, as well of the Calvinian, as of the Lutheran Denomi­nation.

6. I say, we have the Authority of many other excellent persons of another Judgment, to name some few, Whit­gift, Bancroft, Andrews, Laud, Sander­son, Hooker, Heylin, Hammond; whose judgments we have greater reason to rely upon; because they judged the case with a more deliberate diligence, and weighed the importance and consequen­ces of a Change with a better attention, and by a clearer and exacter observati­on, discovered more fully the temper and design of this Dissenting Party. And upon this account I shall only subjoyn the Resolutions of a Wise and Learned Prince with a great and prudent States­man.

King James concludes his Proclama­ion (of March 5. in the first of his beign) in these words;

We do admonish all men, that hereafter they shall not expect nor attempt any fur­ther alteration in the Common and Publick [Page 37] Form of Gods Service from this which is now established; for that neither will we give way for any to presume, that our own Judgment having determined in a matter of this weight, shall be swayed to alterati­on by the frivolous suggestions of any light Spirit. Neither are we ignorant of the in­conveniencies that do arise in Government, by admitting innovation in things once set­led by mature deliberation: and how ne­cessary it is to use constancy in the uphold­ing the publick determinatins of States; for that such is the unquietness and unsted­fastness of some dispositions, affecting every year new Forms of things, as, if they should be followed in their unconstancy, would make all actions of State ridiculous and contemptible: whereas the stedfast maintaining of things by good advice esta­blished, is the weal of all Common­wealths.

And his Grace the Lord Arch-Bishop Juxton soon after his Majesties happy Restauration, discoursing with me about the Indulgence (which was then the common talk of all the Town,) he was pleased to express himself after this man­ner.

‘That if the yielding of some few small matters (of indifferency) would [Page 38] win them to joyn cordially with us in the practice of the rest, he could very well be content with it. But (his Grace added) you know Mr. W. I have sometimes sat at the Helm, and truly I have studied the temper of these men, and could never find them so ingenuous; Assure your self Mr. W. there is no way to Govern this sort of People, but by a straight Rein. For gratifie them in any thing, and you but encourage them to ask more. Your condescention shall be their Argument that their requiries were just, and your conviction that your own pra­ctice is unwarrantable, nor will they ever rest satisfied till all matters of de­cency and Order be laid aside, to make way for their own (as his Grace was pleased to call them) new-fangled In­novations.’

After all this, methinks, so many Au­thentick Instruments, Proclamations and Acts of Parliament, should be sufficient to supersede all that has been alledged, as of a much inferiour stamp and qua­lity.

But before we proceed further I shall offer two or three things to the Readers serious Consideration.

1. The first is this, That the Church on Earth is not in a state of Triumph; and though this Reconciler may be a Trimmer in a modern Notion, yet if the Bride of the Lamb wants trimming, the Dissenters (tho they take his advice along with them) have no Authority to appoint Her Ornaments, nor are they called to be Her Dressers. Christ has taken a course to present Her to Him­self a Glorious Church, not having wrinkle, Eph. 5. 27. spot or blemish at the day of Marriage. In the interim She is as a heap of Corn not clean winnowed from the chaff; as a field of Wheat with a mixture of Tares or Darnel: And this the Church is concerned to Tolerate, lest She should root up the Wheat for the Tares sake, or lest the good grain being separated from the chaff before the time and so left na­ked,Aug. Ep. instead of being carried into the Gra­nary, should be cast out to be pick'd up by the fouls of the Air. And accord­ing to another of our Lords Parables, we suffer the bad Fishes amongst the good (till we come to the shore) Ne diruptis per Schismata retibus, dum quasi malos pisces cavemus, in mare perniciosae libertatis exeamus: Lest Schism tearing the nets of the Church in pieces, we [Page 40] should lanch out into the Sea of a per­nicious Liberty. ‘But as the Father saith in another of his Epistles, tho the Church being set among much chaff and tares, tolerates many things, ta­men quae sunt contra fidem vel bonam vi­tam, non approbat, nec tacet nec facit.’ And I dare be bold to say, that in these respects, this Church of England is as innocent, and as eminently watchful as ever any Church was since the days of the Apostle.

2. 'Tis observable that many well meaning Souls are strangely imposed up­on by the plea of a mistaken Charity. Charity I know has in many respects, the sovereignty of all vertues, and ought to have a great command in the [...] Cor. 13. last. conduct of all our actions: but to trans­form her into a foolish pity would be a huge degrading of her. A fond Mo­ther will give the froward child the Ap­ple as often as he whines and whimpers for it: but the prudent Father thinks the Rod a more useful instrument to cure him of his frowardness, and yet his affection is never the less towards him. Correction is a work of mercy as well as alms; and many times more sea­sonable and beneficial. St. Jude has gi­ven [Page 41] us an excellent Rule. And of some have compassion making a difference: and others save with fear pulling them out of Jude Ep. 22, 23 the fire. Such as cannot be won to do their duties by instruction and good ad­vice, with other wholsom instances of gentleness, must fall under the correcti­on of a severer discipline; and there is some kind that will not be cast out o­therwise. See Aretius ad 2 Cor. 13. 2. infra. The stubborn Aegyptian will not conform to Moses's Treaty, till he sees his Rod turned into a Serpent. This is severe you'll say, but 'tis no more than what we learn as well from the Practice as the Doctrine of the Apostle? For does he not threaten the Corinthians 2 Cor. 13. 2, 10. with his Rod? And does he not tell them he will not spare, but will use sharp­ness; and this he threatens against the Schismaticks, no doubt, as well as other impenitent sinners that he should find amongst them, 2 Cor. 13. 2. And where­fore did he use or threaten this Seve­rity? was it because he loved them not? this he refers to the searcher of hearts2 Cor. 11. 11. to judge. This was sound Doctrine and wholsom Discipline without question in the Apostles time.

But perhaps the case may be altered now; no, it was not we are sure in St. [Page 42] Austins time. Quid igitur hic faciat Ec­clesiae Ep. 167. medicina salutem omnium materna Charitate conquirens, tanquam inter phre­neticos & Lethargicos aestuans? nunquid contemnere, nunquid desistere vel debet vel potest? utriusque sit necesse est molesta, quia neutris est inimica. Nam & Phrene­tici nolunt ligari, & Lethargici nolunt ex­citari, sed perseverat diligentia charitatis, Phreneticum castigare, Lethargicum sti­mulare, ambos amare. Ambo offenduntur, sed ambo diliguntur: ambo molestati, quan­diu aegri sunt indignantur, sed ambo sanati gratulantur.

‘Now what remedy can the Church (which with the tenderness of a Mo­ther seeks the good of all her chil­dren) apply in this case, whilst she is embroiled in the contentions of the Frantick on the one hand, and the Stupid and Sullen on the other? She neither can well nor indeed ought she utterly to cast them off, or cease ad­monishing them; which course soever she takes it must needs trouble her, because she has a kindness for both. But so long as neither the Frantick and unruly will be restrained by her Laws, nor will the sullen be provok'd to ob­serve them, she in charity to them both [Page 43] proceeds to chastise the one and rouze up the other, and yet retains a love for them both. Both take offence, and yet what is done is in love to both; both are apt to fret and murmur, and are angry in their sickness as if they were wronged, but upon recovery are glad to find the wholsom effects of those means applyed to them.’

I shall trouble the Reader but with one praemonition more; which concerns the Reconcilers dealing with Dr. Womock. The Body of his discourse this Champi­on of Dissention found solid, and of too high proof for the little strength of his Assault and Battery; and therefore with great wisdom and forecast he ne­ver attempts it: but yet to shew his good will to the cause, and because some sort of men (out of their great zeal) must be medling, he acts the part of the old Serpent and falls a nibling at the Heels of it. But that verdict was drawn up with so much evidence of truth, that the Dr. dares venture it before any Bench, and present it to any that bears the Character and Title of a Judge, except the Protestant Joyner or an Ignoramus Ju­ry.

With the Readers Patience, we will try how this Reconciler does attaque it. He begins, in reference to the fourteenth and fifteenth chapters of the Epistle to the Romans, and at pag. 89. of the Ver­dict. ‘Where the Dr. laid down this Position; That the Rules of Advice in those Chapters were directions for common use among private Christians:’ (and here I am afraid the Reconciler had no honest meaning in changing the Drs. words, saying) and not Decrees; where­as the Dr. goes on thus) ‘but for De­crees and Orders of publick use and practice, He (the Apostle) gave out none to this Church; because as yet here was no Jurisdiction setled, no Laws made, no Governors appointed to put them in Execution.’ To prove this, the Dr. alledged four Arguments, tho the Reconciler takes notice but of three.

1. The first of those Arguments was taken from Grotius, and it is built upon the Apostles command to those Romans; which was only to mark such as caused Divisions and Scandals, and not to ex­communicate them: From whence that Learned man collects, that there was not then at Rome any Presbytery or set­led Jurisdiction.

In answer to this Plea, the Reconci­ler pag. 69. saith, 1. That it is manifestly false. 2. That were it true, it alters not the case, nor doth it take off from the strength of the present Argument.

But to mollifie the sharpness of his stile, in saying, 'tis manifestly false, he is pleased to be a little more civil (and that is much in him) and to say, only 1. That it is not true; ‘For (says he) can any man imagine (yes, he knows, Grotius, and Aretius, and others as well as Dr. Womock, do imagine it) that in such a Church, whose Faith was spoken of throughout the World, there should be no Ministers to Baptize, to Preach the Word, to administer the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to them? and if there were such, there must be a standing Order of Presbyters licensed by the Apostles or their Bish­op, or exercising their Ministerial Fun­ction without licence.’

Before I return my Answer, I must in Charity deliver the Reconciler out of his own snare, or at least preserve the unwary Reader from it: or exercising their Ministerial Function without Licence: This is a fallacy, which the Logicians call petitio principii: whether there were [Page 46] such a Ministerial Function setled as yet at Rome, is the thing in question: but the Reconciler takes it for granted, and so disputes upon it. He should have proved it first, and then he might very fairly have made his Inference. In the mean while, I shall tell the Reader for his satisfaction,

That Rome being the Imperial City, and having Commerce with all the World, 'twas no wonder that all the world should soon have intelligence that the Gospel was brought and enter­tained amongst them.

But as a very learned and judicious person observes, the Church (or rather the Christians) at Rome, when S. Paul wrote his Epistle thither, seems (as that also at Antioch was) for the most part to be made up of Foreigners (both of Jews and Gentiles) whom businessActs 28. 17. Rom. 1. 15. 16. drew thither from other converted Pro­vinces) as appears both from the Apo­stles salutations of former AcquaintanceAnon. Para­phrase & An­not. on the Rom. in the preface. (chap. 16.) and from his writing the Epistle in Greek.

Whether the Sacraments were as yet commonly administred there, is not as­serted in that Epistle, (for the mention of Baptism in the sixth Chapter, will [Page 47] not evince it, that it was) but the Go­spel of the Resurrection could not want Apostles and Evangelists in a large sense, to publish it. The good women, who brought the glad tidings of our Savi­ours return from the Grave with life and glory, are somewhere stiled Apostolorum Apostolae, the Apostles of the Apo­stles.

After the death of S. Stephen, the Disciples who were scattered abroad,Acts 8. 4. went every where Preaching the Word. But were all Apostles properly so cal­led? Had all power to Plant and Esta­blish and Govern Churches? This Re­conciler Tit. 1. 5. knows the Gospel was Preached in Creete before any Discipline or Go­vernment was established.

The Schoolmen tell us, with great truth and reason that Potestas Ordinis, & Po­testas Jurisdictionis are too several things. There are several parts of the holy Function; I will recite them as they are reckoned up by Dr. Sclater, There isad 2 Thes. 3. 6. Potestas Ministerii (at large) Autho­rity to Preach the Gospel and administer the Holy Sacraments (Mat. 28. 19.) (2.) there is Potestas Ordinis; a power to Ordein Ministers, and make Laws for external Government, (1 Tim. 5. 22. [Page 48] Tit. 1. 5.) (3.) there is Potestas [...] or Censurae, to administer Censures, less or greater, according to the quality of Offences.

Every mans zeal and knowledge (where there is no Organical Church setled) was licence enough for him to report what had been done at Jerusalem, and what was the present Faith and Practice there. If they had any Ministers to Preach with Authority amongst them, no doubt they had their Holy Orders and a Divine Mission, and were put in Office to that purpose; but 'tis most likely they had none; because tho they had knowledge to admonish one another of the Doctrine they had received, yet they had no Au­thority to teach as S. Ambrose has obser­ved, Rom. 15. 14. non dixit, ut invicem se doceant, sed admoneant; and if there had been any such spiritual guides, doubtless, in such a case of difficulty and danger, the Apostle would have re­ferred the Christians to their Conduct as he did in other places.

And yet every man that hath a licence as well as ability to preach the Gospel, has not presently the Authority of a Go­vernor. Philip was an Evangelist, and Preached Christ to the City of Samaria, [Page 49] Baptiz'd Converts, and wrought Miracles amongst them, yet he had no Jurisdiction there. The Apostles sent Peter and John from Jerusalem to lay their hands upon them to Confirm them, Acts 8. 14. to 17.

Secondly, saith our Reconciler, The A­postle among many others, whom he calls his Helpers in Christ, approved in Christ, labourers in Christ. Rom. 16. 3, 9, 12. who may all rationally be deemed to be Church-Officers (and as rationally deem­ed to be none) Presbyters, Deacons, and Diaconesses, makes mention of Androni­cus and Junias, of note amongst Christ's Apostles, i. e. (saith our Reconciler) among the Preachers of the Gospel, the Teachers of the Christian Faith. If these be his Church-Governors, then there was a woman got into the Chair at Rome be­fore Pope Joan was heard of; for Theo­philact saith that Junias was the name of a woman, and Grotius thinks she was wife to Andronicus.

But what is all this to a setled Juris­diction, to establisht Laws, and Gover­nors appointed to put them in executi­on; which was the thing he was obli­ged to prove? and now to pay him back a little of his own coin (of the finer mettal,) who could imagine this Recon­ciler [Page 50] would have had the confidence to oppose a deliberate Verdict upon a Melius inquirendum; and pretermitting all the solid Grounds of Truth, Reason and Authority, upon which it is esta­blished, think to quash it by his own vain Imaginations?

All the Ancients that write of the Church of Rome, do conclude that it was founded by those two great Apo­stles S. Peter and S. Paul, and S. Paul being the Apostle of the Incircumcision, and above all the rest adorned with the title of a chosen vessel to bear the name and Gospel of Christ among the Gen­tiles, Acts 9. 15. in all reason we should allow him a good share in the establish­ment of that Church which was the most considerable in his whole Pro­vince; but 'tis evident when he wrote his Epistle he had never been at Rome to do it; and tho he sent Phaebe with his Epistle, I hope no man will be so ill advised as to think he gave her a­ny Commission to Govern.

If there had been any such Gover­nors there, where should we look for them, but among those persons (of such excellent note) whom S. Paul salutes; and yet if the Reconciler will [Page 51] needs have them to be Church-Gover­nors, the first of the Catalogue is a Woman, (Rom. 16. 3.) Priscilla, so likewise, 2 Tim. 4. 19. She is called Prisca, and set before Aquila, and 'tis thought (what e're the rest were) that her Husband was her Convert. Priscil­lam quidem priori loco ponit, cujus ratio certa vix reddi potest. Si tamen conjectu­ris locus est, illustrior fortussis fuit uxor, & magis nota omnibus, vel prior ad fidem conversa maritum postea instituit. Gualt. ad Rom. Homil. 93. in p. 225. 2. in fine. ‘He sets down Priscilla in the first place, for which no certain Rea­son can be given; but if we may con­jecture, probably the Wife might be of the more honourable extraction, and so more publickly known, or being first converted to the Faith her self, after­wards instructed her Husband in the same.’

That S. Peter was there to plant a Church and settle Governors, so as to make a Coalition of Jew and Gentile in­to one united body, before S. Paul wrote this Epistle, if he can prove it solidly, the present Church of Rome shall thank him for it: but the generali­ty of Protestant Writers are against it. [Page 52] Take Gualterus instead of all the rest, ad Rom, 16. 7, 16. Homil. 94. Non parum facit hic locus ad confutandum im­pudens Papistarum figmentum, &c. ‘This place (saith he) makes strongly for the confutation of that impudent Fi­ction of the Papists, who dream of S. Peters coming to Rome in the second year of Claudius, and that he first constituted a Church there, over which he himself did preside for five and twenty years together. Now if they say true in this, He must be at Rome when S. Paul wrought this Epistle. Why then makes he no mention of him? or what reason can be alledged why the name of Peter only should be left out of that long and honourable catalogue of those men who were fa­mous in that Church at that time? was it because he was ignorant of his being there? But this cannot well be, see­ing that the Faith of Rome was pub­lished in most parts of the World; and how could so great an Apostle escape S. Paul's knowledge, who was acquaint­ed with so many of far meaner quality? or shall we think that he concealed S. Peter's name out of emulation? But far be such a thing from the sincerity [Page 53] and uprightness of an Apostle; and why should he envy Peter his honour who speaks so honourably of many o­thers far inferior to him? Therefore our Romanists will never be able to make good this fancy of theirs. For what Answer will they give S. Luke, who says that Peter was present at the Council of Jerusalem, which (as St. Paul witnesseth in his second Chapter to the Galathians) was held in the eighteenth year after his Conversion, which (according to true computati­on) falls on the ninth year of Claudi­us? besides these men are not aware how great mischief they do S. Peter, when they talk of his sitting as Bishop of Rome for full five and twenty years, who (according to Christs command) ought to have travelled up and down and preached the Gospel in several places. And truly if (with other Histories) we compare those places which are found in sacred Scripture, we shall find that those later Writers who questioned S. Peters ever being at Rome at all, had some shew of Rea­son for their conjecture. But because this may seem somewhat difficult to prove by reason of the general con­sent [Page 54] of Ancient Writers, who affirm that he suffered Martyrdom at Rome in the last year of Nero, I shall easily as­sent unto that. But, that he was the first founder of the Church of Rome, and performed the Office of a Bishop there, this I positively affirm to be false.’ Thus far Gualterus. And this is confir­medHe lived more than eight hundred years ago. by a very Ancient and Learned Writer, viz. Haymo in Epist. ad Rom. Argum. A Corintho Civitate Metropoli A­chaiae Regionis Scripsit Apostolus Paulus Romanis hanc Epistolam, quos non ipse, non Petrus, non Quilibet Apostolorum duode­cim primum instruxit, sed quidam Judaeo­rum credentium, qui ab Hierosolymis Ro­mam venientes (ubi Princeps Orbis reside­bat, cui erant ipsi Subjecti) fidem, quam apud Hierosolymam didicerunt, Romanis Evangelizaverunt: ‘From the City Co­rinth the Metropolis of all Achaia the A­postle Paul writ this Epistle to the Ro­mans, who were instructed in the Prin­ciples of Christianity neither by Paul himself, nor Peter, nor yet by any of the twelve Apostles,’ but some of the believing Jews, who came from ‘Jeru­salem to Rome (which was the seat of the Emperor, whose Subjects they were) and made known that Faith to [Page 55] the Romans which they had learned at Jerusalem.’

Soto is of opinion that when S. Paul sent his Epistle to Rome, They had not so much as heard of S. Peter's Vision at Joppa, (Act. 10.) which is an argument that he had not spent so much time there as some imagine. And truly I had ra­ther perswade my self that S. Peter had not been there at all, before that time, than think he carried himself among them, as Calvin says he had done at An­tioch, Petrus ita Judaizabat, ut Gentes cogeret in servitutem: & simul hoc quasi praejudicio derogaret Pauli Doctrinae. Non tenuit ergo modum; quia gratificandi majorem curam quam aedificandi habuit, magisque respexit quid Judaeis placeret, quam quid universo corpori expediret. Calv. ad Gal. 2. 11. ‘Peter did so far com­ply with the Jews, that he had almost brought the Gentiles under the slavery of the Law: and likewise hereby gave so great offence to the Gentiles that it took off very much from the force and efficacy of S. Paul's Doctrine. So that herein he exceeded the bounds of his Commission, because he apply'd his care more in gratifying some few than in edifying the whole Church, [Page 56] and regarded more the pleasing of one part, the Jews, than the benefit and expedience of the whole Body.’ And again, ad verse 14. Ideo claudicationis arguitur quia nimis serviliter Judaeis ob­sequebatur, ‘Calvin ad Gal. 2. 14. therefore S. Paul reproves him of un­steadiness and wavering in his opinion because he saw him so servilely comply­ant with the Jews. Paulo visus est (Petrus) reprehensione dignissimus.’ Nam suo facto corrumpebatur synceritas Evangelii, quasi opus haberet tutelis Mo­saicis, ‘Aret. ad Gal. 2. S. Paul thought it very necessary to rebuke him, be­cause through his means the Gospel suf­fered very much in its credit and repute, as though it stood in need of the Mo­saical observances to sustain it.’

At the best, when this Epistle was sent, we are sure there was not sufficient Authority at Rome to quell the Faction, or suppress those Impostors and false Teachers who were the Fomenters of it: But S Pauls own personal presence was needful to this effect, with the fulness of his Apostolical Endowments and the Gift of Miracles, as we shall shew anon.

In the mean while it will appear those little Arguments (as the Reconciler is [Page 57] pleased to undervalue them) collected out of Grotius and Catharinus are of so great force to the purpose for which they were produced, that all his little Cavils or Exceptions, upon examinati­on will be of no moment to the con­trary. His exceptions are these.

1. That Exhortation. Mark them which cause Divisions and avoid them (Rom. 16. 17.) he says, is parallel to that in 2 Thess. 3. 6, 14. if any man obey not our word, note that man, withdraw your selves from every Brother that walks disorderly. If this be all he can say, we shall grant it to him, and so does the learned Grotius; who makes the case exactly parallel; His words are these, Si Presbyterium ibi fuisset, jussisset eos ex­communicari, plane quia Presbyterium non erat, jussit tales improbe viventes vitari, id est, familiarem eorum consuetudinem de­fugi, quod jus singulis Christianis compe­tit, (Grot. ad 2 Thes. 3. 6.) ‘If there had been Governors and a Jurisdiction setled there, he would have commanded to have been excommunicated (those who lived wickedly and disorderly:) But because as yet there were no such Governors or Jurisdiction, He only enjoyns them to avoid familiar conver­sation [Page 58] with them, which is a right that belongs to all Christians.’

But, says our Reconciler, that there were then Church-Governors among the Thessalonians, is evident from chap. 5. 12, 13. why he did not name the Epistle, He knows best, but I can guess: per­haps he would have had us swallow it, that it was in the very same Epistle: But it is in that which we call the first Epi­stle, where the Apostle saith, we beseech you Brethren to know them which labour a­mong you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you, and to esteem them very high­ly for their work-sake. Here indeed it seems there was a Jurisdiction and Gover­nors setled to execute it. But this Re­conciler knows very well, that S. Paul's Epistles are not placed in our Bibles, in the same order they were written in; The Epistle which we call the first, was written after that, which goes, among us, for the second; The learned Grotius has given us his reasons for it, as well in his Preface upon 2 Thes. 1. as in a­nother learned and judicious Treatise (in the first volume of his works) to which he refers his Reader. And 'tis worth our observation, That, writing to them when there were no Governors [Page 59] setled among them to oversee and cor­rect emergent miscarriages, He makes use of his Apostolical Authority to oblige them to do as he should think fit to di­rect2 Thes. 3. 12, 14. and Order. We command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that if any man obey not our word (of command) signifie that Man by an Epistle, that according to the Character you shall give of him, I may decree what is fit to be done to him, (or what Discipline he ought to under­go:) In the interim (if his Offence be Scandalous) have no familiar conversa­tion with him, that he may (if possible) be shamed into Reformation; But when there were Governors setled, the Apo­stle alters his style to them: 1 Thes. 5. 12, 13. after he had admonished the Disciples to have a special regard to those Spiritual Guides, and a high va­lue for them; He treats them with great respect, when he puts them in mind of their Duty, Now we beseech you Brethren, warn them that are disorderly.

But the Reconciler goes on with his exceptions and tells us, ‘The same A­postle writing to Timothy concerning such who had a Form of Godliness but denied the power of it, writes cer­tainly of Persons, who did as much de­serve [Page 60] the Churches Censures as those he mentioned, Rom. 16. 17. (This Reconciler always has a reserve of kindness for such as make Divisions, and Dissentions in the Church) and Timothy says he, to whom he writes, had power to inflict those Censures, and yet he only saith unto him, from such turn away, The place is 2 Tim. 3. 5.’

But to this I reply. 1. That no doubt Timothy (after so long converse with this great Apostle) very well under­stood the several parts of his Du­ty; and the Apostle did not think fit to prescribe him particular Rules of Government, having charged him, in the General, in his former E­pistle, chap. 5. 21. To proceed accor­ding to the merits of every cause that should be brought before him, and to do nothing with Partiality. 2. He speaks there of a dangerous sort of Impostors, which crept into Houses and had cun­ning enough to lead Captive silly Wo­men; and such false Apostles as take sanctuary in great Families, the Church-Censures cannot always reach them: Timothy had not then the assistance of a Secular arm, and perhaps they were not to be restrained without it.

3. The Apostle forseaw the Reign of those Impostors would be but short; and concluded it would be most prudent to let them alone to ex­pose themselves to contempt and scorn, to their own ruin, and this is the impor­tance of those words, (2 Tim. 3. 9.) They shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as per­haps our Reconcilers misadventure may be ere he be few months older. But this shall suffice for the vindication of Grotius his little Argument. The next Argument was that of Catharinus; it was but short indeed; and the Reconci­ler was too short-sighted to discern the force of it, 'twas taken from the Apo­stles expostulation, who art thou that judgest another mans Servant? Cum non sis Pastor, aut Dominus ejus; as Catha­rinus very truly and judiciously makes the sense of the Apostle; ‘when thou art not his Lord or Bishop and hast no jurisdiction and command over him.’ This Argument saith our Reconciler is extremely frivolous; (which argues he does not understand it) for (saith he) ‘if this be the import of the Apo­stles words, why dost thou judge ano­ther mans Servant, who art not his [Page 62] Pastor, then his own Master, to whom he stands, or falls, must be his Pa­stor; and therefore he must have a Pastor. But the Master there mentio­ned is so plainly God, that it is but lost time to prove it. Thus our Recon­ciler argues.’

But under favour he has insnared himself in a Fallacy, which is called Ig­noratio Elenchi; For the Assertion was this, that those Rules were given to private Persons; and the reason of that were because there was no Go­vernors then setled among the Christi­ans at Rome, and the proof of this was taken from a hint in Catharinus; why dost thou judge thy Brother? cum non sis Pastor aut Dominus ejus: He had no Bishop or Pastor to Govern him in Church-matters; and therefore the A­postle refers him to God's Tribunal.

And now I hope the Argument will be clear to the understanding of our Reconciler, for thus it is framed; They that were accountable to none but God (in matters of Religion) They were under no Jurisdiction; they who were under no Jurisdiction had no Governors, and consequently these directions could not concern them, who were not then [Page 63] in Being, especially being a Provision for quietness, design'd for want of them.

And here it will not be impertinent to take notice of Aquinas his observati­on (in Prol.) That S. Paul wrote four­teen Epistles, ‘whereof nine were to instruct the Church of the Gentiles, four to direct the Prelates and Gover­nors of the Church, and one for the Instruction of the People of Israel. For the whole Doctrine concerns the Grace of Christ, which falls under a threefold consideration. One way, as it is in Christ the Head, and so it is com­mended to us in the Epistle to the He­brews. Another way as it is in the Principal Members of the Body Mysti­cal; and so it is commended in those Epistles which are directed to the Pre­lates. A third way as it is in the My­stical Body it self, which is the Church; and so it is commended in those Epi­stles, which were sent to the Gentiles, amongst which this to the Romans was one, and not directed to the Prelates of the Church, as Aquinas well ob­serves.’

And it is further observable, That here are Rules given (and particu­larly in the 14th and 15th Chapters) [Page 64] which are inconsistent with the Gover­nors Duty; For (1.) He passeth by the Bishops Office, and applies himself to the Disciples; and instead of giving order to the first to excommunicate the scan­dalous offenders, He requires the other to avoid them. (2.) He forbids judging, which had been an obstruction of Ju­stice and Discipline, if there had been any Officers to execute and per­form it. (3.) As he had done by the Women in another sence, so here he in­joyns the Men silence, to keep their Faith, their Opinion and Knowledge to them­selves; which in Bishops and Pastors was an obstructing of Edification.

'Tis clear S. Paul sends them a Prohi­bition against Judging: but this we may be sure S. Paul would not have done a­gainst such as had Authority to Judge; whence it will follow, That he sent not this prohibition to Church-Governors, and from hence it will follow that there were none such amongst them, which was the thing undrtaken to be proved as was hinted by Catharinus.

The Argument may be put into Form thus: Such as have a Jurisdiction and Divine Authority to Judge of Scandals, and Offences, those Persons the Apostle [Page 65] did not forbid to judge; the reason is because the holy Apostle doubtless would not supersede a Divine Authori­ty, and obstruct the course of Justice and Reformation. But Governors (where they were duly setled) had a Jurisdi­ction and Divine Authority to judge of Scandals and Offences; Therefore the Apostle did not forbid them to Judge.

Here are but two things to be made good, to clear the Argument from all possible objection. (1.) That there were among those Christians at Rome, many Misdemeanors, Scandals and Offences, matters fit for Inquisition and Censure. 2. That Church-Governors had Autho­rity (where they were duly setled) to inquire into them and Censure them. The first is clearly proved from the Admo­nition of the Apostle, Rom. 16. 17. Mark them which cause Divisions and Of­fences and avoid, &c. Had there not been such Persons among them, they could neither have been observed nor avoided, Non quod condemnatione digna non agat, ne ipsum judices; he does not forbid judging upon this account, because he had done nothing worthy of Condem­nation, as Bruno, and Oecumenius, Theo­phylact Infirmitas non ad corporis (im­becillitatem) sed ad animi super­stitionem refe­renda. Bullin­ger ad Rom. 141. in mar­gine; and so Hyperius and others. and our Modern Commentators: [Page 66] And among the best of those weak ones the Apostle was so tender of, there were faults enough to be blamed: (1.) Ig­norance of that Liberty wherewith Christ had made them free: (2.) Super­stition in adhering so stifly to the Ritual Law of Moses, and (3.) Ʋsurpation of Authority to Censure and Condemn o­thers who were better Christians than themselves.

Here was matter enough for the Cog­nizance of a Court of Judicature: but Authority was wanting; there were no Governors establisht; for had there been such they had had power to judge; which is the second thing that is to be proved; And for this we can look no where but we may be furnished with E­vidence, for what was the Power of the Keys given by Christ to his Apo­stles, but a Power to bind and loose, to Inquire and Judge. And having made Timothy Bishop of Ephesus, and set him to Govern there; He instructs him what to do in point of Judicature: 1 Tim. 5. 19, 20. Against an Elder receive not an Accusation but before two or three witnesses; them that sin (notoriously) re­buke before all, that others also may fear. He does the like by Titus whom he or­dained [Page 67] Bishop of Creet: A man that is an Heretick, after the first and second Admonition reject. Tit. 3. 10. And was it not the Apostles own practice, 1 Cor. 5. 3, 4, 5. For I verily as absent in bo­dy, 1 Cor. 5. 3, 4, 5. but present in spirit, have judged al­ready, as tho I were present, concerning him that hath so done this (Incestuous) Deed; In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my Spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such a one to Satan, for the destruction of the flesh, that his soul may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.—Do not ye judge them that are 1 Cor. 5. 12. within the Pale of the Church and your particular jurisdiction.

C. Catharinus his Argument is not soIpse Paulus contra manda­tum facientes j [...]dicavit, & aliis judicandi tribuit facul­tatem Hierom. Ad Rom. 14. Tu quis, &c. extremely frivolous as our Reconciler very rashly and ignorantly makes it. For he that has a Governor may give an ac­count, and may be called to an account by him; and must stand or fall by his sentence, when he is accused before him, 1 Tim. 5. 19, 20. 1 Cor. 5. 13. 2 Cor. 2. 6, 8.

But when there is no such Superior or Governor set over me by our Common Master; then I may justly expostulate with my Rash Censurer: ‘'Tis his right [Page 68] to Judge me who is Governor or Lord over me: Consider thy own business, for I am not under thy Jurisdiction (as Aretius hath it) Thou art a private Christian as well as my self;’ & Par in Parem non habet imperium, thou hast no command over me, ‘No Tribunal to cite me to, no Authority to Judge me, Who art thou that judgest, &c. where thou art neither certain of the badness of his action; nor, of his in­tention: nor hast any Authority or Jurisdiction over him, to meddle with, or question any action of his whatso­ever.’

A Paraphrase and Annotations. Ano­nymus.

This was the very fault that was con­demned here by this Apostle, that they Judged without Authority, and so Da­vid Dicson understands it, Iniquum est a­lienum servum sine vocatione à Deo judi­care: 'Tis a wicked thing to judge ano­ther mans servant without a Call and Authority from God to do it; How da­rest thou challenge the right to thy self, when thou hast no Law of the Lord for it? Thou dost presume too much in usurping that which does not belong to thee, as our Synopsis has it out of Groti­us [Page 69] and Tollet Aretius, a Learned Prote­stant shall conclude this Argument, who saith the same in effect with Grotius, upon Rom. 16. 17. Mark and avoid them; Because the Church then had no Ordinary Magistrate (by which he means Ecclesiastical as well as Civil Go­vernor) Privatis ostendit viam quam se­quantur: Therefore he shews private Persons what course they should take, which is the thing that was asserted by Dr. Womock, after Grotius.

But has not this Reconciler taken a great deal of pains to make himself a transgressor, and does he not teach the People to arraign their Governors? And to give a good example for it, he sets himself up a Tribunal, and treats his Prince and Bishop as if they were his Servants and under his Jurisdiction. What saith S. James? He that speaketh evil of his Brother, and judgeth his Bro­ther, speaketh evil of the Law, and Jud­geth the Law; (so he does by consequence) but if thou judge the Law, thou art not a Doer of the Law, but a Judge. (Jam. 4. 11.) Now this Reconciler does directly speak evil of his Governors and the Law too, and does freely Judge and Condemn them both, and consequently [Page 70] he's not a Doer of the Law but a Judge. He should do well to learn what S. Paul says to his weak Brothers Censure. (Rom. 2. 21, 22.) Thou which teachest another, teachest thou not thy self? Thou that Preach­est a man should not steal dost thou steal? Thou that saist a man should not com­mit Adultery, dost thou commit Adulte­ry? Thou that sayst a man should not judge, dost thou judge? Thou that abhorrest Idols, dost thou commit Sacrilege? He robs his Governors of their Authority, which is Sacred, and usurps it to himself, for while he disputes so fiercely against judging in his superiors, he does not stick to judge them, to censure their Laws, and condemn their Innocent Im­positions. If it be never Lawful for the Christian, of what degree or rank so­ever he be, to judge the Person whom God has received, to walk uncha­ritably towards his Brother (as he saith p. 72.) much less to carry himself thus towards his Superiors; why then does he so rashly and insolently judge his Governors? either he thinks God hath not received them, and then he walks uncharitably towards them; or else he believes God has received them; and then his judging of them (besides [Page 71] the incivility and sawciness of it) is un­lawful by his own Rule; and so he is [...] like the Heretick (Tit. 3. 10.) condemned at his own Tribu­nal.

But 'tis nothing with him to break his own Rules, we shall find him at it again in handling the next Argument, which the Dr. confesseth he had not the least hint of from any Author, but took it upon trust from the words of the A­postle. Hast thou Faith? have it to thy self before God. Rom. 14. 22. From which words the Doctor would infer, ‘That there were no Governers then setled over the Christians who were at Rome;’ For had there been a Bishop there, it had been the duty of those un­der his charge in any matter of Hesita­tion, to have consulted him to resolve their Doubts and settle their perswasi­ons. To this the Reconciler is pleased to answer by a double quere.

1. Why may not he who hath Faith have it to himself, that is, forbear act­ing according to his full persuasion of his Liberty, or divulging his opinion to his Brothers prejudice, as well if he had twenty Bishops over him, as if he had none? (2.) Why might not S. Paul [Page 72] advise without consulting of his Bishop? I shall answer to his last quere first, to which I say,

1. If S. Paul's advice might satisfie when they had it, yet it could not satisfie (be­fore) when they had it not. But (2.) among Dissenting Persons there will be a thou­sand emergent Doubts and Scruples, which an Apostle can no more prevent or answer than he can foresee them at such a distance; which S. Chrysostome 1 Cor. 11. last. thinks to be the Reason why the Apo­stle reserved the correcting of some things among the Corinthians till his coming to them.

To the second quere the Dr. gave his resolution in the Verdict, p. 125. That Christian Liberty is a Spiritual Privilege, and seated in the Soul, and may be pre­served there in silence.

But what the Reconciler has said to this Argument is nothing to the purpose: He is again insnared in the common Fal­lacy (Ignoratio Elenchi) but while the Dr. studied brevity he might be obscure [...] which the resolves to make amends.

[...] question is, whether there was [...] or Church-Governor a­ [...] Christians; Dr. Wo­ [...] [...] none; and he [...] proved from that [Page 73] Text: for where there is such a Gover­nor in any matter of doubt, 'Tis the Subjects Duty to apply himself to him for satisfaction; and 'tis equally the Bishops Duty to give it him, Id not and um adversus eos, qui suo torpori hunc Apostoli Locum obtendunt, quasi fidei professio non requiratur. Beza ad Lo­cum. For cer­tainly he is not set over his Flock to keep his finger in his mouth, or (which is all one) to keep his Faith to himself; his duty is to teach, 2 Tim. 2. 15. Study to shew thy self approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth, who then is that faithful and wise Steward, whom his Lord shall make Ruler over his Houshold, to give them their Portion of meat in due season? Luke 12. 42. and what is that Portion of Meat but the which is most proper for the present con­cern and interest of their souls? and does not he feed their hunger, in a Spiritual sence, who resolves their Doubt? and who does this so much belong to as to the Bishop? No says our Reconciler, These cautions, or advices are not only for private persons, but for Bishops and Governors, and much more for them than for Private Persons; Hast thou Rom. 14. 22. Faith? have it to thy self before God: (i. e.) take heed lest ye instruct the Ignorance of those under your Charge, [Page 74] or help their infirmities, or make them to understand what they are to do in doubtful cases. This is our Reconcilers Doctrine, but point blank against the Apostles Doctrine and Practice. (1.) A­gainst his Doctrine, 1 Thes. 5. 14. where his charge to the Church-Governors is, Warn them that are disorderly, comfort the feeble minded, support the weak; which certainly is no otherwise to be done, but by resolving and removing their doubts and scruples. And this was the Apostles Practice two, if we may take his own Protestation for it. Acts 20. 27. For I have not shun'd to declare unto you the whole Counsel of God; whereof doubtless the Truth and Priviledge of Christian Liberty was a part.

And now I hope the Reconciler will be able to understand the Drs. Argu­ment drawn from those words of the A­postle, which may be framed after this manner,

They who have a Divine Authority and command to resolve Doubts and set­tle Conscience about things indifferent, They are not forbidden by the Apostle to resolve and settle them; For then he should take them off from their Duty and obstruct Edification.

But Church-Governors have a Divine Authority to resolve doubts, and settle Conscience about things indifferent;

Therefore Church Governors are not forbidden by the Apostle to resolve and settle them.

To argue the case a little further, letSi Episcopus taceat & alii per eos seducto­res corrumpan­tur, ipse gravem redditurus est Corruptionis rationem, si non possi os obtu­rare, ne sis Epi­scopus. Theoph apud Joan. Crocium ad Tit. 1. 11. us descant upon the expostulation and advice upon it; Hast thou Faith? Keep it to thy self. If this be a direction to Pastors and Teachers, who has any Au­thority to reduce a Scismatick from the error of his ways, or reconcile a Here­tick to the Church?

This his interpretation of that Chap. and Text, takes off all obligation from Bishops and Governors to attempt the Recovering of a Roman-Catholick; Nay it makes the attempt unlawful. For thus in Conscience according to our Reconci­lers Principles, he must argue with him­self;☞There could have been no con­version of the Jews from the Law of Moses to the Gospel of Christ; if it had been the Duty of the A­postles, &c. to keep their Faith (of those matters) to themselves. This man is under the jurisdiction of the Church of Rome, and he is per­swaded in his mind, that the Laws and Customs of that Church are in force a­gainst him, and that he is under an obli­gation to observe them: For me to go about to teach him otherwise, and re­prove his practices, this would grieve him, and I should walk uncharitably [Page 76] towards him in so doing; yea verily, I should put a stumbling-block in his way, and tempt him to forbear that pra­ctice against his Conscience; and in so doing I should sin against Christ, and destroy a Brother for whom Christ died. This I ought not to do, and tho I be otherwise perswaded in my own Judg­ment, and ordained and put in trust to teach the Gospel, yet I must herein fol­low the advice of the Apostle: Hast thou Faith? have it to thy self before God. I will therefore accordingly re­solve to keep my Faith and Opinion to my self and not disturb a weak Brother: and so the poor man must perish (if God be not the more merciful unto him) in his Error and Superstition.

Whereas the good Pastor does other­wise; He tells him, Sir you live in a dangerous Error; and tho the times you observe and the meats you eat be very indifferent in themselves, yet your practice in the use of them is very Su­perstitious, contrary to the Laws and Pri­vileges of the Gospel, and the practice of Christ and his Apostles. I pray Sir, be you better advised, and harken to the Holy Scriptures, that you may recover your self out of the power of Satan, who [Page 77] by the crafty insinuations of bad in­struments has taken you Captive in the snare of Superstition.

Thus a Conscientious Prelate would behave himself; but our Reconciler, has taught himself a more saving Doctrine to serve his Interest in times of Danger. And doubtless the man would make a very Prudential Governor in a juncture of some difficulty; For if a Demure Faction should ferment in his Neigh­bourhood, and swell up into a Sedition for Conscience sake, if he did not under­stand, comply, and cunningly encou­rage it, he would at least wisely shut his mouth, and (to be sure) not utter a word to check the wicked practice; and he would have the confidence to say, that he learned this Doctrine of Neutrality the Apostle.

But, if he learnt it there, why did he not practice it? If he thought the sign of the Cross, or the use of the Sur­plice, or kneeling at the Sacrament inex­pedient and burdensom, and the impo­sition of them more than the Authori­ty of his Superiors could justifie, why did he not follow his own Rule and keep his faith to himself? 'Tis a wise mans advice, (Eccles. 19. 10.) If thou [Page 78] hast heard a word, let it die with thee, and be bold, it will not burst thee. The advice is as wise for an Opinion as for a Word; and if his opinion had died with him, the Funeral would not have been so chargeable to him as the Christening of it. When he was fishing for Ob­jections in Rom. 14. If he had but read to the end of the Chapter, he might have met with something that concerns him (in verse 22.) Happy is he who con­demneth not himself in doing that thing (to the Affront and Scandal of the Laws and his Superiors,) which he al­loweth, (lawful to be left undone.)

I have now, I hope, sufficiently made good, those little Arguments, which were produced by Dr. Womock to prove that there was no setled jurisdiction at Rome amongst the Christians, nor any Church-Governors to execute such a jurisdiction when S. Paul wrought that Epistle.

But to follow the steps of our Recon­ciler, ‘He says secondly, had there been then no Church-Governors in the whole Church of Rome, had they been desti­tute of any Ministers for publick Wor­ship this will not in the least abate the strength of what we argue hence, un­less the Dr. dares assert that the Church-Governors [Page 79] were not as much concern­ed in the Reason here laid down, as were the Common People; that is, that they were not obliged to receive the weak in Faith, v. 1. and being strong to bear the infirmities of the weak, Chap. 15. 1. that they might judge another mans servant, v. 4. that they might put a stumbling-block, or an oc­casion to fall in their Brothers way, v. 13. That they might walk uncha­ritably, might grieve, and even destroy him with their meat for whom Christ died, v. 15. that they might let their good be evil spoken of, v. 16. and might for meat destroy the work of God. And that tho it is good for private persons not to eat flesh, nor drink wine, nor to do any thing whereby their Brother stum­bleth, or is offended, or is made weak; yet may Church-Governors impose such things, although God hath declared that their power is only for Edification, and not for Destruction, (2 Cor. 13. 10.) What therefore do men gain by saying, These Precepts were directed to private Persons, and not to Church-Governors; since it is certain that they do more especially concern them, whose work it is to build up souls, and exer­cise the greatest charity towards them, [Page 80] than any private Persons in the world. Add to this lastly, That S. Paul was certainly a Church-Governor who had as much power as any of his Successors in these matters; and yet he was so far from varying from these Rules that chiefly he confirms them from his own example.’ Thus our Reconciler.

In order to a full Answer of this plau­sible Harangue, I must take notice of his Paralogisms, as the Logician calls them, Hi paralogis­mi Seductorum nascuntur vel ex malitiâ, vel ex inscitiâ. Ex ma­litiâ, cum veri­tatem agnitam oppugnant homi­nes improbi, vel ut sibi gloriam & utilitatem quaerant vel ut veris Docto­ribus molestiam & invidiam creent. Alii, ex inscitia suâ nam & ipsorum ani­mi irretiti sunt iisdem Laque­is, quibus [...]liis irretire [...]onantur, Davenant ad Coloss. 24. either he deceives himself by his false reasonings or else he studies to impose upon the weakness of his Rea­der by them; and that is very frequent with him. We have one Instance here; Dr. Womock concludes that those cauti­ons in Rom. 14. Viz. Who art thou that judg­est another mans servant? hast thou Faith? have it to thy self: were not directed to the Church-Governors at Rome; be­cause there were (as yet) none setled there: Then saith our Reconciler, Church-Governors are not obliged to bear the infirmities of the weak, but may walk uncharitably towards them, may put stumbling-blocks in their way, and may destroy them: which is a plain non-se­quitur, and Fallacia consequentis; he may as well infer from thence, that if I [Page 81] shall say the History of Bell and the Dragon doth not concern us, that then we are left at liberty to worship them. The inference is just as good as the Re­concilers. What our Saviour said to the Jews, (John 7. 22.) Moses therefore gave you Circumcision, not because it is of Moses but of the Fathers; so I may say S. Paul gave us those injunctions [not to despise our Brother; not to put a stum­bling-block in his way, not to walk uncharitably towards him] not because they were of S. Paul, but of the Fa­thers; they were Duties in force long afore S. Pauls time, and had obliged us tho there had never been such an Epistle wrot to the Christians at Rome nor any such feuds about things Indiffe­rent, to occasion it.

And now I grant him, that it is the work of Church-Governors to build up Souls, and to that end, They are to ex­ercise the greatest Charity in the World towards them. But withal I must take leave to re-mind him of the very true and useful observation of my Lord Keepers in his Lordships excellent Speech to Mr. Serjeant Saunders, &c.

Sometimes (says his Lordship) a ‘Pri­vate man is commended for Qualities [Page 82] which in a Magistrate would be faults. A private Man is praised for shewing Humility and Deference to others in his Conversation and passing by Indignities. But a Judge must take greatness upon him; He must Consider he represents the Kings Person in his seat of Justice; He must therefore be very careful to pre­serve the Dignity that belongs to it. He must have Passions but not of a private Man, that may Disturb his Judgment, but he must assume Passion to set off his severity, when the greatness of the Crime requires it, but it must be done so, as it may appear that his Judgment governs his Passion, and direct it against the offence, and not against the Person.’

Governors may set in order what they find Defective or Irregular in Gods Church, and prescribe such things as make for De­cency in Gods Publick and solemn Wor­ship, and these things they may Impose; For that they should do so, is the Apostles Injunction and Gods Command. And for such as will not obey, they may use Sharpness, after S. Pauls Example to re­duce them to obedience.

For this Power the Lord hath given them to Edification (without the word [only] which the Reconciler has [Page 83] foisted into the Text. 2 Cor. 13. 10. In­deed the Apostle adds [and not unto Destruction] because the power of the Gospel Ministry is properly, of it self, and its own nature for Edification; 'tis the power of God unto salvation, (Rom. 1. 16.) But we are to take notice, that Church-Governors have a Rod too, a power to inflict punishment, for the de­struction of the flesh, (1 Cor. 5. 5.) and all the works of the flesh likewise, a­mongst which are Heresie and 1 Cor. 33. & 4. Gal. 5. 19, 20. Schism, and so is Pride and Self-conceit, which swell and puff men up against their Go­vernors and the Law of Christ; which the Apostolical Power was therefore de­signed to take down. 2 Cor. 10. 4. & 5.

There is Destruction in Order to Edi­fication. The rubbish of Error and false Principles must be removed to make way, to lay in and build on better. And this is the Bishops great business, to take care that the Enemy steals not in to sow his Tares, that well-meaning souls be not seduced, by false Teachers, into ill Principles: But diligently built up in their most holy Faith and the Doctrine which is according to Godliness. And the exercise of this power, in the very severest part of it, is designed for the [Page 84] Edification of the whole Church, and ultimately tends to the salvation of the most profligate Delinquent that suffers under it. Tanti sacit Apostolus aedifica­tionem, 1 Cor. 5. 4, 5. ut omnia, ad hanc tanquam sco­pum ad 2 Cor. 13. 10. verse 8. & Gal. 2. 14. primarium dirigat, saith Aretius, The primary scope of all his Dispensations was Edification, for we can do nothing against the truth; but for the truth; and the sincere truth of the Gospel, that is, the solid Edification.

But the Apostle had a twofold way to deal with sinners, as that learned man ob­serves; some he reformed by instructi­on, (i. e.) he laid open to them the Nature, the Guilt and hainousness of their sin, and reasoned them into a better course of life which they followed upon his admonition. But others, who were more obstinate, the Apostle handled with more severity; The incestuous per­son he did Excommunicate, Elimas the Sorcerer he struck with blindness, some he delivered up to Satan, and some he restrained by other means of Discipline. And that was the Apostolical severity which he threatens to use among the Corinthians, where he tells them he will not spare 2 Cor. 13. 2. unless they correct their man­ners.

And this course of Discipline ought to continue still, saith he, where theAd 2 Cor. 13. 2. Church of Christ is well established. For all the Members of the Church are not sick of the same disease. Nor does a good Physician undertake to cure all Persons with the same Medicine; but in some cases he uses more mild and gen­tle Remedies, in others more sharp ones, searing, scarifying, amputation; be­cause the Diseases are grievous and the Bodies of such Patients cannot be cured otherwise. And Hemmingius, uponAd Cor. 13. 2. those words of the Apostle, 2 Cor. 13. 2. [If I come I will not spare] makes this Comment; Hoc severitatis exem­plum Ministri verbi piè & prudenter in aedificationem imitentur. ‘Let the Mi­nisters of the Gospel imitate this ex­ample piously and prudently to edifi­cation. And let it be observed, saith he, that the severer Jurisdiction or Church-Discipline concerns the Edification of the whole Church, and of them who are particularly chastised. And the Governors of the Church are armed with this Power,’ tum ad punien­dum, tum ad salvandum, as well to punish as to save; and for pu­nishment in order to their salvation. [Page 86] And if any destruction happens (be­sides that which ought to be destroyed in such as unruly) est hoc ex accidente, This is but by accident as Sclater hathad 2 Cor, 13. 8. & 10. observed. 2 Cor. 2. 16. And let us take this into consideration too, that it is at the Governors discretion to use this Discipline, according as he shall find the Temper and Disposition of the Subject, 1 Cor. 4. 21. What will ye, shall I come unto you with a Rod, or in Love, and in the spirit of meekness?

But you'll say, are not the Governors of the Church obliged to receive the weak in the Faith? Rom. 14. 1. yes very highly obliged, in S. Pauls sence, as be­comes their Place and Office. Receive him that is weak, that is, instituite, & favete donec proficiat, saith Bullinger, ‘take him into your tuition, instruct and cherish him, till he be a good profici­cient in the School of Christ,’ This is the Charity and Care of Church-Gover­nors, and ours are ready to perform it (I dare say for them) with all their heart, if our weak Brethren would har­ken to it. And being pious as well as strong, They are willing also to bear their Infirmities; and not only to bear with them, which is the part of every [Page 87] private Christian; but to heal them, which is the part of every good Phy­sician: To bear them as our blessed Savi­our bare our sins; not so as to take them upon his shoulders only, but to bear and carry them quite away; and this is their Labour of Love and work of Charity: But they cannot do this in effect (no more could our Lord himself) unless the People be willing to part with them.

But, who art thou that judgest another mans Servant, saith our Apostle? and may a Church-Governor do this? Why not? He is in Authority, and doubtless he may Judge, where God hath called him to that Office, and given him a ju­risdiction for it. Nay, I say he must do it; for what saith the Lord to his Pro­phet? Jer. 15. 19. If thou take forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth. This is that the Lord re­quires of a good Governor, Nempè ut condemnet libere quicquid vitiosum est, & fortiter defendat quod rectum est, etiamsi totus mundus repugnet, saith Calvin upon the place; That he freely condemn whatsoever is vitious, and as stoutly de­fend what is right and just, tho the whole World should oppose it. And what shall we say of S. Pauls Charge [Page 88] to Timothy, (1 Tim. 5. 19, 20.) and to Titus, (Tit. 3. 9, 10.) and what shall we say to his own practice, (1 Cor. 5. 3, 12, 13.) of which we have given account already.

They may not despise or set at nought a Weak Brother; but I hope, being in­vested with a just Authority, you will allow them to reprove and upbraid such as are wilfully ignorant, upon a su­pine Carelesness or something worse. Up­on such an account sure they may say with the Royal Prophet, Psal. 94. 8. O ye fools, when will ye understand? and have they not our Lords example to say to such, O fools and slow of heart to be­lieve! and they have the great Apostles practice I am sure to bear them out, if they should say to such as trouble and disturb the Peace of the Church. O Gal. 3. 1. foolish Dissenters, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth!

But so far are they from putting a stumbling-block or an occasion to fall in their Brothers way; that they en­deavour to put him into the right way, wherein (if he has eyes in his head, and will follow their Direction) he shall be sure not to stumble. But when our Superiours they have made the way [Page 89] plain and smooth, and easie, according to the truth of the Gospel. If such as this Reconciler shall throw in their Rub­bish and Stones of offence to obstruct it, and then these Brethren will dash their foot willingly against it and stumble at it, Their Fall is willful, and they must thank themselves for the hurt they take by it.

I deny not but Governors in some sense, are concerned to please the Sub­jects: But a man may please others both to his own, and to their destruction (as Theod. ad Rom. 15. 1.) I must not gra­tifie him in his Schism and Sedition to please him; for that would betray him to damnation. I must please him only to his good, to his edification, in the obe­dience of the Gospel, that he may be saved, to this end it may be a Gover­nors Duty to grieve him. 2 Cor. 2. 2: for there is a godly sorrow, which work­eth repentance unto salvation not to be re­pented of. (2 Cor. 7. 10.) And he that can bring a soul to this, tho his methods may seem severe, yet among wise and sober Christians his Discipline as well as his Liberty will be well spoken of.

When he tells us of destroying him with our meat for whom Christ died, that [Page 90] (to return him some of those Givilities which he bestows on his Meisner) is but one of his repeated fooleries; for it can concern no man but a Jew, or a Jews fellow (in whose account some meats and drinks are still common and un­clean;) and this Reconciler does ac­knowledge (p. 74, 75.) that now the Apostles instructions of forbearance are out of date as to them, their stubborn­ness having cut them off from all Title to our Charity in that kind. And for the Roman-Catholicks, tho they abstain some­times from such and such meats, yet they profess they do it, Non quod con­scientiam polluant suâ immunditie, sed in­obedientiâ. (Conte ad Rom. 14. And therefore when we eat with them we see they are in no more danger to be de­stroyed by our liberty than (we are upon the account of their forbearance.) And thus it was among the Christians in Theodorets Hee consue­tudo in hunc usque diem mansit in Ec­clesiis, & haec quidem absti­nentia ample­ctituri; ille vero omnibus esculentis absque ullo scrupulo vescitur, & nec hic illum judicat, nec ille alterum reprehendit, sed eos claros & insignes reddit Lex Concordiae. Theod. ad Rom. 14. Lat. ver. Parisiis 1608. time. See the Margin.

If that would serve his turn, we rea­dily grant, that S. Paul was most cer­tainly an excellent Church-Governor, and [Page 91] had as much power as any of his Suc­cessors in Church-matters and we will al­low him something more: but did he never vary his Rules, and shift his Battery according to the condition of the Persons whom he attempted to sub­due to the obedience of the Gospel? He did sometimes condescend, when it was Prudence and Charity so to do: but when out of weakness he perceived men became Head-strong, when from tender­ness they grew restive and obstinate, then he became resolute and positive.

He was a notable Orator as S. Chrysost. observes of him; and used all the in­nocentHaec autem di­cit ut eos anti­cipet blandien­do ut laudum Cupidine capti tales praestare se studeant ut digni possint haberi quos & efferant omnes & Laudibus prosequantur: Inter. (Theophilact ad Rom. 15. 29.) Arts of Rhetorick to insinuate and gain upon the people; and many times he used Hyperbolies vehemency and excesses of expression, that his perswa­sion might be the more powerful and make the deeper impression;

Such is that to the Galathians, for I bear you record, that if it had been possi­ble; Gal. 4. 15. ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me. And such is that to the Thessalonians, So being 1 Thes. 2. 8. affectionately desirous of you, we were wil­ling to have imparted unto you, not the [Page 92] Gospel of God only but also our own souls, because ye were dear unto us. Such is that1 Cor. 8. 13. to the Corinthians. Wherefore if meat make my Brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my Brother to offend. And of the same1 Cor. 9. 19, 20, 21, 22. kind is that. For though I be free from all men, yet have I made my self servant to all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews, I became as a Jew that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the Law as under the Law, that I might gain them that are under the Law: To them that are without the Law as with­out Law (being not without Law to God, but under the Law to Christ) that I might gain them that are without Law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

Here was great truth and sincerity in these Condescentions, but we must un­derstand these pro hic & nunc. When he had to deal with a Jew apart he treat­ed him with all possible lenity and sweetness, and Christian compliance, and so he did by the Gentile when he had him by himself, but this was by way of Dispensation to draw them in to em­brace [Page 93] the Gospel: But when the Jew and Gentile came together, these methods of compliance were useless and unpracti­cable; we have the very Case report­ed by S. Paul himself upon the congress of the Jew and Gentil Christian at Anti­och, where the Apostle was not, nay he could not be so compleasant as to be all things to all men; He withstood S. Peter to the face, &c. Gal. 2. 11, 12, 13, 14.

And thus a man may carry himself toward Dissenting Parties; he may pri­vately Coax and Flatter a Dissenter in his errors and comply with his weakness, thinking by that means to endear him and win upon him; and on the other side he may applaud the Practice of the Conformist, and encourage him in his Conformity to confirm him and make him the more stedfast: But when the Dissen­ting Parties come together, he is in the condition of a man that serves two Ma­sters, Mat. 6. 24. he will hold to the one and despise the other, or Trimmer-like his moderation will be taken for Neutra­lity and perhaps both practices will take him for an Hypocrite, and he will be e­qually scandalous to them both.

And this is commonly the Fate of un­advised Reconcilers. For we must come to a point before we can come to any settlement, whereupon (as was obser­ved by Dr. Womoch in his Verdict. p. 114.) Instead of a prudential expedi­ent (which in this case was impossible) S. Paul withstood S. Peter to the Face, &c.

But let us proceed with the Reconci­ler who calls upon us thus: secondly observe, &c. p. 72.

‘That this as well as other Scriptures being written for our learning, in cases of like nature, must oblige all other Pastors and Rulers of Christs Church, as well as those of Rome; for the ar­guments which the Apostle useth here, are of a moral and perpetual obligati­on, it being never lawful for the Chri­stian, of what degree, or rank soever he may be, to judge, and to despise the Person Whom God hath received, to walk uncharitably towards his Brother, or to destroy him with his meat for whom Christ died, or to put a stumbling-block, or an occasion to fall in his Brothers way. But on the other hand; 'tis the perpe­tual Duty of the highest Christians to follow after the things which make for peace, and whereby they may edifie one another.’

Here we observe a second part to the same Tune; judging and despising per­sons whom God hath received; (which we shall consider more fully presently) walking uncharitably, destroying him with our meat for whom Christ died; as if he set himself up to be an Advocate for a Sect of Superstitious Jews, who both killed the Lord their King (of whom they have been both the betrayers and Murderers) and their own Pro­phets, and have persecuted and chased out us; and they please not God, and are con­trary to all men, (1 Thes. 2. 15.) For his stumbling-blocks (which he is ever laying in our way) and his charitably walking and his things that make for peace, we shall fully consider them be­fore we part.

In the interim, we shall grant him, that this as well as other Scriptures being written for our Leraning, in cases of like nature (if any such can happen) must oblige all other Pastors and Rulers of Christs Church, as well I will add, yea and as much) as those at Rome (if there had been any such when S. Paul wrote this Epistle.)

But if all Scriptures be written for our Learning, in cases of like nature; [Page 96] why do you not practise them equally all alike? We have those two Tribes building their Altar, a symbolical pro­testation of their Faith and Affiance in God of their Communion with his Church, and their Interest in his pub­lick Worship and Service; you have also in these Scriptures, the report of Daniels opening his Windows upon the same account, and to the very same pur­pose; and we find Lyserus, Lavator, Calvin, our Synopsis (and who not, that have considered the thing among our Protestant Divines) do make the sign of the Cross (in use among all Christi­ans) a Parallel Case with those, a sym­bolical protestation of our Christianity, of our Faith and Affiance in Christ Cru­cified, of Communion with Gods Holy Catholick Church, and of our Interest in all the priviledges of his publick Worship and Service: and this Symboli­cal Protestation, is grounded upon the fundamental Article of Confession, which is of moral and perpetual obliga­tion; why then is not this Reconciler as zealous a Champion for the use of that ancient Ceremony, as he is for matters of meat and drink, as he finds them in this present Scripture?

But I must observe (2.) That the im­mediate Inference the Apostle makes from those words, All Scripture is written for our Learning (which have relation to Christs Condescension to redeem and save us) Rom. 15. 3, 4. is this (ver. 7.) wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us, to the Glory of God.

This (saith Hemmingius) is the ge­neral conclusion of all the matters or concernments, which the Apostle dis­puted of from the beginning of the four­teenth Chapter. And that we may un­derstand our own, and take some mea­sure of our Governors Duty (as far as modesty and scripture will allow us,) Let us seriously Consider

1. That Christ, tho he dyed for all men, yet he received none into actual Communion with him, but such as were willing to be received.

2. He received none, but upon terms of his own and not of their pro­posing.

3. He received none but upon condi­tion of obedience to his Laws, and Insti­tutions; whereof Government in Church and State is undoubtedly one.

[Page 98]4. He received none but to the glo­ry of God. Now to all such the Arms of our Governors are opened, and they are most ready to receive them. But such as must make their own Conditions, and come in only upon their own Terms, and those terms of Division, Christ never received such, and we know the Jews were cut off upon that account: and therefore the Church cannot receive them to the glory of God, unless She should acknowledge him to be a God of Confusion and not of Peace and Order; To this purpose Erasmus paraphraseth the Text. ‘(Rom. 15. 7.) ReceiveSynopsis ad lo­cum. him, so as it may redound to Gods Glory, who is glorified among the Unbelievers by your Concord.’

This Reconciler, by the Scriptures written for our Learning understands the 14th. and 15th. Chapter to the Romans, which he makes the subject of his di­scourse (pag. 67.) tho he takes no no­tice of several remarques, which the Verdict has thereon, and he should have done well to have taught the people, what bitter animosities, and sad confu­sions did arise amongst them, for want of good Laws, and Rules to direct the Professors of Christianity, and of Autho­rity [Page 99] and Governors to awe them into a due obedience.

For the Convert-Jews would by all means observe Moses his Laws, and In­stitutions, even such as were purely Ri­tual and Ceremonial; and not content with an allowance to do it themselves, they would impose the practice upon all others; and because the Gentiles would not observe them, tho reconciled to Christianity, they would not admit them to their Communion. On the other side the Gentil-Converts, being very well as­sured of the Liberty, which they had in Christ, whereby they were exempted from the Yoak of Moses's Law, (which was never designed to be put upon the Chri­stians neck) they were no less earnest to exclude from their Communion such Jews as still addicted themselves to the Customs and Law of Moses. Hereupon arose a wretched Schism which wonder­fully obstructed the progress of the Go­spel amongst them in the very infancy of it. And wanting Church-Governors, with a secular Arm to assist them, nothing was able to extinguish their dissentions and bring them to a quiet settlement, till the fulness of Apostolical Authority with the power of Miracles should come [Page 100] among them, as shall be declared here­after.

But, our Reconciler tells us, 'tis the perpetual Duty of the highest Christi­ans to follow after the things which make for Peace, and whereby they may edify one another. This we can easily grant him: but as Theodoret observes, the ApostleAd Rom. 15. 4. does not pray for their peace indefinite­ly and absolutely, but 'tis an honest and pious Consent and Concord that he wish­eth them, according to the example of Je­sus Christ. Has not God given us Guides, and are not we bound to follow peace after their direction and example? Have not they a command as well as a powerHeb. 13. 7, 17. to set things in Order? to make Decrees and Ordinances for the establishment of Peace and Unity? and are not these the means to promote Edification? Did not S. Paul himself carry about such Decrees to be kept of the Churches where he went? and were not those Churches established in the Faith there­upon, and increased in their numbers as well as in their piety by that means? Acts 16. 4, 5.

These are truths that are evident of themselves, and owned by the Learned of all Perswasions, the Ordering and Ap­pointment [Page 101] of honest and decent Rites, See the Ver­dict. p. according to the word of God, makes much for the preservation of Discipline, and to strengthen the bond of Peace, saith David Rungius, and Calvin him­self.

Hereupon we find that the great A­postle made Ordinances of the like na­ture (which are called Traditions) and they were about things indifferent, of no absolute necessity, but only for decency, such as the Womans Vail in pub­lick 1 Cor. 11. 2. Assemblies. And such as did ob­serve those Ordinances he commends, but2 Thes. 3. 6, 14. such as did neglect them he does severe­ly censure. And tho he was gentle as a Nurse to cherish his children in the Faith, yet did he exercise the Authori­ty of a Father too, in charging and1 Thes. 2. 7, 11. commanding them to observe his Dis­cipline. And let this Reconciler or any of the Dissenters (whose Cause he Pleads) prove that ever the liberty of such Children was allowed either by Christ or his Apostles, to overtop or check the Authority of such a Father, and I will yield the Cause.

In the mean while Dr. Womock keeps his Ground; viz. That this was only a Temporary provision to keep the Peace [Page 102] among private Christians: and hereup­on the Reconciler requires him to prove that the things above-mentioned (Rom. 14.) were only Temporary; and that Church-Governors are now at liberty to walk uncharitably towards the weak, and to destroy the work of God for meat and drink, and we are satisfied.

Here we are called upon to prove two things; and I am afraid the last will prove him to be a Sophister. But we shall attempt to prove the first: That those things were only Temporary.

'Tis the express affirmation of Aretius, Ad Rom. 15. that these Roman Christians having no Ordinary Governor, the Apostle shews private men the way which they should walk in; as was observed formerly. AndAd Rom. 14. And Beza ob­serves Aposto­lum non praeci­pere ut ejusmodl ignorantia fo­veatur, sed dun­taxat ut tulere­tur. tantisper dum isti possint erudiri. Ad Rom. 14. 2. When they became stub­born and in­docible, They were reject­ed. that the provision was but for a time is the express Doctrine of Hemmingius, A­liquid ad tempus Fratrum infirmitati largiendum est: Something is to be al­lowed for a time, to the infirmity of our Brethren: secus de obstinatis & pertinaci­bus judicandum est: but we must deter­mine otherwise of the obstinate and stub­born. He speaks of weak Christians which he supposes to be in every parti­cular Church in these days: but if care were duly taken to Catechise our Youth, [Page 103] and to instruct them in the Principles ofActs 13. 46. Christianity, touching Authority and Li­berty, according to the truth of the Gospel (as S. Paul calls it) this kind of Intellectual Rickets, and the weakness that follows it, would be perfectly corrected in our Mi­nority, and we should never infest the Church with our frowardness upon that account. But my task is to prove that the Directions which the Apostle gives to those Christians at Rome, had a peculiar reference, (1.) To that present time. (2.) To some special things, and (3.) To that Critical Dispensation.

(1.) To that present time; and he that will take the pains to consider the Case, can never be perswaded, that such cautions and directions as were gi­ven to Jews, or Gentil-Converts, in refe­rence purely to those Federal Rites of the respective Institutions, to which they had so lately been accustomed; He I say, can never be convinced, that they do lay any obligation upon such as were bred up in Christianity from their Cra­dles. But that these cautions were cal­culated for that present time, we have reason to believe upon farther evidence.

1. The Apostle in his great pru­dence was wont to make such Tempo­rary1 Cor. 7. 26. [Page 104] provisions; such was his advice about Virgins; I suppose, saith he, this is good for the present distress: not that Marriage was a more impure state of Life: but to avoid the difficulties and molestations of it. Single persons were in a better condition, more prompt and easie to grapple with Persecutions, which in those days did more frequent­ly afflict the Professors of the Gospel.

The Apostle has an eye to the likeRom. 12. 11. difficulties among the Romans, and there­fore he enjoyns them to be fervent in Spi­rit, serving the season; For many Co­piesSee Dr. Ham­mond his note on the place, and Dr. Stearne Aphoris. de fe­licitate, §. 2. Aphor. 22. read the Text so, and therefore Dr. Hammond doth thus Paraphrase the Text: Doing those things, that in re­spect of the Circumstances of time and place, wherein now you are, may most tend to the honour of God, and build­ing up of the Church. And S. Ambrose descants very well upon the place, lest they should unseasonably press mat­ters of Religion, in an evil time, where­by they might raise up Scandal: therefore he subjoyns this caution, serving the time. The great matters of Faith and Religion, Ambros. ad Rom. 12. he would have them discoursed of mo­destly, and discreetly, in a fit time, and in a convenient place, and among fit Per­sons. [Page 105] For there are som, esaith he, even among our selves, in times of Peace,The Epist. for the 2d. Sun­day after the Epiphany in the old Liturgy read it so. who do so abhor the way of Christ, that they can no sooner hear, but they will Blaspheme it. And S. Paul himself made it his practice, sometimes to apply himself to the season, and to do that which otherwise he had no inclination to do. For he Circumcised Timothy un­willingly; and shaving his head he pu­rified himself according to the Law, and went up to the Temple, Ʋt Judaeorum sopiret insaniam, that he might appease the Rage of the Jews. And what have we been doing these twenty years, but ser­ving the time, by Clemency and Condescenti­on to gratifie an unsteady Faction, whom nothing can oblige. And no doubt S. Paul had an eye to the circumcumstance of time, and the difficulty as well as the in­conveniency, of making a peremptory Order for them in this Case, when he wrote that Epistle, as shall be shewed.

2. I am induced to believe this was but a Temporary provision; because it was upon the account of Novices in the Faith, as all the Antients do unani­mously observe. 'Twas in Favour of such as had newly embraced the Gospel; wherefore he would not have the [Page 106] strong Christians (who understood the liberty of their Christianity) to entan­gle the weak by intricate disputations, which might provoke them unto Apo­stacy: but charitably to bear with them for a time: and that as a condescention, which argues not a Law and stedfast Constitution, but (as they call it) a Dispensation. Ita Chryso­stomus simula­ [...]ionem Petri saepius Dispen­sationem appel­lavit. ad Gal. 2. Theodoret. Theophilact. Ad Rom. 14. Whereupon even where he sollicits this Indulgence on their be­halfs (to prevent a Relapse) he blames their Ignorance (discovers the soft and tender part) and lays open the Sore, and gently drops in his Medicinal Wine and Oyl. The observation is quick and very material, That while he seems to chide the strong (in the Faith) under pretence of that freedom of Speech to them, He turns all his Correption and Reproof upon the weak. For in cal­ling them weak he declares them to be valetudinary; and when he bids the stronger Christians to receive, to help, and succour them, it argues he thought they stood in need of a Keeper and good Remedies; which is a certain Indication of a Distemper and a Mental Craziness: so far was the Apostle from encouraging them (as this Reconciler doth) to con­tinue and become obstinate in their [Page 107] weakness; For tho he would have them treated like Babes, while they were so: Yet he would not have them be Babes always: but to be men in under­standing, and to put away childish things. 1 Cor. 3. 1. Heb. 5. 11, 12.

3. If these directions given to the Christians at Rome, were not temporary; the Apostle contradicted his own Do­ctrine; for in setled Churches after­wards, He was so far from prescribing forbearance of Meats, or the observation Gal. 4. 10, 11. Chap. 5. 4. Col. 2. 8, 16, 21. of Jewish Festivals, that he severely con­demns them (yea as Superstitious, and destructive of Salvation) as this Recon­ciler does observe (when he finds occa­sionpag. 80. to forget his own hypothesis.)

4. That they were but Temporary is the Judgment of the Fathers, and the most Learned Modern Writers; The Verdict has mentioned Matthisius, Estius, our Synopsis, and Mr. Perkins, who saith expresly, that Commandment (Rom. 14. 22.) was given by Paul for those times when men were not fully perswaded of the use of Gods Creatures, as meats and drinks, &c. But to theseCum enim per­fectam fidem [...] non haberet (in­firmus) se e [...] rum Esu poll­credebat. Th [...] Ad Re [...]. times it is not (given).

(2.) I say the Apostles Directions had reference to some special things forbid­den [Page 108] by the Law of Moses. (1.) For the difference among those Christiansad Rom. 14. grew upon the account of a distinction betwixt things Clean and Ʋnclean: (as the Apostle declares expresly (Rom. 14. 14,) and mens minds being framed to practise according to that Notion, they still disputed the Custom, when the di­stinction was taken away, not under­standing fully the Priviledge of the Go­spel.

2. The Antients do restrain the matters in debate to the prohibitions of the Law: so Theophilact, ‘seeing GodTheoph. ad Rom. 14. hath bestowed his ineffable Grace up­on the Gentils, why do'st thou still contend with them about the Law? 'Tis manifest, saith S. Ambrose, that all things are clean through the grace of Christ, who freeing us from the yoak of the Law, hath restored the formerAmbros. ad Rom. 14. Ca. 48. P. Martyr. state of Liberty: So that we are now in a capacity to use all creatures as the Saints of old were wont to do:’ But for such as are still in bondage under the Law, it is not Lawful for them to eat (or to do) what the Law forbids: Quia indulgentiam datam spernunt. Be­cause they despise the priviledge of the Gospel. His multitude of quotations is [Page 109] to little purpose, in this case rightly sta­ted. For

4. I dare be bold to say, that not one of the Ancient Fathers ever applied that discourse of the Apostle to the prejudice of Authority in ordaining Rites and mat­ters of Decency in Gods Service. Did not all the Fathers he alledges, Bow, Kneel, wear a Surplice, sign with the Cross? Yes, and would have spit in his face, that should have offered to dispute so gene­ral a practice of the whole Church. His quoting their Authority in this case is therefore trifling, and designed to im­pose upon the Reader, or else he is de­luded himself by a Fanatic Zeal, and vain Imagination; And if old Father Gregory were alive he would make as sharp an Invective against him for this, as he did against Julian upon another account.

And I have observed particularlyVide Epist. 119 that St. Austin, when he complains of the multitude and burden of Ceremonies, which were crept into some particular Churches, yet he never dream'd that St. Paul had condemned any of them by a Spirit of Prophesie in that Epistle to the Romans: Nay he saith plainly, that the forbidding of meats as unclean, [Page 110] was Heretical, and so declared and con­demned by the Apostle. (1 Tim. 4.) which is directly contrary to the opini­on and practice of those weak ones, whom the same Apostle favours (Rom. 14.) and therefore the Rules he lays down in that Chapter, can be no more than temporary, unless we will be so bold with the great Apostle as to make him forget and contradict himself.

(4.) Let me put the Case home to our Reconciler and his beloved, the Dis­senters; if they claim a title to the A­postles Indulgence (Rom. 14.) in their refusal, or forbearance of those things which are enjoyned by Authority; Then they must look upon those things as common and unclean; for that is the very case the Apostle speaks to, (Rom. 14. 14.) If they esteem them unclean (which signifies nothing but unlawful) that must be either according to Moses's Law, or according to the Gospel: If they go according to Moses Law, they run into Judaism and Superstition; and tempt God, as this Reconciler confesseth (p. 75.) and in effect, deny that Judaism is abolished, and hath given place to Christianity; if they pretend to go by the Gospel, that very Gospel contradicts their pretence, as we [Page 111] learn by a voice from Heaven to S. Peter, Acts 10. 15. What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common (for persons were so esteemed by the Law as well as things) and by the resolution of S. Paul in this place, Rom. 14. 14. I know and am perswaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of it self.

(5.) And I would have it considered, that we have no Rites or Observances in use among us, but what are taken up by the light of Nature, or purely up­on the account of Christianity. They never had any Relation to the Instituti­ons of the Heathen, as the meats offered to Idols, nor yet to the Levitical Co­venant, as Swines-flesh, Circumcision, the Jewish Sacrifices, and Festivals had. Shew me where St. Paul saith, one man regardeth a Surplice, the sign of the Cross, kneeling; another man regardeth them not: Do not Judge, do not grieve, do not offend a Brother for these things. He did not, he could not say any thing to this effect, of any of these1 Cor. 14. 26, Eph. 3. 14. things; not of kneeling or bowing; for they are suggested to all mankind by the light of Nature, and were the Apostles1 Cor. 11. 5, 11. own intimation, charge, and practice. The Surplice he determined in the Wo­mans [Page 112] Vaile by a Parity of Reason; and for the sign of the Cross, 'tis so pecu­liarly related to Christianity, that it can never tempt any man to turn either Jew or Gentile (which was the great danger St. Paul so carefully provides against) and he hath given us a Reason for it;1 Cor. 1. 22. in telling us, that Christ Crucified was unto the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness. To this I may add

(6.) The general opinion of Com­mentators is, that the Apostle does notAnon. ad Rom. 14. not. 1. speak here (Rom. 14.) of the weakness of a Brother in doing any thing unlaw­ful; or that he should be tolerated by the strong therein.

When the Apostle saith, let every man Rom. 14. 5. abound in his own sense, (according to the vulgar Latin) or let him be fully per­swaded Theod. ad Rom. 14. 5. in his own mind, (as the English hath it,) Theodoret observes, that the Apostle did not speak this in general, nor may we be so free in our opinions or perswasions of Gods Word and Ordi­nances, for he doth anathematize orGal. 1. 8, 9. strike him with a Curse, who frames his mind to teach the things that are contrary to Divine Truth. And Gualter, Gualter. ad Roman. Homil. 80. to the same sense, Quae palam contra Dei voluntatem fiunt, ea in proximo reprehen­dere, [Page 113] deque illis ex Dei verbo judicare licet: What is clearly contrary to the will of God, 'tis Lawful for a man to judge of that by the word of God, and to reprehend our Neighbour for it. Now certainly this is Gods Ordinance, let every Soul be subject to the higher Pow­ers; and this is the will of God, even our Submission and Obedience to such asRom. 13. 1. Heb. 13. 7, 17. God hath set over us. Wherefore unless the Apostle contradicts his own Do­ctrine, he cannot be supposed to deliver any thing in this case that may derogate from the just power of our Superiors: And let it be once proved, that the Apo­stle has set up Liberty above Authority, or in opposition to it, and I shall yield the Cause: but this is a challenge, which I dare say none of our Dissenters, No, nor the Reconciler himself, will have the hardiness to answer.

3. I say, Those Directions of the A­postleRom. 14. had a special reference to that Critical Dispensation. I call it Critical; because it was something like that jun­cture of circumstances, which hapned in St. Paul's Voyage to Rome; when they came to the place where two Seas met; except the Mariners (the Guides of the Vessel) did abide in the Ship, and [Page 114] submit to the Apostles prudent Steer­age and Direction, They could not be sa­ved.

For that this Indulgence of the Apo­stle was in favour of the Jews, cannot be denied; and he had taken the ad­vice of the Colledge of Apostles and Elders in it, who tell him thus, Acts 21. 20. Thou seest Brother, how many thou­sands of Jews there are which believe, and they are all zealous of the Law. NowExodus 19. the condition of the Jewish Church was this, The Religion established amongst them was of Divine Institution, and the Rites and Ceremonies thereof imposed with great severity, by a dreadful Ma­jesty with an astonishing attendance; this they had been bred in and lived un­der, and were prepossessed with an opi­nion of the Sacredness and perpetual ob­ligation of it. But out of this sprang a more refined Religion, introduced by the Ministry of the Son of God.

Whether the introduction of this did abrogate or supersede the Authority of the other, was the thing in question. The prejudice the Jews had against the abrogation of it (for the Reasons now mentioned) was so great, that it was not easie to be conquered. The Apo­stle [Page 115] was sensible hereof, (for he lost his own Carnal eyes before he could dis­cernActs 9. a Reason for it) and he was smitten down to the Earth, that he might there bury those beggarly Elements of Ju­daism (wherein he had been Disciplined and for which he was so fiercely Zea­lous) before he could learn humility enough to submit to the Voice and Go­spel of the Messias; and this made him so compassionate to his Brethren of Is­rael, whom he knew to lye under the like prepossession and prejudice.

'Tis true, Moses's Law was out of date, de jure, upon the publication ofJohn 1. 31. Heb. 10. 1. the Gospel, and assoon as our Lord was made manifest unto Israel. For the Law was but a shadow of good things to come: the Body and the Sun was Christ, theCol. 2. 17. Rom. 10. 4. end and the Accomplisher of the Law. De Jure therefore, the Law of Ce­remonies was abolish'd: But yet till there was a clear promulgation hereof, the old Law retained its force and vigour among such as understood not that it was now void and of no effect. For tho the Law ceases by a meer abrogation, yet the Subject cannot be free from his former obligation, till it does some way appear, that 'tis his Superiors will and [Page 116] that the former Law be pre­sently revoked; which was not yet made manifest convincingly to all the Community of the Jewish Nation.

And that which increased the difficul­ty, and confirmed, if not heightned the prejudices on both sides was this: The Jews, they received the gifts of the Ho­lyAct. 2. Act. 10, 44, 45. and Chap. 11. 2. to 18. Ghost under the observation of Mo­ses's Law; the Gentils did the like un­der the omission and neglect of it. Hereupon, why should we abandon our old Law, seeing God hath received usAll this the Reconciler does acknowledge page. 74. into favour, and attested it by the effu­sions of his Spirit on us, say the Jews? And why shall we abandon our Liberty and Privilege, say those Gentils, see­ing God hath done the like to us? This was the difference and dispute be­tween them; and nothing but the Mi­nistry of a Divine Authority, assisted by the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, (and agreeing in a Declaration to the same effect) and the power of Mi­racles, was able to bring them to Con­formity, and unite them entirely into one Catholick Communion.

This I call a Critical dispensation; and it can never be the Case of the Christian Church again, unless Elias should come a [Page 117] second time (as some do vainly dream) to make a farther Reformation; and then perhaps, S. Pauls Rules might be in season again, before the World could come to any settlement.

How far is the Case of Dissenters wide of this? were they bred under any other Divine Law than that which we profess and practise? Have they any pretence to some other divine Institutions? Have they any divine prohibition against any thing the Church observes? Do we vio­late any Ordinance that is known to be prae-establisht by Divine Authority? why then do they take up the perverse or peevish practice of those Jews and run upon the same Rock of Judaism and Superstition, as if they were called to it by a voice from Heaven, when they have not the like pretence for it? For either the Law of Moses is in force, or it is not: If they think it is in force, They may scruple at the eating of a black Pudding or touching the Corps of their dearest friend deceased, or plough­ing with an Oxe and an Asse (which conjunction, in a Tropical sense, they never scruple at): If that Law be not in force at all, in their opinion, why do they plead, what S. Paul discourses up­on [Page 118] the account of them who believed it was? If it concerns us at all, it must be either directly, or indirectly and by a parity of Reason. But (1.) not di­rectly; because it relates to a Law, whereby things were distinguish'd into clean and unclean. (2.) Not indirectly or by a parity of Reason; because the like critical juncture of circumstances is never like to happen.

Let them therefore set their hearts at rest. For those Rules of con­descention and forbearance which the Apostle prescribed as a temporary provi­sion to keep those private Christians quiet, under that Critical Dispensation, can never serve to justifie their Separati­on, upon such groundless doubts, empty Scruples, and vain Imaginations.

And now having made it clear to allRom. 14. & 1 [...]. Chapters. impartial Readers, that the Apostle did not direct this his advice to Governors: but prescribed it only as a Temporary pro­vision to keep the peace among private Christians: We must expect no Quarter from the Reconciler, but to be severely loa­den with the reproach of an odious Infe­rence. 'Tis not enough it seems to prove that the things there mentioned were only Temporary, but we are called to a [Page 119] fresh Task, to prove that Church-Gover­nors are now at liberty to walk uncharita­bly towards the weak, and to destroy the work of God for meat and drink: Do this says he, very fairly, and we are sa­tisfied.

This any man would think a fair offer at the first hearing: but upon second thoughts, we find that by suppressing one of the premisses he hides a sallacy: and herein he is either catch'd himself, and deceived in his own captious way of reasoning, and that betrays his want of Logick: or else he designs wittingly to impose upon the weakness or credulity of his Reader; and then he shews his want of honesty.

If we put his Argument into Form for him, it must run thus: He that says, Those Rules above-mentioned were but a Temporary Provision to keep the Peace among private Christians, he leaves Church-Governors at liberty to walk un­charitably towards the weak, and to destroy the work of God for meat and drink.

But Dr. Womock says, Those Rules above-mentioned, were but a Temporary Provision to keep the Peace among pri­vate Christians, ergo Dr. Womock leaves Church-Governors &c.

We must give him time to prove the major Proposition; and I believe he will take till Dooms-day, and then he may have something else to answer for; His disturbing the peace of the Church, and encouraging an ungovernable Faction in their Schism and Sedition. But let us follow him.

Dr. Womock saith from Catharinus, They were Rules to be received till the Apostles had made a perfect determina­tion; ‘and truly saith the Reconciler, if this were all, they were not to be obser­ved at all. His Reason follows; For in this very Chapter he plainly saith, that the things scrupled by the weak were pure and lawful in themselves; and that he knew, and was perswaded by the Lord Jesus, that there was nothing unclean of it self; which is as perfect, and full a determination of the Case, against the weak, as words can make.’

Let us take notice (1.) that we have here the Key put into our hands, by the Apostle himself, to open and unlock his meaning, and to give us the full account of his design; which was to indulge the Jewish Christians, who had been bred up under the Mosaical Dispensation; [Page 121] wherein days and meats were distingui­shed into such as were clean or unclean, common or holy; which cannot con­cern us who pretend to no such distin­ction in that Legal sense or of any Di­vine Authority. Having observed thus much,

(2.) I answer. That the Apostle did declare his judgment in the Case, as to the matters in question de jure: but as to the use and practice of them at Rome, He did not as yet settle or determine them de facto, by his Apostolical Au­thority. But with us the case is otherwise; we have a Determination and Settlement against our pretended weak ones, both de jure and de facto too.

For they know there is nothing de jure unclean, or unlawful among us, and that de Facto, Authority hath set­led what they dispute against.

That S. Paul has determined the Case de jure, we have his own concession; and that (elsewhere) he did state and settle it, de facto, he is forced to con­fess; and indeed his concessions are so full, when he comes to himself, that they are a perfect confutation of his whole Book, if a man would give him­self [Page 122] the trouble or the leisure to collect them.

That the Apostle did determine the Case de facto as to other Churches, are so full and clear, that we have no need of other evidence to prove it: ‘TheThese Epistles were written after that to the Romans. Apostle, saith he, doth in the Epi­stles to the Galathians and Colossians, speak severely against their observa­tion of the Jewish Festivals.’ (p. 80.) And does he not condemn them for their superstitious abstaining from cer­tain meats and drinks? Let no man judge you in meats and drinks: and let no man beguile you of your Reward through their vain traditions; touch not, tast not, han­dle Colos. 2. I [...]ridens & con­temnens super­stitiosam persua­sionem in persona pseudapostolo­rum ait, Ne te­tigeris quasi dicat, si secus audeas, eris immundus apud Deum, efficieris Damnationis reus. Hyper. ad Col. 2. Gal. 2. not. And Gal. 4. 4. Ye observe days and months and times and years; I am afraid of you lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain. Was not the Apostle so earnest and positive herein, that he threatned the Dissenters as Disturbers of the Church, and tells them: That they should bear their judgment; and wisheth them cut off? Gal. 5. Did he not with­stand St. Peter to the face; because he was to be blamed; and why? was it not be­cause he did not walk uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel? and was not all this contest upon the account of the [Page 123] difference betwixt the Jew and Gentile Christians? was the Apostle thus posi­tive, did he use such Menaces, did he give such warning in his Epistle to the Romans? If not; why does this Recon­ciler say, that if those Rules were but a provision till the Apostles had made a more perfect determination, then they were not to be observed at all: was not Ignorance and Superstition as dangerous to the Christians at Rome, as to those at Coloss and Galatia? Are they at Rome indulged to live therein always, when these at Coloss and Galatia are threatned, and in danger to fall from Grace, and be lost by it.

But for the present, as the Gentile Converts had great assurance of their im­munity from the Law of Moses, so those of the Jews were under great prejudi­ces through their veneration for it: And the Impostors and false Teachers, (headed perhaps by Simon Magus whoSee Dr. Ham. Annotat. on the Title of the Epistle to the Romans, towards the end. had the reputation of a God among the Romans) were so subtile and powerful with the Heathen Magistrate, that a peremptory order from the Apostle, (if such a one had been sent,) especially ha­ving no Governor to enforce it, in all probability, could have taken no effect. [Page 124] The Apostle therefore defers this great work (as he did the setling of some such matters in other Churches, 1 Cor. 11. last.) till his own coming with the fulness of Apostolical Power and the gift of Miracles, to encounter all the oppo­sition of the Enemy.

In the mean while having felt in him­self such an experiment of mercy, for the things which he had done in his ig­norance and unbelief, (1 Tim. 1. 13.) He was well perswaded, that the same Divine Goodness, which for a time prefers a mistaken Zeal before a delibe­rateInterea vero tamet si opinio quidem sit su­perstitiosa ta­men observatio Deo non displi­cet, quando in­firmus sapien­ter cavet, ne quid dubitante conscientia fa­cere aggredia­tur. Hyper. ad Rom. 15. in principio. Prophaness, would be pleased to wink at that time of the Romans Igno­rance and Superstition, till he should vouchsafe to afford a Dispensation suffi­cient to cure the Distempers which did afflict them. And to allay and be-calm their Animosities, he forbids all un­charitable altercations; and to prevent Apostacy from the Faith, he prescribes Lenitives, Condescention and gentle u­sage, lest they should be tempted to for­sake the Profession of Christianity, through the asperity of severe Censures and spiteful provocations from their e­quals, and such as had no Authority to Govern them.

This, I say, was a Temporary provisi­sion: but he promises them a more per­fect redress and settlement in a short time, and then he would determine and settle the Case and those differences de Facto, Rom. 16. 20. The God of Peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. By Satan here he means the false Apostles and Impostors (which were so great In­struments of Satan that he gives them his name) with the Factious and Tur­bulent Dissenters which were led by them, so Interpreters do generally un­stand it: Non solum immittentes offendi­cula Oecum. Theod. Theophilact. Lap. ex Chryso. Bullinger. conteret, sed & ipsumillorum Ducem, Satanam, Insidiatorum magistrum; Dis­sentiones vestras cum suo Principo: Nec eos modo qui dissidia moliuntur, sed horum etiam Praefectum & Ducem commoliatur: per Satanam intelligit omnem vim adver­sariam Christo & Evangelio ejus, sive sint Pseudapostoli; sive Tyranni: Thus seve­veral Expositors comment upon the words.

The History of those times tells us, that the Faction was so impetuous and turbulent, that Claudius in the ninth Year of his Reign, was provoked to put forth an Edict to banish them out of Rome, Claudius Judaeos impulsore Chresto Acts 18. 2. [Page 126] assidue tumultuantes Româ expulit, saith Suetonius: and Josephus to the same pur­pose: Anno ejusdem imperatoris nono expulsos per Claudium Judaeos refert, and taking the Jews and Christians to be of the same Religion he banish'd them all together.

There was little hopes therefore that the order of a Person at a distance, who had never been amongst them should be of any force to quell such Heads of the Faction or to remove their prejudi­ces, so as to unite them in the same be­lief and practice, aso t these matters; But the Apostle foretold and promised that this should be done shortly; and how was that?

Shortly, Hoc de adventu suo dicit; ‘He speaks this of his own coming to them, saith St. Ambrose:’ If a question should arise how this could be effected, when it was thought that his Letters were more prevalent than his personal presence? 2 Cor. 10. 10. This is an­swered by Interpreters, That God Al­mighty would assist him against the power of all Impostors, and Deceivers, (whom he calls Satan,) for the opposi­tion they made against Christ and his Gospel;) And that at the Apostles com­ing [Page 127] among them, This Satan, this Ad­versaryDe la Cerda. power should be conquered and laid prostrate under their feet.

And this the Apostle might very well promise without boasting, upon the ac­count of that power, which Christ did bestow upon his Apostles, a power to tread upon Serpents, and Scorpions and all the power of the Enemy (Luke 10.) And so Aretius saith (as the opinion of many Interpreters) Ʋbi ad vos ve­nero, per gratiam Dei efficietur, ut iste Satan Impostor prodatur & confundatur, meâ praesentia conculcabitur: ‘When I come unto you, by the Grace of God, it shall come to pass, that Satan that Im­postor, shall be discovered and confound­ed, he shall be trodden under foot by my presence.’

For a proof of this, we have the A­postles own asseveration. Rom. 15. 29. And I am sure that when I come unto you, I shall come in the fulness of the blessing of the Gospel of Christ. This is an inti­mation of the abundant gifts of the Ho­ly Ghost, whereby he should be inabled to confound the Ministers of Dissention, and confirm the true Disciples. Bene­dictio Ambrose. autem haec signorum virtus est: ‘per quam confirmati sunt, This blessing [Page 128] was the power of Miracles by which they were confirmed in the truth of the Gospel,’ St. Ambrose. Origen refers it to the gift of Prophesying, whereby S. Paul fore­tells his coming to Rome instructed with the most eminent gifts of the Holy Ghost. Acts 19. 21. Audaciter autem promittere potuit se allaturum copiam Spi­ritualium Pet. Martyr. bonorum, qui certo sciret sibi concessam esse Gratiam Apostolatus: quam apud eos non dubitabat fore frugiferam; ‘saith Peter Martyr: He might confident­ly promise, that he should come attended with abundance of Spiritual Blessings: because he knew certainly that the Grace of the Apostleship was bestowed upon him: which he could not doubt but would be ve­ry fruitful and of great efficacy amongst them.’

And this he might very well be sure of, upon a double account; that is, both by experience, and by Revelati­on. (1.) His experience might well assure him hereof; For he was thus highly furnish'd in his administrations to other Churches: Thus he tells the Corinthians: Truly the signs of an Apostle 2 Cor. 12. 12. were wrought among you in all patience in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. And thus he expostulates with the Gala­thians: [Page 129] He therefore that Ministreth to you the Spirit, and worketh Miracles among you, does he do it by the works of the Law, or by the hearing of Faith, or the holy Go­spel? and to go no further than this ve­ry Epistle to the Romans, He tells themRom. 15. 18, 19. thus, I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentils obedient by word and deed, through mighty signs, and wonders; by the Power of the spirit of God, so that from Hierusalem and round about to Illyricum, I have fully Preached the Gospel of Christ: After so great experience of this Divine Assi­stance he could not doubt of the like as long as he was ingaged in the like service of the Gospel.

And (2.) we may very well con­cludeActs 19. 21. too, that he had this assurance by Revelation; for the Text says expresly. That he purposed by the Spirit to go to visit Acts 23. 11. Rome, and the Lord appeared to him to encourage him to that effect, and here­upon he declares his power; and fore­tells the certain effect of it with so muchRom. 15. 29. Chap. 16. 20. confidence: I am sure I shall come to you with the fulness of Evangelical Blessings: and thereupon the Lord shall bruise Sa­tan under your feet shortly. By this means [Page 130] the Apostle was sure, that the Church at Rome would be shortly rescued from those pestilent Impostors and Dissentions, which the event witnessed accordingly. Haymo is most full in it: I'll transcribe his words. Spiritu prophetico afflatus, talia cum securitate dicebat. Quum au­tem dicit, in abundantiâ benedictionis Christi veniam, tale est, quale & illud quod in exordio hujus Epistolae dixit, Desidero, (inquiens) venire ad vos, ut aliquid gra­tiae Spiritalis impertiar vobis, ad confir­mandos vos. In abundantiâ benedictio­nis veniam plenitudine virtutum, ut meâ praedicatione quod minus habetis in fide, percipiatis ex virtute miraculorum, quae apud vos operabor, roboremini in eadem fide, ut majorem gratiam Christi in meo adventu percipere mereamini. Sic etenim fecit, quia veniens, quod illis deerat in fide, in charitate, & in caeteris rebus spiri­talibus, suo adventu supplevit. Haymo above eight hundred years ago, does deliver this sense fully upon the Text, ‘(Rom. 15.) Being inspired by a Pro­phetical Spirit, he delivered these things with great confidence. When he saith I shall come in the abundance of the blessing of Christ. He repeats what he had said in the beginning of [Page 131] his Epistle (chap. 1. 11.) for I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end you may be established. I will come unto you in the abundance of the benediction of the Gospel, that is, in the fulness of power and virtue, that what you have wanting in the Faith, by my Preach­ing you may receive it by the power of Miracles, which I will work among you, that ye may be confirmed in that Faith; that you may receive a greater measure of the grace of Christ at my coming. And this the Apostle did per­form; for what was wanting in their Faith, in their Charity, and in other Spiritual Graces, He supplied it at his coming to them.’

The short is, the Apostle does de­clare his sense concerning those Ritual observances: but he sent no peremptory command, that they should presently walk up to the truth and priviledge of the Gospel in the practice or forbear­ance of those things.

1. Because there was no Bishop or Go­vernor setled to enforce the observation of such a command, if it had been sent. And (2.) Because the opposition was so stiff, and the opposers so subtil and preva­lent, [Page 132] that there was no likelihood that an order or command sent at a great distance from a person whom they had never seen, should take effect amongst them.

Therefore he reserved the full deter­mination & settlement of this differenceRom. 14. 1, 2, 3. till his coming to them in the fulness of the Apostolical Authority, and the power of Miracles, which he made use of in the set­tlement of other Churches. In the mean while the most prudent provision he could make was (1.) To advise them to aRom. 16. 17. fair compliance with all Christian meek­ness and condescention; and to forbear contempt and rash judgment; And (2.) To avoid the pestilent Infusions of Impostors, by withdrawing from them. This justifies the sentiment of Grotius and the Verdict.

The next place I find Dr. Womock concerned in, is at pag. 77. where theRom. 14. 14. Reconciler observes, ‘That the Apo­stle here declares, that the eating of those things, which the weak Brother durst not eat, was a thing Lawful in it self, and that he was perswaded thus to judge by the Lord Jesus, and so the scandal which the weak Christian took at the freedom of the strong, who used his Christian Liberty in eating of [Page 133] these things, was scandalum acceptum non datum, scandal Received but not Given, the action being such as the weak Christian could not justly be of­fended at: And yet the Apostle plain­ly doth condemn both here and in the first to the Corinthians, verse 8. the ministring occasion to this scandal. And therefore tho this Scandal which the Dissenters take at things indifferent enjoyned by Superiors, be scandal received and not given, this doth not hinder but it may be the Duty of Su­periors not to afford occasion to it, by the imposing of these things, &c.’

From which words of his, we see plainly, his quarrel is with his Superiors; and if they will not come to School to him to learn their Duty, they shall hear on't with both ears, and the people shall be acquainted with it to judge of their gross neglect. But of this we shall have a more fit occasion to discourse anon.

At present, we are to observe, That tho the Apostle did declare, that the things which the strong did eat, and the weak were offended at were lawful in themselves de jure; and that he was so perswaded by the Lord Jesus; yet he did not, de facto, presently determine [Page 134] the general use of them; because the weak ones were not as yet so well per­swaded. This is the sense of all Com­mentators as well Ancient as Modern.

‘The Gentil Christians lived withAd Rom. 14. great freedom, saith Pet. Martyr, as a People not tyed to the Laws of Mo­ses: They understood those Ceremonies of Hellenisme (as he calls it) to be vain and out of date: But the Jews, who knew the Law to be given by God himself, they could not present­ly be perswaded that it was to be abo­lished. Wherefore they demurr'd upon it, and would not easily suffer themselves to be drawn from the ob­servation of it. And therefore they abstained from meats forbidden by the Law (among which were things Of­fered to Idols. Exod. 34. 15. which therefore does not vary the Case at all) and observed the Jewish Festivals. All which practices, shewed them to be still weak in the Faith. For they are the weak in Faith, who do not under­stand the use of things indifferent, saithConciliat. Con. 885. Pusilli habend [...] sunt illi, qui non sunt sufficienter instituti circa libertatem [...]ostram. Joan. Thaddaeus.’

Now, tho the Law of Moses was abrogated and consequently, the things prohibited by that Law were purified [Page 135] from their uncleanness, that is, were be­come lawful de jure, yet God had notAmesius Cas. Consc. l. 5. c. 11. an. 14. then clearly and authentically promul­ged the Abrogation of it de facto, among these Christians at Rome; and therefore the eating such meats and keeping such Festivals, by them that knew their own Liberty was a scandal given to such asIllorum infirmi­tatem tum acri­ter taxabant tum irridebant. P. Martyr. knew it not, especially if they were sensible of their ignorance and yet did wittingly and willingly deride and af­front them for their weakness, as is be­lieved they did.

But admit that had been a scandal ta­ken and not given; yet the Reconcilers [and therefore tho] is perfect Non sequi­tur, unless his skill will serve him to draw quidlibet ex quolibet, what he list out of every thing, or out of nothing, and can make the Cart to drag the Horses after it. For there is a vast disparity be­twixt that Case of those Jews, and this of our Dissenters. And Amesius himselfCas. Cons. l. 5. c. 11. n. 17. does acknowledge it; Non est tale peri­culum scandali (saith he) in humanis inventis negligendis quale Apostolus fuisse olim tradit in ceremoniis legis negligendis. Nulla enim conscientia talis potest haberi de inventis hominum, qualem Judaei ha­bebant de institutis Dei: There is no [Page 136] ‘such danger in neglecting Humane in­ventions, as the Apostle tells us there was of old in neglecting the Ceremo­nies of the Law. For there can be no such Reckoning or Conscience made of Human Inventions, as the Jews made of Divine Institutions.’

Tho he would make the Ordinances of our Superiors odious by the name of humane Inventions, yet he sufficiently declares the difference between the Case of the Jews and our Dissenters. 'Tis well observed by Beza, De hac igno­rantia hic agi, quae tamen possit verbum Dei praetexere. Erat enim hic delectus cibo­rum & dierum, de quo hîc agitur, ex verbo Dei institutus, adeo ut iis, qui Christianam Libertatem ignorabant, non esset res indif­ferens, sed observatu necessaria ex Dei man­dato. (ad Rom. 14. v. 2.)

The Jews might very reasonably be offended, because the Divine Law (ac­cording to their Present Opinion then in force) was broken; but here is no such Divine Law pretended to be in force among us, and this the Dissenters know and are very well assured of; and yet they are offended. To make the diffe­rence more fully appear, I argue thus, either the Jews (who are supposed to [Page 137] be those weak Christians) knew that the Ceremonial Law was abrogated or they knew it not; If they knew it to be abrogated, then they were grosly Su­perstitious in their adherence to it, and were not to be tolerated in it, but to be restrained from it: if they knew it not to be abrogated, then they look'd upon the freedom the strong ones took, contrary to the prohibition, to be a breach of the Divine Law in force; and that was Scandalum Datum as was said even now, a Scandal given. But with us these Dissenters have no Divine Prohibition to rescue them from the con­tempt of Authority; no negative Pre­cept to alledge to justify their refusal of Conformity: but a Humane Constituti­on, made according to Gods Ordinance, is presumptuously broken, contrary to a Divine Law in force, which commands obedience to our Superiors for the Lords sake. Pag. 78.

But let the Reconciler go on, (if he can) to run down Dr. Womock, as he indeavours in these words: ‘When therefore Dr. Womock saith, that the Scandal mentioned here is to be un­derstood of an Active Scandal designed as a Mouse-trap set and baited on pur­pose [Page 138] to entice and catch the unwary Mouse; Hemmingius has the very same notion of the word, Scandalum pro­priissimè signi­ficat tegillum in instrumentis, quibus capiun­tur mures, &c. Hemming. Syn­tag. de Scan­dalo. This (saith he) is indeed an Exposition well becoming Cajetan and Tirinus, from whom he doth con­fess he had it; but most unworthy of a Minister of God. For, can any man of Reason think it lawful to do an un­necessary and uncommanded action, which he knows will minister occasion to the Damnation of many thousand souls, provided they by it be destroy­ed without his formal, or express de­signation of their Ruine, especially when the souls ruined are as much ru­ined by his action, as if he had perfor­med it to that end? Does S. Paul say If meats make my Brother to offend, I will not so eat as to design his ruine? No, but I will never eat whilst the World stands, lest I make my Brother to of­fend.’

Here the Reconciler quarrels at the critical Interpretation of a word; tho the Learned and Pious Dr. Hammond does the same thing; He observes thatMat. 11. 6. at note c. the word for Scandal signifieth a Trap; a Gin, a Snare. Let the Reader con­sult him if he please. For Cajetan and Tirinus they are not such contemptible writers with the Author of the Synopsis: [Page 139] And why may not such an Exposition become Cajetan and Tirinus as well as Hemmingius, Beza, or any other Cal­vinist? Certainly the expression of put­ting a stumbling-block in our Brothers way does denote a voluntary and delibe­rate action; and whereas he saith, let us judge this rather, that no man do so. Oblique malignos istos Censores perstringit, saith Beza, after Calvin, he does oblique­ly nip. (or has a back blow at) those Malignant Censurers, who bend all their Will to Carp at their Brothers Conversation.

However, I am well assured, 'tis not so unworthy of a Gospel Minister to declare a necessary truth, tho it draws enemies upon him thereby, as to speak perverse things to draw Disciples after him: This is like enough to be the de­sign of the Reconciler: but the other was the case of the Apostle, Gal. 4. 16.Hieronym. ad Gal. 4. 16. Haec est conditio veritatis, ut eam semper inimicitiae sequantur, sicut per adulationem perniciosam amicitiae conquiruntur; libenter enim quod delectat, auditur: & offendit omne quod nolumus: ‘This is the conditi­on of sober truth, saith S. Hierome, Strife and Envy do always dogg her, whilst a pernitious Flattery shall pur­chase Friendship.’

But can any man of Reason think itpag. 78. lawful, saith the Reconciler, to do an unnecessary and uncommanded action, which he knows will minister occasion to the Damnation of many thousand souls, &c.

To which we can reply, that we plead for nothing but what is command­ed, either by positive Laws or General Custom, (which among us is Common Law too,) and therefore necessary and so determined in the first Council of the Church at Jerulalem; and we are so farActs 15. 28. from knowing that those things will minister occasion to any mans Damnati­on, that we hope they will, as well as intend they should, minister to their Duty and eternal Happiness. He that has the Conduct of an Army in a just War, if all that perish by his Sword should perish everlastingly, their blood and destruction must be upon their own heads; he is under command and has done no more than his bounden Du­ty; and if his own Souldiers mutiny, and in their disorder the Enemy falls up­on them to their ruine, they perish like­wise upon their own score; their Gene­ral and Officers, (whom they would not obey) are blameless. Christ him­self [Page 141] says, Ye shall die in your sins, toJohn 8. 24. such as would not obey his Con­duct.

Let no man therefore fly in the face of Authority; 'tis not the Impositions of their Governors that Damn them; but their singularity Quisquis Ec­clesiae Ministe­rium rejicit, & jugum, quod, ejus manu Deus vult suis omni­bus imponi, de­trectat, nec ul­lam cum Christo Communionem habere, nec Dei filius esse potest. Calvin. in Isa. 49. 23. Luke 10 16. 1 Thes. 4. 8. and Faction, in choosing a Doctrine and way of Worship by themselves (which is directly Here­tical both in practice and notion) in op­position to the Ministry of those persons (their Guides) whose Faith and Con­duct they ought to follow, For in despi­sing them, They do (interpretativè) de­spise their Lord and Master; and 'tis warning enough to prevent their ruine, (if they would be pleased to take it,) that he has solemnly told us so. And what other course hath God prescribed to prevent Rebellion, but to tell us, They that resist their Lawful Governors, Rom. 13. 2. shall receive to themselves Damnation. If men will be so incredulous and desperate as not to believe God herein, they must make out the experiment at their own Cost and Peril.

But there are a sort of men, who weigh their Religion only by their Scru­ples, and they think there is no Scandal but in a Cross or Surplice. 'Tis fit there­fore [Page 142] to consider what is meant by Scan­dal. 'Tis called a stumbling-block and to let us know what he means by that Metaphor, he doth Interpret it by an additional expression, calling it an Rom. 14. 13. occasion of falling, upon which Hyperius grounds this Description: Tunc enim ad Rom. 15. in principio. offendiculum praebetur, ubi per nos committitur, vel in Doctrina, vel in mo­ribus, quo conscientia alterius moveri que­at ad deficiendum à doctrina seu Religione semel suscepta, vel certè ad eam minoris quam anteà aestimandum: ‘Then is a stumbling-block or scandal laid in the way, when we commit something in Doctrine or manners, whereby the Conscience of another Person may be moved to depart from the Religion he has once received, or to esteem it less than he did formerly.’ Now he should be a man of a strange temper, that should think the worse of my Re­ligion for the decency of its address, and my reverence in the performance of Gods publick and solemn Worship.

We should consider, that as there is a woe denounced to those, who give of­fence; so there is one belongs to them that capriciously take it, and there is a bles­sing promised to them, who take it not: [Page 143] Blessed is he (saith our Soveraign Lord)Mat. 11. 6. who is not offended in me, which (Me) reacheth beyond his Person, to all his Dispensations. Yet how many of his harmless actions were the Pharisees of­fended at? He could not work a Cure or a Miracle, but they made a Scandal of it, especially if it were performed on Their, which indeed they made more their own, than Gods, Sabbath. It is not to be denied, there was an excel­lent man once offended at Divine Pro­vidence, for I was Envious at the foolish, Psal. 73. 3. when I saw the Prosperity of the Wicked. But this was only by Surprize, he was soon rectified in his judgment when he went into the House of the Lord; and if our Dissenters (who are offended at matters of a far inferiour nature,) would find in their hearts, to go to Church, they might soon meet a happy cure of all their fond and needless Scruples.

However, your Action (saith this Reconciler) doth minister occasion to their Damnation, and tho they be de­stroyed without your formal or express designation of their Ruine, yet they are as much ruined by your action as if you had performed it to that end: This seems to be somewhat hard, that I should [Page 144] be guilty of their ruine or blamed for it, when I never designed it, never in­tended it, but always by my discourses, by my perswasions, by my prayers and tears, endeavoured to prevent it; yet so it is, saith our Reconciler, you have done an action, though lawful enough and harmless in it self; yet this weak Bro­ther has taken offence at it, and is gone to Hell for it; and you must answer for your want of Charity.

But what if one of our Brother Dis­senters, what if Amesius (after he is castCas. Cons. l. 5. c. 11. n. 6. in his fresh Suit against the Ceremonies) Resolves that the Mouse-Trap must be ready set and baited, as well as Tirinus? What will you say, if, when he is handling this very Case of Conscience, he requires a Formal Scandal, as well as Cajetan, to make a man guilty of our Sa­viours Vae vobis of giving Scandal? This is his Resolution, Potest esse Scandalum passivum, vel acceptum, sine peccato agen­tis: ut cum factum unius est alteri occasio peccandi, praeter intentionem facientis & conditionem facti: ‘There may be a Passive Scandal or Scandal taken with­out any sin or offence of the Agent: As for example, when the Fact of one man is the occasion of sinning to ano­ther, [Page 145] contrary to the nature of the Fact and the intention of him that does it.’

Some capricious person may take of­fence at my very best performances, when I aim at nothing but the Glory of God, and my own Salvation. The Superstiti­ous Pharisees were offended at the Disci­ples, for plucking and rubbing out the ears of Corn, and some were offended at the anointing of our Saviours feet: These Instances were neither necessary nor commanded; but actions indifferen [...]. (Let no man say that was Judas; for others can kiss their Masters hand, and cry Hail to their Mother the Church, and yet take offence and betray them both.) But did Christ check Mary Magdalen, or his Disciples, and tell them they walk'd uncharitably in so doing? no, he justified the practice as innocent and laudable. Peter likewise was of­fended, that Christ should condescend to wash his feet: Was not that an indif­ferent action, and had it not a Religious, and Spiritual signification? Does Christ de­sist from the performance because a weak Disciple took offence at it? no; tho it was a symbolical Ceremony, our bles­sed Lord sticks not to assert it, and goes on with his own practice.

'Tis my duty to give no offence; but having avoided the occasion on my part,, 'tis not my duty that a weak or froward Brother takes none. If the woe belongs to him by whom the of­fence comes, in this sense, let the Re­conciler look to himself; For, if he thinks he has not given offence to his Su­periors and the Church of God, by his in­coherent Book, yet I am sure there is of­fence, and great offence taken at it; and many think it was no less unnecessary than unseasonable, and I dare be bold to say, 'twas uncommanded, unless the per­swasion of some Atheistical Physician has the force of a Command with him.

But he presses S. Paul upon us in these words: Does S. Paul say, If meats Pag. 79. make my Brother to offend; I will not so eat as to design his ruine? no, but I will never eat whilst the World stands, lest I make my Brother to offend. Here I can­not but take notice of this Reconcilers want of Ingenuity: among the grounds laid in the Verdict for securing the Au­thority and Peace of the Church and for the Conviction of Gain-sayers, he found such as he could neither answer nor di­gest: hereupon his Zeal for the Cause, boyled up his passion into such an intem­perate [Page 147] heat; as makes him forget the holy Text as well as Humanity, and the right way of Reasoning. Because he was transported himself he will needs have S. Paul so too; for he representeth him thus, saying, If meat make my bro­ther to offend, I will never eat whilst the World stands: If this were it; then he resolved to starve himself; and that is against the Law of Nature; and that must needs be against Charity. We see by this, what a great Casuist he is, A negative precept does always bind, and we cannot quit the obligation though the whole World were in danger to be subverted: Thou shalt not commit Adul­tery, thou shalt not worship an Idol; thou shalt not kill thy self; to avoid Scandal.

'Tis a Common Rule from S. Bernard, Melius est, ut scandalum oriatur quam ut veritas relinquatur: ‘'Tis better that Scandal should arise than the truth be forsaken, or a divine precept broken.’ And 'tis one of the three exceptions which S. Hierom makes in the Case of Scandal; Dimittendum est propter Scan­dalum, omne quod potest praetermitti sal­va triplici veritate sc. vitae, justitiae, & Disciplinae: A man is not bound to quit his Life, nor the course of Justice and [Page 148] good Discipline, to avoid Scandal, un­less it be in a Relaxation of Penalty; when need requires. St. Paul says only that he would not eat flesh, and perhaps he means such flesh as had been offered to Idols; or perhaps, his meaning might be, that, tho Christ had ordained that they who Preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel, and at the Charge ofSee v. 8. to the end of the ninth Chapter those, to whom they did Administer; yet that he resolved not to use this Li­berty amongst them, but to abstain from it, the more to oblige and endear them to him, so St. Chrysostom and Oecumenius, who does connect the Verse to the ninth Chapter.

2. I say, he writes here as a Rhetori­cian: ‘'Tis Hyperius his observation, that the Apostle uses great Civility and Artifice in his Epistles to oblige them:’ And Grotius says his expression is Hy­perbolical, and Beza upon the place, re­fers us to Mat. 5. 29. and his Note up­on that Text is this, Hyperbolice haec di­cuntur: vide Chrysost. Hom. 3. de laudi­bus Pauli.

3. And whether the expression may not be restrained to the Dispensation of Moses and the duration of their Laws and Oeconomy, ought to be considered; [Page 149] for that the word signifies that state and the observances there in use is very ma­nifest. Per Elementa m [...]ndi intelli­gunt rudimenta illa paedagogica quibus Deus eru­divit Ecclesiam Judaicam. In hanc eò lubenti­us descendo sen­tentiam, quod ipse Paulus ad Gal. 4. 3. per elementa mundi designat illum cultum ceremo­nialem qui vi­guit sub Vet. Test. Daven. ad Col. 2. 8. Gal. 4. 3. Col. 2. 8, 20. for which see the Learned and Pious Dr. Hammond, on the Text, and note 6. on Col. 2. 8. That St. Paul did never do what he there intimated to be his incli­nation, is the affirmation of St. Chryso­stome, and that he did otherwise, when the Church was come to a point of settle­ment, and the obstinacy of the Jews made him despair of their coming into her Communion, is clear from his own Deter­mination and Practice; Ye observe dayes. I am afraid of you, Gal. 4. 10, 11. & Ch. 5. 1, 2, 4. Stand fast in the liberty, wherewith Christ hath made you free, if ye adhere to the Law for your Justification, Christ is be­come of none effect to you: He shall profit Daven. ad Col. 2. 8. p. 186. you nothing: ye are fallen from Grace. He saith as much to the Colossians, Ch. 2. 8. Beware lest any man spoil you through Phi­losophy and vain deceit, after the traditi­on of men, after the rudiments of the World: This is that which the Apostle saith, they are to be avoided as Impostors, who obtrude upon Christians the Cere­monies which God commanded under the old Testament, being abrogated in Christ by the exhibition of the Gospel; saith Davenant.

4. The sense of the Apostle (as Dr. Hammond sums up in his Paraphrase upon 1 Cor. 8. 13.) amounts to this, That the Apostle to prevent sin, (and especially the sin of Apostacy) in others, was willing to deny himself that Liber­ty, which by the Law of Christ did truly belong to him: and every good Christian will be ready to do the same, where there is a just occasion for it. But we must remember that our Liberty tho an excellent Privilege, yet is not such an absolute good thing, but it may be abused and evil spoken of; and 'tisRom. 14. 16. as justly evil spoken of, when it is abu­sed to Schism and Sedition, as when 'tis abused to gratifie our fleshly Lusts, and turned into wantonness. But I am sure no good man, no wise man, will speak evil of my Liberty, when 'tis governed by a just Authority. For I am not boundAmesius ubi supra. to disobey the just Impositions of my Su­periors, i. e. I am not bound to omit my necessary Duty, or to commit a sin, be­cause I am not bound to go to Hell to a­void Scandal: Charity begins at home, and there it obliges me to avoid sin in my self, before I prevent it in another. The Truth is, the Reconciler is insnared in a Fallacy, and out of great kindness [Page 151] he would draw in his Brethren for com­pany. The Fallacy is à dicto secundùm quid: and tho it be not so perceivable in this, yet in the other instance, Rom. 14. 5, 6. it would appear too gross to be swallowed; for thus it would run: It is not good to regard a day unto the Lord, whereby my brother stumbleth, or is offend­ed, or is made weak. Rom. 14. 21. where­fore if a day make my Brother to offend, I will never regard a day, never perform any solemn worship to God, lest I make my brother to offend. In this parallel instance he must distinguish of the Apostles meaning, or confess his own false rea­soning.

But this Reconciler, whilst he allows nothing to be Lawful, but what is ne­cessary and commanded, he destroys Authority, he destroys Liberty, and (in contradiction to his own Hypothesis) he imposes (a Duty I cannot call it but) a Task which is impossible.

(1.) He destroys Authority; he sets up the fourteenth against the thirteenth to the Romans: And the command of Subjection to the higher powers he con­trouls by that expostulation: Who are thou that judgest another mans Servant. In favour of the Dissenters weakness, he [Page 152] brings a Writ of Error against the force of Lawful Impositions; and to secure them in their Superstition, he makes a Tender Conscience a Superse­deas to the Sacred Prerogative of Autho­rity and the Sovereignty of Governors; of which we shall deliver more hereaf­ter.

(2.) If he allows nothing to be Law­ful but what is necessary and commanded, he destroys Liberty. For what is that Liberty, wherewith Christ hath made us free? (not to speak of our freedom from sin and Satan) was it not from the Cere­monial Law of Moses? If we are deli­vered from the Law, then from the distinction of things Common and Ʋnclean, from things that were not accounted such; if from that distinction, then from the superstitious Opinions and scruples of men about things indifferent, which are grounded up­on that distinction. But if we be not set at Liberty from mens superstitious Opinions and Scruples about things In­different, then are we still under that di­stinction of things Common and Ʋnclean, and that distinction brings us directly under the Jewish Yoak of Bondage: And if so, we are in a much worse con­dition [Page 153] than the Jews were, our burden and thraldom greater; for that which obliged them was only the Institution of God; but we are inthral'd to the Caprichioes of men; and not to the hu­mour or squeamish Fancy of any single Person, but of a Multitude, who can pretend no Authority over us, but their own will and pleasure, which is a deroga­tion to the Gospel, and a subjection of our Christian Liberty to the Arbitrary whim­seys of all weak and Fanatick Persons.

3. And this will destroy our peace too; For one man will think he may take up Arms against his Prince, to de­fend his conceits and scruples, which he calls his Religion; (for what has been done, may be done again, by men of the same Principles,) another will think he may not: one man will think he may disobey his Church-Governors, another will think he may not: if no man may be allowed to judge in this case (as I do not see how they can, according to this Reconcilers sense and principles,) what will be the end of our Peace, or what will become of such Dissentions? One man thinks he may wear a Surplice: why? because Authority has enjoyned it: Another thinks he may not: why? [Page 154] he has no reason for it, but his own will and humour. If he saith, he refuseth it, because God has not commanded it; The other will reply, he does it, be­cause God hath not forbidden it: And herein he follows the Apostles own Rule, He obeys God rather than Man; For God commands him to obey those that are set over him: but they tempt him to diso­bey our Guides and follow a Rabble, who have no stamp at all of Authority to recommend them to our observance.

To go further; If this Doctrine of the Reconciler were in force, no man could be sure that he is at peace with God, or his own Conscience. For let the Apostle profess as he doth, 2 Cor. 1.2 Cor. 1. 12. 12. Our rejoycing is this, the testimony of our Conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the Grace of God, we have had our Conversation in the World, and more a­bundantly to you-wards: The weak Bro­ther can tell him, his glorying is not good, for he hath walked uncharitably, he has done such things as were unneces­sary and uncommanded, whereby he stum­bled and was offended, and grieved, and made weak: and that hereby he had de­stroyed the work of God, and a person [Page 155] for whom Christ died, and made his good evil spoken of, and tho there were nei­ther any moral evil in the nature of the things he did, nor any evil intention in his doing of them, yet he had taken of­fence, and in the event he was actually ruined by his practice, as much as if he had designed it; and therefore he must expect to bear his Judgement for it. Can any man that understands his Interest in Christ and the Priviledges of the Go­spel, think himself concerned in such Scruples, and Objections; or disturb his inward peace upon that account?

4. For this Doctrine, that I must do nothing that is unnecessary and uncom­manded for fear of Scandal, puts a man upon a task which is impossible; For sup­pose a Dissenter sees me (for example) wear a Surplice; he tells me he is offen­ded at it, he is grieved and stumbled, and made weak (which perhaps he under­stands not the meaning of) to give him the better satisfaction I consult the Re­conciler (as the great Oracle of Consci­ence) in the case: he tells me I must forbear the use of it in hopes to gain this weak Brother, Well, I obey him and lay it by. But then a Conformist comes in and observes me to officiate without [Page 156] it; hereat he is offended, and tells me it grieves him to see Authority contem­ned, the Laws violated, Christian Li­berty betrayed by the superstitious for­bearance of a thing indifferent, to gra­tifie a Faction set up against the Govern­ment: This he will say does weaken his faith, and makes him question the since­rity of such as profess the Gospel, and the Religion established among us. By this Instance, it is evident I cannot please them both; I must unavoidably offend one of them. Can I prevent them both from taking offence? This affair is attended with such perplex­ity, that the performance is impossible; Cas. Cons. l. 5. c. 11. n. 18. and therefore it cannot be a Christian Duty. And for this I have the suffrage of Amesius, tho, in his time, a stiff Dis­senter: Nulla datur talis perplexitas, ut necessarium sit pio homini, sive hoc vel illud faciat, sive non faciat, scandalum alicui dare: There can be no such case of perplexity, that it should be necessa­ry for a pious man to give any man scandal, whether he does this or that, or does it not. But how to avoid such perplexity, we must find out some bet­ter Rule, among the Casuists, than this Reconciler has yet prescribed or found out for us.

To shew his Ingenuity towards Dr. Womock (or his artifice of concealment) I shall let the Reader see how this Argu­mentpag. 114. was managed in the Verdict: ‘where he takes notice from the Apo­stle, that one man will observe a day, another will not; one man will eat Swines-flesh, another does abhor it. IRom. 14. 5. cannot satisfie them both, for both are scrupulous, and both respectively of­fended at one anothers practice. To eat and not to eat, to esteem a day and not to esteem it; these are perfect con­tradictions; and 'tis impossible for any Charity to reconcile mans practice to both their scruples. S. Paul himself (at last) found this so perplex'd a case that the difficulty was insuperable: This he learnt by experience, upon the congress of the Jew and Gentile Converts at Antioch, Gal. 2. (of which we have given some account already) wherefore instead of a prudent, and charitable expedient (which in this case was impossible to find out) He withstood S. Peter to the face, and with great Integrity and Stoutness, asserted the truth of the Gospel and the ex­tent of Christian Liberty. And herein he left us his own practice for an Ex­ample [Page 158] to maintain our Privilege; and not to govern our selves by the ti­morous squeamishness, or pretended scruples of superstitious men, (which may be contradictory and endless) but by the solid Rules of Truth, and the pru­dent Resolutions of Pious and Careful Governors.’

I shall conclude this with the words of Rollock: ‘When we are conscious to our Comment. In Joan. 5. 9. selves in our actings, that we aim at Gods glory above all things, and do not trans­gress the limits of our Office and Calling, we may act confidently, tho all the World be offended at us, and after we have done what we ought and what we were able to do, if the success does not answer our expectation so happily as we could wish,’ yet let us not be dejected at it; but enjoy that good Conscience, which the Apostle glories in. (2 Cor. 1. 12.) ‘This will be of great force and efficacy to our comfort and rejoycing in the time of adversity, and this we cannot but ob­tain; if we keep within the bounds of our Profession and Calling, and set the glory of God before our eyes in all our actions.’ Thus saith R. Rolloc; and herein he appears to be a better Ca­suist than our Reconciler hath expressed himself upon this occasion.

But let us hear what he hath to say further against Dr. Womock which is as followeth: ‘Secondly, whereas he adds, that the scandal here spoken of, is in a matter of our own choice, and power, Pag. 79. and it is to be understood in a matter wherein Authority hath not interposed her determination;’ This (he grants) is very true, and the natural Inference from it is this, &c.

Here the Reconciler fully acquits Dr. Womocks Doctrine in this point of scan­dal; who pleads only for those things wherein Authority hath interposed her Determination. Why then is he so pee­vish and froward towards the Dr. when he seems to acquit? The reason is this, he would set up the Liberty of the Subject, in matters of Religion, against the Au­thority of the Prince and Bishop, which is establish'd in the same Charter of the Gospel, by a divine Grant, precedent to that Liberty; and because Dr. Womock hath endeavoured to vindicate the Au­thority of our Superiors against his de­sign, therefore he is thus offended; for he finds he shall never be able to prove what he calls the natural Inference from Dr. Womocks words; but let us see what it amounts to.

Since therefore (says this Reconciler) no Authority can be supposed to interpose to determine our Superiors to the Imposi­tion of these indifferent things, ‘or to hin­der their abatement of them by the same power which imposed them, in order to prevent the ruine of so many souls as are involved in a wretched Schism by the con­tinuance of that Imposition, since they declare, 'tis in their own choice and pow­er to command, or not to command them; this case must by his own confessi­on be good against the Imposition of them, tho it does not hold good against obedience to them, when Imposed.’

In which words of his there are very many things observable.

1. 'Tis a great truth, That the case he puts does not hold good against obe­dience to the things in difference among us, when imposed.

2. That 'tis good against the Imposi­on of them, is not the Drs. Confession but his own Inference; which the Doctor is confident he can never make good; being but one of his usual Paralogisms and false Reasonings.

3. He confesseth that this wretched Schism of the Dissenters is damnable; otherwise, how could he object the ru­ine [Page 161] of so many souls as are involved in it? But to save them harmless he lays their fault at the door of their Gover­nors, and to Commute for the Disobedi­ence of the Dissenters, he would be con­tent to send our Governors to Hell in their stead.

4. He can propound no way to pre­vent the ruine of our Schismaticks, but to take down our Governors Authority by the abatement of their Impositions. But if a Nation be addicted to Drun­kenness, is there no way to cure them but to root up their Vines, and burn up all their materials that will afford strong Liquors? A wise man sure, will think it better and more rational, to teach them temperance and the moderate use of those wholsom and comfortable Creatures. In like manner, when there are any Impositions, which some men are led by their own ill temper, or an ill example to take offence at; I should think it might be sufficient, to discharge a good Conscience, to declare and teach the sober and beneficial usefulness of such Impositions; whereas the abo­lishing or changing of them upon any light suggestion, or Factious importunity, may breed more mischief than it will pre­vent.

[Page 162]5. ‘When he says, That no Authority can be supposed to interpose to determine our Superiors to the Imposition of these indif­ferent things,’ what does he mean? a new occasional and prophetical Authority? that needs not; for they have an ordi­nary Apostolical Authority (such as isJohn 20. 21. conferred upon Church-Governors) and that's derived from Christ; and they have their own humane Judgment, with the advice of Common Council (whereinActs 15. 28. matters of such a general and publick concern should be determined) and that is assisted by the Holy Ghost; and this determines the case according to that1 Cor. 14. last. Apostolical Rule: Let all things be done decently and in order.

But because this Reconciler cannot tell well how to shake off obedience, he at­tempts to pull down Authority; and his Superiors are much beholden to him for his kindness; in giving them a Writ of Ease, to discharge them from the trou­blesom task of Government. St. Peter was once willing to be quit of the like trouble at Antioch, and to that end, heGal. 2. 11, to 14. dispensed with the profession of his own belief: but what came on't? Barnabas was carried away with his dissimulation, and the faith of others began to stagger, [Page 163] and the truth of the Gospel was like to be brought in question, thro his silence and gratification of their weakness.

But we know St. Paul did very bold­ly rebuke St. Peter upon that occasion; Petrus coe­lesti visione edoctus, discri­men ciborum esse sublatum, repre­hensione meritus est; quia quae à Deo didicit & in publi­co Consilio docuit, non ob­servavit, scan­dalum Judaeis & Gentibus praebuit. Joan. T [...]addaeus Con­ciliat. n. 885. and in justification of him therein, Mr. Calvin well observes, this was not a tri­fling business, neque vero hîc agebatur ho­minum negotium: sed venerat in discri­men Evangelii puritas, ne Judaico fer­mento inquinaretur: for it was not the meer concern and business of men that was then and there acted: but the purity of the Gospel was brought in danger, lest it should be corrupted by the Leven of Juda­ism. And is it not so with us? Do not the Dissenters look upon the things, they scruple at, as unclean, and refuse them upon that account; and so run into a Jewish Superstition? This cannot in reason be denied.

But the Reconciler has prepared aP. 156. 157. salve for this sore. Let our Superiors a­bate their Impositions, not as sinful to be practised, or with a protestation that they do not esteem them so, but purely for the sake of peace and unity;—‘This, saith he, will be satisfactory to those who scruple the use of them: and he con­ceives it may be the duty of Superiors [Page 164] to condescend; nor will it be sufficient [...]. 326. to excuse them, when they neglect to cut P. 78. off this occasion of their Brothers Scan­dal, to say, that their weak brother acts unreasonably, if it be lawful for them to dispence with their Impositions, &c.’

Here the Reconciler shews himself an excellent contriver for the ease of Go­vernment and a tender Conscience: but he plays the Mountebank, and teaches the People to go upon their heads, with their heels upwards; for 'tis evident his attempt and project is to set up Subjects above their Governors. And whereas they pretend to be offended, he could not but take notice, at p. 58, & 59. (which is a Confutation of the rest of his Book) That 'tis because they may not have their own Will, not that they see any sin in the Impositions which they quarrel at. For if they had any sense of weakness in themselves, or any vene­ration for their Superiors, why should not they have so much deference to their Judgment and Authority as to believe them, when they tell us, that the pra­ctice they enjoyn is very innocent, and the fears of them who think otherwise, very superstitious, which is the Confes­sion of this Reconciler.

But to prove that the Head must stoop to the Feet, and the Law bow down to its trangressors, that all Parliaments must take their measures from the Rabble and the wisest Shepherds from the silliestP. 3. 24. of their stragling sheep, he pleads St. Pauls practice and Authority. ‘For he saith; he never doth enjoyn the weak to be of the same Principles, and Appre­hensions with the strong; This goes beyond all the fooleries he has observed in Meisner. but always does command the strong to restrain his (own) liberty that he may minister no scandal to the weak, and this (he says) the Apostle confirms by his own practice in like cases.’ But what! does the Re­conciler Burlesque the Apostle to shew his wit, and gratifie the scoffing Atheist? I am sure he seems to be prophane, and to blaspheme as well the practice as the Doctrine of St. Paul. What! would not the Apostle have these weak ones he conversed with be of the same Princi­ples and apprehensions with himself? who can believe it? What would he make of them by his Ministry? What is the meaning of his passionate wish before Agrippa; I would to God, that not only Acts 26. 29. thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am except these bonds. What did he mean [Page 166] by that other wish in behalf of his Bre­thren his Kinsmen according to the flesh: I could wish that my self were ac­cursed Rom. 9. 3. from Christ: Was this, that they might still continue Jews or turn Gen­tiles? This is his exhortation to thePhil. 3. 17. Philippians. Brethren be ye followers to­gether of me, and mark them which walk so, as ye have us for an Example. That he might prevent the suspicion of be­ing Ambitious, he cares not whom they propound to imitate, Modo se forment ad illam puritatem, cujus ipse erat exem­plar, Calvin. ‘provided they would frame them­selves according to that purity, where­of he was (so eminent) an example.’ Does he not pray for the unanimity of these Romans? and doth he not conjureRom. 15. 5, 6, 1 Cor. 1. 10. the Corinthians, that they be perfectly Joyned together in the same mind, and in the same judgment, and that they speak the same thing to prevent Schism. Vult autem cohaerere in unâ mente & unâ sen­tentiâ, & consensum verbis profiteri; saith-Calixtus, ‘he would have them a­gree together in the same mind and in the same meaning, and to profess their consent in the same words.’ And when, unto the Jews he became as a Jew, was it to confirm them in their Judaism? [Page 167] no; but that he might gain them to Chri­stianity.

But if he would not have the weak to be of the same Principles and Appre­hensions with the strong; he must enjoyn the strong to be of the same Principles and Apprehensions with the weak; or else he could never expect to see a good effect of his prayers and obtestations.

But this Reconciler has made himself not the Subject's, but the Sovereign's Remembrancer: He addresses himself to our Superiors and calls upon them to be dutiful, to be subject to, and to obey their good people. This puts me in mind of the character which Isaiah gives of a false Prophet. The Prophet that teach­eth Isai. 9. 15. Lies, he is the tail. But why is he the tail? because the tail follows the body of the Beast, is carried about by it, and hangs upon it;; and so doth the false Prophet upon the Common People; and whether the Reconciler does not so, let his Neighbours judge: But we see plainly he would have the Ancient and the Ho­nourable, who are the Head, to do so; that's the Reverence he has for them.

But I humbly conceive our Governors will find many Reasons not to rescind the Laws establish'd not to restrain, or [Page 168] abate the force of their Impositions as this Reconciler would have them.

1. They should betray the Supream power and Prerogative of Authority? 'Tis a Rule laid down by a great Divine, De facto lex humana obligat, Humane Law does bind de Facto, with a Non obstante to any danger whatsoever, when the transgression of the Law would fall out to the ruine of the Community, to the Contempt of Religion or the Christian Faith, or to the lessening and despising of Authority or the Legislative Power. In such Cases no fear of danger can excuse the transgression of the Law.

Upon this ground the General does expose the Sentinel to imminent danger of death, to preserve the whole Camp, or City from destruction. The Prince commands a Physician to attend a place that is visited with a raging Pestilence. And the Bishop injoyns a Priest in the like case of dan­ger, to administer to the Ghostly welfare of such as are under a great Contagion.

Where, according to the judgment of wise men, the advantage and benefit does preponderate and outweigh the dan­ger or detriment that may insue, there, it is the Prerogative of Authority to in­terpose for the more publick and com­mon safety.

But in such Cases, the obligation does not properly arise from the Humane Law, but from the Natural Divine Law, which forbids that act, which tends to the contempt of the Faith and the despising of Religion, or to the ruine of the Com­munity, or the undervaluing of Authority and the Legislative Power: For such an Act, without doubt, is intrinsecally evil.

Authority and the Legislative Power is a Counterpart of Gods Sovereignty, a De­positum, a sacred Trust, for the Govern­ment of the World, and to keep distinct Communities in Peace and Order. As God allows no man to despise it, so it ought much less, to despise it self. And nothing can make it more despicable than to stoop to a Lure of Feathers, that is thrown out by a giddy Multitude.

To this purpose we have the judg­ment of the Learned and wise King James; who, in his Proclamation, March 5. in the first year of his Reign, having given Reasons, why he would not be swayed to alteration, in the Form of Gods Service, by the frivolous suggestion of any light spirit; he adds this,

‘Neither are we ignorant of the In­conveniencies that do arise in Govern­ment, by admitting Innovation in things [Page 170] one setled by mature Deliberation: and how necessary it is to use Constan­cy, in the upholding the publick De­terminations of States; for that such is the unquietness and unstedfastness of some Dispositions, affecting every year new Forms of things, as if they should be followed in their inconstan­cy, would make all actions of State Ridiculous and Contemptible: where­as the stedfast maintaining of things, by advice established, is the weal of all Common-wealths.’ And that reso­lution of King James was in the matter of Ceremonies, which we discourse of.

And the truth is, if the Prince be brought to those Terms, that he must strike Sail to the humour of the People, and vary his Compass according to every wind of Doctrine that blows from a Re­publican Coast, he must at last leave the fifth Commandment out of the Catechism (as the Church of Rome has done the second) or give them leave to do by it (as the Pharisees did of old) to make it of none effect by their Traditions.

And how much the Prelates of the Church are concerned herein we may learn from Joannes Crocius (for I will [Page 171] take in no Authority from the Jesuits or Church of Rome in this Case, that the Reconciler may have no occasion to cavil upon that account) Minister in omni muneris Parte Auctoritatem divinitùs concessam tueatur viriliter & modestè: ‘In every part of his Office, let the Mi­nister manfully, as well as modestly maintain, the Divine Authority which is given him.’ He gives us St. Pauls Authority and example for it. His Au­thority is to Titus Bishop of Crete, Tit. 2. 15. and for his example he refers us to Gal. 16. 7, &c. to 2 Cor. 10, 11, 12,Tertul. de Bap­tis. c. 17. & 13. Chap. Dandi quidem habet jus Summus Sacerdos, qui est Episcopus; de­hinc Presbyteri & Diaconi, non tamen sine Episcopi authoritate propter Ecclesiae honorem; Quo salvo, sata Pax est.

And if Princes and Governors should rescind and Chop and Change and Inno­vate Laws and Constitutions upon the motion and Impulse of a turbulent Peo­ple, this will countenance their claim of a share For the Fly upon the Wheel thinks that all the dust is rai­sed by the force of her agitation. in the legislative power; which is of too dangerous a Consequence to be suffered in a Monarchy. I do solemnly therefore aver, that in all his Pleas for Christian Liberty, S. Paul did never set it up above Authority, nor allow it to [Page 172] controul the power of Governors, or op­pose them in things Indifferent.

2. In abating these Impositions; our Governors must needs act against their own Judgment and Conscience, which is point-blank against St. Pauls Rule, (Rom. 14. 5.) Let every man be fully perswaded in his own mind. Now if our Governors be perswaded in their own mind, that the things establish'd among us are Decent, as well as Lawful, in the performance of Gods publick Worship; The Reconciler will tell them their Du­ty Vid. Protest. Reconciler. p. 157. (as he calls it) for he says expresly they are more concerned in those, whether advices or injunctions, of the Apostle than other men. And if in favour of Dis­senters (as the Reconciler would have it) they should abate their Impositions, and enter their Protestations; they do not esteem them sinful to be practised, nor abate them upon that account. This would not at all Correct the Judgment of the Dissenters: but it would tell all the World that such Governors renoun­ced their own Judgment, and 'tis pro­bable many would say, they went a­gainst their Conscience, to humour a froward and unsteady Faction.

How dangerous such a practice would be, we may learn from the ex­perience and complaint of the Royal Martyr, in an instance of a like nature; ‘I never met (saith he) with a more unhappy conjuncture of affairs, than That con­cerned the Destruction of an excellent man; and this of an excellent Church. when between my own unsatisfied­ness in Conscience, and a necessity (as some told me) of satisfying the im­portunity of some people; I was per­swaded by those, that I think wish'd me well, to choose rather what was safe than what seemed Just; preferring the outward Peace of my Kingdoms with [...] Meditat. on the Earl of Straffords Death. men, before that inward exactness of Conscience before God. He tells us, He had confessed it with sorrow both to God and men, as an act of so sinful frailty, that it discovered more a fear of man, than God, whose name and place on Earth (saith he) no man is worthy to bear, who will avoid in­conveniencies of State by acts of so high injustice as no publick conve­nience can expiate or compensate. And then he goes on profoundly thus.’

‘I see it a bad exchange to wound a mans own Conscience thereby to salve State sores; to calm the Storms of Po­pular [Page 174] discontents, by stirring up a Tem­pest in a mans own Bosom.’

Wherefore our Governors being very well satisfied that in the present settle­ment of Church affairs, they have acted within the proper sphere of their own Office, and have had an eye all along, to Gods Glory therein, tho all the Pha­risees of the World should be offended, yet let them strenuously assert their own Injunctions with alacrity under the at­testation and comforts of a good Consci­ence.

3. In abating those Impositions as this Reconciler requires, they should betray the truth of the Gospel in things Indiffe­rent, and depretiate the solemn Worship of God, which among us is determined to be most Decently and Reverently per­formed by our present establishment: we say (according to the sense of the Apo­stle) He that has a jealousie he shall displease God, in doing such or such a thing, and yet, will venture to do it, he sins in it; because he shews a want of Reverence to the Authority and Ma­jesty of God: In like manner should we change that Form of Worship which we think better for that which we think worse, a more decent way and manner [Page 175] of Address in our holy Duties for one that is less decent in our own esteem; this would argue and declare a want of Reverence towards the Majesty of God whom we pretend to Worship.

4. Taking away of those Impositions would cause a greater Mischief than it would prevent; For (1.) instead of a Passive it would procure an Active Scandal; to prevent a Scandal taken there would be a Scandal given: A Scandal per se laid in our Neighbours way to remove a Scandal per Accidens. For a Scandal by Accident does happen, Quando nec operantis intentio, nec operis natura aut circumstantia eò tendit, ut alter ruat, sed prava peccantis dispositione fit, ut occasionem peccandi inde hauriat, ubi non est: ‘When neither the intent of the Imposer, nor the nature of the Imposition, nor any circumstance there­of tends to that end, that any man should fall by it, but it comes to pass through the corrupt disposition of the Delinquent, that he draws an occasion of sinning from thence, where really there is none, this is a Scandal by accident and a Scandal taken; and this is all the Scandal that the Dissenters have to complain of, in these Impositions.’

Whereas the Repealing or ruffling of these Impositions, would unsettle a well establish'd Church, and rob her of that which is her Glory, her good Order which keeps her stedfast in her Faith and Alle­giance both to God and man. This was so Conspicuous in the Church of Coloss, that all men observed it, and the Apo­stle takes notice of it at a distance with great satisfaction; Tho I be absent in the Col. 2. 5. flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joy­ing and beholding your Order and the sted­fastness of your Faith in Christ. Upon which words saith the learned Davenant, Seeing Pastors have so great a joy from that good Order that flourisheth among a People, it follows that they do unwor­thily afflict and vex the Prelates of the Church, who do contemn and trample down the lawful Ordinances of theHeb. 13. 17. Church contrary to that of the Apostle. Obey them that have the Rule over you and submit to them. For Ordo est tanquam val­lus seductoribus oppositus, Order is a Bul­wark opposed to prevent the incursions of Seducers: They are therefore seldom precipitated into Errors, who observe that order of Obedience which is due to their Governors; but on the contrary, where the Order of Commanding and [Page 177] Obeying is neglected, ibi tanquam per disjectam aciem facilè perrumpitur, there it is easie to break in upon them as upon a routed and scattered Army.

Hereupon Grynaeus (Professor at1585. A Col. 2. 5. Lect. 18. Heydelberge) among those Gifts, where­in a well constituted Church ought to excel; he reckons these two, Order and the solidity of Faith. By Order he understands the whole Liturgie and Dis­cipline of the Church; where all things are to be done Decently and in Order, 1 Cor. 14. 40. And such as walk Disorder­ly,2 Thes. 3. 6. as far as is possible, in ordinem Discipli­nae Ecclesiasticae severitate adhibita redigen­di sunt: They are to be reduced to Or­der by the severity of Church-Discipline.

(2.) A second Mischief that would arise from the Retrenching of those Im­positions would be the Offence given to the weak and tender Members of the Church: For we must not deny but we have those that are weak and tender, and are not the worse for it, and they may very well be jealous with a Godly Jealousie, if they should see such a Change, such an abolition of our esta­blish'd Ordinances, they might very well be Jealous of the truth of our Doctrine about things indifferent, jealous of the [Page 178] lawfulness of our Practice herein; or else Jealous of our sincerity in our pro­fession of them both.

And this might prove so great a scan­dal that the Church of Rome might make a greater Harvest of it, than they could of all the Plundering and Persecuting times of the late Rebellion, when men of worth and honour did stedfastly adhere to the King and Church out of Consci­ence, finding them so just and steadfast to their own well setled Principles. And that of the Father is a known truth, Ipsa mutatio consuetudinis, etiam quae adjuvat u­tilitate, novitate perturbat. The Change of an old Custom gives more trouble and disturbance by the novelty, than it can give advantage otherwise. ‘And if it be Insolentissimae Insaniae, a part of most insolent madness to dispute any of those Customs, which the Church ob­serves all the World over,’ as St, Au­gustin says it is; then certainly, no man that is well in his wits, or has any vene­ration for Gods Church, can think it a piece of Prudence or sobriety, to Cas­sate and make void all, and throw them promiscuously out of doors, upon the srivolous suggestions of Fanatick Spirits [...]o [...]ated with never so [Page 179] much blind Passion and Importuni­ty.

(3.) There is a third Mischief as great as the former; by this means, Gover­nors should encourage and harden them in their Schism, whom, in Charity they are obliged to correct; and not in their Schism only, but in their Judaism and Superstition; which is against that Cha­rity we owe to them as well as that which we owe to our selves.

For that they are guilty of a wretch­ed Schism the Reconciler does acknow­ledge; and that they have a tincture of Judaism, or Jewish Superstition (if they do really believe the Principles they in­sist upon in this dispute) cannot be denied as long as they take Sanctuary at Rome, and intitle themselves to the Indul­gence of the Apostle (in this Epistle) to the Dissenting Christians, which did then and there converse. For that such was their Distemper and Disease has been sufficiently proved already.

Now to take off these Impositions (which the Party is thus upon the fret, and in fermentation about them) may be against that Charity we owe to them; and it may be in us the sin of scandal too, because we should not be suffici­ently [Page 180] careful to remove the occasion of sin from them. This was the sin of Eli, 1 Sam. 3. 13. and the sin of the Angel of the Church of Thyatira. Apoc. 2. 20. 'Tis an authentic Rule, Qui non vetat peccare, cum possit, jubet; and that is of the same importance; Facti culpam ha­bet, qui quod potest, negligit emendare: He that has power to correct a Fault, is guilty if he neglects to correct it.

I may add this also, that they, to whom we are so indulgent, lest they should be offended, will certainly take occasion to be offended, and be actual­ly scandalized thereby; and so by our Indulgence we shall sin doubly; that is, as well against that Charity which we owe to them, as against that which we owe to our selves.

1. Against that which we owe unto our selves; for if we neglect our Duty, when it is incumbent upon us, to correct them, that neglect is our sin, and that is against the Charity which we owe un­to our selves; to prevent which, our Saviour has given us this Charge, If thy right hand offend thee, cut it off and cast it from thee.

2. 'Tis certainly against that Charity we owe to them; for we should hereby [Page 181] incourage them in their Schism and Su­perstition by our Indulgence, whereas in Charity we are obliged to endeavour their Correction.

If our Governors be obliged to root Superstition and Judaism out of the minds and practice of their subjects, then they can find no better Remedy than these Impositions, which, as their Application has discovered the Disease, so the Continuance thereof, will be the best way to correct and cure it.

And for this our blessed Saviour hath afforded us an example; for, why didLuke 13. 32. & 33. he work so many Cures upon the Sab­bath day, which he knew so highly to Scandalize and offend the Jews? The day of it self was indifferent to him (I cast out Devils and do Cures to day and to morrow and the day following) He could have done it the day before, or the day after; why then did he so fre­quently and so designedly work his Cures upon the Sabbath day? Why, it was to detect the Superstition they had for the Sabbath day and to cure them of it. And herein the Reconciler and I are perfectly agreed: for he saith, our bles­sed Saviour is supposed to have taken this Prot. Recotcil. pag. 318. occasion, (viz.) to heal the diseased up­on [Page 182] the Jewish Sabbath) to deliver the poor People from those superstitions, and heavy burdens, which the Pharisees had laid upon them in reference to that day. In like manner, the great Prudence of our Governors thinks fit to continue these healing Impositions, to deliver our poor people from those Superstitions and burdens, which our modern Pharisees the Presbyterian Divines, have laid up­on them in reference to these very Impo­sitions.

Governors do well remember their own office and know they have some­thing else to do, than to humour a Ca­pricious or froward people. They are Ministers of Gods Kingdom: They haveWis. 6. a Master in Heaven who is King of Kings, to whom they must be account­able for their administrations, he claims a Sovereignty over them as intitled to their Thrones by the Commission which he gives them: By Me Kings Reign; andRom. 8. as he allows them to Reign by him, so he requires they should Reign for him: To this effect, he appoints them to be Nursing Fathers to his Church; and such (God be blessed) have been all our Princes since the Reformation.

And the Charge is as strict upon the Bishops. Take heed therefore unto your selves, and to all the Flock over the which Acts 20. 28. the holy Ghost hath made you Overseers, to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own Blood. The way to feed them is not to flatter, but instruct them not to humour their petulancy but to reprove it: not to wink at their su­perstition but to correct it: They can neither discharge their Duty nor a good Conscience by following the People in their stragling; but by bringing them home into the Fold; if they gratifie them to their ruine, they cannot do it but with certain peril of their own.

There is a great difference betwixt a Loose and unsetled State, and a State that is regularly establish'd: in the first every man does that which is right in his own eyes (and that perhaps he may call his conscience) So we find it, Jud. 17, 6. In those days there was no King in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes. And the meaning of that place, our Synopsis has very well discovered: 'twas no wonder that Idola­try crept in amongst them, when there was no Sovereign like that of Kings to hinder it, for the Judges kept men to their Duty [Page 184] by advice and perswasion, rather than by an effectual command and punish­ments.

But may we do so now, when we are under a well setled Government? It may seem so to our Reconciler and his Dissen­ters, by the Apostles Concession, Rom. 14. 5. according to the vulgar Latin unusquisque sensu suo abundet, let every man abound in his own sense. But is this Go­spel? Is this good practical Divinity? No, 'tis a corruption of the Text saith Hemmingius, 'tis wicked and unchristi­an, for God hath expresly forbidden it, Deut. 12. 8. Ye shall not do that which is right in your own eyes. That is the common practice of such as have no Coercive Government.

And this is the attempt of such as would have none: Wilt thou put out the eyes of these men? Numb. 16. 14. We will not come up. They think they have lost their own eyes, if they may not be allowed to do what they list. Such an one was Corah; and we are foretold there would spring up a Race of pre­tended Christians of the same stamp; and that their doom was already para­digmatized, and set forth in Effigie, by his destruction: Woe unto them; for they [Page 185] have gone in the way of Cain; (who out Jude Ep. v. 1. of Malice and Envie slew his Brother A­bel, a figure of the true Church of God) and ran greedily after the error of Balaam (who Prophesied as ill things as he could,Rev. 2. Hemmingius ad Ep. St. Jude. and projected worse) for the reward of Lucre and applause: and perished in the gainsaying of Corah. And in the de­scription of Corah and his Company, ‘Hemmingius observes first, that he was not content with that degree of ho­nour to which he was advanced,’ and then that he did blaspheme the Magi­strate, and endeavoured to take away all Degrees from among the Ministers of God. And to effect this he made use of a specious Argument, viz. That it was a very unworthy thing, that the holy people of God should be subject to any Head on Earth. The Papists he says follow this Example, who will not suf­fer their Priests to be subject to the Civil Magistrate to have any Authority in the Church, and Joannes Agricola has theAnnot. In Tit. 3. 1. He li­ved about 1530. like charge against the Bishops of Rome; who pull down Magistracy (as if it were an injurious encroachment, and not an Ordinance of God) that, upon the ruin of this, they may establish their own Tyranny, similes his fuerunt Prophetae [Page 186] Phanatici horum temporum: And such were the Phanatick Prophets of these times, whose folly (saith he) hath been wonderfully discovered. And now the fury of the Anabaptists wish and aim at no­thing more than the common destruction of all the Laws and honest Constitutions of the Magistrates. And are not we leavened with this horrible Fanaticism.

To say that Church-Governors have not power to impose any thing for De­cency and Order, but what is necessary and commanded, is in effect, to charge the Ʋniversal Church for 1500 years to­gether, more or less, with Ʋsurpation and Tyranny; and contradicts the Judg­ment and Declarations of the most Learn­ed Protestants of any credible Denomina­tion. See the Verdict, pag. 24, &c.

There can be no publick Worship ofSee the Ver­dict, p. 24. p. 35. p. 223. and the two Letters. God solemnly performed unless some Rules be observed therein. If every man were allowed to have his Psalm, his Revelation, his Interpretation, (to use the Apostles own instance) if every1 Cor. 14. 26. one were suffered to pick and choose his own time, place, gesture, there could be no Decency, no Order, nothing but Confusion. And the unlearned,Ibid. v. 2 3. yea, and the learned too that should [Page 187] come into our Assemblies, would cer­tainly say, we were mad.

To prevent this, Governors are set up in the Church to determin what is fit to be done, and to restrain our vagrant Liberty to the use and Practice of what is so ordained, 1 Cor. 14. 40. Let all things be done decently and in order. This is an Apostolical Injunction; and that is of great Authority; and so sacred, that no humane Liberty is allowed to dispute, much less to affront it, for indeed a greater that St. Paul is here; these In­junctions touching matters of Decency and Order; they are the Command­ments of God; and the Apostle would have the greatest pretenders to the Spi­rit to know it, 1 Cor. 14. 34. so that we have an Apostolical, we have a Divine Command for Governors, and that lays a necessity upon them, to make such Or­dinances and consequently the things Or­deined, are neither uncommanded nor unnecessary.

The evidence of truth is so strong inPag. 340. this Case, that the Dissenters are forced to allow, that there be many Cases, where somewhat in genere is necessary to be deter­mined; They also add, that in all Cases truly such, the Magistrate Civil or Sacred [Page 188] not only may, but must determine, and indeed (saith the Reconciler) 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 Superiors, (i. e.) they cannot be obligingly de­termined by others. Thus our Reconci­ler.

But it is a great mistake to think that Authority in this Case is restrained to things Necessary: All things are Lawful for me, saith the Apostle, but all things are not expedient. If he had restrained his (or our) Liberty to things Neces­sary, he would have argued to that ef­fect; All things are Lawful for me, but all things are not necessary; and he would1 Cor. 6. 12. & 10. 23. have injoyned us to keep to things ne­cessary: but he argues otherwise; All things are Lawful but all things are not Expedient. Wherein he teacheth us to distinguish of things; whereof some (saith he) are expedient, and some are inexpedient. Which are expedient is not left to every man to judge; for then we should run again into Madness and Confusion, as was observed even now.

When we speak of Necessary thingsActs 15. 28, 29. we had need be wary and speak with di­stinction; otherwise the word has so ma­ny significations, we may easily be in­snared in a Fallacy upon that account. The Decree of the Council at Jerusalem runs thus, It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no great­er burden than these necessary things, That ye abstain from meats offered to Idols, and from Blood, and from things Strangled, and from Fornication. Some men I ob­serve run into a great mistake in making the necessity here mentioned, to be Ante­cedent to the Decree of the Council in respect of the Nature of the things for­bidden, (except Fornication which is of doubtful interpretation too.) If those observed things were Antecedently neces­sary, then they had some moral good­ness in them, and were commanded be­cause they were good; which is not af­firmed of the Ceremonial Law. BesidesActs 15. 23. this Decree was sent to the Gentiles and made for their use and observation; and these things could not be necessary to them Antecedently to them, because the Ceremonial Law of Moses did not oblige or concern them. The necessity therefore which those things had, (I [Page 190] except Fornication in our common sense of the word) was Consequent to that De­cree of the Council. Nor could the necessity, there mentioned, be absolute or simply such (for such necessity has no Law, but is a Law to it self) but only a Hypothetical Necessity or a necessity se­cundum quid; or, as some call it, a Ne­cessity of expedience; of which necessity or expedience, the Apostles and Elders, that is, the Governors of the Church, were the sole and proper Judges.

But the Reconciler tells us, the Dis­senters do universally deny that it is ne­cessary to determine any of these scru­pled Ceremonies, and they have perfect demonstration for the truth of that de­nyal; for Necessarium est quod non potest aliter se habere; that only is necessary to be done, which cannot be left undone. But will the Reconciler say, that the things determined and imposed by that Council were necessary in this sense? That implies a Physical necessity, whereas here was no other necessity than a Moral one; which is only when Prudence or the pre­sent reason of things does suggest, That I be willing to do what I can, when I am not able to do what I would: In this sense the word Necessity is taken, 1 Cor. 7. 37. [Page 191] He that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no Necessity, but has power over his own will; (i. e.) he has no Moral consideration of force enough to draw him from his purpose. The necessity was not absolute, 'twas not inevitable: The thing of it self might have been other­wise; and therefore the Reconciler thought fit to mince the matter thus:

That only is necessary to be determi­ned, in order to the performance of an Ibid. p. 340. Action, without which the Action cannot be done, or (N. B.) at the least not well done; But Divine Service, saith he, may be celebrated, Baptism may be admini­stred, the Sacrament may be received, yea, all these Actions may be performed well, tho no determination should be made by our Superiors that all who do Officiate should wear a Surplice, all that receive the Sacrament shall kneel, and all that are Baptized shall receive the sign of the Cross upon their fore­heads.

Here the Reconciler mistakes the que­stion or begs it, The question is concern­ing these Administrations and perfor­mances, now our Superiors have made their determination; And I say, if these Duties be not done according to appoint­ment [Page 192] they are not done decently accor­ding to the present Estimation of our Governors; and it is their Estimate and Order, not our own Will or Fancy, that God commands us to obey and follow; and the Reason is, because, according to the common sense and experience of the whole World, They whose Prudence and Authority is intrusted by God himself, to Rule and Govern in all Human Affairs, are not only allowed, to be the most competent Judges The exter­nal Worship of God is ta­ken from that which is e­steemed the highest reve­rence among men. See Psal. 2. 12. & 72. 9. Isa. 49. 23. of what is Civil and Decent in their respective Countries; but the Duties also appointed according to their Order at Gods Command, are the more likely to obtain acceptance at Gods hands, for their very Office-sake, as Gods Vice-gerents. And hence it is that as we are required to obey them for the Lords sake, so we are encouraged to1 Pet. 2. 13. hope that he will have respect unto us for theirs Nam cum De­us proponere vellet exemplum orationis accep­tissimae, non ali­am in medium adduxit quam Mosis & Sa­muelis Oratio­nem, Greg. v. Psal. 99. 6 Jer. 18. 1. 1 Sam. 12. 23..

And then God having prescribed his Vice-gerents a General Rule, if he leaves the particulars to their Discretion, Who art thou, O man, that disputeth against God? (Rom. 9. 20.) Certainly 'tis our Duty to rely upon their Judgment, where God himself is pleased to trust it. We have no reason to be offended at the [Page 193] Laws of our Governors, when God is not offended at them, and we are sure God is not offended at what they do, unless they do it against his will. What they have done and established in his Church and Worship, let us see the Will of God a­gainst it, and we will all forth with turn Protestant Joyners and Reconcile our selves to the Dissenters upon the ac­countActs 4. 19, 5. 29. of St. Peters Aphorism, we must obey God rather than Man.

But where God has not put a check up­on their power, we must obey him in his Officers, rather than follow our own Fancy or the Suggestions of any private Person, or Persons who have no Autho­rity over us; and that is, to obey God ra­ther than man in a second and lower sense of that Rule. For Governors have Au­thority to institute Rites and Observances for Order and Decency, which we are bound to observe upon that account. For there is a command to Governors, 1 Cor. 14. 40. Let all things be done decently and in order: And then there is a command to Subjects, to perform what is esta­blished according to that Rule: Obey your Prelates or those who have theHeb. 13. 7, 17. Rule over you. And concerning such Rites and Traditions, St. Austins Rule [Page 194] is commended in all the Church of God: ‘In these things a prudent Chri­stianDavenant, ad Col. 2. 8. p. 185. can observe no better Order than this, to do as the Church of God does, whereever he comes: For whatsoever is injoyned that is neither against the Faith, nor against good manners, is to be used indifferently according to the custom of the place. All Ecclesiastical Laws concerning Fasts or Festivals, concerning the difference of Habits, and the whole external Order, which is observed, in the performance of all Sacred Offices, will come under this Rule. Whosoever rejects this kind of Rites, and Traditions of men, not re­pugnant to the word of God is a di­sturber of Publick Order, and a Con­temner of that Power and Authority, which God has setled in his Church.’

Thus the Learned Davenant.

2. If a weak Brother scruples and acts unreasonably, his weakness may call for our help, and as S. Chrysostom saith, he ought to have it. But what is the help that can be afforded him in this case? The disease, 'tis in his Mind, and 'tis [...]t. Reconcil. [...] 78. only Want of Knowledg and particu­larly want of the Knowledge of that Liberty which was purchased to us by [Page 195] Christ Jesus; And hence it is, that the Apostle requires the strong to bear with such a Weak Brother and to instruct him. Tantisper dum de Libertate partâ per Chri­stum edoceatur, (as Hyperius, Bullinger, Hemmingius, Beza, and all the Learned Commentators among the Protestants, do unanimously expound it) till he has Learned, what that Liberty is, which was purchased for us by our blessed Sa­viour. Those are to be esteemed little ones (saith Amesius) qui non sunt suffici­enter instituti circa libertatem nostram. 1 Cor. 8. 7. ‘who are not sufficiently instructed Case Consc l. 5. c. 11. n. 14. 15. about our Liberty. And he adds, That all they are not sufficiently instructed, to whom a just account of the matter of Fact is rendred. For perhaps some are not capable to understand the ac­count that is given them; and there­fore saith he, tho an account has been given them, they are still to be ac­counted weak and little ones.’ But are Go­vernours bound, as well to find them un­derstanding as to give them Laws? And must the Laws be suspended, because some men want a Capacity to understand the Reason of them?See the Ani­madversions on the Prot. Reconc. p. 44.

Gods patience, we know, was weary of waiting for the compliance of an untra­ctable [Page 196] Generation; and is the Patience of Man indefatigable? Forty years long was I grieved with this Generation, and said, it is a People that do err in their Psal. 95. 10, 11 hearts: (they loved their Error, but their doom was sad at last) unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my Rest. St. Paul turned his back at last upon the Jews, and they were totally cut off for their stubbornness and unbe­lief. It is a very strange thing to me, that the whole Church of God should be supposed to be in darkness as to the nature and measures of Christian Liberty for 1500 years.

The Casuists tell us, that a Spiritual Good, if it be not absolutely necessary to Salvation, but only a matter of Counsel, towards the accomplishing of it, with more ease and advantage, is to be defer­redMalder ad 22. q. 44. a. 7. Dico. 5. for a time to prevent Scandal. But the Scandal of the weak will hardly re­quire that such Spiritual good should be altogether omitted; for when that comes to be required, 'tis degenerated into a Pharisaical Scandal.

I confess, says P. Mart. ‘if a man con­temnsAd Rom. 14. in principio. those truths which he hears out of the holy Writ,’ (he speaks of the weak Jews, who would not believe the abro­gation [Page 197] of the Ceremonial Law of ‘Mo­ses) and will not admit them, but makes himself a Judge and an Arbitrator, how much of the Scriptures he ought to be­lieve, and attributes more to himself than to the word of God: That, he saith, is no true Faith. Nor does the Holy Spirit inspire such a sense and conceit into any man; which makes him doubtful of the Justification of such a person.’

And tho his weakness may seem to need our help, yet if he scorns it, and rejects our instruction, there is no reason that Authority, which comes from God, should truckle under such as ought to be in subjection to her by Gods appoint­ment, or that Governors should stoop to break a good and decent Order to gratifie a perverse or wanton humor.

There was some difficulty in treat­ing with those weak ones among the Jews; They were to be brought off from Laws and Ceremonies of a Divine Institution, under which they had been bred, and to which they and their Fathers had been long addicted, as has been already observed. But there's Ʋ ­num Necessarium one Principle (and 'tis of unquestionable truth (which well [Page 198] observed, is sufficient to prevent or re­move all the Scandal that is or can be☞ taken among us upon the account of Ceremonies or things Indifferent, and 'tis this: That nothing can affect or defile Rom. 14. 14. the Conscience, but what is acted or omit­ted contrary to the Light of Nature or the Laws and Institutions of the Gospel. Take an instance: The Surplice of it self is a thing Indifferent: There is no sin in the use or dis-use of it, but when Authority has injoyned the use of it, then to omit it with Offence and in Contempt of Authority, is a sin; because 'tis a­gainst the Law and Institution of the Gospel, which requires us to obey our Governors. I say the same for the Sign of the Cross, and Kneeling at the Sacra­ment, and Kissing the Book, or holding up the hand, at taking of a solemn Oath. Herein our Governors have done nothing but what becomes Gods solemn Wor­ship (which they are injoyned to see performed decently,) nothing but what becomes the Trust, reposed in them, and the Authority they are invested with for Edification; And they ought not to suffer the People to be nursed up in Ig­norance, much less in Superstition and Judaism. And I say for men to refuse the [Page 199] Surplice, the Sign of the Cross and Kneel­ing at the Sacrament, as Common and Ʋnclean. (i. e.) as things unlawful, this is contrary to the Apostle and smells rank1 Cor. 6. 12. c. 10. 23. Pag. 324. of Superstition and Judaism, which are to be rooted out of their minds by a due Instruction and Discipline.

But the Reconciler tells us (as was noted above) that St. Paul never does en­joyn the weak to be of the same Principles and Apprehensions with the strong, but al­ways doth command the strong to bear with and restrain his Liberty, that he may mini­ster no Scandal, or Offence unto the weak, and doth confirm his exhortation by his own Practice in like Cases.

To this I answer, that St. Paul was aPrecatur eos A­postolus, quos pro suâ Autho­ritate monere vel etiam prae­cepto urgere po­terat. Sed ut hoc modestius erat, ita pro­sundius animis piorum insidere poterat humilis illa petitio, quae non obscurè do­cebat, quàm illi Cordi esset ipsorum salus, &c. Gualt. ad Rom. Homil. 9 [...]. post princi. Person of great Prudence and Civility, and he knew very well that to some Per­sons, his very entreaties would have the force of a Command; Thus he chose to treat Philemon, saying, Tho I might be much bold in Christ to enjoyn that which is convenient, yet for Love-sake I rather in­treat thee.

2. I observed before, that he sent no Order nor Injunction to the Christians at Rome because they were froward and indisposed for such Injunctions; and there wanted Governors to see his Orders put in Execution.

3. There is a wretched insinuation in the Reconcilers words to encourage Dis­senters in their Schism; and he wraps it up in a kind of Fallacy. For what does he mean by being of the same Principles and Apprehensions? the words are ambi­guous; the question is, whether the A­postle enjoyns them to be of the same Faith and Perswasion touching the A­brogation of the Ceremonial Law, touch­ing Christian Liberty, and things Indiffe­rent; Gal. 5. 1. and this He has enjoyned, with a Witness; does he not say I stand fast in V. 12. the Liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free? Does he uot say of such as di­sturbed the Peace of the Church with a contrary Doctrine, I would they were even V. 10. cut off, which trouble you? Does he not threaten him, that he shall bear his Judg­ment, whosoever he be? But these suasory Topics of false Reasoning are frequent with the Reconciler.

And this Practice is not only foul in it self, but of very ill Consequence also to the Publick? 'Tis Peter Martyrs Ob­servation; ‘That good men do some­times [...]d Rom. 15. 31. judge amiss, because they are not rightly instructed, or else because they are imposed upon by the Fraud of Seducers. Et habent artificium Im­postores [Page 201] quo prius persuadeant quam edo­ceant.’ Impostors have an Artifice, whereby they do perswade before they do instruct. ‘The truth doth per­swade by teaching, not teach by per­swading, saith Tertullian.’ And there­foreAdversus Va­lentin. 1 Sam. 12. 23. tis incumbent upon Governors, to teach their Subjects, the good and the right way. To this effect they are obli­ged to speak and they must not hold their peace: Be instant in season, out 2 Tim. 4. 2. of season, rebuke, reprove, exhort. Some are so Ingenuous and quick of Appre­hension, that a word spoken in season shall prevail to that effect for which it is de­signed: but the deadness of affection in some and the dulness of Capacity in o­thers1 Thes. 5. 14. may require the Spur, not only of a quickning Exhortation but of a pun­gent Admonition and Reproof; andTit. 2. 15. sometimes there are such refractory Spi­rits as must be bridled by Authority. These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all Authority. And when the worthy Governor sets himself upon the great work of subduing Vice and Error, in order to the advancement of Truth and Piety, no man ought to be so Prodigal of his own Salvation, as to undervalue his Person or slight his Office: Let no Church­man [Page 202] despise thee, saith S. Paul to Titus. [...] Joan. Crocium [...] locum.

But this is not all the Duty of a Church-Governor, He must Watch and Ward, as well as Instruct his Flock. Feed thy Flock with thy Rod, saith the Lord to his Prophet, and if their mouths mustMic. 7. 14. be stopped who subvert whole houses, shall theirs be kept open who endeavour to subvert whole Kingdoms? ‘It belongs to the Pastors Office, saith Bishop Da­venant Tit. 1. 11. (who was a Pastor himself)Ad Colos. 24. not only to instruct his Flock in sound Doctrine, but to arm them against the wiles and treacheries of Seducers; For he is set as a Watch-man; wherefore he is bound to give notice of the approach of the Enemy, and to dis­cover his Snares and Stratagems;’ o­therwise à Pastore exigetur, quicquid per inertiam non custoditur, saith Saint Cyprian after the Holy Prophet, Ezek. Ezek. 3. & 33. Chapters. 33. 8.

‘Great attention and diligence is required to preserve our selves from the Machinations of Seducers, that we be not surprised through the Cun­ning Craftiness whereby they lie in wait Gualter. Ad Rom. 16. Hom. 95. to Deceive. The Apostle knew that Impostors were wont with admirable Artifice to insinuate themselves into Families, to see who they could draw [Page 203] into their Nets, and therefore we are to keep a strict Guard upon our selves against them.’ And though this be every private mans Duty, yet it is much more incumbent upon the Pa­stors of the Church, whom God hasUt supra Ezek. 3. & 33 chap. made and appointed to be Watchmen for the common Salvation. The very Title of Bishops under the New Testa­ment does admonish them of their Duty. And they are in Holy Scripture com­pared to those vigilant Sentinels of the night who by their officious Alarms betray the approaching Thief and Rob­ber, and admonish us to avoid the ruine they would bring upon us.

There is another part of the Of­fice of Church-Governors, and that is given in charge to Titus, A man that Ti [...] 3. 10. is an Heretick after a first and second Admonition reject: If he does serious­ly and heartily love and favour Piety, he will not be an obstinate Recusant; such good and wholsom Admoniti­ons will prevail with him, saith Ca­lixtus: but if he does Maliciously and Stubbornly oppose any fundamental point of Faith or Practice, against the com­mon consent of Church and Scripture,Joan. Crocias. and propagate the contrary, whether he remains in the Bosom of the Church, [Page 204] or Schismatically depart from it, he is one of these Hereticks, and 'tis as hard for the Author and Broacher of such Heretical Pravity to return in­to the way of truth, as it is for the Blackamore to change his skin, or the Leopard his spots; 'Tis the observationJoan. Agric. ad locum. of Joannes Agricola, The Magicians of Aegypt, Etiam digito Dei confusi, non resipiscunt: They repented not, though the finger of God himself had appeared to their Confusion. For Impiety, as St. Chrysostome saith, is many times Con­founded, but seldom Convinced. And this St. Paul intimates: After a fruitless Admonition reject such a Person, Know­ing that he is subverted, or condemned of himself. And he concludes thus, Fax­it Idem. Deus ne idem nobis contingat in nova­rum Opinionum Authoribus qui novos er­rores coeperunt in Ecclesiâ serere. God grant, the same happens not among us in the Authors of Sects and Opinions, who began long agoe to sow the seeds of new Errors in the Church.

Satan has his Impostors, saith Gual­ter, Ad Rom. 16. Homil. 95. Hypocrites, who, whether for private gain, or to get themselves a name do circumvent men with their new Doctrines, and privately draw [Page 205] them from the way of truth, and publickly raise up tumults and scan­dals in the Church. And the higher the Persons station is, the more per­nitious is his example; his Dignity adds weight and aggravation to his scandal, which like the Dragons tailHemmingus de scand. n. 12. Ut enim quo in­gentius fuerit saxum Cadens ab altâ rupe eo plura fragmenta facit, ita quo dignior fuerit persona, & in sublimiori dig­nitatis culmine constituta, eo plures in lapsum secum trahit cum cadit. qua­re majorem poe­nam meretur. Ad Rom. 14. 14. in the Apocalypse, sweeps the pendu­lous Meteors down from the firma­ment, wherein for a time they seemed to be fixt.

Whether the Reconciler has been such an Instrument I leave the Reader to judge by these few instances.

1. He undertakes to argue out of Rom. 14. 15. but perverts the Apo­stles meaning; And though he does acknowledge for his own part that those Rules laid down by the Apo­stle, to govern the present practice of the Romans, do equally bind himself; yet he does violate and break them all with great Study and Deliberati­on. This is no small sin in it self: but the Guilt is greater in one that makes himself an Advocate for a tender Consci­ence. Si re aliquâ Deum credamus of­fendi, & nihilominus ab illa non absti­nemus, id magno indicio est, nos pluris uostram voluntatem facere, quam Legem [Page 206] Dei, saith Peter Martyr: if we believe God to be offended in any thing, and yet do not abstain from it, that's a great sign that we value our own will above the Law of God. This is in general. Particularly,

1. The Apostle saith, Him that is Ad Rom. 14. 1. weak in the Faith receive, but not to doubtful Disputations. Prohibet Aposto­lus odiosas contentiones quae animos in­firmorum alienant potius, quam aedi­cant, saith Peter Martyr. He forbids all odious wranglings which do rather alienate, than edifie the minds of the weak: He would have them careful, Ne intricatiores efficiatis ipsorum Con­scientias, saith Bullinger. Our Recon­ciler is so charitable as to receive the weak into his tuition; but he enter­tains him with doubtful Disputations, and leaves his Conscience more intri­cate and intangled by his false reason­ings, than he found it.

2. Because the Apostle saith, who art thou that judgest another mans servant? Therefore he will not allow Governors, to Judge, to Rebuke, to Admonish a weak, (i. e.) an ignorant erring Brother; and yet he takes upon him to Judge his Governors, to Cen­sure [Page 207] their Laws, and to Condemn their Impositions. So it seems, He is above St. Pauls advice as well as above his Superiors Jurisdiction; and he can find favour and Indulgence for the meanest of the People rather than for them.

3. So little esteem he has for Per­sons and things that relate to Gods Service, that (contrary to the Apo­stles Rule) he despiseth them both, witness that profane Scoff of his; He that will have a May-pole, let him have a May-pole; and let the rest have none.

4. Instead of pleasing his Brethren to their Edification that they might be saved, as St. Paul requires, he plea­ses them in their Schism, which he ac­counts damnable, (if he believes, what he has Transcribed of the Fa­thers) In this he walks uncharitably; for some he grieves, some he stumbleth, some he hardens in their Dissension. And

5. To secure them in their wretched Schism (as he calls it) he flatters them with the priviledge of weak Brethren; and tells them Saint Paul never en­joynedProt. Recanc. pag. 324. them to change their Princi­ples, [Page 208] or (which is all one) never to be of the same Principles and Appre­hensions with the strong, which must needs confirm them in their Schism. And

6. Thus he encourages them to de­spise their Pastors and Teachers; tho Saint Paul saith, They that despise that 1 Thes. 4. 8. Office despise not man but God.

7. Whereas Saint Paul enjoyns usRom. 14. 19, to follow after the things which make for Peace; his design is more and more to break it; For Peace (as theIsa. 32. 17. Prophet tells us) is the fruit of Ju­stice, and, 'tis an undoubted part of Justice to pay obedience to the Im­positions of our Governors; and till that be duly paid there are no hopes of Peace. But instead of pressing Sub­jects to perform this Duty; He crys down his Sovereign's Impositions: and though Order and Authority be the1 Cor. 14. 33. great Conservators of Peace; yet he teaches men to despise them both and (in matters of Decency at least) to do Deut. 12. 8. what is right in their own eyes. And thus

8. He directly puts a stumbling-block Rom. 14. 13. in his Brothers way; and this he doth for his Edification downwards, and in­dangersRom. 14. 15. his destruction for whom Christ died. And hereby

[Page 209]9. He causeth his good (whether it be his Faith, or his Liberty) to be evil spoken of.

10. The Apostle saith, Let every man Rom. 14. 5, 23. be fully perswaded in his own mind. And he that doubteth is damned, if he does the thing he doubts of. Now (to assume upon this Reconciler) Does he Kneel, wear the Surplice, sign with the Cross? If he doubts the Lawfulness thereof, and do's them notwithstanding, then he is dam­ned, in acting against his own Consci­ence. But if he doubts not, if he be ful­ly perswaded in his own mind of their Lawfulness, then he walks uncharitably; Neither like a Priest, for 'tis his Duty to accommodate himself to the Infirmi­ties of such as are ignorant and out of the way. Heb. 5. 2. not to indulge them in their errors, much less to lead them more astray; for then he should be obli­ged to say Amen to his own Malediction: Cursed be he that maketh the blind to wan­der D ut. 27. 18. out of the way. Which Text Abulen­sis thinks may be understood of those,Apud Bonfrer. Qui rudes in fide sunt, who are raw and weak in the Faith, and the Curse be­longs to such as make them err through their perverse Counsel. In falsos Docto­res, Apud Synops. & qui quomodo libet Causam dederint [Page 210] erroris, quadrat, saith Paul Fagius. It agrees exactly to our false Doctors, and such as by any means administer un­to error; Let the Reconciler well con­sider it; For he has not done like a tender Priest.

Nor (2.) like a true Convert: After his shameful prevarication, our Saviour says to Peter, & tu aliquando Conversus, Luke 22. 32. Luc B [...]ug. ad locum. &c. and thou, when thou art converted, strengthen thy Brethren; in bono fidei, spei, Charitatis, in the grace and duty of Faith, Hope, and Charity. Sometimes God suffers such as are Ordaired to con­duct others, to take offence and fall themselves: that by that accident they may come to think the more meanly of themselves and to treat the frail Delin­quent with the more gentleness. And Christ doth insinuate, that unless such persons be converted, they are the less meet to Confirm others, especially if they have denied the Faith (in any considerable Article of it) as Peter did.

11. Instead of Rational and Cogent Arguments he many times takes up such as are but probable, plausible and suasory: And because these sway much with himself, he thinks his Reader should be [Page 211] taken with them likewise; and if I had a list to take that trouble on me, I could make a large Collection, out of his Book of Instances to this purpose.

12. He does unworthily traduce the Spouse (which is the Church) of Christ, and in effect accuse her of Disloyalty, in a Practice of Ʋsurpation and Tyranny for 1600 years together; for so she is if there be nothing lawful to be imposed in her Communion, but what is Necessary and Commanded by God himself. For proof of this we need no other Argu­ment but the Instances, which he hath produced in his Book, of the several things that have been observed, and af­terward abolished in the Church.

13. What the Ancient Fathers and o­thers say by way of descant upon the A­postles Text, in reference to the scandal of the weak Jews, that he applys to the Cu­stoms and Ceremonies, which from time to time have been observed in the Church of God. From whence the Reader may easily conclude that the Reconciler de­signs to put a Fallacy upon him, or else is catch'd in one himself. The Fallacy is A Dicto secundum quid, ad Dictum simplici­ter: When the Predicate agrees to the Subject, but in a certain respect, or in part, [Page 212] at such a time, or place, yet he asserts it simply and absolutely as if the agreement were in every respect, in every part, and time, and place without any limitation. And this is the Fallacy that runs all along in the Reconcilers Discourse, when he ur­ges the Fathers and other Authors, a­gainst a Decent Habit, a Reverent Gesture, or the Symbolical Sign of our Christianity, which is the signe of the Cross; for we may be confident, those Holy Fathers and Authors (who are quoted by him) would never make such sharp Invectives against the Church of God, and their own Sense and constant Practice.

14. And with this Fallacy he urges as well the example as the sayings of the great Apostle; as if that had bin his constant Practice and Doctrine, ac­cording to some standing Rule, which was nothing else but his Condescention Pro hîc & Nunc, at some times, and in some places, and among some Persons, by special Dispensation. And this Fal­lacy he repeats so often, that it becomes Nauseous.

After this needful and seasonable Ad­vertisement, I think I may venture any man of Reason, and a small stock of Artificial Logick, to read his Book.

This Reconciler p. 104. Ver­dict. 100. &c. falls again upon Dr. Womock, who sayes in his Verdict (p. 100) That a Man may lose the Title of a Weak Brother, and the benefits indulged by the Apostle to such persons. The Argument reduced to due Form, runs thus, All Persons under such and such Circum­stances: Or, All Persons under such and such Qualifications, do forfeit, or lose the Title of Weak Brethren, and the be­nefits Indulged to such Persons: But some of the Dissenters are Persons under such and such Circumstances, or such and such Qualifications: Therefore, some of the Dissenters do forfeit or lose the Title of Weak Brethren.

What sayes our Reconciler to this Ar­gument? School Divinity is a crabbed Study, and there's little use of Logick to Rhetoricate; and the Man being to seek in these Studies, He does confidently deny the Conclusion; which the judi­cious Reader cannot but observe:

For the Major Proposition is drawn out of Holy Scripture, and speaks of Persons so qualified, in such sort, that the Title of Weak Brethren cannot in reason be allowed them: And that some of the Dissenters are such, the Reconci­ler does not deny V. p. 108..

In the Verdict, there are mentioned three several Degrees of Men, who can­not, according to the Rules of Reason and Scripture, be accounted among the number of Weak Brethren.

The First are such as will be offen­ded after sufficient means of Infor­mation: For when their Ignorance is convinced, by the Light of clear In­struction, they cannot plead such igno­rance for an Excuse. This was the Case of the Pharisees, of whose Conviction I hope the Reconciler makes no doubt.* Mat. 12. 15. Yet when his Disciples told our Blessed Lord that they were offended; What did he do? Did he retract his Doctrine? Did he cry Peccavi to take off their scandal? He took not off the scandal, saith St. Chrysostom, but reproved it; Chrysost. Hom. 52. in Mat. 15. For he knew very well, when Scandals were to be contemned, and when they were not to be contemned. And Cal­vin well observes, That the trite di­stinctionCalvin Harm ad locum. of Scandal was taken from hence. That we give no Scandal to the Weak, we are to be very careful, but if the stubborn and malicious take Scandal, we are not to regard it; for Christ, who is the Rock of Offence, must be quite Buried, if we would sa­tisfy [Page 227] the frowardness of all Men. And therefore, saith he, we must needs put a difference, inter infirmos qui ignoran­tia offensi mox reddunt se sanabiles, & su­perbos & morosos qui scandala sibi accer­sunt; betwixt the morose and proud, who draw scandals upon themselves, and those, who being offended thro ignorance, do pre­sently render themselves cureable, by good instruction and advice, which are the pro­per Remedies of such Ignorance.

Certainly they are not Weak Brethren, whose Mouths the Apostle commands to be stopt. And if we cannot actual­lyTit. 1. 11. stop them, they are never the more Weak Brethren, for their prating against John Ep. 3. vers. 10. their Governors with Malicious Words, after the example of Diotrephes.

Johannes Crotius asks the Question,Com. in cap. 1. Ep. ad Ti­tum, vers. 11. How 'tis possible for a Bishop to stop the Mouths of the Refractory, whose Petulancy does the more increase for the attempts that are made to suppress it? The Church, saith he, may enjoyn si­lence to such as are manifestly vanquisht upon the account of the Scriptures; if they will not yet be quiet, She may drive them from the Communion of the Faithful. But if none of this be done; yet if the Bishop does solidly convince them of their [Page 228] Errour, out of the Word of God; He has then stopt their Mouths. Take notice, He that writes thus is no Jesuite.

A Second Degree of such as have lost the Title of Weak Brethren, is, When a Man, from a modest Enquirer, comes to be positive, and Dogmatical, and Will See the Ver­dict, pag. 100. &c. not endure sound Doctrine, but after his own Lusts heaps up to himself Teachers, having itching Ears, he can no longer pass the muster for a weak Bro­ther, &c.

A Third Degree of this sort of Men, is, When a Man is puft up with a Con­ceit of his own Knowledge, when he becomes a fierce Disputant, grows Stub­born and Censorious, despiseth Dominion, and takes the Scorners Chair; then he commenceth Schismatick, and is not to be treated as a weak Brother, but as a Seditious Mutineer; for 'tis now evident, That he dissents not out of Weakness, but out of Pride, Stubbornness, and Ani­mosity.

What saith the Reconciler to this? Why the Characters here given of such Persons are taken so to the Life, out of Holy Scripture, that he cannot deny the Truth of them; which makes up the Major Proposition: And the As­sumption [Page 229] or Minor he confesses ex­pressly; If any of these things (saith he)Pag. 107. 108. be offered to prove, that there be men of this Malicious, Proud, and Subborn Tem­per among the body of Dissenters, we have cause to fear the thing is too true.

He yields the Premises, but denyes the Conclusiou, and that speaks him a great Logician: Yet something else he finds to oppose; and to make as short work with him as I can, He has re­duced it to Three Heads. He sayes.Pag. 105.

• First, This Plea will serve all Par­ties.
• Secondly, That 'tis a vain Presump­tion.
• Thirdly, That it is against Scripture, Reason, Charity, and what not, to pass this heavy Sentence upon Dis­senters in the General, or without limitation or exception, as the Dr. doth.

Were the Reconciler's Wits a Wool­gathering when he wrote his Book? Is it not as clear as the Sun, that the Dr. distinguisht the Dissenters into two sorts, viz. Such as are Weak, and such as have forfeited or lost that Title? AndPag. 108. does he not here make several Degrees of this last sort? The Man has a short [Page 230] Memory, for in the very next Leaf, within less than Four Pages; He takes notice, That the Apostle offers no Rules of Discrimination, as the Doctor doth: If the Doctor offers Rules of Discrimi­nation, then he does noe pass Sentence without exception.

And one Mistake, tho never so absurd, does commonly beget another; and so it happens here; for, Where is the hea­vy Sentence which the Doctor passeth? And, What is it? Certainly it cannot be less than the Sentence of Damnation, which he blames with so much noise in Dr. Womock: I find indeed at every turn, the Reconciler is sending His Dis­senters to Hell for their wretched Schisme, not by single Persons only, but by Sholes and Myriads; and then he rebukes Dr.Pag. 55. Womock for so doing, when he does it not: Just as he shoots his Censures at his Governours, in the very same Breath, wherein he inveighs against Judging.

But the Reconciler is Catcht again in a sorry Fallacy, and I am almost perswa­ded, he is not aware of it. If his Ar­gument were put into Form, it must run thus, Whosoever saith, That the Dis­senters have lost the Title of Weak Bre­thren, and are under the Sentence of [Page 231] Damnation, he is rash, Presumptuous, and Uncharitable.

But does Dr. Womock make any such Assumption? Then let the Reconciler (who takes great freedom in that kind) tell him of his foolery; and that he wants Logick as well as Charity. But Dr. Womock knows that here is Sophis­ma Plurium Interrogationum; which per­haps is more then the Reconciler has considered. In effect he puts the questi­on thus, Have the Dissenters lost the Title of Weak Brethren, and fallen under the Sentence of Damnation? If the Dr. affirms it, then he concludes them under the Sentence of Damnation, and is rash and Uncharitable in so doing: If he denies it, then he grants that they are Weak Brethren, and are to have all the Indulgence and tenderness, that belongs to Persons under those Circumstan­ces.

But Dr. Womock is able to distinguish in this Case, and to separate such as have lost the title of Weak Brethren from the present sentence of Damnation. For the Dr. meddles with no mans Person, having so well considered the Advice ofBishop Taylor. that learned Prelate (whom the Recon­ciler pretends to admire, while he does [Page 232] abuse him in his writings.) Be not hasty, sayes he, in pronouncing damnation Adv. 52. against any man or Party in a matter of Disputation. It is enough that you reprove an errour; but what shall be the sentence against it at the day of Judgment, thou knowest not, and therefore pray for the erring Person and reprove him, but leave the sentence to his Judge.

But touching those Weak ones amongAd Rom. 14. in Principio. the Romans, I shall acquaint the Rea­der with Peter Martyrs Opinion of them. ‘The question is, Whether the Weakness of their Faith were an im­pediment to their Justification? He thinks not; because it is not the strength or Excellency of our Faith, by which we are justified, but the Merit and Dignity of the Object; and although Faith be weak, yet 'tis Faith still if it be true. But it might be said, that they did not believe all things which were to be believed: For they did not believe the Ceremo­nial Law of Moses to be abrogated: And that Faith, which does not be­lieve all the Articles of Faith, is no true faith. Fateor equidem, saith Peter Martyr, I do confess it, Si id accidat vitio Credentis, if the fault be in the [Page 233] Believer; if he will not admit of those Truths which he hears out of Holy Writ, but contemns them; and makes himself the Judge and Arbitrator, how much of Scripture he ought to believe; and attributes more to him­self, then he does to the Word of God: Non est ista Fides vera; that is not true Faith; nor is the Holy Spi­rit wont to inspire any such Sence or Judgment. But if there be something which a man does not believe, be­cause it has not been clearly propoun­ded to him, and he carries a mind sufficiently prepared to receive the Truth, when it is made known to him; in this case the Truth of his Faith may be a means to justify, while the Weakness of it doth excuse him.’

I wish the Dissenters may consider this Judgment of Peter Martyr, that they may not make matters of Decency and Order, (under the Gospel) to be Sin, as if we were still under that Mosaical yoak of Bondage, the Law, and not under Grace.

But to follow the Reconciler, who jus­tifies his Denial of the Conclusion by se­veral Arguments.

1. He says, what Dr. Womock doesPag. 105. [Page 234] alledge is a Plea that will serve all Parties, Papists, Dissenters, Arminians, Cal­vinists, and almost all Disputers. Now what the true ground of the Dispute is I cannot well imagine; I have reason to think he is offended with the Ma­jor Proposition, which contains the Character of such as ought not to claime the Right or Title of Weak Bre­thren; but that is so expresly the words of Holy Scripture, that he cannot in modesty avow his dislike thereof; and therefore he makes an Assumption (or Minor Proposition) in Dr. Womocks name, and then blames him for it. That Dr. Womock did not assume upon the Dis­senters, the Reader will be convinced,v. Pag. 100. 101, 102. if he please to consult the place in the Verdict.

However let us weigh the strength of his discourse which we have in this Syllogisme: All Arguments that may be used by other Parties, as Papists, &c. they are ill Arguments: But Dr. Womocks Argument may be used by other Parties, Papists, &c. Therefore 'tis an ill Argu­ment.

Here I deny his Major Proposition: All Arguments used by other Parties, and particularly by the Papists, are not [Page 235] ill Arguments; for their Arguments to prove the Divinity of Christ are good Arguments, and many of them the very same that are used by Protestants. And that of Bellarmine is celebrated for a great Truth among all the Learned, even by Amesius himself: Propter incertitudi­nem proprioe justitioe, & perticulum inanis gloriae, tutissimum est fiduciam totam in sola Dei misericordiâ & benignitate reponere: that is, In regard of the Uncertainty of our own Righteousness, and the dan­ger of Vain-glory, it is the safest way to put our whole Trust and Confidence, in the sole Mercy and Favour of God. This is a great Gospel-Truth, and yet it fell from the Pen of Bellarmine: And therefore he is out of the story, when he concludes all Arguments to be ill, because they are used by Papists or other Parties.

That his Argument may conclude effectually against Dr. Womock it must be framed thus: Those Arguments which will as well, and with equal Truth and Light of evidence, maintain the Points of Popery, &c. as they do the Doctrine of the Church of England, Those must needs be ill Arguments: But such are the Argu­ments produced by Dr. Womock.

Here I utterly deny the Minor: The Argumens there used by Dr. Womock, have not an equal Truth or Light of Evidence to prove the Points of Popery, as they have to prove the Doctrine of the Church of Eng­land; For let me ask the Reconciler these few Questions: Have the Popish Party as good Reason for their Aversion to our Communion, as we have for our Aversion to theirs? Have they as great Objecti­ons against us, as we have against them? Has the Pope any lawful Jurisdiction over us? By what Scripture or Council was it settled? Did we break off from their Communion? Or rather, Did not they leave and interdict Ours? Who is now the Friend to Jesuites?

I would have the Reconciler to consi­der, That although the same Sentence for Words and Syllables, may pass against an Innocent as well as against a Malefactor, yet I hope he will not say, it is done with equal Truth and Justice. But he is so ingenuous at last, as to confess the truth in these words:

It will be hard to shew, why either Party may not almost with equal plausibi­lity Pr. Recon. p. 107. make this pretence. Whence we must conclude, that this his Argument (like the rest of his Book) is but almost to the purpose.

2. He Answers, Secondly (but to what Proposition of Dr. Womock's, I cannot Divine; but thus he saith,) If any of these things be offer'd, as I hope they are, onely to prove that there be men of this malicious, proud, stubborn temper among the body of Dissenters, we have cause to fear the thing is too true.

This Fear of the Reconciler yields the Argument; for it runs thus; All that are under such and such qualifications have lost the title of Weak Brethren; But Some of the Dissenters are under such and such qualifications: Therefore Some of the Dissenters have lost the ti­tle of Weak Brethren; which is all that Dr. Womock is concerned to prove, and more than he did positively affirm in his Verdict.

But then the Reconciler saith, That the Arguments will hold good, for a Dispensation towards all those, of whom we cannot Charitably pronounce this Sen­tence. I say this does not follow, ac­cording to the Common Rules of Go­vernment. Tho every Part be not alike Culpable, yet every part must follow the common condition of the Whole; and if men will follow such Leaders, tho they be not led with the same Pride, [Page 238] Malice or Design, as their Leaders are led by; yet making themselves of the Party, and acting therein accordingly, they are involved in the same guilt, and liable to the same Condemnation. I know (as Bullinger saith) There is a great difference betwixt one that errs In Epist. ad Tit. 3. 10. not out of malice, and one that to his errour joyns malice, and a study to do mischief: But if he is to be punished (as no doubt he deserves it) Cum errandi pervicacia ultro in Religionis Legumque eversionem manifeste tendit, when the stiff-neckedness and obstinacy of his err­ing manifestly tends to the Overthrow of Religion and the Laws established; How can that man in Reason be dispen­sed with, who joyns and abetts him in* Idem enim omnes credimur operati, in quo deprehendimur eadem omnes Censurae & Dis­ciplinae consen­sione Sociati. Cler. Roman. Cypriano In­ter Epistol. 31. it? 'Tis a Rule in Law, Ubi Lex non distinguit, nec nobis regulariter distinguere Licet: Where the Law makes no distinction, there we cannot regularly distinguish; what ever simplicity they may pretend, we cannot in prudence give them a dispensation to contrive our ruine; which we have reason to suspect, as long as they adhere to the Communion of those who design it.

Such as set up to make a Party against the Government, they have strange [Page 239] Arts of Insinuation to work upon the flexible temper of the People, and some follow their pernicious wayes out of simplicity, some out of a love of No­velty, and others out of an admiration or fondness for their Persons: Does God give a Dispensation in this case, when he comes to visit for such things? The Prophet tells us otherwise; For the Lea­ders of this People cause them to err, and Isa. 9. 16. Agreeably St. August. upon Christs words If the Blind, lead the Blind, saith thus: Vae caecis ducenti­bus, Ve caecis Sequentibus. they that are led of them are destroyed. 'Tis worth our observing; That the Original hath it, They that call them Blessed, which notes the Flattery of such false Teachers: They bless them in their Sedition and errours; and they that are called Blessed of them, are swallowed up; tho their simplicity is imposed upon, that is no Dispensation, no Plea at all, to se­cure them against destruction.

I cannot perswade my self, that Co­rah and all the Company that adhered to him, were equally Proud, Stubborn and Malicious, yet I find no Dispensation in the Case: They were all involved in the same Guilt, and fell under the same Condemnation, Their Wives and their Numb. 16. 27. Sons, and their little Children.

I alledge this the rather, because as Bullinger ‘hath observed, by this hor­ribleIn Ep. Jud. 11. v. [Page 240] example of Corah, St. Jude does demonstrate to all the World, what they are to expect, who being sedu­ced by the Spirit of Pride and Arro­gancy, are not content with their own Station in the Church, but raise up Tumults and Factions against the Mi­nisters of Truth.’

‘To this Corah he compares the Se­ducers not of his own time onely, but of all ages, Qui sibi Functionem docendi vendicant repulsis Doctoribus veritatis, who casting out the Ministers of Truth, do challenge the Function of Teaching to themselves.’

Wo unto them, for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the errour of Balaam, for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Corah.Ep. Jud. v. 11. Dr. Dicson has the like upon the place. ‘Calvin wonders that he should inveigh so sharply against these false Teach­ers, when he had told us but a few lines before, that the Archangel was so modest he would not reproach the Devil: But this shews (saith he) that their Rage and Fury is intolerable, who disturb the Well composed State of the Church.’

To paint such seducing Teachers to the life, the Apostle makes use of three no­table [Page 241] examples; and then he illustrates their Character by several similitudes. He begins with Cain, who was the first that made a Divorce from the Church of God: In him we may observe Envy, Malice and Hypocrisy: The second is Balaam, who turn'd his Prophetical Of­fice into a Trade, and made himself a wretched Hireling, for his Divination: and in him we have Covetousness, and the liberty of Prophesying set up for fil­thy Bullinger. Lucre. The third is Corah: In whom we have an example of Ambition and Arrogance, of Disobedience and Se­dition; He blasphemed the Magistracy, and attempted to Level all degrees a­mong the Ministers of God: and heHemming. used a very specious and plausible Argu­ment to this effect: All the Congrega­tion are Holy; and 'twas an unworthy thing that so holy a People should be subject to any Head on Earth. But the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them Numb. 26. 10. up, and they became a sign: A dreadful example of the Divine vengeance a­gainst Seditious Schismaticks, to deterrQuem ipsi imi­tantur contra­dictione & sedi­tiosa ordinis ac status eccle­siae, perturba­tione. Gomar. apud Synops. others from the like sin; who are said to have perished in effigie in the gain­saying of Corah, as in their representa­tive.

We should have these Examples al­wayes before our eyes (saith Hemmin­gius) to admonish us of that Rule of Justice, by which God ever measures out his Judgment against the like Trans­gressors. Let no man therefore think himself secure by his simplicity, or good intention, or honest meaning as he may pretend; there is so dangerous a Con­tagion in the Communion of such Persons, that there is no way to escape, but to desert it. To this purpose The Lord spake unto Moses; and Moses gives the Caution to the Congregation. Numb. 16. 26. Depart I pray-you from the tents of these Wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest ye be consumed in all their sins. 'Tis Crotius his note upon the place. Bono­rum subditorum est Segregare se a Seditio­sis: 'Tis the part of good Subjects to seperate themselves from the seditious; if they mind and value their Duty to their Prince and their own safety.

This is a point of so great Concern­ment, and yet so little considered, thatIn Epist. Jud. vers. 23. I shall add further what Bullinger (no Jesuite I'le assure you) observes upon the same Epistle: 'Tis not enough (saith he) with grief of heart to avoid those despe­rate Disturbers of the Churches Peace, [Page 243] unless we watch also with all carefulness, to gain those to the Communion of Christ's Flock, whom we find Curable; and espe­cially we are to press them with the Fear and Threatnings of Gods Judgment; that if possible we may pluck them out of the Danger, as out of some Sodomitical Con­flagration.

But because such as are yet sound, and out of danger, many times thro Humane Frailty, do perish together with such as they did intend to succour; that is, be­cause the better are sometimes perver­ted by the worse; Therefore St. Jude adds; Hating even the Garment spot­ted by the Flesh; As if he had said, I would not have you make your selves too familiar with them; hating not their Per­sons, but the Works of the Flesh which are manifest in their outward Conversati­on, their Pride and their Disobedience, their Schism and Sedition.

The next thing I observe in this Re­conciler, is, That he is so unhappy a Re­prover, that when ever he undertakes to rebuke a fault in others, he is sure to fall deeper into it himself. To the In­stance of rash Judgment, we may add, his severe, tho Groundless, charge of Uncharitableness.

He supposes Dr. Womock to have this opinion of the Dissenters, That they are all, without exception, Proud, Froward, [...]tubborn and Malicious; that they all sin out of pure Willfulness, and Obstinacy, or prepensed Malice and Design. Having laid down this Supposition (which is notoriously false, and betrayes the Re­concilers Rashness in his own Censures) He sets up a man of Clouts for his Prow­ess to encounter (which he does in this manner) Now altho such a charge might suit well with the Casuistical Di­vinityPag. 108. of Soto, De La Cerda Ambiana, and such Jesuites as here the Doctor cites; yet it is an amazing thing, that Dr. Wo­mock should say any thing, which gives the least occasion to suspect him so uncha­ritable.

Why should this Reconciler suggest a thing so utterly False? Without doubt his Design was to bring an Odium upon Dr. Womock, as if he Converst with none but Jesuites in his Study; and then, be the Discourse never so rational, if they can find a Jesuite at the end of it, 'tis Answered presently with a Menti­ris Bellarmine: and the unthinking Mo­bile will look no more after it. But as good Providence would have it, there [Page 245] is not One Jesuite of the Three he men­tions; and for the rest (which he per­versly or maliciously insinuates) they are only Ferus Perkins, and St. Paul, such are the Jesuits as the Doctor thereSee the Ver­dict, pag. the 100, 101, 102. Cites; and 'tis a common thing with them, to make all Jesuits that are not of their Opinion: But this is not the first Falshood the Reconciler has suggested for his own advantage.

What he alledgeth out of Dr. Stilling­fleet, Dr. Williams, and Mr. Chillingworth, Pag. 109. &c. concerns not Dr. Womock in the least. But we must consider, That the Diffe­rence amongst Us is not in a matter of Philosophy or Theological Speculations, wherein the Errour is of no great con­sequence, having no influence upon our practice: But besides the Deformity in the Omission (which directly follows it) the weightyer matters of the Law lye at Stake: Authority is struck at, Govern­ment is undermined and shaken, Supe­riours are despised, Subjection disputed, Obedience denyed, and every man under pretence of Weakness and a tender Consci­ence, learns to claim a Liberty to do whatsoever is right in his own eyes.

But the Reconciler, calls upon Dr. VVcmock afresh; (and 'tis pitty a man [Page 246] of so much Civility should be neglectedPag. 111. tho he speaks but by the by in a Pa­renthesis:) What the Scripture hath de­termined touching the Wearing of a Surplice, the Cross in Baptism, or Kneeling at the receiving of the Sacra­ment, I desire the Doctor to inform me. I might very fitly return him the blind mans Answer to the Pharisees, and say, I have told you ailready, and ye did not Joh. 9. 27. hear, wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his Disciples? But what if our Lord has left it to be determined by our Governours? What is that to the1 Cor. 14. 40. 1 Tit. 1. 5. Reconciler, who is obliged (if he be Christ's Disciple) to follow the Precepts of our Master, and the Orders of his Church?Mat. 13. 17

1. These things (which he so often carps at) are not only found to be ex­pedient by the most Pious, Learned and Judicious, but so near allyed to Holy Scripture, that they may very well claim Kindred of some Practices and Institutions therein mentioned. St. John saw the Elders attend in Surplices be­fore the Throne of God; and tho he was the Divine, and a Holy Evangelist, Rev. 4. 4. yet he was not offended at that sight.

2ly. It seems the Offence of the Cross is not yet ceased. Men are either so much Jews to make it their stumbling­block, or such Heathen Greeks as to ridi­cule it, for a Piece of foolery. And tho the old Prophecy told Us (as Justin Martyr Psal. 96 10. and Tertullian have it) Dominus regna­vit a Ligno, the Lord reigneth from the Tree, and calls upon Us to tell it unto the World for Gospel, and glad tidings; yet as the Jews, out of Malice, turn'd the Wood of the Cross out of the Text, so they would have Us turn the sign of it out of our Baptism, as well as all other Administrations; least we should make our Weak Brother, be he Jew or Gentile, to offend.

For Kneeling and bowing, whateverMat. 4. 1. mean Conceit the Reconciler has of it: The Divel was not so much an Ass, as to offer all the Glory of the World for a trifle. He knew it to be God's due, and a part of his External Worship; and so he valued it, and was desirous to purchase it upon that account. And I am of Opinion, it cannot be totally taken away from God's Service with­out Sacriledge. And if we can take the Confidence to abolish this, let us never blame the Church of Rome, for taking [Page 248] away the Cup from the Laity in the Lord's Supper: for the Sacrament in 'its integrity, is but a part of External Wor­ship, and the Cup but a part of that part. And the taking away of Knee­ling (utterly out of God's Worship) seems to be a greater Offence, than ta­king away the Cup; because that is a Part of the Law of Nature; whereas the Sacrament is but of positive Institution, and consequently not so strictly bind­ing. And being an undoubted part of God's External Worship, and a piece of Natural Religion; we certainly do well to use it at the Sacrament, as an Ac­knowledgement of Christ's Divinity, which now a-dayes is so professedly impugned by the Socinians: And We shall allow our Governours very little to do about matters of Religion, if they may neither Ordain a Ceremony, nor so much as appoint a special time for the performance of an undoubted Part of God's External Worship.

That some of the Dissenters act out of Pride, Malice, Obstinacy, the Recon­ciler fears is too true: That all of themPag. 108. are of that Temper, Dr. womock is so far from affirming, that he thinks 'tis very false. He does not pretend to set [Page 249] up a Tribunal in any Man's Heart, to Judge the secret Operations of his Mind. But he is very well assured, That good meanings can never Sanctify wicked Actions; and we need no Win­dow in some Men's Breasts, to read their inward Dispositions. Fides & Increduli­tas cordium sunt, fateor, ea nemo homi­num judicare potest, saith Bullinger; FaithAd Titum 3. 10. and Unbelief, I confess, are the Secrets of the Heart, which no Man can judge. Ex Dictis vero & Factis, ijsque manife­stis, debent fieri hominum judicia: We must Judge of Men therefore by their Words and Actions, which are mani­fest and apparent. Our Saviours Rule cannot fail Us, if we take it aright, and he tells Us more than once, By their Mat. 7. 16. Deut. 32. 32, 33. fruits ye shall know them. What Har­vest have we had of these Thorns? What Figs have we reapt from these Thistles? Have not their Grapes been Grapes of Gall, and their Clusters bitter? Has not their wine been the poison of Dragons, and the Crud venome of Aspes?

'Tis Gualters Observation (and I de­sireAd Rom. Ho­mil. 87. cap. 15. 5, 6. the Reader to take Notice, that in this Discourse I make no use of Jesuits to offend the Reconciler, or his weak Bre­thren, but such Protestants as are the [Page 250] most likely to favour the Cause of the Dissenters, if there were any Reason or Colour for it) Hi ut Ecclesiam turbant, it a dei cultores esse non possunt, cum Unita­tem scindant quâ ille imprimis delectatur: He speaks of the Sowers of Dissentions, and Authors of Sects and Factions; who, as they disturb the Peace of the Church, so they cannot be the Servants of God, seeing they rent that Unity which he is chiefly delighted with.

We are told by the Apostle, That Schism it self is a Work of the Flesh, and excludes the Schismatick from the King­dom of God. But when the tender Con­science Gal. 5. 20. sets up for Reformation, we can­not easily forget the great Train of Mis­chiefs, which follows it.

For, upon this Pretence, Did not that Party make an Insurrection against Moses, and against Aaron, and conspire to destroy both Church and State? and we know they kept their Wicked Cove­nant in nothing else. How malicious and eager were they to Root out the Royal Family, and to anoint the Bramble to Reign over them? Did not they af­front the late KING of ever blessed Me­mory, by Clamours, and Seditious Tu­mults? Did they not Persecute him by [Page 251] Votes and Propositions against all the Rules of Honour and Conscience? Did they not Blaspheme his Person, slander and defame his Actions? Did they not usurp his Power, and seize upon his Militia, the only guard of it? Did they not make themselves Masters of his Re­venue, his Ships, his Forts, his Castles? Did they not pursue and fight him? Drive him from house and home, and at last Arraign and Murder him?

If we can pass these Crimes upon the Accompt of Humane frailty; let us no longer blame the Church of Rome for her Doctrine of Venial Sins. He that can impute them (as the Reconciler is supposed to do) to the Prejudices ofPag. 113. Education, Mis-conception, or Mis-inter­pretation of the sence of Scripture, to the Want of better Information, or to unreasonable Fears and Scrupulosities, and excuse those execrable practices upon that score; may easily be tempt­ed to make an Invective against Moses and Aaron, and a Panegyrick upon Co­rah, and to turn the 30th. of January (as too many of the Party does) into a Festival for the honour of our Unrelen­ting Regicides.

But the truth is, All those gay Pre­tences, viz. the Prejudices of Education, the Want of better Information (which cannot reasonably be alledged among us) Misconception, and the like, we know are inconsistent with the state of Grace in Jewes and Turks, and why not in Secta­ries, in whom (after the contempt of sufficient instruction) they do certainly degenerate into Pride, Malice, and Stub­bornness; and, if they be not finally Cor­rected and subdued by Repentance, they are damning.

But were their Clergy wanting in point of Education? Were they igno­rant of the sence of Scripture? They would take it in great disdain to be thought so. And yet were not they the most Vociferous Trumpeters of our late Rebellion? Did not they study, invent and publish, the most desperate Principles of Sedition? Who made the People the highest seat of Soveraignty; and placed a Coordinate Power with that of the King in the House of Com­mons? Who intituled them, at least to an equal Authority with His Majesty in making Laws, and in the command of the Militia? And who animated all the Souldiers they could arm and Levy [Page 253] against the King, and absolved them from their Oath of Allegiance, to Act and Practise those Principles after their Doctrine and Example? These are some of the Reconcilers Weak Brethren.

And for the Common sort, were they not consenting to the Deeds of their Se­ditious Leaders? Did they not abett and encourage them by their Addresses and Petitions? Did they not approve and applaud them in all their Villanies? And assoon as they had destroyed the Church and Government, did they not swarm in­to Sects and Factions, and hiv'd them­selves a-part in several Conventicles, as their Fancy led them, without any regard to Gospel, Rule, or Government.

He that is but of yesterday, and knows nothing of these things, let him read the History of Independency. The Mystery of the two Junctoes. The short view of the late troubles, with, Evangeli­um [Page 254] Armatum; and the Dissenters say­ings.

And here I must put in my Apoli­gy in the Words of St. Austin upon a like Occasion. Non praeterita Vendican­do Epist. 202. ante finem. pascere Iram nostram studemus, sed misericorditer in futurum consulendo sata­gimus: We do not study to challenge things past to feed and gratifie our An­ger, but we endeavour out of great com­passion to consult the common Benefit for the future.

And we have need enough to look forward, God knows; For Republicans, Hobbists, Atheists, All Factions conspire in the Plea of tender Conscience, and shelter themselves in the combination of Weak Brethren to undermine the Government; and I am sorry they have gotten such an Engineer, as this Reconciler, into their ser­vice.

Have we not still amongst the Party, such as will take upon them to make, not only their own Prayers, but their own Creed, and their own Commandments? And when we soberly consider, how ob­stinate they are in their Schism and Se­dition against the best of Kings and Churches, we have but too much rea­son to fear, least they should be given [Page 255] up (as it hath often hapned in the like case of disobedience) to their own de­lusions.

For do they not attempt to strength­en themselves in their Perversities, by Solemn Leagues and Associations, with­out and against the leave and likeing of their Soveraign? Have they not taken all advantages to stuff the Pillow of the Crown with Thornes, and to make the Throne to totter and become uneasy to his Majesty? These things, and the Particulars of them, are so fresh in memory, it would be but loss of time to repeat them. In short, these are a Race of men of such strange Ma­chiavilian Principles, that when they do most solemnly Protest and Vow to make their Princes Glorious; they have a Je­suitical Reservation in it, Their meaning and projected Method, is to bring them (as they did our late most Dear and Sacred Soveraign) to the Block of Mar­tyrdom. 'Tis high time therefore for us to shew our selves men; and as Rati­onal Isa. 46. 8. Creatures, and Loyal Subjects, not to suffer our selves to be cheated any longer, with the false Pretence of Ten­der Conscience, and the title of Weak Brethren.

Whatever Men's Designs and Preten­ces be, we are sure our Saviour's Rule is Infallible [by their fruits ye shall know them.] By this I hope we may judge concerning Men's Opinions, Whether they are like to be taken up, and main­tained out of Pride, Malice, Perversness. But the Reconciler does sincerely profess, That He knows not any such as can be cer­tainly applied to the Case of the Dissen­ters. And therefore

3ly. ‘He intreats Dr. Womock toPag. 114. consider the falseness and absurdity of that Rule of Judging so severely of his Brethren, which he hath borrow­ed from our Roman Adversaries; for if this be a true and certain Rule, which Soto has delivered, That he must be supposed to err through malice, who has been so far admonished, that he can­not justly pretend Ignorance; or who may easily be convinced of his ignorance: And we who are Parties, are left to judge of both these things; What shall we say to all the Papists in this Nation, or all the Learned Papists in the World? To all the Reformed Churches, who retain Presbitery, and all their Pastors, who receive Ordination only from their Hands? To all those Calvinists, [Page 257] who hold the Prelapsarian Doctrines, and absolute Decrees of Reprobation? To all the Lutherans, who hold the foolish Doctrine of Con-substantiati­on? Will Dr. Womock say; That there has not been said Sufficient to convince them of their Errors; so that they cannot justly pretend Ignorance? May he not put them all in the same Form with our Dissenters, and judge as Charita­bly of the Dissenter, as of an erring Papist? And if so, all these Persons must be a pack of Damned Villains, that err out of pure Malice, Pride, Affection, and Animosity, Stubborness, and Fro­wardness; or our Dissenters must escape that heavy Doom.’

In Answer to this third Intreaty, I have many things to offer towards a Satisfaction: But this I learn from the Reconciler in general.

That such as err out of pure Malice, Pride, Affection, Animosity, Stubborness, and Frowardness, are a Pack of Damned Villains.

This the Reconciler makes a Major Pro­position: And for a Minor, or Assump­tion, he declares thus, We have cause to Pag. 107. & 108. fear the thing is too true, that among the Body of Dissenters, there be Men of this [Page 258] malicious, proud, stubborn Temper. The Conclusion then from thence should be this; Therefore We have cause to fear, that amongst the Body of Dissenters there is a pack of Damned Villains.

Whether Dr. Womock ever let fall any Expression against the Generality of the Dissenters so rudely Censorious, he appeals to every Man that has read the Verdict. But the Reconciler, to take off the Odium of such an Inference from himself, has the Confidence to deny the Conclusi­on. But knowing this (as I suppose) to be most grosly absurd in the Schools of Learning, He affixes an Universal up­onPag. 108. Dr. Womock, as if he had affirm'd, That all the Dissenters (to a Man with­out exception) are Proud, Froward, Stub­born, and Malicious; that they all Sin out of pure Willfulness and Obstinacy, or pre­pensed Malice and Design.

Thus he plays with Dr. Womock's Re­putation, to spring his own Game. For upon that false Principle, he Argues for six Leaves together: But Dr. Womock challenges it as a piece of Justice from him, either to make good his Univer­sal Proposition against him, or else to wear the Brand of a Notorious Slanderer.

Till the Reconciler has acquitted him­self [Page 259] of this, Dr. Womock has reason e­nough to neglect his Harangues, upon such false Suppositions, as impertinent; but as well to entertain the Reader, as to take occasion to assert the Truth, I shall make some other Remarks upon what he has here suggested.

1. Whereas he sayes, We, who are 2 Chron. 19. 6. 1 Cor. 5. 4. cap. 14. 37. 2 Cor. 2. 10. Parties, are left to judge; He is in a great Mistake: The Governours of the Church are in Christ's stead, in the Exe­cution of their Ministerial Office, of Le­gislation and Discipline; In this their Po­litical Capacity, they judge not for Man, but for the Lord; they act as Christ's Stewards, and not as Parties in oppositi­on to Sectaries: And for that Reason they are to be obeyed for the Lord's sake; though in their Personal capacity, they are subject to the Laws of the Church, as well as other Men.

2. The Reconciler jumbles Things to­gether of so distant a Nature and Con­sideration, that it is very reasonable to believe, his Design was to amuse, and not to instruct and edify his Reader.

3. He seems to have a greater Kind­ness for the Papists, than the Lutherans: He can afford them the Title of Learned Papists: But contemns the Lutherans all [Page 260] along, as miserable and foolish Triflers: Nay, he has brought in St. Paul among the Jesuites formerly, and here we shall find him again rankt among the Ro­man Adversaries; so that in time he may possibly set up for a Papist Recon­ciler, and I believe his common place Book is furnished with Materials for such a Work, as well as for this, which he has put out under another Title.

4. In Reference to the several Par­ties he mentions, Dr. Womock would say, there has not been sufficient said to convince them of their Errours; if others had not said more to the pur­pose, to confute them, than this Recon­ciler.

5. If Con-substantiation be a foolish Doctrine, yet 'tis but a Metaphysical Spe­culation, and so innocent of its own Nature, it never brake the Peace in that Communion wherein 'tis entertain­ed.

6. Tho this Reconciler would fain get into the Chair, and pass his Sentence, we pretend not to judge such as are not within our own Jurisdiction. Let them Stand or Fall to their own re­spective Masters; 'tis enough when we have occasion to consider their Tenents, [Page 261] to evince their Falsehood, if we can; and to discover their dangerous Con­sequence, if they have any.

7. Our Discourse relates to such as attempt to Subvert that Order and Go­vernment, under which they have been bred, and to which they owe Subjecti­on. 'Tis true, Contenders are ever stiffJudg. 8. 1. cap. 12. 1. 1 Sam. 19. 43. and confident, and many times they are most fierce, who have the worst Title. But we know the Truth can­not lie on both sides, nor can the Light of Evidence be equal to their Advantage. Yet the Parties will not yield, unless they be determin'd by Authority; which is a clear Demonstration of the Neces­sity of Governours; without whom, now a dayes especially, instead of being a Law unto himself, every Man wou'd be a Gospel to himself, and take what Li­berty he list. To prevent the Mischief of such Licentiousness, we have these Commands upon us: Obey them that Heb. 13. 17. Mat. 18. 17. have the Rule over you: and he that will not hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a Heathen Man, and as a Publican. And 'tis Calvins own Doctrine, That Men, who are Contentious against the Custom and Practice of the Church, in the Ad 1 Cor. 11. 16. use of Decent Rites, are not to be trea­ted [Page 262] with Disputations (to gratify their itch of contending) but to be bridled by Au­thority; otherwise there could be no end of Strife; and consequently no bounds set to the Exorb [...]tances of wicked Men: ForJam. 3. ver. 16. where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.

But Authority should have some Rule to proceed by; and, Who shall give it? Dr. Womock, he sayes, has borrow­ed a Rule from our Roman Adversaries. Why, Did Soto ever write against the Church of England? He presented his Book de Naturâ and Gratiâ, to the Coun­cil of Trent, whereof he was a Mem­ber; and it's like he writes something therein against the Lutherans; whose Doctrines this Reconciler contemns as foolish and trifling; and so as for as we can see, he is as much an Advocate for the Roman Party, as their Adversary.

But, What is his Quarrel to the Rule? Will no Rule serve his turn, but such a one as is without Exception? Where shall we find it? But let us give Soto's Rule fair Play, and let it speak for it self. He is supposed to Err through Malice, who has been so far admonished, that he can­not justly pretend Ignorance; or may easily be convinced of it. Can there be any [Page 263] thing said more rational? If he cannot pretend ignorance, or may easily be con­vinced of it, and yet will persist in his errour: Then his Fault proceeds not from the weakness of his Understanding, but from the Pravity or corrupt Incli­nation of his Will, which the School-Men call Malice. For Passion and Sur­prize can have no place or pretence here, where things are done with so much Deliberation, and continued in against a Known Law, and a just Authority, as well as against frequent and publick Ad­monitions; and when stubborness is ad­ded to the Opinion and Practice, then, of a matter of Choice and Knowledge, it becomes Heresy.

But, Why did the Reconciler single out Soto to the Combate, when Perkins and St. Paul were in the same File on the Front, and on the Rear of him, andVerdict, 100 & 101. no less concern'd in the Dispute than he?

Such Transgressions as our Reconciler undertakes to Excuse, or Vindicate, are hardly consistent with Mr. Perkins de­finition of weak Ones. For these, he saith, are such as have turned to God, and carry in their Hearts a Purpose in all things to please God; and if they do amiss, [Page 264] 'tis out of simple Ignorance, or bad Custom; and 'twill last no longer than till they be better inform'd: but if, after a suffici­ent Information, they hold and practice bad things; 'tis then of willful Ignorance, and of Malice; and in that case, He calls them Obstinate.

And for St. Paul his decretory Sentence is this, A man that is an Heretick, after Tit. 3. 10, 11. the first and second admonition, reject: Knowing that he that is such, is subver­ted, and sinneth being condemned of him­self. This is a General Rule laid down by Apostolical Authority, and prescribed to the Governours of the Church, (who are to take their measures from the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, which were wrote on purpose for their Directi­ons, and not from the Epistles to the Romans, where it does not appear that Church-Governours are concern'd at all, much less directed in their Office.)

And because that Rule of St. Paul is of so great importance, I shall be the more large in giving the sence of it, ac­cording to the exposition of the most learned Protestants.

By a Heretick the Apostle meanes, Sectarium Hominem, saith Aretius, Secta­rum Authorem, the Author of Sects, or a [Page 265] Sectary, as Bullinger, and Hyperius, and others have it. Calvin makes no di­stinction betwixt the Heretick and Schis­matick in this place; for he saith, Ambi­tiosos omnes, praefractos, contentiosos, qui Libidine impulsi turbant Ecclesiae pacem, ac dissidia concitant, hoc nomine comprehendit. ‘He comprehends under this Title all Ambitious, Stubborn and Contentious Men, who upon the impulse of their own lust stir up Discord, and disturb the Peace of the Church.’ In summa quisquis suâ proterviâ unitatem ecclesiae ab­rumpit, is Haereticus vocatura Paulo: Whosoever breaks the Peace of the Church by his frowardness, St. Paul calls him an Heretick. And yet further (to reach such as set up Conventicles among us) Quoties eo usque procedit pervicacia, ut quispiam sibi addictus, vel discessionem faciat a Corpore vel a grege quosdam sub­trahat, vel impediat sanae Doctrinae cur­sum: hic strenue obviandum est. When the Obstinacy proceeds so far, that a man enamour'd of himself, departs from the Body of the Church, or draws others from it, or hinders the Course of sound Doctrine; in this case a strenuous Oppo­sition is to be made against him. In sum­ma, In short, sayes Calvin, Haeresis vel [Page 266] secta, & ecclesiae unitas, res sunt inter se oppositae: Heresie or Schism, and the Uni­ty of the Church, are things opposite: and this Unity being so precious in the sight of God, it ought also to be in the highest esteem with us, and those Sects and Heresies ought to be no less detested. Thus Calvin

‘He that contemns all Admonitions, saith Hyperius, He that is distempered in his mind, & incurabili laborat con­tagio, and when he is sick of an in­curable Contagion, refuses and de­rides the Remedy that is charitably of­fer'd to him; This is the Party af­fected.’

‘And how is he to be treated? Must the Bishop flatter him? Or is the Bishop alone obliged to avoid him? No, saith Hyperius, the Bishop is to ad­monishHyperius. others to beware of him as a pernicious Wolf.’

‘But what is the Civil Magistrate concerned herein? Why, sayes Aretius, the Charge is here given to Titus, who wanted a faithful Magistrate, to as­sistAretius. him. But doubtless St. Paul would have wrote otherwise to the Magi­strate, or to Titus, if he had had such a faithful Magistrate to take care [Page 267] of Gods Church. He speakes here of the Bishops Office, how far he may; how far in Duty he ought to pro­ceed.’

We now understand, saith Mr. Calvin whom the Apostle means by a Heretick; but we are not to determine, who is such a Heretick, or to reject him till we have first indeavoured to reduce him to a sound Judgment. ‘He must have a first and second Admonition, not from Private Persons, but from the Publick Authority and Ministry of the Church; for the Words of the Apostle do im­port thus much, Graviter quasi censoria correctione reprimendos esse.’ That such Persons are sharply to be restrained by the Rod of Discipline; for he is con­demned of himself, because being soHyperius. carefully instructed and so frequently admonished, He has no body to im­pute his condemnation to, but to him­self and his own Malice.

‘But may we proceed no further against such Sectaries and Disturbers of the Churches Peace and Settlement? They that think so, do not argue to the purpose, saith Mr. Calvin; For the Bishop and the Magistrate have their several parts assigned them in [Page 268] this Work. And St. Paul writing to Titus, does not discourse of the Ma­gistrates Duty, but what is incumbent upon the Bishop.’

What the Judgment of the most Learned and Pious Protestants was a Hundred years agoe, I shall give youAd Titum. 3. 10, 11. the account from Bullinger, to whom Hyperius also refers his Reader. That Bullinger was a man of so great Esteem, that his Decades were translated into English, and thought fit to be read in the Publick Congregations, where they wanted able Preachers; and this Doct­rine of his passed for Currant, till the So­cinian Heresy (which does so much im­preach the Satisfaction, Merits and Di­vinity of our Saviour) prevail'd so much among us: And this has hapned; be­cause the Canons of 1640. were not duely enforced to prevent the growth of it. But to return to the business in hand.

I shall give the sence of Bullinger inHen. Bullinger Commentar. in omnes Pau­li Epistolas a clear Translation of his own Com­mentary upon the Text which begins thus.

‘Some perhaps may ask, what I [Page 269] would do with Him that obeyes notTiguri. 1582. Hic Ad Titum. 3. 10, 11. the Truth, but continues to be con­tentious, and to stir up Faction? The Apostle answers, after the first and second Admonition, if he will not o­bey your advice, take heed, and se­parate your self from such an hope­less Deplorato.’

‘But adding the Reason, why he commands Us to abbor the Commu­nion and Fellowship of such an He­retick, He sayes, He that is such a one as will not admit of good Advice, is rather exasperated by continual Ad­monitions, and can never be brought to embrace the Truth: For a simple Errour is quickly healed, but Stub­borness is uncurable. But such a Man is subverted by Prejudice, and there­fore swerves from the true Faith, and being intangled in Perplexity, he re­mains in invincible Ignorance.’

‘Hereupon Theophylact, explaining these words, sayes, The Apostle un­derstands by an Heretick, an incor­rigible Fellow, and one that is on e­very side so entangled with Difficul­ties, that He knows not which way to free himself. Therefore, such a One will never be perswaded to em­brace [Page 270] the Truth, but rather attempt to draw his Charitable Adviser into his own Opinion. Wherefore here is a great deal of Danger, but little Hope.’

‘For when Hereticks are so wicked, and hardned in those Things which are manifestly False; there's none, or very small Hopes of their recovering; nay, on the contrary, it oftentimes happens, That they impose upon him, who advises them, if weak, though otherwise a good honest Man: There­fore, He advisedly commands, that they should be avoided.’

‘But some perhaps will Object, That it is a sad thing, if we should thus neglect the Sheep that is gone astray, our Lord did not so; it's to be feared, his Destruction will be required at our Hands: The Apostle answers, If such a Man Perish, he perisheth not by your Fault, but by his own; for, Why did he not obey his Teacher?’

‘Moreover, they that gather from hence, That it is against the Scriptures for the Civil Magistrate to restrain Hereticks; that is to say, not only such as are perverted from the Faith, but such as Study to pervert others: They [Page 271] do not consider, That the Apostle here doth not Dispute about the Offices of a Lawful Magistrate, but what the Bishop should do. For in these, and other of the Apostle's Prescriptions, the Occasion is to be consider'd. But they'l say, The Apostle's Command is, Not Compel, or Kill, but avoid an Heretick: It's very true: For no Man is rashly to be Condemned or Rejected, but rather to be Endeared and In­structed. This is the peculiar Work of Bishops. But if after such an ami­cable and endearing Treatment and Admonition, he refuseth to Repent, and endeavours still to draw whole Multitudes into the same Sedition and Ruine with himself; Here again it is the Bishops concern, not only to Op­pose that setitious Doctrine and Prac­tice, but also to lay down his Life for the Sheep, against the assaults and in­cursions of such Wolves; to defend and preserve his Flock with the Sword of Truth, and manfully to Repel and Subdue them.’

‘If the Apostle had written an Epi­stle to Cornelius, or Sergius, and had inform'd them of their Duties, with­out doubt, He would have injoyn'd [Page 272] them to defend the Congregation of the Faithful, and to restrain those in­croaching Wolves. For we see St. Paul himself smote the false-Prophet Barjesus with Blindness, because he endeavour'd obstinately to maintain a Falshood, and to reject the Truth. And if an Heretick is only to be avoi­ded, and not also to be punished; Why did the Apostle smite Elymas with Blindness? Why did our Lord Com­mand to take the false-Prophet from among the Living? But you will say He Commanded these things under the Law? True; But Magistracy was not Abrogated with the Law; for now as well as then 'tis the Gift of God. Besides, the Liberty of the Law be­longsTim. 1. 9, 10. only to them that walk after the Law. Wherefore seeing we are obli­ged to receive the Law in all things which are not Repugnant to the Gospel, or to sound Doctrine, no Man whatsoever under any pretence of the Gospel, shall ever obtain of us to suf­fer false-Doctrine, to encrease in the Church of God without restraint.’

‘These are very true and plausible Sayings (to wit) That Faith is the Gift of God: That Faith is not wrought [Page 273] in any Man by the Power of the Sword; but these signify nothing to the present purpose. For we do not speak concerning Internal Faith as the Gift of God; but concerning the Doc­trine of Faith, as the Profession of our Religion, which we desire to pro­mote, not so much by restraining their Incredulity, nor their Opinions as false, but as they become infectious. I confess, Faith and Unbelief are of the Heart, no Man can judge of them; but by Men's Words and overt Actions,’ we may judge of them.

‘St. Augustin was sometime of thatAugust. advin­cent Epist. Or­dine 48. Opinion, That Hereticks were to be dealt with, only by the Word of God; but he afterwards confessed, That many Reasons and Examples had pre­vailed with him, to be of another Perswasion. But, What need so ma­ny Words? The Church, and Chri­stian Truth, must necessarily be as­serted and defended from Errours; Blasphemies are to be punished; and we must take care of the Sound Mem­bers of the Church, that they be not infected by the Rotten. But the Man­ner of performing this, Godly Zeal, the judgment of Faith, and Christian [Page 274] Charity must prescribe; that herein we do nothing, either too much, or too little.’

‘'Tis the Bishop's Duty to warn, to restrain, and to use all Opportunity and Importunity to gain him that is out of the Way: But if in contempt of the Truth, he shall still go on in the Errour of his Wayes; and also strive to draw others with him into the same Errour; then his Stubbornness and Errour is to be refuted by the Word of Truth, in the Face of the Church; and care to be taken, lest any one should give credit to the Im­postor.’

‘Besides, the Magistrate also is to be put in mind (if he be remiss, and the Wolf proceeds more and more to infest the People of God) to have a greater care of God's Flock, that the Wolves may not set upon them. For such Mischiefs are to be removed from the People of God, who, as much as is possible, are to be Pre­served.’

‘Lastly, The Punishment is to be inflicted upon Offenders, not for their Ruin, but Salvation, (to wit) that they may repent.’

‘Nor are we presently to proceed to a Capital Punishment against those that are in Errour, or infected with Heretical Pravity, but when their Blasphemies are so Execrable, that they cannot be born with, without reproach to God; Or when the obsti­nacy of Erring, does manifestly tend to the Subversion of Religion, and the Laws Established, and they are openly and truly convicted hereof. For there is a great Difference be­tween him that doth not Err out of Malice, and him who Errs willfully, and out of a design to do Mischief.’

‘Nor are all Offences to be Capital­ly Punished; for sometimes the Pu­nishment is Corporal, sometime Pecu­niary, as the Quality of the Offence, and the Equity of the Law shall re­quire.’

This Learned Protestant was of Opi­nion, That in certain Cases, the Ma­gistrate should Assist the Bishop to sup­press Sectaries. And such a one he ac­counts him that is a Broacher of Exe­crable Blasphemies, to the high Disho­nour of Almighty God, and whose stub­born and seditious Practices, do mani­festly tend to the Subversion of Religion, [Page 276] and Piety, good Order, and the Lawes E­stablish't; and yet even in this Case, he does not approve of such a Procedure, as savours of Wrath, and Bitterness. Pius enim Magistratus inquit, &c.

‘A Pious Magistrate, sayes he, would rather argue thus; What can't the Truth prevail with you? Can't the the Authority of the Scriptures, Can't the undoubted Faith and Religion of all Ages, Can't the Care and Dili­gence of all Pious Men, Can't an Ho­ly Oath, and taken in a good Mat­ter move you? Can't the Fear of God, Can't the Charity you owe to your Neighbour, Can't the publick Peace and Tranquility perswade you? Can't you Perish alone, but you must draw others with you into Perdition? Mo­rere igitur, tuâ culpâ, tuo (que) vitio, si sa­lutem quam vivus excludis, invenias Moriens; You must Dye therefore by your own Willfulness, and Stubborn­ness, if you think you can find that Salvation when you are Dead, which you now refuse while you are a­live.’

‘And this Learned Protestant tells us, He Disputed the more copiously in this Point, against such as thought [Page 277] they did the Church great Service, if they left it free for every Man, to revive the Heresy of the Donatists, Ar­rians, Pelagians, Novatians, and o­thers; Disputare libere, Factionesque nec­tere; To Dispute freely about these things, and to make Factions.’

To Bullinger, I shall add the Judg­mentAd Tit. 3. 8, 9. 10, 11. in locis Commu­nib. De Pro­cessu cum Hae­ret. n. 17. p. m. 571. of a later Protestant Professor, Jo­annes Crocius: He moves the Question, Whether it be Lawful for the Christian Magistrate to restrain Hereticks? (and we must remember what Calvin has observed, viz. That Schismaticks are comprehended under the same title.) ‘Faith as a thing that pertains to Conscience, is to be perswaded, not compel'd. As Stephen King of Poland said very fitly; God hath reserved three things to him­self; To make something of nothing To foretell future Contingencies, and to rule over Conscience. For Compulsi­on, for the most part, does not make Believers but Hypocrites. But, for all this, saith he, the Magistrate may com­pel his Subjects, both by Laws and Penalties, to the Means of Faith, that is, to hear the Word. And being ob­liged to secure his Subjects in the true Religion, He is concerned to keep [Page 278] out such as would Advance and Pro­pagate Sects and Errours; to remove them if they be entred in, to divest them of their Dignities, and (if the Peace of the Church cannot be pre­served otherwise) to proscribe or im­prison them, according to the Quality of their Offence, that by such means they may (if possible) be brought unto Repentance.’

And thus much of St. Pauls Rule, which the Reconciler would make his Reader believe, was onely a Rule bor­rowed by Dr. Womock from our Roman Adversaries.

‘But 2ly. This Rule, saith the Recon­ciler, condemns all Christ's Apostles, and all the Primitive Weak Christians, mentioned in Holy Scripture, and in Church-History. I can proceed no further till I have taken notice of the Reconci­lers gross mistake.’

1st. The Rule makes only the Major Proposition; Authority must judge of the Matter of fact, and so make the Minor, without which no Conclusion can be inferred, no sentence of Con­demnation passed.

2ly. Here is Ignoratio Elenchi; if they be Weak Christians, they are not with­in [Page 279] this Rule; which concerns onely such as have forfeited that Title, and the Priviledge which belongs to it. But let us hear his Reason, such as it is.

‘For when the Apostles questioned the Power of our Lord, (as Christ as­sures us they did in many places,) does not our Saviours Reproof of this their Unbelief, inform us, That they had sufficient Reason from what he had already done before their eyes, to be convinced of it? When they doubted of his Resurrection, or rather disbeliev­ed it, had they not had sufficient Cause both from Scriptures, and their Mast­ers frequent words, to lay aside that Doubt? When that after our Lords Commission to Go and Preach the Gos­pel to all Nations, and the Descent of the Holy Ghost, not only they, but the whole Church held it unlawful to Preach the Gospel to any but the Jews, or to the Circumcised, could they justly pretend Ignorance after so plain an Admonition? Were not the Judai­zing Christians sufficiently admoni­shed, by the Holy Ghosts falling on Cornelius, and his Friends, and the Discourses at the Synod at Jerusalem, That there was no necessity of Cir­cumcising [Page 280] the Gentile Christians, or of refusing to Converse with the Uncir­cumcised? And must not only they but Peter also and Barnabas, be Stubborn and Malitious for acting contrary to it?’ I shall repeat no more of this Harangue to spare my self as well as the Reader.

Here we have Fallacy again; so ma­ny things of different kinds jumbled together, that no single Answer can comprehend them. And this is a cer­tain sign of Imposture; Dolus versatur in Universalibus. But I hope we shall give such a general Solution as will sa­tisfy the Judicious.

1. We are to consider, That the Dispen­sation of the Gospel was stupendious, and all Mystery: The Incarnation of the Son of1 Tim 3. 16. God was a Mystery: The Resurrection of Christ from the Dead was a Mystery; The calling of the Gentiles was a Mystery; which St. Paul sets forth in these words: Even the Mystery which hath been hid from Ages, and from Generations, but Col. 1. 26, 27. See also Ephes. 3. 1. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. now is made manifest to the Saints, to whom God would make known, what is the riches of the Glory of this Mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you the hope of Glory. Of the whole Dispensa­tion the Prophet cries out. Who hath Isa. 53. 1. [Page 281] believed our report? or to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? And again. Behold ye among the Heathen and regard, Habak. 1. 5: and wonder marvellously: for I will work a Work in your dayes, which ye will not believe tho it be told you.

2. We are to consider that Christs Disciples were but poor Ignorant and Unlearned Fishermen. They had not bin bred in the Schools of the Prophets; nor does it appear that their Apprehensi­ons Luk. 24. 25. were very quick, or their Memories very strong or retentive; Their old Bottles needed a great Reformation, before they were fit for the New Wine of the Gos­pel, the Effusions of the Holy Ghost. Christ was fain to open their Under­standing after his Resurrection, to help them to understand the Scripture, andv. 45. Acts 1. 3. v. 8. Acts 2. 17. 18. John 16. 13. John 14. 26. to teach them the concerns of his King­dom by Conference, and to send down the Holy Spirit, as well to enlighten them with further measure of Divine Knowledge, as to bring former instructi­ons into their Remembrance.

3. As long as our Blessed Saviour does not charge them with Malice or Stubborness, we have no reason to do it. Nay, tho they were dull and slow of heart to believe, some Articles of great [Page 282] difficulty, and not formerly propounded, or with very Little Evidence: Yet they Stubbornly rejected none, but were wil­ling from time to time, to comply with such Notices as they clearly received from him; and were glad to be con­vinced of any Errour. They did not finally deny his Godhead, or his Resur­rection, or the Dispensation of the Gos­pelJohn 20. 20. 28. Acts 11. 18. to the Gentiles, nor yet dispute any needful or useful Article.

4. There is a great difference be­twixt a Church in Fieri, and a Church in Facto: A Church that is a making and one that is established: The Church that travel'd in the wilderness, was not under such fair Circumstances, as that which was afterwards setled in the Land of Canaan.

The case of the Dissenters can never be justified by any thing, that can be alledged under those circumstances; For we are now under a Setled Church, with Laws, Discipline and Government, and all established by mature and good Advice, and a just Authority. And the point in difference is drawn into so narrow a compass, that he who unfeignedly de­sires to know his Duty, (if he will take St. Paul for his Tutor, and Study to be [Page 283] quiet, and to do his own business,) He may learn it out of half a Text of Scripture, I mean Rom. 14. 14. and wePag. 73. have the ‘Reconcilers own word for it, who tells us, That in this Very Chapter, the Apostles plainly saith, that the things Scrupled by the weak, were pure and lawful in themselves, and that he knew, and was perswaded by the Lord Jesus that there was nothing unclean of it self;’ which saith the Reconciler, is as perfect and full determination of the case against the Weak, as words can make. Granting this to be true, I demand what is the Reason, if they be not Jews, that the Dissenters are not sa­tisfyed? I say, if they be not Jews? And let not the Reconciler conclude me Uncharitable for this Supposition; For the Doctrine and Practice of this Phana­tick Party, has been so long corrupted with such a Jewish Leaven, that they have layn under that Suspition at least, these hundred years; insomuch as Hy­perius Ad. Tit. 1. 11. wisht so long agoe, utinam hodiè nulli sint inter nos praeputiati Judaei: I would to God, there were no Un­circumcised Jews amongst us at this day. ‘3ly. Saith the Reconciler, were we hereafter to be judged according to [Page 284] the Tenor of this Rule, how sad would be our Doom! For have not most Christians had sufficient Admonitions of those Duties they neglect, and of those sins they do commit? Might they not easily be convinced of these things, by serious Reflections on their Actions: yea, doth not Conscience often do that Office in them? And if in all these Cases they must offend of Malicious Wickedness, and so be such concerning whom the Psalmist prays, that God would not be merciful unto them; May we not ask the Apostles Question, who then can be saved? In a word, doth Peter say even of the People of the Jews, that they through ignorance renounced and Crucified their Sauiour? And Paul, that he through Ignorance did persecute the Church of Christ? Could they (I say) do this through Ignorance in such a a Cloud of Miracles, which Christ and his Apostles wrought? And may not our Dissenters in such a Conflict, as there is betwixt the Learned of our Nations touching Ceremonies, be thought to to err, not out of Pride and Malice, but out of Ignorance and Prejudice, not out of want of Will, but Judgment?’

Before I return an Answer, I must enter a Caveat. The Reconciler argues here as he did formerly, ex falsis suppo­sitis, Upon false suppositions: That Dr. Womock affirms, that all the Dissenters to a man without exception, arev. pa. 108. Proud, Froward, Stubborn, Malicious, &c. This Dr. Womock does utterly deny, and takes it for a foul Slander. And he cannot but observe what Montaltius saies in his Provincial Letters, Whoever makes use of Lying, acts bylet. 11. the Spirit of Satan. There's no di­rections of the intention can rectify Calumny; and were it to Convert the whole World, it were not lawful to traduce the innocent; because we must not commit the least Evil to pro­mote the greatest Good, and that the Truth of God doth not stand in need of our lying.

And now I must tell this Reconciler, that be the Doom of such persons never so sad, they are sure to be judged ac­cording to this Rule; for do not they sin Wilfully and Maliciously, who sin fre­quently, by Omission and Commission, a­gainst Knowledg, against Conscience, against Admonitions?

That the Schoolmen call a Sin of Ma­lice, when neither Ignorance, nor Pas­sion is the cause of Sinning, but the Will depraved by Pride, by Envy, by Ha­tred, or any the like Habit or Evil Custome; and generally, saith Estius, In Sent. l. 2. Dist. 22. Sect. 17. John 16. He that sins out of certain knowledg. And men may think they do well, and that they do God Service when they Sin out of malice: These things they imagined and were deceived; Excaecavit enim eos Malitia eorum; For Malice blinded Sap. 2. 21. them.

I must add, that Concupiscence does sometime make a Sin the more Volun­tary, and consequently the more Mali­cious, according to the Notion of the Schoolmen, which the Reconciler seems not clearly to understand; (being I suppose better versed in the Homilies of St. Chrysostome then in the Writers up­on the Sentences, which makes him so indistinct and laxe in his discoursing.) When a man is determined by any sort of Concupiscence unto Evil, so that he has no Reluctancy, no inclination to the contrary, in this Case his Concupi­scence makes his Sin the more Voluntary. And the Reason is clear, because the Will is carried with more fervour and [Page 287] Vehemency into that Object, unto which it is determined by Concupiscence, then otherwise it would be, as is manifest by experience; and hence is that of St. James. Chap. 1. 14, 15. Every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own Lust and enticed. Then when Lust hath conceived (by the consent or con­junction of the VVill with it) it bring­eth forth Sin: and sin, when it is finish­ed, bringeth forth Death.

As to the Question, Who then can be See Dr. Ha­monds Dis­course of sins of Weakness and VVilful­ness. Saved? The Wise man shall answer it: He that confesseth and forsaketh his Sins shall have Mercy; there is Ta­bula post Naufragium; and Christ came to call sinners to Repentance. If the Re­conciler has a mind to reconcile Schism and Sedition, or any other wilful gross sin, to the State of Salvation, without a particular Repentance (in the Ordinary course of our Ministry) I am no Casuist for his turn: The Moral I have learnt and taught is that of the Prophet, Wash ye, make ye clean: put away the E­vil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do Evil, learn to do Well, &c.Isa. 1. 16. 17.

For David's imprecation: Be not mer­ciful Psal. 59. 5. unto them, who offend of Malicious wickedness. The Case is Extraordinary: [Page 288] and no man that understands how to dis­course pertinently and distinctly, would jumble it in a dispute of this Nature. Here we are to distinguish the Cause from the Persons; for all Sins are not equally Criminal; This is evident from that of Ely: If one man sinneth against 1 Sam. 2. 25. another, the Judge shall judge him: but if a man sinneth against the Lord, who shall intreat for him?

And then among Persons there are Degrees; Some do sin Wittingly and Wil­lingly, and yet they are Curable by the means of Grace, by Instruction and Good Advice. But others run into Blasphemy and such a malicious Opposition of known Truth, that they sin themselves into an Execration, as St Paul declares to the Corinthians, If any man Love not v. Moller. in Psal. 59. 6. the Lord Jesus, let him be accursed. And that Explication of St. Austin is very fit to be taken into Consideration, That these Imprecations are the Dictates of the Holy Ghost in the mouth of the Prophet, pronouncing as it were the Last Sentence upon Blasphemers, and the treacherous and implacable Enemies of the Church.

I cannot give you a fitter Character of these Persons than what is done by [Page 289] the Reverend Dean of Peterburgh, in his Paraphrase upon the Text, which is this, Appear now for my relief, and pu­nish all those Wicked men, who call them­selves thy People, but are as barbarous and- cruel, as false and perfideous as the Hea­then: Do not spare them therefore, nor shew any favour to such as violate all the Laws of Justice and Charity, and keep no Faith with their Neighbours.

The Instances are but few, wherein Prophets and Governours do make Im­precations against their Subjects or Infe­riours: But we must conclude the Case is very Sad, when a Moses, the Meak­est Prince that ever was; when a Paul, a man so Charitable, that he wisht himself accursed from Christ, to winRom. 9. 3. others to Salvation: When such men as these shall take up the most dread­ful Imprecations that can be imagined, against any Party that relate to them; this must proceed from some Extraordina­ry Provocation. The text saith, Moses was Numb. 16. 15. very wroth, and said unto the Lord, Res­pect not thou their Offering. And St. Paul said, I would they were even cut Gal. 5. 12. off that trouble you. Why, what was the matter? Here was nothing but a Party of Holy men, that divided them­selves [Page 290] from the Publick Congregation, toNumb. 16. 3. Worship God in their own way, which indeed was not approved of by their Governours.

But the Sin is Sedition and Schism, and strikes at the Government both of Church and State; 'tis destructive to that Authority and Legislative Power, which the Supreme Lord and Lawgiver, has ordained to keep the World in Peace and Order; and because God is pleased to Govern the World by such a Civil Magistracy, in reference to Tempo­rals, and by such an Ecclesiastical Mini­stry, in reference to Spirituals, there­fore the Insurrection that is made against these his Officers, he interprets, as made against himself: Hence it is, that those Seditious Schisinaticks, (who are set forth for a Sign and Example to themNum. 26. 10. Ep. Jude. v. 10. that should follow their steps after­wards) are said to be gathered together against the Lord, and to have provo­ked Num. 16. 11, 30. the Lord.

This is a sin of no Ordinary dye, of no Ordinary Malice; So point blank a­gainst Authority and the Ordinance of God, (for the Seditious Schismatick falls into Apostacy from the Communion of the Church, and many times into an [Page 291] hostile Hatred of it) that it seems to be like the sin unto Death, mentioned by St. John; and what mercy soever God may have in store for such a sin, theSee Dr. Ham Note on 1 Joh. 5. 16. Hebr. 10. 25, to 29. Church seems to have no Warrant to pray for it.

Therefore the Church with great Prudence and Charity has thought fit to put such sins into her Litany, by way of solemn Deprecation,

But St. Peter tells us, that The Jewes Renounced and Crucified our Saviour out of Ignorance, &c. What a pittiful Re­conciler have we here? Sure the man would strain his Wit and Conscience, to make an Apology for Judas and Pontius Pilate, rather then his Dissenters should fall under a just and deserved Condemnation. What if St. Peter Wot that they did it Ignorantly, will the Reconciler infer from thence, that [Page 292] they did it Innocently? Has He embraced the Doctrine of Abaitardus: Non Peccave­runt, qui Christum ignoranter Crucifixerunt: They sinned not, who Crucified Christ Ig­norantly: This Proposition was condem­ned as Haeretical by Innocent the Second.

There is scarce a sin commited with­out Ignorance, but 'tis one thing to sin Ignorantly, and another to sin out of Ignorance: In that Case Ignorance does attend the sin, in this it is the Cause of it: For Knowledge to the con­trary would have prevented it.

This Ignorance, if it be involuntary both in it Self and in its Cause, that is,De Conscient. l. 3. c. 19. q. 3. Non affectata, nec procurata, nec tollera­ta aut neglecta, tum actum reddit mere fortuitum, & involuntarium, atque adeo excusat a peccato, saith Amesius; If it be not affected, nor procured, nor tolerated or neglected, then it renders the action merely fortuitous and involuntary, and so excuses a man from sin.

Will the Reconciler say, that the Ig­norance of the Jews was of this Na­ture? Then he falls under the same Con­demnation with Abaitardus, and seems to be of F. Baunius his opinion: Nun­quam peccatur nisi praevia peccati Cogniti­one animus illustretur, eiusque vitandi [Page 293] desiderio extimi letur: That a man can never sin, unless his Mind be enlightned with a previous knowledge of the sin, and be stirred up with a desire to avoid it. This Doctrine has been Censur'd by the Theological Faculty of Paris, and Lo­vain, as false, & against the Common Prin­ciples of Christian Theologie; and as that which excuseth innumerable of the most heinous sins to the destruction of Souls.

To make a man guilty of Sin, it is not requisite, that he has an express or actu­all Consideration of the Moral Atrceity, Malice or Danger of it, or any express doubt or Scruple about it.

Otherwise it would follow, that such as are blinded in their minds, Athiests, and those that know neither God nor Sin, should be in such a state, in which they should be free from sin: For then, without any knowledge or doubt of the Malice of the act, they would let loose the Reins of their corrupt and depra­ved Nature, to follow the lust of their own hearts: And so the blinding of their minds, (their Excaecation) which the Scripture represents as the greatest punishment of Sin, should be no punish­ment at all, but a priviledge, and ren­der them as it were impeccable

According to the Common Principles of Divinity, when the Cause is Volun­tary, the Effect is also Voluntary, that follows from the Position of such a Cause; and he that may and ought to to foresee the Malice of the act that is to follow, and neglects to advert to it, His actual Inconsideration is Voluntary, and may as well aggravate the fault as extenuate it.

As gross and affected Ignorance is ne­ver without sin, so it can never be altogether involuntary, saith Argentina, gent. l. 2. d. 40. 41. q. 1. or 4. because a man may prevent such igno­rance, if he will. And, if the Ignorance be affected, tis a Sin in it self, saith Ame­sius, and therefore does not lessen, butubi Supra. rather increase the guilt of other sins, 2 Pet. 3. 5.

Whether the ignorance of the Jews in this Case, were alledged as an ex­tenuating or an aggravating Circum­stance, is disputed among Divines. That it was affected in some of them, and so an aggravation of their Malice, will ea­sily appear from these Considerations.

1. Our Saviours own Affirmation, John 15. 22, 23, 24. If I had not come and spo­ken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin. He [Page 295] that hateth me, hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen, and hated both me and my Father. His Doctrine de­clared him to be a Teacher sent from God, and his Miracles did confirm it. But we have more pregnant Evidence against their Elders, Luk. 20. 14. When the Husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours. And St. Peter charges them home with a guilt of at least affected Ig­norance and Malice: Act. 2, 22, 23. Ye men of Israel hear these words, Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, by miracles, wonders, and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye your selves also know: Him being delivered by the determinate Counsel, and foreknow­ledge of God, ye have taken, and by wick­ed hands have crucified and slain. Here he chargeth them, that they imbrued their hands in Christs blood, and that they did it Wittingly and Willingly. And St. Stephen tells them plainly, that they had been the Betrayers and Murder­ers of Him. Act. 7. 52. For did they not hire Judas to betray him, and Suborn [Page 296] false witness to give evidence against him? If this Ignorance did did excuse or ex­tenuate their fault, the Apostle would1 Thes. 2. 16. not have told us, that the wrath was come upon them to the uttermost, for their Continuance in it.

By the Circumstances of his Life and Miracles, their Princes and Rulers might have known him to be the Son of the living God: But Malice blinded theirWisd. 2. 21. eyes. Their Ignorance was not onely gross and supine, but also affected, procur­ed by their Voluntary & frequent acts of envy and hatred. There was not so much as the least Congruity towards a Pardon,Luc. Brug. Esti­us. the Condition they had plunged them­selves into was desperate, and that was the onely motive for a singular Mercy to step in to Succour them. I would fain know, what Comfort the Reconciler can extract for his Dissenters out of such an Ignorance.

But Joannes Malcolme tells us, St. Pe­ter Comert in Act. 3. 17. ‘was preparing the Way for their Repentance, and that he might not plunge them actually into desperation, He gives them hope of Salvation to be obtained by Christ upon their true Conversion: When he saies through Ignorance, he does not go about to [Page 297] excuse or extenuate their sin by the Fucus or pretence of Ignorance, but the Apostle speaks Comparatively, Com­paring these with those who knowingly and willingly, and of set purpose, Cruci­fyed the Lord of life. And a little after,’

‘There is a twofold Ignorance, saith he. First, One has Rebellion joyn'd with it; from hence follows Obduration, and it is incurable; And this is Contract­ed, saith he, partly by acting obstinatly and contemptuously against the Will of God, and partly by suffering the Threatnings and Judgments of God inflicted on us, to pass by without A­mendment. This was in Pharoah and the People of Israel, Jer. 44. and 'tis seen in many of our time, who do so harden their hearts, that they reject the Grace that is offered to them in the Preaching of the Gospel: St. Peter speaks not of such an Ignorance. But there is Another which pretends to the Glory of God, and such is that he speaks of. This is Curable, and yet 'tis a Sin in it self, and deserves no Pardon; nevertheless by Grace it may find Remission, if it will suffer it self to be corrected; but if it degenerates into that incurable Ignorance, then it [Page 298] lies under the same Condemnation and Punishment.’

‘S. Pauls Case is much like that of o­ther Jew's: Estius saies,’ he could never observe, that ever Unbelief was pleaded to extenuate a Guilt: He obtained Mer­cy because his sin was Great, and his condition Desperate, and so he was fit for a Superabundant Grace to strike in to rescue him, and make him a Pattern for time to come. But let us take no­tice,1 Tim. 1. 15, 16. that he stood in need of an extraor­dinary Grace, and a Miraculous Conver­sion, and Corporal Affliction with great Severity, to compel him to come in. But then we must do him right too; For having this powerful Call from Heaven He was not disobedient to the Heavenly Vision, He did not confer with Flesh and Gal. 1. 16. Act. 9. 3. Blood. Nor did he value his Interest in the High-Priest, from whom he had re­ceived his Commission: But upon the first Conviction, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest, he resign'd himself up to his Command, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? When the Dissenters do change their Principles, and abandon their Carnal and Factious Interests, and bring forth Fruit meet for their Repentance, let them, a Gods Name, apply such examples to their Comfort.

‘4thly. (saith the Reconciler) let me intreat him to consider, how opposite this judging and Censorious Humour seems to the Christian Rules and Pre­cepts.’ 'Tis flatly opposite.

‘1st. To that Precept of our Lord, Judge not, that ye be not Judged, Con­demn not, that you be not Condem­ned; And that of Paul, Let not him that Eateth, despise him that Eateth not, neither let him that Eateth not, Judge him that Eateth. Let us not therefore Judge one another. To that of James, There is one Law-giver, who is able to destroy and to save, who art thou that Judgest thy Brother? In all which places, the Scripture justly may be sup­posed, to forbid the Judging and Con­demning of our Brother, without suf­ficient Cause. Now thus we evident­ly do, when we conclude that Action to be done upon corrupt and wicked Principles, which happily was well intended, and free from any ill design; and when we Judge that Person Ob­stinate and Malicious, who perhaps errs through Weakness and Infirmity, through want of Information, or Prejudice; when we do aggravate the Actions of our Brother, beyond their [Page 300] just Demerit, and pass upon him a more heavy Censure, than he hath deserved; for so far is our Judgment false and without ground, as it exceeds the Nature, and the Demerit of the Fact; when we judge them, whom God re­ceiveth, as may be gathered from that passage of St. Paul, Let not him that Eateth not, judge him that Eateth, for God hath received him; when we pass such a Judgment upon our Brother, as doth dispose us to contemn and vilifie him, as may be gathered from that Question of St. Paul, Why dost thou judge, why dost thou set at nought thy Brother, who differs on­ly from thee about Meats, or Festi­vals? or Things indifferent, in which God's Kingdom by no means doth Consist? And Lastly, when we so judge, as to pronounce, without clear Scripture-Warrant of the Damnation or Salvation of our Brother; for see­ing there is one Law-giver, saith St. James, who is able to Save and to De­stroy, who art thou that judgest thy Brother? that is, dost pass the De­retory Sentence, concerning his Dam­nation or Salvation? I pray the Doc­tor may be unconcern'd in these things, [Page 301] that in passing this Censure on his Bre­thren, he be not found usurping of the Office of the Judge of all men or jud­ging another man's Servant, who must Stand or Fall to his own Master; that he so Judg, as that he be not Judged, and so Condemn, as that he be not Condemned.’

1st. I observe that this Reconciler fol­lows the steps of the fiercest Presbiteri­ans, who were ever wont to Libel their Prince in their Prayers: For thus he deals with Dr. Womock. He insinuates, That he usurps the Office of the Su­preme Judge, that he Judgeth his Bro­thers Person, and passes the Decretory Sentence concerning his Damnation (for to say Salvation is impertinence:) That he doth this without sufficient E­vidence, or Scripture-Warrant: That he Judges to Damnation such as God hath received, such as differ from him only about Meats and Festivals, or Things indifferent, in which God's Kingdom, by no means doth consist: That he ag­gravates their Actions beyond their just Demerit, and judgeth them so, as to contemn and despise them.

Let the Reconciler consider, how ill this Censorious humour appears in him, [Page 302] as well as how groundless false and scan­dalous, it is in it self. If there be any Truth in it, let him name the Persons, that are so censured, let him repeat the Words, and cite the Page, or Pa­ges, where this Censure is to be found. If he can produce none of these things, I have Commission in Dr. Womock's Name, to proclaim him a malicious and shameless Libeller.

But 'tis a small matter with him, to Judge and Libel Dr. Womock; he has the forehead to do as much by his Prince, and all that are in Authority in Church and State, and is it possible for the Dissenters to escape his Lash? Indeed (P. 114.) he concludes them a Pack of damned Villains, who go astray out of Pride, Malice, Stubbornness; and he saith (p. 108) We have cause to fear the thing is too true, that there be men of this Malicious, Proud, Stubborn Temper, among the Body of Dissenters; But alas, Good man! he would not Censure them for a World.

And yet at another time, he thinksp. 58. 59. fit, but it is in the Spirit of Meekness to ask them these few Questions; ‘Do they prefer Mercy before Sacrifice, who will not submit to Rites or Cir­cumstances, [Page 303] or to the Use of things no where forbidden in the Word, to pre­vent Schism, and all the dreadful Con­sequences of it; But rather will give cause to their Superiours to Judg them scandalous Resisters of Authority, and pertinacious Disturbers of the Chur­ches Peace? Are they compassionate towards the Sheep, according to our Lord's Example, who rather will re­fuse to become Labourers in his Har­vest, and Teachers of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, than submit to these little Things, in order to their re­gular Performance of this Blessed Work? Do not they scandalize, of­fend, and contribute unto the Ruin of Christ's Little Ones, who do involve them in a wretched Schism, on the ac­count of things which they may Law­fully submit to? Do not they shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against Men, who forbid them to enter when they may? Do not they impose hea­vy Burthens also, who say to their Disciples, Hear not the Common-Prayer, Receive not the Sacrament kneeling, Suffer not your Children to be signed with the Cross, Communicate not with that Minister who wears a Surplice, [Page 304] or with that Church who imposeth any Ceremonies, or any Constitutions; But concerning the Time and Place of performing publick Worship? If the Good Shepherd should lay down his Life for the Sheep, should not they lay down their unnecessary Scruples for their sakes? If nothing doth so scandalize Christ's Followers, as to find their Teachers at Discord and divided, can They act as becometh his Dis­ciples, who are not willing to procure Unity and Concord, and to avoid this Scandal by their Submission to things indifferent in their own Nature, and not forbidden in the Law of God?’

Now whether this be not much more Magisterial, and not a whit less Censo­rious, than any thing that fell from the pen of Dr. Womock in his Verdict, let the Reader Judge.

However Dr. Womock is not much concern'd at the Reproaches of his Prayers, but thinks fit to return his Charity in the Exprobration and Command of our Common Judge, which may concernLuc. Brug. Significatur Curiositas in­tuendi in ali­enos errores Studio repre­lendendi. the Reconciler no less then Dr. Womock, Mat. 7. 3. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy Brothers Eye: but conside­rest not the beam that is in thine own Eye? [Page 305] (ver. 5.) Thou hypocrite, first cast out beam out of thine own Eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy Brothers Eye.

And now we may take leave to re­flect upon the other Mistakes and false Suggestions in this Paragraph. (1.) What dormant Warrant he may have to pass the Decretory or Final Sentence of Dam­nation upon any Person, I cannot tell; but I am sure, there is no such Warrant to be found in Scripture, nor any such Sentence to be pronounced by any man without the Spirit of Prophecy.

2dly. Whereas He saith, the Dissen­ters differ only from us about Meats or Festivals, or things Indifferent, in which God's Kingdom does by no means con­sist, We say otherwise: The Difference is in matters of Obedience, under the com­mand of Righteousness, and in matter of Uniformity, under the command of Peace, which, with Joy in the Holy Ghost, are the very Foundation and Pillars of God's Kingdom: For he that in these things Rom. 14. 17. 18. serveth Christ, is acceptable to God and approved of Men.

3dly. For our Saviours Prohibition, Judge not, Mr. Calvin saith, His Ver­bis praecise non prohibuit Christus a Judi­cando; [Page 306] (which is flatly opposite to the Reconciler) Christ by these Words doth not precisely forbid Judging, but would cure a disease which is common­ly bred of Curiosity, or Malevolence. Calvin. But to condemn all Sin, is not only Lawful, but Necessary; unless we have a mind to Bark against God, to abro­gate his Laws, to rescind his Judgments, and to overthrow his Tribunal. For he will have us be the Heraulds of that Sentence, which he hath pronounced a­gainst the Wickedness of men; though withal we are obliged to be so modest, as to acknowledg him the only Judge, and Law-giver, who is able to save and to destroy.

The Publick Judgment of Prince, Prae­lates, Senates, (whose Office it is to con­demn the Guilty, and absolve the Inno­cent) being no less necessary, than be­neficial to Civil Societies, is by no means forbidden by our Saviour; and why should Divines study Cases of Con­science, but to Judge, and satisfie such as are Scrupulous, and Doubtful; and a good man, that values his Soul, his Con­science, his Interest in Christ, in Grace and Heaven, would be glad to receive some Satisfaction therein; and, if he [Page 307] be wise he will apply himself to some Ghostly Father to that Effect; but how can He do him good, if he doth not Judge for him?

The Judgment our Saviour forbids is Private, and not all private Judgment neither, but only what is Rash and Ma­licious. To condemn Crimes Manifest and Notorious, that is not to Judge, but to follow God's Judgments, who hath expresly condemned Them already in his Word. We are forbidden to Judge of Others, when their Actions are Doubtful, but not when their Works are Manifest, and the matter of Fact clear and out of Question, as St. Au­gustine hath resolved it; and our Lord before him in that Direction, By their Fruits ye shall know them; which is to be understood of such manifest Deeds, as cannot be done of a Good mind, such as Theft, Whoredome, and all mat­ters of Fraternal Correction, which can­notIrenaeus. 2. 4. c. 49. be performed without a Proevious Judgment, which therefore cannot be here forbidden. They therefore abuse this Testimony, saies Mr Calvin, who un­derIn Mat. 7. 1. pretence of that Moderation which Christ commends, would take away all distinction of Good and Evil.

4thly. But the Reconciler urgeth, That those places of Scripture may Justly be suppos'd to forbid the Judging and Condem­ning of our Brother without sufficient cause.

To this I answer (1.) When the Rea­sons are Light and Insufficient, upon which the Judgment relies, then 'tis properly called Rash Judgment; but if it relies upon Arguments that are Firm and Solid, and well known to Him that gives the Judgment, then 'tis Just and Prudent.

I am perfectly of Amesius's Mind, Quisque jus habet ad Famam integram, De Consci. Lbi. 5. cap. 15. Num. 8. tanquam ad Bonum Depositum in Menti­bus Aliorum, usque dum Ipsemet suis Fac­tis inde Eam abstulerit. Every man hath a Right or Title to a clear Reputation as a Good Treasure deposited in the Minds of others, until he plunders it a­way thence by his own Wicked hands.

He that exposeth his Good Name to Contempt, by manifest Impiety, he hath Adulterated and Debased it, He has made it Cheap and under Value, and taken it out of my Custody.

A Good Name is resembled to Dre­cious Oyntment, and every Good ManEccles. 7. 8. Cant 1, 3, will find a convenient Box to keep it in, and will find Discretion also, as well [Page 309] as Charity, as Occasion serves, to open that Box to diffuse the Scent, and Fra­grancy of that Oyntment, to the Advan­tage of such as are Praise-worthy. But if any man puts a Dead-Fly into his Oynt­ment, that does Corrupt it; if he makes it Stink, and offensive to the Neigh­bourhood, I am not obliged to find In­cense, to drown the Noisome Scent, e­specially when Artifice is us'd, to make it both Grateful, and Infectious.

But let us leave Metaphors, and deal with our Reconciler and his Brethren in plain English: Can we forget the Copy of their late Reformation, which like Draco's Law's they wrote in Blood? Were not the Characters of Rebellion therein, so Broad, so Plain, that He who runs may read them? If this Evidence be not sufficient to proclaim their Guilt, there's nothing left, without Repentance, but an Ite Maledicti for a full Conviction of it.

5ly. The Reconciler urges further, That p. 116. we Judge and Condemn our Brother with­out sufficient cause, when we conclude that Action to be done upon Corrupt and Wick­ed Principles, which haply was well intend­ed, and free from any ill Design.

For an Answer to this, Behold I shew you a Mystery, the Mystery of Jesuitism, [Page 310] one of the most Pestilent Principles, that is to be found among all the Morals of that Society. I'le give it you from Mon­taltius, as He pretends, to have taken it out of the mouth of a Supposed Provin­cial, who entertaining a Gentleman with the Maximes of his Casuists, gives Him this account of one of them.

Know then, saith he, that this ‘Mi­raculous Principle is nothing else but our Grand Method of Directing the Intention; a thing of so great a conse­quence in our Morality, that I durst almost compare it with the Doctrine of Probability.’ He gives some slight Touches of it in explicating the manner, how Servants may comply to gratify their Masters Lust with a good Consci­ence, In delivering Letters and Presents, in opening Doors, or Windows, in helping their Masters to get in at a Window, in holding the Ladder whilst he gets up; These seem to be unhandsome things, but to perform them with Safety of Conscience, the difficulty only lyes, in the Diversion of the Intention, from the Evil whereof they are the Abbettors, to direct it to the Advantage accrewing to Themselves thereby. This is the Meaning of Directing the Intention.

But now, saith the Provincial, ‘I willProvin. Let. 6. and 7. display this Grand Method in its full Lustre upon the Subject Murder, which it justifies upon a thousand Occasions, that by such an Effect, you may Judge what it is able to Produce. But to satisfy you, saies He to the Gen­tleman, that we do not permit all things, know for Instance, that we never suf­fer a man should have no other de­sign in Sinning, than a formal Inten­tion to Sin; and that if any one be so ob­durate, as in an Evil Action to Limit his desire by the Evil it self, we have no more to do with him; This is Dia­bolical, and admits of no exception, of Age, Sex, or Quality. But if a man be not sunk into that wretched Condition, we endeavour to put in practice our Method of Directing the Intention, which consists in a man's pro­posing to himself as the End of his Actions, an allowable Object. Not but that we, as far as lies in our Power, Divert Men from doing things forbidden: But when we cannot hin­der the Action, we at least purify the Intention, and so Correct the Vitious­ness of the Means, by the Purity of the End.’

‘Thus, you see, have our Fathers found out a Meanes to permit the Violencies men ordinarily Commit in maintaining their Honour. For there's no more to be done, than to divert the Intention from the Desire of Revenge, which is sinful, to incline it to a De­sire of maintaining ones Honour, which, according to our Fathers, is allowable. And thus they acquit themselves of all Obligations, both towards God, and towards Men. For they satisfy the World, by per­mitting the Actions, and satisfy the Gospel, by Purifying the Intention. This is a thing the Ancients never knew; the world is ingaged for it only to our Fathers.’

1. This is a Principle of great use to men of Design and Action; for exam­ple; If I be jealous of my Tenor or Title to the Estate I have acquired, and project not only to secure my pre­sent Interest, but to purchase greater Advantages, which I think can never be Accomplished without an Insurresti­on, and the Reacting of our late Bloody Tragedy, (wherein so many Fished, with such good success in those Troubled Waters) we must set a broach our Fears [Page 313] and Jealousyes, especially those of Popery and Arbitrary Power, we must Remon­strate the Male-Administration of our Superiours, and complain of Grievances; when the People are startled, and in Commotion hereat, then we may take the Sword, and usurp the Royal-Of­fice, seize his Majesty's Ships, Castles, and Revenues, and having wrested his Militia out of his Hands, we may then venture to exercise it against Him, to Fight Him, and take Him Prisoner to Ar­rargn, Scaffold, and Behead Him.

These are sad Emergencies you'l say; but you must not conclude, that this is done upon corrupt and Wicked Principles; take heed of that; be sure to divert your Intention, from the spoil, and plunder, from the Sacriledge, and Mur­der, from the Schism, Treason, and Re­bellion, and Direct it to a plausible End or an allowable Object, that is, To Ad­vance God's Glory, to Reform the Church and State, and to Associate and Unite all True Professors to this Effect. This they must Confess is well intended, & free from any ill Design, & the Reconciler will justify it. By this Miraculous Principle and Me­thod, be the Villany never so Diaboli­lical, the Reconciler can put the Jesuite [Page 314] into the Dissenters Belly, to Purifie his Intention, and all is well.

6ly. The Reconciler saies further, Per­haps our Brother errs thro Weakness, and Infirmity, or thro want of Informa­tion.

If it be so, the Question is, Whether this be not Voluntary and Culpable? For unless it be invincible, it cannot excuse them, it being a Rule amongst the Best, and most Learned Moralists, Nullam in Gers. De. Vit. Spir. Lect. 4. Coroll. 3. his, quae Legis Divinae sunt, cadere Igno­rantiam invincibilem: He to whom the Divine Law is promulged, is under the Obligation of it; and therefore cannot be invincibly, and inculpably Ignorant of any Precept thereof. By the Evan­gelical Law, God has tyed all Men in the same Community, to Concord, and Ʋni­formity in his Publick Worship; and Men are obliged not only to know that Law, but to use all Necessary Means to observe it. If we want such Knowledge, that De­fect is Voluntary to us, and proceeds from our own default, from a Voluntary and Culpable Impediment of our own mak­ing. For (1.) Either we do not resist our own Passions, which are apt to blind us: Or, (2.) We do not use suf­ficient Diligence, to procure that Know­ledge [Page 315] which should direct us: For ei­ther we do not study to find out the Truth, by a careful Search; or we do not consult such as are more skilful to inform us; or we do not pray earnestly to God for his Grace of Illumination; or else, our Impenitence and Stubborn­ness, hinders Him from opening our Hearts to attend to our right Instruct­ors.

Now all these Impediments of our Knowledge being Clearly Voluntary, the Will, (by Gods Grace) may remove them, and is obliged to do it; If she does not, the Omission and Ignorance of the Duty, and the Malicious Act which steps up in the room of it, are plainly Vincible, Voluntary and Culpable.

Truth and Knowledge are that Intel­lectual Light, which Corrects the Dark­ness and Disorders of a Depraved Mind. But some Men are Wilfully Ignorant, and2 Pet. 3. 5. keep themselves in Darkness, that they may enjoy their Carnal Satisfactions without Check, and Riot with the grea­ter Freedom; They Love Darkness ra­ther than Light, because their Deeds are Evil, and they hate Knowledge, because they hate to be reformed, John 3. 19.

But there are another sort of Men [Page 316] who are more wilfully Active towards their own Seduction. They take Pains to be deceived, and bred up in errour; they Study Seditious Books, and Fre­quent Schismatical Conventicles, which they should avoid as Infection.

Now their Attention to such Discour­ses being greedy, and perfectly Volunta­ry, the Effect that follows it, I mean, the Errours, whether begotten, or bred up by that meanes, are also Voluntary. And therefore unless those Sins and Er­rours, (which are so fully Voluntary, and in Practice tends so directly to Schism and Disobedience) are come to be counted Venial; 'tis not want of Charity in me, but the Light and Force of Truth, that makes me call them Damnable. Where­fore let not this Reconciler delude his Dis­senting Brethren, in attempting to excuse them by a Pretence of Weakness, and want of Information.

7ly. Prejudice I know is a great Ob­struction to Truth, but it should not be pleaded in Barr to a just Sentence, upon a froward Schismatick. Commonly when men have entertained other Principles, and are prepossessed with a wrong Con­ceit, instead of submitting to better In­formation, they add Stubbornness to [Page 317] their Self-conceit, and harden themselves in their first Perswasion, against all Sence and Reason. You may haply convince them, but they will hardly be perswaded. Those great Disputants which opposed St. Stephen, when they were not able to resist the Wisdom and the Spirit by which he spake, yet could they Suborn False-Witness to swear down both his Doctrine and Integrity, Act. 6.

Sometimes the Prejudice lyes againstNumb. 16. the Persons; Ye take too much upon you, Ye Sons of Levi, was Corah's objection a­gainst Moses, and against Aaron: They have an Unkindness for their Prince and Prelate, therefore neither their Discipline nor Discourses will Relish with them: This was Ahabs Obstruction, There is a Prophet of great Integrity, but I hate him. The Apostle becomes the Peoples Enemy, because he tells them the Truth. Gal. 4. 16.

The Prejudice sometimes lies against the Article, or Institution. This was Na­amans Obstruction; Are not Abanah, and Pharphar Rivers of Damascus, better than all the Waters of Israel, may not I wash in them, and be clean? Factions, Stubbornness, and Infidelity, in the sug­gestions of those Unbeleiving Jews, made the minds of the Gentiles evil affected [Page 318] toward Barnabas and Paul, whose Doct­rine otherwise, in all Probability, they had embraced, Act. 14. 2.

Sometimes the Prejudice lyes both a­gainst the Person, and Dispensation too, and this was our Saviours own Case; He came to bring them Light, and to guide their Feet into the way of Peace, but his State of Meekness and Humility, deceived their Carnal expectations, and the Holi­ness of his Divine Maximes crossed the Grain of their Avarice and Ambition, and They were offended at him.

Many times the Prejudice lyes only in the Pride and Popularity of the Party; when Men have made an interest to car­ry on some Design, and got a Name by courting and Seducing the hearts of the Simple, and Headed Faction that Flocks after them; For such Men to see their own Errours, is to them as the shadow of Death, therefore if they cannot break the Glass, that shows them such an ugly Spectacle, they'l either lay it aside, or turn their Backs upon it. To retract and Renounce their Beloved Errour, is to deny themselves, and to lay their Honour in the Dust; which is such a severe peice of Mortification, as they have not yet Learned, and know not how to practice. [Page 319] What hinders Reformation in the Church of Rome, so much as the Opinion of their Infallibility? For such as are Infal­lible have no need of better Information, and such as are so perswaded, whatever their Errours be, They are not in a pre­sent Capacity of being corrected. And have we not many among our selves, who, tho they pretend not to Infallibility, are no less stubborn in their own Opinion, than they that do, and that is as ill; Their Self-conceit makes them Inflexible in their Perswasion, and as long as this Impression of Pride and Sel-fconceit, of Popularity and Vain-glory, sticks upon them, their minds are not in a Disposi­tion to receive the Truth; and this was the case of many an Eminent Person a­mong the Jews, John 11. 42, 43.

When Hatred and Envy appear in the Contest, they heighten the Prejudice ex­ceedingly; and this was so notorious, in the Preists against our Saviour, that Pilate took special notice of it, He knew that for Envy they had delivered Him. Mat. 27. 18. In the Meanness of his Person and Equi­page, they were disappointed of their Worldly Pomp, and Carnal Hopes; yet such was the Innocency of his Life, the Regularity and Holiness of his Conver­sation, [Page 320] that his Doctrine gained Credit, no less from his Example, than the Ex­cellency of his Precepts and Discourses. His Miracles also were admirable to a great Conviction; but yet for all this their hearts were not Won to embrace the Truth; so that his gracious Dispen­sations served only, to set an Edge upon their Malice, to raise their Spleen, to sharpen their Indignation, and whet their Wits to find our Arguments to elude the Evidence of their Conviction.

The Priests and Pharisees held a Coun­cil against this Holy Jesus, and their De­bate resolved to a wicked Expostulation, What do we? For this man doth many Mi­racles. Here was a clear Conviction: but they preferred their Temporal Inte­rest, before the Truth, and their own Sal­vation: They resolve therefore, If we let this man alone, all Men will believe on him, and the Romans shall come and take away our Place and Nation. Here they take up a Liberty of Prophesying, which tho it sentenced Him, but to a short Death, yet it brought upon themselves a fatal Doom, which was no less sad, than irreversible. Joh. 11. 47. &c.

I may add, that Avarice, and Filthy Lu­cre, do many times Inhaunce the Pre­judice, and when men come to this point [Page 321] of Belief (which is a desperate sign of Atheism) that Gain is Godliness, they are men of such Corrupt Minds, that the Apo­stle seems to give them over as hopeless and uncurable. He tells us of men Who take Pleasure in unrighteousness, that are Lovers of their own selves, and despisers of 2 Tim. 3. to the 8. those which are Good; Covetous, Boasters, Proud, Fierce, and false Accusers, Tray­tours, Heady, High-Minded, Lovers of Pleasures, more than Lovers of God, having a Form of Godliness, but denying the Power thereof. These, for all their fair Pretences, and Diligence to seduce others, He call's them Men of Corrupt Minds, that resist the Truth, and are Reprobates concerning the Faith. What is it that makes the Schis­maticks so ungovernable, and so bold, in teaching things, which they ought not? Is it not for filthy Lucres sake? DostChrys. ad Tit. Cap. 1. Hom. 2. thou see, sayes St. Chrysostom, that every where the Love of Rule, and the Appe­tite of Filthy Lucre is the cause that such men will not be subject to their Superiours? These men are far from the Kingdom of Heaven, in no present disposition to Em­brace the Truth in the Love of it; A sharp Reproof which may Melt others, and make them Sound in the Faith, (Tit. 1. 13.) will but exasperate such as these to greater Attempts of mischief.

In short, when Prejudice and Self-con­ceit, are the best Talent of their Knowledg; when Popularity is their Devotion, and Gain their Godliness; when Hatred and Envy are the Zeal that whets them on, in their pretences of Justice, or Reformati­on; that is, in a word, when men make their Consciences truckle to their Cove­tous or Ambitious Designs, & prefer their In­terest in this World, before the Institutions of Christ, & their Hopes of Heaven, their minds are so Corrupt, from the Simplicities that is in Christ, that 'tis High time for them to lay aside all such Prejudices, and seek for better Information, that there be no Schisms amongst us, but that we be per­fectly 1 Cor. 1. 10. Rom. 15. 6. 1. Tim. 2. 2. joyn'd together in the same mind, & in the same Judgment; & that we all speak the same thing, that we may with one mind, & one mouth, Glorifie God; and lead a quiet and pea­ceable life, in all Godliness and Honesty.

8. The last Remark I shall make upon this Paragraph is this, That generally the Schismatick, is more confident of the State of his Party, and their Interest in God's favour, than the most eminent Servants of God. Corah pronounceth without the least Hesitation, or any Doubt at all, saying, All the Congregati­on are Holy, every one of Them; But [Page 323] Moses was astonished at his Confidence, and said more modestly, The Lord will Num. 16. 3, 5, shew who are his, and who is Holy, and will cause him to come near unto him.

When St. Paul commends the Weak Rom. 14. 3. Jew, who had embraced the Gospel, to the care and kindness of those who are better instructed, because God had recei­ved him; He speaks out of the Judg­ment of Charity: But really God receives none upon their own Partial Terms, or Factious Principles; He receives only such as Resign themselves up intirely to his Will, that is, to the Conduct of his Church, according to his Laws and In­stitutions. Thus he received Saul; when he said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do, the Lord received him; but com­mittedActs 9. 6. him to the Care of his Church, and Ministry, saying, Arise and go into the City, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. Thus, as I said, every true Convert, in Preparation of Mind, and full Purpose of Heart, resigns himself up, to the Conduct of Christ's Church accor­ding to his Holy Laws and Institutions.

But for the Sectary, who refuses the Conduct of the Church, we have no Warrant to assure us that God hathActs 4. 7. John 10. received Him; for such as he receives, [Page 324] he receives into his Church, All that are his Sheep, he brings into this Fold. Tit 3. 10, 11 To this purpose upon those Words of the Apostle, A man that is a Sectary re­ject; In Loc. Com. Ioc. 8. De 9 aeret. N. 6. Joannes Crocius a Calvenist, wri­teth thus, Etsi ex vera Ecclesia prodit Haereticus non tamen est ex Deo: Al­though the Sectary comes out from the True Church, yet he is not of God. The Reason is irrefragrable, because he is to be rejected; For whatsoever is to be rejec­ted, is not of God. God is Truth and the Author of Truth, but not of Sects and Heresies. They went out from us, sayes1 John 2. 19 St. John, but they were not of us.

And now I think it high time to speak Plainly; He that makes himself an Enemy to his Prince, And so do such as are Seditious, and he that makes him­self an Enemy to the Church, And so do such as are Schismatical, they make them­selves unfit for any Trust, and in that respect. They are to be despised. And as to the Schismatical part, we may ob­serve it to be St. Pauls practice in all his Epistles, wherein he takes notice of such Sectaries as did infest the Church, Rom. 16. 17, 18. 2 Cor. 10. 11. cap. Gal. 1. 7. ch. 4. 17 18. ch. 5. 10, 12. Philip. 3. 2, 3. Coloss. 2. 8, 16, 18. &c. [Page 325] 1 Tim. 6. 3, 4, 5. Tit, 1. 10, 11. St. Pet. also Epist. 2. c. 2. throughout, like wise St. John 1 Epist. c. 2. 18, 19. and St. Jude does the like the 11, 12, 13. ver. of his Epistle.

‘2dly, saies the Reconciler, Thus to condemn and Judge our Brother, seemsPag. 118. inconsistent with the Properties and Rules of Charity. For Charity, saith the Apostle, Hopeth all things, and Believeth all things; and therefore must oblige us to hope and to believe well of our Bro­ther's Actions till we have Demonstrati­on of the contrary, & not condemn Him without certain grounds. Charity think­eth no evil, saith the same Apostle; It is not Jealous or Suspicious, and there­fore will not suffer us to pass our Sen­tence on the Intentions or inward Mo­tions of our Brothers Actions. Be­cause, altho we may suspect, we can­not be assured, that he doth perform them with those Vile Intentions, and upon those evil Motives, which we are Prone to charge him with.’

But is Charity so severe a Lady? Will she not suffer me to call a Spade, a Spade? If a man suggests a Lye in his Petition, does Charity oblige me to esteem him Honest, and worthy of the [Page 326] Preferment he Petitions for? I know Justice is Pictured Blind, but I never thought Charity was so in earnest. 'Tis true, Charity Thinks no evil, She frames none, She suspects none, where She finds no Reason for it. 'Tis her Office to make Men Harmless, but not to make them Fools; leaving out their Sting and Venom, She can reconcile the Serpents Wisdom to the Dove's Inno­cency: Neque enim Caecutire debent Fide­les (saies Mr. Calvin) ‘The faithful Ser­vants of Christ, ought not to be so Blind as to discern Nothing,’ Sed tantum seipsos fraenare, ne Cupidius Judicent quam parest; ‘Tho it be their Duty to BridleAd Mat. 7. 1. themselves, lest they should be more la­vish in judging than does become them.’

When Things are put into the Ballance, we must weigh and value them, as the Moments or Grains of Reason shall incline us; But if we speak of Persons, when any Doubt ariseth, that touches their Good, or Evil Reputation, we are obsolutely con­cern'd to give our Interpretation in the better Sense. Yet this is not so to be understood, as if Speculatively and Positively, we were certainly to Judge those Men Honest, of whose Honesty we have no certain Sign or Indica­tion; [Page 327] for so we should be bound to believe a Falsehood; But the Meaning is, that Negatively, and Practically in Doubtful matters, we ought not to judge ill of our Neighbour, but to carry our selves so towards Him in Common Con­versation, as if He were Honest, when we find nothing in Him to the Contrary.

This is the Judgment of Charity.

But this Judgment of Charity must not contradict that of Prudence, which Teaches us to carry our selves with some Reservedness; whether in order to the Amendment of any Evil, or to the putting in of Caution against it. 'Tis not Prudence to trust those too far, of whom we have no Reason to be confi­dent; for we know there may be a Godly-jealousy, 2 Cor. 11. 2. Gal. 4. 11.

If the Reconciler says, that some plau­sible Motives, or a collateral Good-mean­ing can hallow wicked Practices, he hath the Jesuit for his Casuist, and serves him­self of his Moralls.

If He says, we ought not to be Shy, and keep Guard over our selves in refer­ence to matters of Conscience and Reli­gion, he Cancells Christs Caveat, and makes his Sign of the false-Prophet as useless (if not as scandalous too) as they [Page 328] would do the Sign of the Cross; Be­ware, says He, of false-Prophets, who come to you in sheeps-Clothing—by their Fruits ye shall know them.

Was it want of Charity in the A­postle, speaking of such as sought oc­casion to traduce his Life and Doctrine, to say, such are False-Apostles, deceit­ful Workers, transforming themselves in­to the Apostles of Christ. And no mar­vel, for Satan himself is transformed into an Angel of Light. Therefore it is no great thing, if his Ministers also be trans­formed as the Ministers of Righteousness; whose End shall be according to their Works. Was St. Peter without Chari­ty? Yet he saith, These are Wells with­out Water, Cloud's that are carried with a Tempest, to whom the mist of Darkness is reserved for ever, 2 Pet. 2. 17. Was St. Jude Uncharitable? Yet He saith, These are spots in your Feasts of Charity, Clouds Jude Epist. v. 12, 13. they are without Water, Trees whose Fruit withereth, Raging Waves of the Sea, Wandring Stars, to whom is reserved the Blackness of Darkness for Ever. Was Christ uncharitable? Yet He saith, Woe unto you Scribes, Pharisees, Hypocrites! Mat. 5. 20. and again, Except your Righteousness shall exceed the Righteousness of the Scribes [Page 329] and Pharisees Ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. I thank God, I am not yet arrived at that height of Folly, as to pretend to be more Wise and Charitable, than Christ or his Apostles.

St. Paul thought it not amiss to make an Argument, to awaken such as were secure and careless, and he puts it home to their own Consideration; Know ye not saies he, that the Ʋnrighteous shall not in­herit 1 Cor. 6. 19. 20, 21. the Kingdom of God? Does he mean none but Thieves, Drunkards and Ex­tortioners, none but Fornicators, Murde­rers and Idolaters? Yes he takes in the Contentious and Seditious, and such as disturb the Peace of the Church by Sects, and Schisms.

This was his Major Proposition, and he took the Boldness to Assume, (and doubtless he thought it was without any Breach of Charity, which he had in so eminent a Measure, that he could wish himself Accursed from Christ for his Bre­thren Rom. 9. 3. 2 Cor 12. 15. according to the Flesh) yet to make up his Argument, he tells the Co­rinthians, and such were some of you. And I would have the Reconciler know, that I should be no less glad than St. Paul was, if I had the like Evidence for it, to [Page 330] say of the most Stubborn and Froward of our Dissenters, But ye are Washed, but ye are Sanctified, but ye are Justified, in the Name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

If thy Brother shall trespass against thee, Rebuke him. This Injunction is usherd in with a Caveat that looks inward, which implies, that 'tis of great Concern unto us. Take heed to your selves. St. Luke 17. 3. Be sure ye do it by word of Mouth or Writing; and, if occasion serves,Mat. 18. 17. present his miscarriage to the Church. The Neglect of this Duty, the Law inter­prets as an act of Hatred, Levit. 19. 17. Thou shalt not hate thy Brother in thy Heart. Thou shalt in any wise Rebuke thy Neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. The Canon Law tell's us, Qui emendat ver­bere in quem Potestas datur vel coercet ali­quâ Disciplinâ—Eleemosynam Dat, quia Distinc. 45. c. 11. Misericordiam proestat: Discipline is reck­oned among Alms, and Correction is a Work of Mercy. Fratrem, quo emende­tur, corripere, id vel unice diligere est, saith Luc. Brug. to Reprove a Brother, that he may be amended, that's a sin­gular Act of Love and Kindness.

3ly. Saith the Reconciler, ‘This Practice seems Repugnant to that great [Page 331] Rule of Equity, which doth enjoyn us to do to others as we would be dealt with; For we would not have others Judge rashly of the Thoughts, and secret Purposes of our Minds, which they know not, nor of the inward Princi­ples of our Actions, which they cannot discern; and would desire them to Judge, as favourably as they can, of the Mis­carriages which they know.’

To this, the Answer will be very short: I know 'tis the Ambition of all Hypocrites to be esteemed better than they are, and 'tis their Study and Care as well as Artifice to seem so; but such a man is a great Fool for his Pains, he may be deceiv'd himself, but God is not mocked by such delusions. He hath laid down the Rule, and we must stand or fall by it, With what Measure ye mete, it shall be Measur'd to you again. Matth. 7. 2. In this Case I say, God's Will be Done. If ever this Reconciler finds me either a Rebel to my Prince, or a Schis­matick to my Church, let him deal with me as I shall deserve, let him put me into his Pack of Villains, and I will for­give him.

The Reconciler carries on his Argu­ment thus; When it is not evidently [Page 332] Protestatio contra Factum, we would have Men believe us, when we protest, that it is purely out of Conscience towards God, that we refuse Obedience to the Commands of men; and therefore we are by this Rule obliged so to Demean our selves in passing of our Judgements upon others.

I perceive this Reconciler is young e­nough to become Wiser. If he had been of Age at Forty one, he might have seen and taken a Solemn Protestation to main­tain His Majesties Royal Person, Honour and Estate; and after that He might have seen his Weak Brethren take a So­lemn League and Covenant, wherein they did Protest and Swear, with Hands and Eyes lifted up to Heaven, that their de­sign was to make His Majesty a Glorious King, to preserve His Royal Person, Crown and Dignity, and that they had no Thoughts or Intentions to diminish any thing of His Majesties just Power, and Greatness. How they performed that Protestation, Jan. the 30th. will be a last­ing Commemoration. Have we not seen Addresses to the late King from those Dis­senting Brethren, under the Stile of Your Majesties most Humble and Obedient Sub­jects, when they had their Swords in their Hands ready to Cut His Throat? [Page 333] That I was not a Stranger to their Pro­ceedings, Pretences and Designes, you may conclude from those Historical Ob­servations, Printed for, W. Webb at Ox­ford, 1643. under the Title of Sober Sadness.

I'le vary the Apostle's Stile while I ap­ply my self to our Dissenters, I write not these things to shame you, but as my de­luded 1 Cor. 4. 14. Country-Men, I warn you. And altho the Spirit of Mildness and Charity may have it's angry Sallies and Emotions, yet that you may be sure I do not stretch my self beyond the Line of Justice, or Charity in this undertaking, I shall ac­quaint you with the Marks which the Fathers of the Church have left us, whereby to discern, whether Reprehensi­ons proceed from a Spirit of Piety and Charity, or from a Spirit of Impiety and Exasperation.

These Marks or Rules are Collected to my Hand by Montaltius, in his Pro­vincials; Letter. 11. The first whereof is this.

1st. That the Spirit of Piety, inclines a man to speak alwayes with Truth and Sincerity, whereas Envy and Exasperation, spares neither Lies, nor Calumnies. ‘If we advance things which are untrue, I say with St. Hilary, let our discourses [Page 334] he reputed Infamous; but if we plainly shew, that what we do produce is pub­lick and manifest, it is no Breach of Moderation, and Apostolical Liberty to reprove them.’

2ly. As the First Rule is to speak with Truth, so the Second is to speak with Dis­cretion; ‘Wicked Men, sayes St. Augus­tine, persecuting the Good, are hurried a­way with the blind Passion that ani­mates them. Whereas the Good Pro­secute the Wicked with a Prudent Dis­cretion, as Chirurgeons consider where they Cut, but Murderers care not where they Strike.’

3ly. The Third Rule is, ‘That when a Man is obliged to fall into something of Satyr, the Spirit of Piety inclines him to direct his wit against Errours, not against Holy things; whereas the Spirit of Sycophancy, Impiety, and He­resy, makes Sport with what is most Sacred.’ I wish the Reconciler to con­sider, how Prophane he has bin, in ma­ing a May-game of the Observances of the Church.

4ly. I shall add but one Rule more, which is the Principle and End of all the Rest; and that is This.

‘That the spirit of Charity inclines a man to make Hearty Wishes for their Salvation against whom He speaks, and when He directs his Reproaches to men, at the same time to address his Prayers to God. A man should always with St. Augustin, preserve Charity in his Heart, even when he is obliged to do outwardly things that to men seem very Harsh, and to smite them with a rough but obli­ging Severity, their Advantage be­ing prefer'd before their Satisfacti­on.’

This was the Practise of John the Baptist, who doubtless desir'd the Salva­tion of such as apply'd themselves to his Ministry, yet how did He upbraid the Pharisees and Saducees with their Viperous Temper? How did He under­value their Carnal Priviledge of ha­ving Abraham to their Father, as if the conceit of that, had bin Charm enough to secure them from approaching Ven­geance? How does He press them to a Worthy Repentance, threatning and even frightning them into it with the keen Ax, and a consuming Fire; all thisMat. 3. 7, 9. &c. we are told in the sacred Text; and 'twas no less an instance of his Love, [Page 336] than the discharge of his Holy Of­fice.

We are now drawing towards the end this Chapter, and that were some comfort if were sure he would not en­tertain us, (as he hath done too often al­ready) with Repetitions. but he gives us fair hopes of an End, for he saies, ‘Last­ly, were the Scandal which Dissenters take at the imposing of the Ceremo­nies Scandalum Pharisaicum, or like to that, which by the Pharises was tak­en against the Doctrine of our Lord, I know not why we should not be con­cerned, to do all which lawfully we may, for the Prevention or Removal of it; For when our Saviour paid Tri­bute, lest he should offend them, did he not then forgo his Liberty to avoid the Scandal of the Pharisees? And when the False-Apostles in the Church of Corinth were like to be offended at St. Pauls taking Wages, doth he not abstain to prevent that Offence?’

The Reconciler is the only man I have met withall, that Loves to talk at Ran­dom and without distinction; he knows not why we should not be concerned to prevent or remove the Scandal of a Pharisee, how far concerned, whether [Page 337] in Justice, or Charity, or upon what o­ther account he doth not tell us. How­ever, I am ready to do, what Lawfully may, to such a purpose, with all my Heart.

When I find a man who has turn'd his Back upon Jerusalem to go to Jericho, if he has fallen into ill handling, and be wounded with Errour and Superstition, I will not flatter him, that he is in a safe condition, like a Levitical Reconciler, but I'le endeavour to dress and bind up his Wounds, and deliver him to the Ministry of the Church for a perfect Cure; that is, in plain English, I will tell our Dis­senters, that we are not under the Law, but under Grace; that the Rites and Ce­remonies of Moses's Institution are out of Date, and that under the dispensation of the Gospel there is nothing Common or Ʋnclean, and Consequently nothing Scan­dalous but sin, or that which has some notable Appearance of it.

That to such as have put themselves under Christs Discipline, there is nothing can affect or Defile the Conscience, but what is Acted or Omitted contrary to his Holy Laws, and Institutions; that a­mong the rest of his Institutions, he has Ordained Ministers to Order and Con­duct us in his stead, whose Faith and [Page 338] Practice we are therefore obliged to fol­low, knowing that the End of their Conversation is the Salvation of our Souls. Having thus instructed them with all Meekness, and warn'd them to receive these things without Partiality, I have discharged my Duty, and delivered my own Soul.

After this Christian Condescention, if a pretended Weak Brother will be pee­vish and Disobedient, if He will be Sin­gular, and forsake his Lawful-Pastour, if he will take offence (which I have faithfully endeavor'd to prevent) and go to Hell of his own Head, because I wear a Surplice, as the Badge of my Office, in my Administration about Holy Things; I have done no more than what becomes my Function, if he will Perish, his Blood must be upon his own head.

Again, if he will be Peevish and Dis­obedient, if he will be singular and for­sake his Lawful Pastour, if he will take offence and go to Hell, because I sign my Child with the Sign of the Cross, as the Badge of my own Christianity, and as an Item to him of his Duty and Alle­giance, to his Crucified Redeemer; I have done nothing, but what does very well become my Christian Profession; [Page 339] If he will perish in his Folly, his Blood must be upon his own head.

I shall speak but this once more; if he will be Peevish and Disobedient, if he will be singular, and forsake his Law­ful Guide or Pastour, if he will take of­fence and go to Hell, because I fall up­on my knees to say my Prayers, to be­wail my sins, to Receive a Benediction, and to adore my ever Blessed God and Saviour; I have done no more than what becomes me for such invalueable Obliga­tions; if he will dye in his wretched Schism, I am innocent, his Blood will be upon his own head. This Fraternal Admonition and Advice, is what I Law­fully may do; but if Men will make oc­casions to themselves in their own Ima­ginations, and then take offence at them, who can help it.

But this will not satisfie our Reconciler. I know very well what he would be at; The Governours must repeal their Laws, and abate their Impositions, or all is no­thing.

Amesius saies, All things are to be done or o­mitted without sin. This, he saies, is the Obligation of Charity to avoid Scandal; But he means Scandalum Pusillorum, the [Page 340] Scandal of the Weak, or Little Ones; Not such Scandal as is taken by men of a Pha­risaical temper.

When the Apostle was reported to affirm, that we might do Evil to a good End; He took it for a foul slander, and saies, Their Damnation is Just who practice such a Principle. Works under Precept are not to be omitted to avoid scandal, because every man as he is bound to love himself before another, so is he ob­liged to avoid Sin in himself, rather than in Another.

Are not Governours under the Obli­gation of that Rule, Let all things be done Decently, and in Order. 'Tis a part of the Governours Office doubtless, to Establish Good Order; For this Cause left Tit. 1. 5. I thee in Crete, saies St. Paul, That thou shouldest set in order the Things that are wanting. This was the Burthen and Charge the Apostle laid upon Titus, Ʋt Ecclesiis nondum rite compositis formam daret; ut certam Politiciae rationem una cum Disciplina constitueret; ‘That he might Form and Fashion the Churches which were not yet well Composed, and constitute a certain State and Man­ner of Policy, with Discipline therein. To that end Titus was setled there, [Page 341] saies Calixtus, that he might supply whatsoever was wanting, that might conduce to the Conservation, External Regiment, and Ornament of the Church.’

This is one Command that lyes upon the Person of the Governour, and there's another that lies upon him too, not pe­culiarly as a Governour, but as a Christian in General, Rom. 4. 15, Let every Man be fully perswaded in his own Mind. Is it not the Governours Duty to set things in Order in God's Church, as the Apostle enjoynes, and to be fully perswaded in his own Mind that he does well in it? Shall he break God's Commands? Shall he be­tray his Trust? Shall he act against his own Practicall Judgment and Consci­ence? He that can allow a Governour to do this, may make a Ghostly Father for the Devil; But he that sayes, the Governour ought not to neglect his Duty, or to betray his Trust, or to go against his own Mind and Conscience, he must lay his hand upon his Mouth, and never move, either for a Repeal, or for an A­batement of the Laws, in favour of Dis­senters.

'Tis the Observation of ‘Johannes Cro­cius, Ad Tit. 3. 9. Loc. Com. 7. De Content. N. 6. That they, who under a Pretence of avoiding Contention do Transact [Page 342] with the Adverse Party unjustly con­tending to the Prejudice of Truth; Or, Disserting the Good Cause, do comply too much with them; they understand not the mind of the Apostle: Tho he would have us cut off Foolish and Vain Questions, yet he would not have us to forsake or Betray the Truth to avoid Contention. In this case the Pub­lick Benefit is to be considered; but when any sort of Peace is purchased by the Loss of a Precious Truth, that's not to be accounted a Publick benefit; for as Peace gain'd by such unjust means, is Uncertain and Doubtful, so there ever follows a certain Perturbation of Conscience, an offence of God, a scan­dal of Good Men, the mourning of the Faithful, great sadness of the whole Church, lastly, Multipli'd Punishments in this, and the other World, inflicted by Almighty God; who indeed is the God of Peace, and yet he is the Prime Verity, and his Spirit the Spirit of Truth; who never said, Love Peace without Truth, But Love the Truth and Zach. 8. 19. Peace together.’

For the Collectors of the Tribute (sup­posing he doth not mistake the Story) I Answer, (1.) They were not so apt to [Page 343] Cavil, as our Dissenters. They did not question the Coyn, or quarrel'd because it was taken out of the Fishes Mouth, or that Peter had taken Pains to Angle for it. (2.) Christ, tho he wrought a Mi­racle, did not break a Law to gratifie their Demand, as the Reconciler would have us do. (3.) Tho Christ had a Di­vine Prerogative, that might exempt him from that Tribute, yet that was not Commonly known, nor suffered to be di­vulg'd. He was made under the Law, and according to Common Estimation, he wasMat. 16. 20. & 17. 9. obliged to pay that Duty; which he there­fore did, that he might not give a Scandal, by the neglect of a General Law and Du­ty, either to the Collectors or his own Disciples. But what's this to the Dis­senters, who positively give a Scandal, both to their Governours, and Fellow Subjects, by the Breach of a Law in Force, and the neglect of a Common Duty, in­stead of yeilding up their Liberty, af­ter Christs example to avoid Offence.

What he saies of the False-Apostles at Corinth is a clear Mistake. They were not like to be offended at the Apostles tak­ing Wages, for he had never taken any there, and was resolved he never would. They were rather offended that he did [Page 344] not; yet he would not alter his Reso­lution to take off that of­fence. They were deceitful Clam oblata Captabant. Vides quemadmodum Hos ipsos Aposto­los patefaciat, excipiendis mu­neribus esse intentos. Vid. Chris. Theod. Theoph. Oecum. Workers, as St. Paul calls them, hiding wicked De­signs under fair pretences; they loved to be ot'h ta­king hand, and were ready enough to devour, (2 Cor. 11. 20.) for they aimed at Filthy Lucre, Tit. 1. 11. and Gain, to1 Tim. 4. 6. them, was Godliness; But they refused ordinary Stipends (as many Dissenters do, and our Reconciler very well understands the knack of it) to gain greater Allow­ances by private Contributions. In the mean while they wish'd the Apostle would have taken a publick Stipend, that they might have had the opportunity to upbraid him for it, as he tell's them, 2 Cor. 11. 12. But what I do, that I will Paraphras, A­nonym. [continue] to do, that I may cut off Oc­casion, [of reproaching me, or Boasting of themselves] from them which desire oc­casion, that [for all those things, of Non­self-interest, and gratuital service] where­in they Glory; they may be found even as we.

Grant this Reconciler, that all Scan­dal is of a Soul-destroying Nature, and sopag. 119. a kind of Spiritual Murder; how then [Page 345] comes it to pass, that he does not trem­ble at so great a Guilt? For does he not take off that Reverence, which is due both to our Laws and Governours? Does he not Tempt, nay, does he not Teach the People to despise them, when he so often, so openly, so boldly declares their Impositions to be Destructive, to be Snares, and Gall-Traps, to be such Laws of Burthen, as make the Willing to be Slaves, and the Unwilling to Rebell? And that they may learn, after his ex­ample, to Vilifie and Despise their Rules, He gives them the most Odious Cha­racters of Ʋnmerciful, Rigorous, and Cru­el Tyrants. See the Animadversions from pag. 103. to pag. the 107. How would this Insolence been resented at Geneva? Would the Consistory have been satisfy­ed with his Deprivation? No; they would have hunted him by their Letters, fromSee the Verdict, pag. 280. place to place, as they did Rotarius, and he has Ten-times more deserved it.

After Lastly, He brings in Thirdly, without either First, or Second, and puts his Question thus; Doth not Cha­rity oblige us to Love even our most Malicious, and Persecuting Enemyes? Mat. 5. 44. To Exercise Patience and Meek­ness towards those who oppose themselves, [Page 346] and who by Satan are Led Captive at his Will? 2 Tim. 2. 24, 25. And whom then may we Scandalize?

Now I think the Reconciler has been insnar'd in all the Real Falacies in Logick. And here, to hold Himself and the Cre­dulous Reader the faster, we have a Com­plication of them; for, First, here is Petitio Principit, He supposes, that our Governours give the Dissenters Scandal, which I deny.

2dly. Here's Non Causa pro Causa, in­stead of a true Cause, and that which is such of it Self, He obtrudes that which is not such, or but by Accident. 'Tis just like this, Vinum inebriat, Ergo Ex­terminandum est ex Republica; Wine does Intoxicate, therefore it must be banished or destroyed out of the Common-Wealth; whereas Wine is not the True and Pro­per Cause of Drunkenness, but men's Intemperance in abusing it. After thi manner the Reconciler Argues: The Im­positions do offend the Brethren, there­fore say's he, they ought to be Re­scinded or abated: But I deny the Con­sequence, for the Impositions are not the True and Proper Cause of Scandal; but the Ignorance and Superstition of such as take offence at them. ‘For this is obser­ved [Page 347] by Gualter to be the Disease, Quo Infirmi Fide et Superstitione aliqua ad­huc Homil 80 in Ep ad Rom. detenti, plerumque; Laborant; which such as are weak in the Faith, and de­clin'd by Superstition, are for the most part Sick of: Quod nimirum praecipiti judicio Quidvis ut impium et illicitum damnant, cujus Rationem Ipsi non intel­ligunt aut intelligere nolunt: Namely, that they rashly condemn every thing as Unlawful and Wicked, which they themselves do not, or will not un­derstand; for as Knowledg does puff a Man up, and renders him the more Confident, unless it be Govern'd by Charity; Ita nihil Arrogantius est Insci­tia saith he, So nothing is more Arro­gant than Ignorance. They therefore who are Captivated thereby, do break out most Audaciously in condemning every Body; Thus Gualter.’

I grant we ought to Love our most Malicious and Persecuting Enemies; but I would fain know, how that Love is to be Exprest? If they be addicted to Wine, must we Administer to their In­temperance? If they be addicted to Wo­men, must we Administer to their Wan­tonness, and the like? Will you call this Charity, and a Duty in us? Yet [Page 348] this is clearly as Lawfull, as to grati­fy a Dissenter in his Schism. How Go­vernours are to Reconcile their Chari­ty, to their Trust and Holy Office, I have declared already.

I am no less satisfied, that Charity obliges us to Exercise Patience and Meek­ness, towards those who oppose them­selves; for 'tis Grotius his Observation,In Epist. ad Curcel. in fin. Annot. ad Apo­calyps. and a very True one, Tempore Longo o­pus est, antequam plane Animis evellan­tur, quoe sevit Factio aut aluit, ‘It re­quires a long time before those Princi­ples be rooted out of Men's Minds, which have been sown or fed by Fac­tion.’ But where Stubbornness is added to Error, the Disease many times be­comes incurable. St. Augustine has a severeEpist. 167. Observation upon the Donatists, Puto quod ipse Diabolus, si authoritate Judicis, quem ultro elegerat, toties vinceretur, ‘non esset tam impudens ut in ea Causa persis­teret, I think the Devil himself would not have been so impudent, as to have persisted in that Cause, wherein he had been so often overthrown, by the Au­thority of a Judge of his own choosing.’

Patience and Meekness do very well to attend Instruction, where there is a­ny hope of Amendment; but to the [Page 349] Schismatick who hath entangled him­self in so many and various Scruples, that he knows not how to disengage himself, those gentle Methods are ineffectual: Sharp­ness and Severity, are much more use­ful for some Tempers, which therefore the great Apostle does both Threaten and2 Cor. 13. 2. 10. Tit. 1. 13. Prescribe. This Distinction of Persons and Tempers, he might have Learn'd from those Fathers whom he so often cites, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, who have the same Distinction upon the words of the Apostle, Tit. 3. 10. Where he enjoyns the use of Severe Applications, when Gentle means will not prevail; A Man that is a Sectary, after the First and Second Admonition, reject: Which Words Calixtus doth thus Paraphrase, Qui quoe­stiones agitant Frivolas et inutiles, eti­amsi Ad Tit. 3. 10. extreme mali non sint, et tolerari aliquatenus possint, compescendi tamen sunt et severe castigandi, ut curiosas at­que otiosas istas Questiones missas faciant: Neque ipsi, si pietatem serio & ex animo co­lant, necessariis monitis obtemperare recu­sabunt. ‘Such as set on foot frivolous and unprofitable Questions (and such generally have been bandyed up and down by the Dissenters to the Disturb­ance of the Church,)’ tho they be not [Page 350] ‘extreamly Bad, and might in some sort be tolerated, yet they are to be re­strained and Chastised severely, that they may lay aside those curious and Idle Questions: and if they be heartily de­voted to Piety, they will not refuse to obey such necessary Admonitions.’ But if any man be so addicted to Contenti­on, that nothing will serve his turn, but the Overthrow of all Rule and Order, that he may set up a Religion and Way of his Own choosing, without doubt such a one is to be avoided. The Church Doors have hitherto been kept open to the Dissenters; if they will not regular­ly come in, to communicate with us, and be instructed, I know no Reason why our Governours should give them leave, to make Ladders to climb up other­wayes to perpetuate our Schisms.

What the Reconciler adds, in Answer to an Objection, does serve very well to confirm the Truth, which we undertake to Justify: The Objection is this; When our Lords Disciples told Him, that the Pharisees were scandalised at his Doct­rine, He answered, Let them alone, they are Blind Leaders of the Blind; and thereby seems to intimate, that we should not regard the Scandal of such Persons.

For this, we have the Judgment of Amesius, the best Logician and School-Man De Consc. Lib. 5. C. 11. Num. 12. that ever set Pen to Paper, on the behalf of the Dissenters, he saies thus; Nihil Boni aut Liciti est omittendum, propter Scandalum acceptum Hominum Pharisaico Ingenio praeditorum: Nothing Good or Lawful is to be omitted, for the Scandal that's taken by men of a Pharisaical tem­per; and he cites that very Text for it, Mat. 15. 14. Let them alone, &c.

‘The Reconciler saies, this doth not follow from our Saviours words; be­cause the Scandal, mentioned there, was taken at our Lord's Preaching true Doctrine,’ and necessary to be taught; But I say, the Argument does follow from the words of our Saviour, because the Scandal of the Dissenters is taken at a Doctrine no less True and Necessary, the Doctrine of Obedience, which our Saviour did both Teach and Practice, and wrought a Miracle on Purpose to enable him to do it, and to justifie his Performance of it; therefore when we call for Obedience to the Impositions of Things Lawful and Decent in Gods Wor­ship, (as the Rites and Observances a­mongst us are proved to be) we Preach True Doctrine, and necessary to be taught, [Page 352] both for Defence of our Governours, and their Subjects, and for the Rescuing the People from those Superstitions, and Wicked Practices, which have made them Worship God in Vain, and have made the Commandments of God of none ef­fect. Now in such Cases the Reconciler confesses, it is true, That we must not de­sist from doing of our Duty, tho Wicked Persons should be scandalized. Now be­cause we are concerned among the Pharisees, 'twill not be amiss to take Notice of some things, wherein the Dis­senting Brethren have resembled them.

And (1.) our Saviour upbraids them, that they would Strain at a Gnat and Swallow a Camel; and have not our Dis­senters done so? I am ashamed to men­tion the little things they Boggled at, while they Preached up Blood, Sacriledge and Rebellion; they can strain at a Sur­plice, but swallow Schism, and yet if they had St. Johns Eyes, they might see Sur­plices Rev. 4. 4. in Heaven; Whereas St. Paul tell's us, he could see no Schismatick Gal. 5. 20, 21. there.

2ly. Our Saviour upbraids them, that they were Blind Leaders of the Blind; and have not some of our Dissenters de­clar'd themselves to be such? Go with [Page 353] me saith Mr. Case, to Heb. 11. 13. and ye shall find Abraham with his Staff in In his Ser­mon before the Peers, March 25. 1646. P. 41. his Hand, and his Sandals on his Feet, and his Loins girt: Please to let me ask him two or three Questions by the way; see what he will Answer. Reverend Pa­triarch whether are you going? Answer, I know not: When shall you return? Ans­wer, I know not: How will you Sub­sist? Answer, I know not: He is in haste as well as we; and therefore I'le ask him but one Question more. Abraham, Why then do you go at such Uncertainties? To this he will Answer, I go not upon Ʋn­certainties; I have a Call; I have a Command, and that will secure my Person, and bear my Charges.

By Faith Abraham, when he was cal­led Heb. 11. 8 to go into a Place, which he should after receive for an Inheritance, obeyed, and went out, not knowing whether he went.

Christians (saith he) observe, a Call is as good as a Promise: (and a little af­ter) we have not only a Call, but a Pro­mise, not in General only, but in Special. The whole Book of the Revelation is no­thing else but one great Promise of the Down-fal of Antichrist, and Gospel-Re­formation; and that is the Work Parlia­ment [Page 354] and Kingdom have now in hand in these Three Nations: Thus Mr. Case.

But what they meant by that Gospel-Reformation, they could never agree to tell us; witness Mr. Daniel Evance, inIntituled the Noble Order, his Sermon before the Lords, Jan. 28. 1645. (on 1 Sam. 2. 30.) where he tells them thus: ‘I Profess my Lords, I am neither for Paul, nor Apollos, nor Cephas, nor Christ, till I know what Paul and Apollos, and Cephas are for, and what those, that say they are for Christ, can say for him.’

‘But I could wish (my Lords) that we had the Pattern, that every man might consult with the Mount, which of the two is Christs Government. The Child is Christned (for ought I see) be­fore it is Born, and we have the Names before the Things.’

3ly. Our Saviour charges the Phari­sees, that they made the Commandment Mat. 15. 4, 5, 6. of God of none effect by their Tradition. And he instances in the Fift Command­ment; now this the Dissenters have done; first by their distinction, that the King is Singulis Major, but Univer­sis Minor. According to the last Branch of this Distinction, who is the Father? Not the Prince, for he is Minor to the [Page 355] Body of the People; Not the People, For (if they were above their Prince,) then They must be their own Father.

But because this is so grosly absur'd, and so perfectly contradicted, by the writings of the Primitive Fathers, and Holy Scriptures, therefore, to gain a Right and Liberty to Resist their Prince, John Goodwin has delivered it for a greatMr. Joh. Good­win's Anti-Ca­val. See Dr. Ham. of Re­sisting the lawful Magi­strate, &c. Pag. 22. &c. Truth, that God did hide this Liberty [of Resisting] from the Primitive Christi­ans, lest the use of it should cause an Abor­tion in the Birth of Antichrist. God caus­ed a Dead sleep (saies he) to fall upon these Truths, the hiding of them being ne­cessary to help Antichrist up to his Throne; Yea, he saith, that God by special Dis­pensation suffered him, the said Anti­christ, to make such Truths his foot-stool, till he had advanced himself to his high­est Pitch in the World.

But now, that this Antichrist, is to be destroyed and cast out, and the Commonal­ty of Christians (as he pretended) being the Men that must have the Principal hand in Executing God's Judgments upon the Whore; For bringing this to pass, Now, saies he, in These our times, God hath given out this Revelation to us, He hath manifested the Doctrine of Resistance, and [Page 356] Christians may act contrary to the will of their Superiours.

This was the Doctrine of John Good­win, who tho he was a single Person, yet he was a Leading-Man amongst the Party, who generally followed his steps, and acted according to his Pernicious Principles. Thus have they made that Commandment of God of Non-Effect thro their Tradition.

How like these men were unto the Pharisees, we may Collect from the Character which Josephus, tho himself a Pharisee, gives of them: He saies, They were a Crafty and Subtile Generation of men, and so perverse even to Princes them­selves, that they would not fear many times openly to affront and oppose them. And so far had they insinuated them­selves into the affections and estimations of the Populacy, that their good or ill word was enough to make or blast any one with the People, who would impli­citly believe them, let their Report be ne­ver so false or Malicious. Dr. Cave in the Life of St. Paul, Sect. 1. N. 6. Pag. 47.

I shall therefore conclude in con­tradiction to the Reconciler, That see­ing Obedience to the Impositions of our Superiours, is neither a thing in­different, [Page 357] nor unnecessary, we ought to practice it, tho the Dissenters take of­fence at it. And herein the Doctrine of our Saviour upon that occasion will bear us out, which signifies, that their Scandal is not so much to be esteem'd, that we should therefore cease to Preach a needful Truth; and that how much so­ever they may be offended, yet 'tis good to consult the welfare of the People, Seduced by such blind Guides; as lead them into the Pit by their Traditions.

The next Assault the Reconciler makesat Pag. 155. is upon a Pittiful Trifling Adversary, one Meisner, a Lutheran, whom he slights with as much scorn and inso­lence, as if he had not been worthy to carry his Books after him.

It was pleasantly said by Mr. Hales of a Friends Letter—He sets up Tops, and I must Whip them for Him. But in­deed I am concerned for Meisner; I brought him upon the Stage, and therefore am obliged in Justice to ap­pear as a Second in his Quarrel. 'Twas declared in the Verdict Page 272. that no Church of any Creditable Denomina­tion, would change their Established Or­ders, to gratify any Emergent Faction. Instances were given both of the Lu­therans [Page 358] and Calvinists; How Rotarius was treated at Geneva, for the Breach of a Novel-practice there, was specified at Page 280. But that Foolery, to say no worse, the Reconciler passes over in deep silence, which is a conviction of his Partiality. For Meisners Argu­ments if they be not good, yet they Evidence the Matter of Fact, That the Lutherans would no more recede from their established Rules, than the Calvi­nists; which is all that Dr. Womock al­ledged them for.

But perhaps Meisners Arguments are not so Weak as his Prejudice would make them.

The first of which is drawn from the Nature of things Indifferent, which is such, as that they may be freely used or disused, practised or abrogated; But when the Use or Disuse, the Practice or Abrogation is obtruded as of Necessity, the nature of such Indifferent things is violated. If he inquires what Meis­ner means by obtruding, he had occasi­on no doubt as well as we, to mean an Insurrection of Dissenters to Reform by force of Arms: But the Reconciler has made a Meaning for him, that is, when men thro the weakness of their Judgment [Page 361] do believe a thing Indifferent to be sin­ful; and having made this to be Meisners meaning, he harrangues upon't with little Judgment and great Bitterness; But that he may not run away, and think to carry the Cause, as he uses to do, by his false Surmises, let him stop a little and tell me, how the Dissenter believes a thing Indifferent to become finful; for 'tis no less then Oppositum in Apposito?

Does he believe it either with a Di­vine or Humane Faith? If with a Divine Faith, let him shew us some Divine Revelation for the Ground of it; If with a Humane Faith, that's only his Opinion, and that is to be Corrected by Instruction, or some other course of Discipline, that it proceeds not to an obstinate Superstition.

But were Meisner's meaning such as the Reconciler would have it, yet com­mon Civility should have taught him better manners, than to Charge him, that he gave St. Paul the Lye: He had the Honour of a Learned Professor, when he was alive at Wittengburge, and for that Reason the Reconciler should have a little Veneration for his Ashes, now he's Dead; especially because being [Page 360] Dead he yet speaketh, in his Learned Writings.

Some body sure has ought this Re­conciler a shame for his Factious Arro­gance, and has paid him home, in be­traying him to such gross delusions and mistakes.

What! Meisner give St. Paul the lye? 'Tis impossible. He that gives ano­ther man the Lye, must contradict him, He that contradicts another man must speak Ad Idem in reference to the same Thing, the same Time, the same Place, the same Persons, as also to the same Respect and Purpose. If there be any Variation in these Circumstances, the Opposition will not amount to a Con­tradiction or a Lye. 'Tis possible both Partyes may speak the perfect Truth. For example, If I say the King forbad all Concourse of People and Horse-Racing, meaning, at such a Time, and in such a Place: And another man say, the King did not forbid the Concourse of People or Horse-Raceing, meaning at another Time and Place. Again, if I say the King for­bids, that men should keep Grey-Hounds, to Ride with Swords and Pistols, &c. meaning Persons of an Inferiour Rank and Quality; and another say, the King [Page 361] does not sorbid Men to keep Grey-Hounds, or to Ride with Swords and Pistols, meaning Persons of a Higher Rank and Quality; here's no Contra­diction, no giving of the Lye to one a­nother.

And thus it is between St. Paul and Meisner; for St. Paul speaks to private Persons, whom he forbids to Usurp Pow­er, to give Law, or to Judge and Cen­sure, where they have no Authority: But Meisner speaks to Governours who are invested with Authority, and Obli­ged to keep out Schisms, and to pre­serve good Order within their Juris­diction.

2dly. St. Paul speaks of a Church which was Inorganical, that wanted a due Settlement of Laws and Governours; but Meisner speakes of a Church that was Organized in all its Parts and Members, having Rules of Decency and Order, and a setled Discipline with Go­vernours and Officers to execute the same. And this, among such as have a little skill to apply it, will be suffi­cient to justify at least Meisners first and second Arguments, without giving the Lye to the Apostle.

In his second Answer, Pag. 156. and 157. the Reconciler would oblige our Governours to betray their own Consci­ences out of Commiseration, and to be­tray the Dissenters too by a pitiful Gra­tification; for he would have our Go­vernours quitt the stedfast Perswasions of their own Minds, in Favour to the Dis­senters. not to Correct the Errour of their Judgments, but to Caresse them in their Superstition.

At Meisners third Objection (Pag. 158) the Reconciler grows very Froward, and somewhat Ruder again than be­comes him towards such an Adversary; but as 'twas observed of the Cynick, that he checkt the Pride of his great Visitant, but with another Pride no less Insolent, so may we truly say, that this Reconciler checks those things which He's pleased to call Fooleries in Meisner.

He Loves to Rhetoricate, but is not very good at distinguishing, which makes him at a Loss and Blunder in his Answers; he was told in the Ver­dict Pag. 125. that a man has a Lock and Key in his own Bosom, and there he may keep his Christian-Liberty safe enough from being plundred; and [Page 365] there also he may Lock up his Private Opinion, when the Broaching of it may Offend, but cannot Edify. But what's this to a Publick Constitution? WhenSee 2 Mac. 6. 24. &c. Multa sunt quae de se, seu natura sua sunt Adiaphora: & licent quidem, sed dedecent, quia viro pro­bo indigna, quia viro sunt incon­grua Christia­no. the Authority of Prudent and Careful Governours has established Rule and Or­der, if it be in my Power, I hold it my Duty to defend them. In calling the denial of this Gospel Truth, a Work of Darkness, Meisner saies no more than Calvin doth, whose words are these: Necessitate servandae Legis obstringi piorum conscientias, & silentio sepeliri Libertatis Doctrinam: haec erat indigna merces Uni­tatis. Ad Galat. 2. 14.

He has no Patience at his own Suspici­on of Meisners Sawciness, for here he charges him, with giving the Lye unto the Fathers especially to St. Chrysostom, who sayes, that St. Pauls advice to the Romans, was not Dissimulation, but Con­descention pag. 159. and Dispensation.

Her's Ignoratio Elenchi, the Reconciler snar'd in his own Fallacy; for we are discoursing, what is fit to be done under the State of Christianity, where the Church is daily setled by Authority, with Convenient Liturgy and Discipline; but the Reconciler carries us back to reflect upon what was rather conniv'd at than [Page 364] Establish'd, what was tollerated by Conde­scention and special Dispensation, when the Church was in her Non-Age.

This is just as if upon an Enquiry what Orders were given out to be observed, and what the Custom and Practice was when the Temple was Erected, and God's So­lemn Worship fetled and performed in Jerusalem, I should run back, and give him the History of what was Permitted in the Wilderness

But it may be a Question, whether the Rcconciler does perfectly understand what St. Chrysostom means by Condescen­tion Chrysost. ad Gal. 2. apud Massut. in Vit. St. Paul. Lib. [...]. Cap. 7. and Dispensation; for St Peters dis­sembling at Antioch, He calls a Dis­pensation, as Massutius has observed of him, Et duo, inquit, per Dispensationem agebat Petrus: Alterum, ne offenderet eos qui erant ex Circumcisione: Alterum, ut Paulo justam proeberet occasionem increpan­di. Unde et Paulus Objurgat, et Petrus susti­net, ut Dum Magister objurgatus obtices­cit, facilius Discipuli mutarent Sententiam. ‘Two things, saith he, St. Peter did by Dis­pensation: One, that he might not offend those of the Circumcision: The other, that he might give St. Paul a just oc­casion to reprove him. Hereupon St. Paul rebukes, and St. Peter bears it; [Page 365] that while the Master takes his chide­ing with a meek & humble Silence, the Disciples may the more easily be brought to change their Opinions.’

By the Reconcilers Doctrine St Pauls Rebuke was a rash Affront, for St. Peter was not Blame-Worthy, the Dissimulation of his Belief, was out of Condescenti­on to the Jews Weakness, his practice was a Dispensation, and fit for his Succes­sors, and all worthy Governours to i­mitate. And it would make good Hi­erom's Argument, Cur damnasset in alte­ro Paulus quod sibi laudi ducit? nam glori­atur se Judaeis factum esse Judoeum, 1 Cor. 9. 20. But Mr. Calvin Answers, Longe aliud Petrum fecisse. Neque enim aliter se accommodabat Judaeis Paulus, quam salva Libertatis Doctrina. Calvin ad Galat 2. 11.

But whether Commiseration should out-weigh the peace of the Church and of a good Conscience, (as the Reconciler would have it) whether the Bowels of Compassion towards such as call them­selves Weak-brethren, be sufficient to su­persede all the obligations that lye upon Christian Governours, to advance God's Glory in the Settlement of his publick Worship, I shall leave them to consi­der, who are so highly concern'd in it.

If we may believe the Assembly of Divines, the Civil Magistrate hath Au­thority,Confession of Faith, cap. 23. Num. 3. and 'tis his Duty to take Order, that Unity and Peace be preserved in the Church, that the Truth of God be kept pure and intire, that all Blasphemies and He­resies (which include Schisms too) be sup­press'd, all Corruption and Abuses, in Wor­ship and Discipline, prevented or reform­ed, and all the Ordinances of God duly Setled, Administred and Observed. This is the Ma­gistrates Duty, according to the Faith of the Presbyterians, & who shall acquit them from it? It is Mercy, sayes Mr. Hales, to par­don Serm. on Rom. 14. 1. in Fine. wrong done against our selves, but to deny the Course of Justice to him that calls for it, Peccatum in Deum Vocatur, quod imediate in Contumeliam Dei redund at. P. Martyr. in 1 Sam. 2. 25. [& much more when God calls, by whom Kings Reign and Princes Decree Justice] and to protect Offenders [against his Pub­lick and Solemn Worship] may perad­venture be some inconsiderate Pitty, but Mercy it cannot be.

In His Answer to another Argument, (as he calls it) I must observe many things; First the Distinction between Natural and Christian Liberty, He found in the Verdict (pag. 125.) and I am apt to believe he took it upon Trust from thence, because I have not ob­served him so skilful or ingenious, as to [Page 369] use Distinctions, when there was just Cause for it; and because he takes it up here Impertinently, for no Reason in the World, but to Cavil at it, and that he does Twice for failing.

Secondly, Whereas he saith, the Dis­senters pag. 160. would put no restraint upon o­thers, as to the Ceremonies in Con­test, but only crave a Freedom or In­dulgence to themselves; herein I believe (as we say) he Reckons without his Host. No man that has read their Books, or ob­served their Practice, or seen their Pub­lick Ordinances, can believe it; And I doubt whether upon Second Thoughts, the Reconciler will believe it himself. In their Ordinance of January, 1644, the Presbyterian Lords and Commons did declare, That they judged it necessary, that the Book of Common-Prayer be abolished, and the Directory for the publick Worship of God establish't and observed, in all the Churches within this Kingdom; And, Au­gust the 29. 1648. They Ordain'd, that all Parishes and Places whatsoever, within the Kingdom of England and Dominion of Wales (as well Priviledg'd Places and ex­empt Jurisdictions as others) be brought under the Government of Congregatio­nal, Classical, Provincial, and National [Page 378] Assemblies, Provided that the Chappel; or places in the House of the King and his Children, and the Chappels, or place in the Houses of the Peers of this Realm shall continue free for the Exercises, of Di­vine Duties according to the Directory, and not otherwise.

Thirdly, His Answer is in Effect, no ‘Answer at all; For he sayes, First the Argument it self pleads strongly upon the Principles acknowledged in it, against the Impositions of Superiours, and even against all Vowes made by us concerning any thing indifferent: For both these things do put a Necessary Abstention & Restraint upon us, as to the use of these things: If therefore, sayes he, by so doing they betray our Liberties, Dis­senters ought not to yield to them, nor should good Christians,’ by a Vow re­strain themselves from the Free use of things Indifferent; Secondly, He sayes the Argument is Evidently Contradictor both to the Doctrine, and Practice, of St. Paul.