A
VINDICATION
OF
The
Rights
OF
Ecclesiastical
Authority
:
BEING
An
ANSWER
TO
THE
Protestant
Reconciler
.
The
INTRODVCTION
.
THE
name
of
a
Reconciler
,
especially
of
a
Protestant
Reconciler
,
is
very
popular
at
such
a
time
as
this
;
and
it
is
a
very
invidious
thing
for
any
man
to
own
himself
an
Enemy
to
so
Christian
a
Designe
;
and
therefore
I
do
not
pretend
to
answer
the
Title
,
which
is
a
very
good
one
,
but
to
examine
how
well
the
Book
agrees
with
the
Title
,
and
whether
our
Author
has
chosen
the
proper
method
for
such
a
Reconciliation
.
For
this
Reconciliation
will
prove
very
chargeable
to
the
Church
,
if
she
must
renounce
her
own
Authority
to
reconcile
Dissenters
.
The
usual
methods
taken
by
Reconcilers
,
have
been
either
to
convince
men
,
that
they
do
not
differ
so
much
as
they
think
they
do
,
but
that
the
Controversie
is
onely
about
the
manner
of
expressing
the
same
thing
;
or
that
they
are
both
gone
too
far
into
opposite
Extremes
,
and
have
left
Truth
and
Peace
in
the
middle
;
or
that
the
matter
in
dispute
is
not
of
such
moment
,
as
to
contend
about
it
;
or
that
the
truth
of
either
side
of
the
Question
is
not
certain
;
or
that
one
of
the
contending
Parties
is
in
the
wrong
,
and
therefore
ought
to
yield
to
him
who
is
in
the
right
.
But
our
Reconciler
has
taken
a
new
way
by
himself
,
to
prove
that
both
the
contending
Parties
are
in
the
wrong
,
and
that
both
of
them
are
in
the
right
;
for
thus
he
adjusts
the
Controversie
:
He
who
saith
,
that
it
is
sinful
and
mischievous
to
impose
those
unnecessary
Ceremonies
,
and
to
retain
those
disputable
expressions
of
our
Liturgie
,
which
may
be
altered
and
removed
without
transgressing
of
the
Law
of
God
,
saith
true
.
(
And
thus
the
present
Constitution
of
the
Church
of
England
,
in
these
present
circumstances
,
is
with
great
modesty
and
submission
,
without
any
dispute
,
pronounced
sinful
,
by
a
professed
Member
,
and
as
we
may
suppose
from
his
own
Character
of
himself
,
by
a
dignified
Clergy-man
of
our
Church
)
.
And
that
he
also
who
pleads
for
separation
from
Communion
with
us
,
on
account
of
those
few
scrupled
Ceremonies
,
and
disputable
Expressions
of
our
Liturgie
,
is
sinful
and
unreasonable
,
as
well
as
mischievous
,
doth
also
speak
the
words
of
truth
and
soberness
;
or
that
one
should
not
impose
these
things
as
the
conditions
of
Communion
,
and
the
other
should
not
,
when
they
are
once
imposed
,
refuse
Communion
upon
that
account
:
i.
e.
the
Church
sins
in
imposing
,
and
the
Dissenter
sins
in
disobeying
such
Impositions
.
The
Church
is
in
the
right
,
as
to
the
lawfulness
of
what
she
imposes
,
but
sins
in
the
exercise
of
her
Authority
in
commanding
lawful
things
.
The
Dissenter
is
in
the
right
,
in
affirming
these
Impositions
to
be
the
sin
of
the
Imposers
,
and
yet
sins
in
not
obeying
them
;
that
is
,
the
Dissenter
judges
aright
of
the
duty
of
his
Superiours
,
but
is
mistaken
in
his
own
.
And
if
he
can
reconcile
these
things
,
it
will
be
one
good
step
towards
a
Reconciliation
.
Governours
indeed
may
be
over-rigorous
and
severe
in
the
exercise
of
a
just
Authority
;
but
I
dare
not
say
that
they
always
sin
when
they
are
so
,
but
that
they
do
not
act
so
wisely
or
so
charitably
as
they
might
do
.
For
the
Wisdom
and
Charity
of
Government
is
so
nice
a
thing
,
and
subject
to
so
many
difficulties
,
that
the
case
of
Governours
would
be
very
hard
,
should
every
mistake
in
such
matters
be
a
sin
;
and
Government
it self
must
necessarily
lose
its
Sacredness
and
Authority
,
if
every
Subject
may
censure
the
Wisdom
and
Charity
of
lawful
Commands
and
Impositions
,
and
vote
them
to
be
mischievous
and
sinful
,
if
they
do
not
agree
with
his
Notions
of
Prudence
and
Charity
.
All
that
Subjects
are
concerned
to
enquire
about
the
Commands
of
their
Superiours
,
is
concerning
the
lawfulness
or
unlawfulness
of
them
;
if
they
go
any
farther
,
they
make
themselves
Governours
,
not
Subjects
:
and
therefore
it
is
not
very
modest
to
condemn
the
Commands
(
otherwise
civilly
called
Impositions
)
of
Superiours
,
as
sinful
and
mischievous
,
when
it
is
lawful
to
obey
them
.
And
he
who
thinks
Dissenters
do
ill
in
refusing
Obedience
,
does
not
well
himself
in
charging
the
Church
with
doing
what
is
sinful
and
mischievous
in
imposing
.
But
then
on
the
other
hand
,
if
the
Church
do
sin
in
imposing
,
she
either
exceeds
her
Authority
and
Commission
,
and
so
imposes
without
Authority
,
or
else
she
imposes
something
unlawful
;
and
in
either
of
these
cases
no
man
can
blame
Dissenters
for
refusing
Communion
with
the
Church
in
such
matters
.
For
no
man
is
bound
to
communicate
in
unlawful
things
,
nor
to
obey
where
there
is
no
Authority
to
command
.
And
therefore
our
Reconciler
can
never
reconcile
these
two
Propositions
,
That
the
Church
sins
in
imposing
,
the
Dissenter
sins
in
rejecting
such
Impositions
,
and
in
refusing
Communion
,
where
it
cannot
be
had
without
submitting
to
●hem
.
For
though
we
are
bound
to
submit
to
the
Supreme
Powers
,
when
they
act
illegally
,
because
we
are
bound
never
to
resist
;
yet
we
are
not
bound
to
yield
an
Active
Obedience
to
any
illegal
Commands
:
but
the
Church
,
considered
as
a
Church
,
or
Ecclesiastical
Body
,
having
no
external
and
compulsory
Authority
,
if
she
commands
what
she
has
no
Authority
to
command
,
no
man
is
bound
to
obey
her
;
and
if
this
occasion
a
Schism
,
she
her self
is
the
Schismatick
.
But
to
shew
how
ominously
our
Reconciler
stumbles
at
the
threshold
,
let
us
state
the
case
a
little
otherwise
.
The
great
reason
he
assignes
throughout
his
Book
to
prove
that
the
Church
sins
in
these
Impositions
is
,
that
there
is
a
great
number
of
men
among
us
,
who
either
scruple
the
lawfulness
,
or
positively
afsert
the
unlawfulness
of
them
;
and
this
occasions
a
Schism
in
the
Church
.
To
prevent
which
,
the
Church
is
bound
in
charity
to
the
Souls
of
men
,
not
to
command
such
scrupled
and
unnecessary
Ceremonies
,
and
sins
if
she
does
.
Now
in
this
case
also
,
the
sin
and
guilt
can
lie
but
on
one
side
.
For
if
the
Dissenters
,
notwithstanding
this
,
may
and
ought
to
conform
to
such
Impositions
,
then
there
is
no
necessity
,
upon
that
account
,
for
the
Church
to
alter
her
Constitutions
,
nor
does
she
sin
in
imposing
:
if
they
may
not
,
then
the
Dissenters
do
not
sin
in
rejecting
such
Impositions
.
If
some
particular
Governours
are
acted
by
ill
principles
,
this
contracts
a
personal
guilt
on
themselves
;
but
it
neither
excuses
Dissenters
,
nor
affects
the
Government
,
while
they
command
nothing
but
what
the
Church
has
Authority
to
command
,
and
what
may
be
lawfully
obeyed
:
but
if
the
meer
scruples
of
Dissenters
will
make
the
Commands
of
the
Church
sinful
,
when
there
is
no
other
fault
to
be
found
in
her
Constitutions
,
but
that
Disfenters
will
not
obey
them
,
this
overthrows
all
government
in
the
Church
.
So
that
our
Reconciler
,
who
is
resolved
to
prove
both
these
Propositions
,
that
the
Church
sins
in
imposing
,
and
the
Dissenter
in
breaking
Communion
for
such
Impositions
,
will
have
much
ado
to
reconcile
his
two
Books
together
.
One
part
of
his
Task
is
certainly
needless
;
for
if
he
can
but
convince
the
World
of
the
truth
of
either
part
,
he
effectually
does
the
busin●ss
.
If
he
can
convince
the
Dis●enter
that
he
ought
to
conform
to
these
Impositions
,
the
Church
may
impose
without
sin
▪
or
if
he
can
perswade
our
Governours
that
it
is
sinful
to
impose
,
there
is
no
need
to
deal
with
Dissenters
:
and
therefore
methinks
it
had
savoured
of
more
modesty
,
and
greater
deference
to
Authority
,
to
have
tried
his
skill
upon
Dissenters
first
.
But
our
Author
,
by
over-doing
,
is
like
to
spoil
all
.
For
it
is
very
probable
he
will
convince
Dissenters
of
what
they
believed
before
,
that
the
Church
cannot
impose
such
things
:
from
whence
,
in
spight
of
all
his
Logick
,
they
will
conclude
that
they
are
not
bound
to
obey
;
and
he
will
convince
the
Government
,
that
the
Dissenter
ought
to
conform
,
and
sins
in
not
doing
it
;
which
justifies
their
Impositions
.
And
thus
he
ends
just
where
he
began
.
Nay
,
could
he
convince
the
Church
that
she
ought
not
to
impose
upon
Dissenters
while
their
scruples
last
,
and
the
Dissenters
that
they
ought
not
to
scruple
these
things
,
nor
disobey
them
,
when
they
are
commanded
;
we
may
expect
it
will
take
up
some
time
to
adjust
the
dispute
,
after
all
this
,
between
the
Church
and
the
Dissenters
,
which
of
them
shall
yield
:
for
both
sides
cannot
yield
,
unless
we
will
say
that
the
Church
must
leave
off
imposing
,
and
then
the
Dissenters
must
begin
to
obey
;
that
the
Church
must
no
longer
command
,
and
then
the
Dissenter
is
bound
to
obey
,
when
no
body
commands
.
So
that
could
he
effectually
prove
that
the
Church
and
the
Dissenter
are
both
guilty
of
sin
,
the
one
in
imposing
,
the
other
in
refusing
Obedience
;
yet
I
do
not
see
what
Reconciliation
this
is
like
to
make
.
For
it
is
not
enough
to
reconcile
two
contending
Parties
,
to
prove
that
they
are
both
in
the
fault
,
unless
you
can
propose
some
middle
terms
of
accommodation
,
or
prove
that
though
they
are
both
equally
in
the
right
,
and
equally
in
the
wrong
,
yet
one
of
them
is
bound
to
yield
.
Our
Reconciler
has
not
attempted
any
such
thing
as
this
;
nor
indeed
can
he
:
for
there
is
no
medium
between
the
Authority
of
commanding
,
and
the
duty
and
necessity
of
Obedience
,
wherein
Governours
and
Subjects
may
unite
without
either
commanding
or
obeying
;
which
destroys
the
very
Relation
between
Governours
and
Subjects
.
Nor
has
he
told
us
which
of
them
must
give
way
first
,
unless
we
may
conclude
this
from
the
order
of
publishing
his
Books
,
that
the
Church
ought
to
give
place
to
the
Dissenters
;
and
then
his
second
Book
is
useless
,
for
there
will
be
no
need
for
Dissenters
to
obey
the
Church
.
But
our
admirable
Reconciler
has
first
pelted
the
Church
with
the
Dissenters
Arguments
,
and
now
serves
the
Dissenters
in
the
same
nature
;
which
is
an
excellent
way
to
revive
a
Quarrel
,
if
it
had
been
ended
:
but
bare
disputing
on
both
,
sides
,
was
never
thought
a
likely
way
to
reconcile
a
Quarrel
.
I
have
premised
this
,
to
take
off
the
odium
of
answering
the
Protestant
Reconciler
;
which
a
man
may
very
honestly
do
,
and
yet
be
a
great
and
passionate
Friend
to
the
Reconciliation
of
Protestants
:
for
there
is
not
the
least
offer
made
towards
a
Reconciliation
in
all
this
Book
.
He
onely
teaches
the
Dissenters
to
cast
the
sin
and
mischief
of
all
our
Divisions
upon
the
Church
,
and
the
Church
to
cast
it
back
upon
the
Dissenters
,
and
so
leaves
them
just
at
the
same
distance
that
he
found
them
;
unless
possibly
he
have
added
to
the
confidence
and
obstinacy
of
Dissenters
,
by
joyning
with
them
in
their
lewd
and
unreasonable
Clamours
against
the
Church
.
But
let
us
consider
what
betrayed
him
into
this
mistake
;
which
he
very
honestly
and
plainly
tells
us
,
in
these
words
:
That
which
chiefly
did
confirm
me
in
this
apprehension
,
was
this
observation
,
That
I
found
each
of
the
Parties
strong
and
copious
upon
these
two
points
,
but
elsewhere
silent
.
The
Pleaders
for
Conformity
still
pressing
the
necessity
that
men
should
yield
obedience
to
the
things
commanded
,
but
seldom
saying
any
thing
to
justifie
the
exercise
of
that
Authority
which
laid
upon
the
Subject
the
burthen
of
obedience
to
things
unnecessary
:
and
whosoever
shall
peruse
the
Writings
of
the
learned
Dr.
St.
and
his
Defenders
,
will
find
that
they
have
been
very
silent
upon
this
head
,
and
have
upon
the
matter
left
our
Rulers
in
the
lurch
.
And
on
the
other
hand
,
I
find
that
our
Dissenters
are
very
prone
on
all
occasions
to
cry
out
against
imposing
these
things
as
the
conditions
of
Communion
,
and
the
excluding
all
that
are
not
able
to
submit
unto
them
from
the
priviledge
of
Church-Communion
;
but
they
say
little
of
any
weight
and
moment
,
to
shew
it
is
utterly
unlawful
,
under
the
present
circumstances
,
to
yield
submission
and
obedience
to
the
things
imposed
.
Now
as
for
matter
of
fact
,
this
is
utterly
false
.
For
the
Dissenters
themselves
(
to
give
every
one
their
due
)
have
used
great
variety
of
Arguments
,
not
onely
to
prove
the
unlawfulness
of
imposing
these
things
,
but
the
unlawfulness
of
the
things
themselves
;
otherwise
what
is
it
that
the
great
Champions
of
the
Church
of
England
,
ever
since
the
first
rise
of
this
Controversie
,
and
the
Dean
and
his
Defenders
of
late
,
have
answered
?
Did
they
make
Objections
for
the
Dissenters
,
and
then
answer
them
;
or
did
they
answer
such
Objections
as
they
found
made
to
their
hands
?
Whether
what
they
object
have
any
weight
or
moment
,
is
another
Question
:
but
it
seems
very
unreasonable
to
charge
men
with
saying
nothing
,
because
they
say
nothing
to
the
purpose
,
when
they
say
as
much
as
they
can
,
and
as
much
as
the
cause
will
bear
;
by
the
same
Figure
we
may
assert
,
that
the
Protestant
Reconciler
has
said
nothing
.
But
yet
if
no
Answer
had
been
returned
to
prove
that
all
he
has
said
is
nothing
,
I
strongly
fancy
that
he
and
several
others
of
his
Size
,
would
have
thought
that
he
had
said
something
;
and
so
would
the
Dissenters
too
,
had
not
their
something
been
so
often
proved
to
be
nothing
.
And
he
has
treated
the
Advocates
of
the
Church
,
and
the
Dean
and
his
Defenders
,
with
the
same
civility
and
honesty
:
for
have
they
indeed
said
nothing
for
the
lawfulness
of
imposing
these
things
?
and
is
not
that
a
sufficient
justification
of
the
authority
which
imposes
?
Did
he
never
read
any
thing
in
vindication
of
Ecclesiastical
Authority
,
in
commanding
indifferent
things
?
Could
he
find
nothing
in
the
Dean
and
his
Defenders
tending
this
way
?
I
assure
him
I
have
found
a
great
deal
which
he
may
hear
of
in
a
convenient
place
,
which
may
teach
him
to
make
more
careful
observations
for
the
future
.
But
if
this
had
been
so
,
methinks
it
had
more
become
a
Minister
and
Son
of
the
Church
of
England
to
have
tried
his
skill
to
have
supplied
these
defects
of
his
Brethren
,
than
to
have
exposed
the
nakedness
of
his
Mother
,
by
tearing
off
her
Vail
with
his
own
hands
.
Every
honest
and
prudent
man
thinks
himself
bound
to
obey
and
to
justifie
the
Rites
and
U●ages
of
the
Church
,
as
far
as
they
are
lawful
and
innocent
,
and
to
perswade
others
to
do
so
;
and
though
he
should
observe
some
things
which
in
his
private
opinion
he
judges
might
be
altered
for
the
better
,
yet
he
does
not
think
it
his
duty
to
raise
a
great
Noise
and
Outcry
about
this
,
and
to
call
furiously
for
a
Change
and
Reformation
,
to
set
the
people
into
a
ferment
,
and
to
alarm
the
Government
with
new
Models
and
Platforms
of
Discipline
and
Worship
.
A
wise
man
considers
what
different
apprehensions
men
have
of
expediency
,
fitness
,
and
decency
of
things
,
and
that
it
properly
belongs
to
Governours
to
determine
these
matters
;
but
it
does
not
become
private
Christians
,
when
Authority
does
not
ask
their
opinions
and
advice
,
to
sit
in
judgment
upon
the
Wisdom
of
Government
:
for
there
would
be
no
end
of
this
in
●uch
matters
,
wherein
mens
minds
differ
as
much
as
their
faces
do
.
Had
our
Reconciler
been
a
Member
of
the
Convocation
when
such
matters
had
been
under
debate
,
it
had
become
him
to
have
declared
his
mind
freely
,
where
his
Arguments
might
either
have
obtained
such
a
Reformation
as
he
desired
,
or
have
received
a
fair
Answer
,
without
appearing
abroad
to
disturb
weak
and
unstable
minds
,
or
to
confirm
and
harden
men
who
are
already
engaged
in
an
actual
Schism
:
at
least
,
if
he
be
so
thoroughly
convinced
of
the
truth
of
what
he
says
,
if
he
be
(
as
he
says
)
so
sensible
of
his
own
weakness
and
praneness
to
mistake
in
judging
,
and
most
unwilling
to
do
the
least
disser●ice
to
the
Church
—
or
to
those
Reverend
Superiours
whom
from
his
heart
he
honours
,
what
necessity
was
he
under
of
publishing
such
a
Discourse
as
this
?
Why
did
he
not
first
ask
the
opinion
of
his
Brethren
and
Superiours
about
it
?
What
service
did
he
expect
to
do
to
the
Church
,
by
appealing
to
the
People
(
who
certainly
are
not
the
best
Judges
in
such
matters
,
and
have
no
power
to
reform
but
by
Mutinies
and
Seditions
)
against
her
uncharitable
Impositions
?
And
when
he
has
published
a
Book
against
the
Constitutions
of
our
Church
,
agreed
on
by
the
wisdom
of
the
Convocation
,
and
establisht
by
Act
of
Parliament
,
when
he
has
already
the
most
mature
and
deliberate
judgment
of
Church
and
State
,
it
looks
like
a
very
hypocritical
piece
of
modesty
,
a
downright
Challenge
to
the
whole
Clergy
to
cry
out
,
as
he
does
,
Teach
me
,
my
Reverend
Brethren
,
and
I
will
hold
my
peace
;
cause
me
to
understand
wherein
I
have
erred
,
and
I
will
thankfully
,
yea
I
will
publickly
retract
it
.
Any
body
,
I
think
,
but
a
Protestant
Reconciler
,
would
call
this
libelling
the
Church
,
and
hectoring
and
out-braving
all
his
Mothers
Children
.
How
the
rest
of
my
Brethren
will
digest
this
outragious
Contempt
of
Church-Authority
,
I
cannot
tell
:
for
my
part
,
I
cannot
bear
it
,
but
am
resolved
to
do
my
weak
endeavours
to
vindicate
my
dear
Mother
from
the
rudeness
and
insolence
of
her
undutiful
Son
.
And
in
order
to
this
,
I
shall
consider
what
it
is
he
contends
for
,
wherein
we
agree
,
and
where
we
part
,
and
fairly
debate
on
which
side
the
truth
lies
.
The
Proposition
which
he
undertakes
to
prove
,
is
contained
in
these
words
:
That
things
indifferent
,
which
may
be
changed
and
altered
without
sin
or
violation
of
Gods
Laws
,
ought
not
,
especially
under
our
present
circumstances
,
to
be
imposed
by
Superiours
as
the
Conditions
of
Communion
,
or
as
Conditions
without
which
none
shall
minister
in
sacred
things
,
though
called
to
that
work
,
and
none
shall
be
partakers
of
the
publick
Ordinances
which
Christ
hath
left
to
be
the
ordinary
means
of
Grace
and
of
Salvation
to
mankind
,
b●t
shall
upon
refusal
to
submit
unto
them
,
for
ever
be
excluded
from
the
Church
,
and
from
the
Priviledges
belonging
to
the
Members
of
it
.
Where
,
by
indifferent
things
,
which
may
be
changed
and
altered
without
sin
or
violation
of
Gods
Laws
,
it
is
plain
he
means
,
whatever
is
not
expresly
commanded
by
God
;
and
so
must
include
all
the
Externals
of
Worship
,
Government
,
and
Discipline
,
which
are
not
enjoyned
by
a
divine
Law
.
That
these
ought
not
to
be
imposed
,
signifies
that
it
is
sinful
and
mischievous
to
impose
them
,
as
he
expresly
asserted
before
,
as
Conditions
of
Communion
,
signifies
no
more
than
to
impose
,
though
it
sounds
bigger
.
For
the
Church
makes
such
indifferent
things
the
Conditions
of
Communion
in
no
other
sence
than
as
she
commands
those
of
her
Communion
to
worship
God
in
such
a
manner
;
and
rejects
those
which
will
not
:
which
is
nothing
more
than
to
command
,
as
to
command
is
opposed
to
leaving
every
one
at
liberty
to
worship
God
as
he
pleases
.
So
that
if
the
Church
have
not
Authority
to
make
these
indifferent
things
the
terms
of
Communion
in
this
sence
,
so
as
to
reject
those
who
will
not
worship
God
according
to
such
Prescriptions
,
i.
e.
who
will
not
obey
the
Governours
of
the
Church
wherein
they
live
;
then
she
has
no
power
at
all
to
command
.
And
when
he
adds
,
especially
in
our
present
circumstances
,
he
refers
to
those
Divisions
and
Schisms
which
he
says
are
occasioned
by
such
Impositions
.
Whenever
such
Ceremonies
are
doubted
and
scrupled
,
and
made
an
occasion
of
Schism
,
then
especially
it
is
a
sin
to
impose
them
;
but
when
he
says
especially
,
he
plainly
insinuates
,
that
it
is
at
all
times
sinful
and
unlawful
to
impose
such
uncommanded
Rites
and
Modes
of
Worship
,
though
it
is
a
greater
sin
to
do
it
,
when
there
are
any
who
scruple
the
lawfulness
of
such
Impositions
.
This
is
the
Doctrine
of
our
Protestant
Reconciler
;
which
I
should
rather
have
expected
from
a
profess'd
Enemy
,
than
from
a
pretended
Advocate
of
the
Church
of
England
.
He
has
at
once
very
modestly
rejected
all
Ecclesiastical
Authority
in
indifferent
things
.
He
has
condemned
all
the
Canons
and
Constitutions
of
the
Church
for
the
orderly
performance
of
Religious
Worship
,
from
the
Apostle
days
until
this
time
,
which
concern
the
external
Circumstances
and
Ceremonies
of
Worship
.
He
has
plainly
renounced
one
of
tho●e
Articles
of
Religion
,
to
which
he
has
subscribed
and
declared
his
Assent
,
if
he
be
a
Member
of
our
Church
.
For
Art.
20.
asserts
,
That
the
Church
hath
power
to
decree
Rites
or
Ceremonies
:
And
if
the
Church
has
power
to
do
this
,
I
suppose
she
may
do
it
without
sin
,
and
without
asking
leave
of
her
Inferiours
.
But
though
our
Reconciler
has
stated
this
matter
so
generally
,
as
to
condemn
all
Ecclesiastical
Authority
in
indifferent
things
,
and
has
said
many
things
which
look
that
way
in
several
parts
of
his
Book
;
yet
his
open
and
avowed
designe
is
onely
to
prove
the
sinfulness
of
such
Impositions
,
when
they
are
scrupled
,
and
made
the
occasion
of
Schisms
and
Divisions
in
the
Church
,
as
he
says
it
is
at
this
day
among
us
.
And
here
I
shall
joyn
issue
with
him
,
and
give
a
particular
Answer
to
every
thing
which
has
the
least
appearance
of
an
Argument
;
which
though
it
will
make
this
Answer
larger
than
I
could
wish
,
yet
is
necessary
to
stop
the
mouths
of
such
pragmatical
Reconcilers
,
who
are
as
troublesome
and
dangerous
to
the
Government
as
Dissenters
themselves
.
CHAP.
1.
Concerning
the
external
Order
and
Decency
of
Worship
,
and
the
Authority
of
the
Church
in
such
matters
.
THat
I
may
give
a
fair
Answer
to
our
Protestant
Reconciler
,
I
shall
first
examine
some
of
his
Mistakes
,
which
run
through
his
whole
Book
,
and
whereon
the
whole
Argument
of
his
Book
is
founded
;
the
removing
of
which
,
to
men
of
any
competent
understanding
,
would
supersede
the
necessity
of
any
farther
Answer
.
And
they
either
concern
,
1.
The
usefulness
of
some
Rites
and
Ceremonies
of
Religious
Worship
,
and
the
Authority
of
the
Church
in
such
matters
:
Or
,
2.
The
obligations
of
charity
to
the
Souls
of
men
,
with
the
due
measures
and
extent
of
it
:
Or
,
3.
That
regard
which
ought
to
be
had
to
an
erroneous
or
scrupulous
Conscience
.
From
these
Topicks
he
all-along
argues
to
prove
that
Church-Governours
ought
to
alter
the
external
Ceremonies
of
Worship
,
because
they
are
of
no
value
in
themselves
;
and
therefore
charity
to
the
Souls
of
men
requires
them
in
such
things
to
condescend
to
the
errours
,
or
scruples
,
or
weakness
of
their
Brethren
.
I
shall
begin
with
the
first
,
which
is
the
fundamental
Mistake
on
which
all
the
rest
depend
,
and
therefore
must
stand
or
fall
with
it
;
and
that
concerns
the
external
Order
and
Decency
of
Worship
,
or
the
Authority
of
the
Church
,
in
prescribing
Rites
and
Ceremonies
for
the
more
decent
and
orderly
performance
of
Religious
Worship
.
Now
concerning
this
matter
,
our
Reconciler
thinks
that
the
external
Ceremonies
of
Religion
are
of
no
account
at
all
;
for
publick
Worship
may
be
performed
as
decently
and
reverently
without
the
use
of
those
Ceremonies
which
are
in
dispute
,
as
with
them
.
For
thus
he
expresly
and
dogmatically
asserts
,
That
the
Ceremonies
which
are
imposed
by
our
Church
,
as
they
have
nothing
sinful
in
their
nature
for
which
Inferiours
should
refuse
submission
to
them
,
so
have
they
nothing
of
real
goodness
,
nothing
of
positive
Order
,
Decency
,
or
Reverence
,
for
which
they
ought
to
be
commanded
.
Now
if
he
can
make
this
good
,
I
am
resolved
to
meddle
no
farther
in
this
Controversi●●
for
it
is
not
worth
the
while
to
spend
Ink
and
Paper
in
defence
of
such
Ceremonies
as
have
no
positive
Order
,
Decency
,
or
Reverence
,
for
which
they
ought
to
be
commanded
.
For
I
am
sure
no
Ceremonies
in
Religion
,
which
do
not
serve
the
ends
of
Orders
,
Decency
,
and
Reverence
,
ought
to
be
commanded
:
for
that
is
to
trifle
in
sacred
things
.
But
let
us
hear
how
he
explains
himself
;
for
this
is
a
Proposition
which
seems
to
need
some
explication
.
I
call
(
says
he
)
that
positive
Order
,
Decency
,
or
Reverence
,
which
being
done
,
renders
the
Service
more
decent
,
reverent
,
and
orderly
;
and
being
undone
,
the
Service
becomes
irreverent
,
indecent
,
and
disorderly
performed
.
So
that
my
meaning
is
,
that
if
our
publick
Service
were
by
the
Minister
performed
without
the
Surplice
,
if
Baptism
were
administred
by
him
without
the
Cross
,
if
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
were
administred
to
such
as
did
not
kneel
,
but
stand
at
the
receiving
of
it
;
these
actions
would
not
be
performed
sinfully
,
or
with
defect
of
any
real
goodness
which
belongs
to
them
,
nor
indecently
,
disorderly
,
or
irreverently
.
So
that
his
description
of
positive
Order
,
Reverence
,
and
Decency
,
resolves
it self
into
two
Propositions
:
That
no
Ceremonies
have
any
positive
Order
,
Decency
,
or
Reverence
,
the
use
of
which
does
not
(1)
make
the
Worship
more
decent
,
reverent
,
and
orderly
,
than
otherwise
it
would
be
,
i.
e.
than
it
would
be
in
the
use
of
any
other
Ceremonies
,
but
those
particular
Ceremonies
about
which
the
Controversie
is
;
〈◊〉
there
the
fallacy
seems
to
lie
:
And
the
neglect
of
which
does
not
(2)
make
the
Worship
irreverent
,
indecent
,
and
disorderly
.
Now
though
it
is
in
my
nature
to
be
very
civil
to
Reconcilers
,
yet
I
cannot
grant
him
either
of
these
Propositions
.
As
for
the
first
,
I
suppose
our
Reconciler
will
grant
that
it
is
possible
there
may
be
different
degrees
of
Order
,
Decency
,
and
Reverence
;
and
that
religious
actions
may
be
performed
orderly
,
decently
,
and
reverently
,
with
some
Ceremonies
,
though
there
may
be
other
Ceremonies
more
orderly
,
decent
,
and
reverent
;
and
therefore
there
may
be
positive
Order
,
Decency
,
and
Reverence
in
those
Cemonies
,
the
use
of
which
makes
the
Worship
orderly
,
decent
,
and
reverent
,
though
it
does
not
make
it
more
orderly
,
decent
,
and
reverent
,
than
otherwise
it
would
be
.
As
for
the
second
,
there
may
be
a
less
orderly
,
decent
,
and
reverent
way
of
performing
religious
actions
,
which
yet
cannot
strictly
be
called
irreverent
,
indecent
,
or
disorderly
;
or
there
may
be
several
sorts
of
Ceremonies
which
may
equally
contribute
to
the
reverent
,
decent
,
or
orderly
performance
of
religious
actions
;
and
then
the
neglect
of
any
one
sort
of
Ceremonies
may
not
make
the
action
indecent
,
irreverent
,
or
disorderly
,
while
we
use
other
Ceremonies
equally
reverent
or
decent
:
and
therefore
it
cannot
be
true
,
as
he
affirms
,
that
no
Ceremonies
have
any
positive
Order
,
Decency
,
or
Reverence
,
which
being
undone
,
the
Service
is
not
irreverently
,
indecently
,
and
disorderly
performed
.
As
to
explain
this
by
his
own
instances
.
The
Surplice
may
be
a
very
decent
Garment
for
Religious
Offices
,
and
it
may
be
the
most
decent
of
any
other
;
and
yet
the
Worship
may
not
be
performed
indecently
without
the
Surplice
,
if
the
Minister
officiate
in
some
other
decent
Garment
:
but
should
he
leave
off
the
Surplice
,
and
put
on
a
Colliers
Frock
,
or
a
Buff-coat
,
I
should
think
It
very
indecent
and
irreverent
;
what
the
Reconciler
would
think
,
I
cannot
tell
.
Thus
the
Cross
in
Baptism
does
very
much
contribute
to
the
gravity
and
solemnity
of
the
action
;
and
yet
Baptism
is
compleat
and
perfect
without
it
,
and
may
be
administred
very
reverently
and
decently
,
if
all
other
due
circumstances
be
observed
.
Kneeling
is
a
posture
very
expressive
of
our
Reverence
and
Devotion
,
and
therefore
very
proper
for
so
sacred
an
action
as
receiving
the
Lords
Supper
;
but
standing
and
prostration
are
expressive
of
Reverence
and
Devotion
also
,
and
therefore
those
who
do
not
kneel
,
but
stand
,
when
they
receive
,
cannot
be
charged
with
irreverence
.
But
now
will
any
man
in
his
wits
say
that
there
is
no
positive
Order
,
Decency
,
or
Reverence
in
a
Surplice
,
or
the
Cross
in
Baptism
,
or
kneeling
at
the
Lords
Supper
,
because
it
is
possible
that
these
religious
actions
may
be
performed
decently
with
other
decent
Ceremonies
or
Circumstances
,
without
them
?
But
our
Reconciler
,
though
he
may
be
a
very
charitable
man
,
yet
is
not
very
honest
,
but
manifestly
puts
tricks
upon
his
Readers
:
otherwise
,
why
does
he
oppose
standing
at
the
Lords
Supper
to
kneeling
,
and
not
rather
sitting
,
which
is
the
onely
posture
used
by
our
Dissenters
?
The
French
Protestants
indeed
receive
standing
;
but
what
is
that
to
our
Dissenters
,
who
would
no
more
receive
standing
than
kneeling
?
for
the
same
Objections
which
they
urge
against
kneeling
,
are
as
good
against
standing
:
That
it
was
not
the
posture
used
by
Christ
at
the
institution
of
this
Sacrament
:
That
it
is
not
a
Table-posture
,
and
therefore
not
proper
at
a
Feast
:
That
it
is
used
as
a
posture
of
Worship
,
and
therefore
they
may
worship
the
Host
as
well
standing
as
kneeling
;
for
if
it
be
not
used
as
a
posture
of
Worship
,
it
is
no
more
expressive
of
Reverence
than
sitting
.
Now
why
does
not
our
Reconciler
say
that
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
may
be
received
as
reverently
sitting
as
kneeling
,
but
inst●ad
of
sitting
,
which
is
the
case
of
our
Dissenters
,
whose
Cause
he
undertakes
,
puts
in
standing
?
I
can
imagine
no
other
reason
but
onely
this
,
That
he
was
very
sensible
that
sitting
was
no
reverend
posture
,
(
nor
used
by
them
as
a
posture
of
Worship
;
for
then
it
is
liable
to
the
same
Objections
as
kneeling
is
,
for
they
might
worship
the
Host
as
well
sitting
as
kneeling
;
and
yet
if
they
do
not
worship
sitting
,
they
confess
that
they
do
not
worship
Christ
no
more
than
the
Host
,
when
they
approach
the
Lords
Table
)
:
and
therefore
he
puts
in
standing
which
is
not
kneeling
indeed
,
and
yet
is
expressive
of
Reverence
.
And
is
not
this
a
plain
confession
,
that
the
onely
case
wherein
decent
and
reverent
Ceremonies
may
be
neglected
,
and
yet
the
Worship
not
be
indecent
and
irreverent
,
is
when
other
decent
and
reverent
Ceremonies
are
used
in
their
room
;
but
if
they
lay
aside
reverent
Ceremonies
,
and
use
irreverent
ones
,
the
Worship
becomes
irreverent
also
?
The
external
Decency
and
Reverence
of
religious
actions
,
consists
in
the
Reverence
and
Decency
of
those
Circumstances
and
Ceremonies
wherewith
they
are
performed
.
Where
there
is
choice
of
such
decent
Modes
and
Ceremonies
of
Worship
,
the
neglect
of
any
one
decent
and
reverent
Mode
or
Ceremony
cannot
make
the
action
irreverent
or
undecent
,
but
the
neglect
of
all
does
.
Had
our
Reconciler
said
that
all
those
Ceremonies
had
a
positive
Order
,
Decency
,
and
Reverence
,
without
some
or
other
of
which
,
the
Worship
would
be
indecently
,
irreverently
,
or
disorderly
performed
,
he
had
said
very
true
;
and
this
would
have
justified
the
Ceremonies
of
the
Church
of
England
,
and
all
the
decent
Ceremonies
of
any
foreign
Churches
in
all
Ages
.
But
it
is
a
manifest
Fallacy
,
to
say
that
the
particular
Ceremonies
which
are
used
in
the
Church
of
England
,
have
no
positive
Order
,
Decency
,
or
Reverence
,
because
the
acts
of
Worship
may
be
performed
orderly
,
decently
,
and
reverently
without
them
;
which
our
Church
always
owned
:
for
she
never
condemned
the
Worship
of
other
Churches
which
do
not
use
her
Ceremonies
,
while
by
other
means
they
secure
the
external
Decency
and
Reverence
of
Worship
.
But
the
Question
is
,
Whether
the
Ceremonies
injoyned
by
the
Church
of
England
,
or
some
other
decent
Ceremonies
in
the
room
of
them
,
be
not
necessary
to
the
external
Decency
and
Reverence
of
Worship
?
Whether
we
can
worship
decently
and
reverently
,
without
some
decent
habits
,
postures
,
places
,
&
c
?
Whether
the
Ceremonies
used
by
the
Church
of
England
,
be
not
as
decent
and
reverent
as
any
other
?
We
do
not
pretend
that
our
Ceremonies
are
the
onely
decent
and
reverent
Ceremonies
that
can
be
used
in
religious
Worship
;
then
indeed
his
Argument
had
been
strong
,
That
those
who
do
not
use
them
,
must
worship
God
irreverently
and
indecently
:
but
we
say
they
have
a
positive
Decency
and
Reverence
,
and
that
those
who
worship
God
according
to
the
Prescriptions
of
our
Church
,
observe
an
external
Decency
and
Reverence
of
Worship
.
But
this
he
says
not
one
word
to
,
and
therefore
I
presume
cannot
;
for
he
has
given
evidence
enough
,
that
he
never
wants
will
,
but
when
he
wants
power
,
to
be
civil
to
the
Church
of
England
.
And
therefore
he
might
have
spared
his
pains
in
proving
that
God
may
be
decently
and
reverently
worshipt
,
without
the
use
of
the
English
Ceremonies
;
for
no
body
ever
said
otherwise
that
I
know
of
:
and
the
very
Argument
whereby
he
proves
it
,
plainly
shews
that
the
Church
of
England
is
of
that
mind
;
for
she
asserts
these
Ceremonies
to
be
indifferent
and
alterable
:
whereas
,
as
he
well
urges
,
they
could
be
neither
,
if
they
were
absolutely
necessary
to
the
Decency
and
Reverence
of
Worship
.
But
before
I
proceed
,
it
will
be
necessary
,
for
the
clearer
stating
of
this
matter
,
to
consider
the
several
kinds
of
Decency
,
and
upon
what
account
we
assert
,
That
our
Ceremonies
have
a
positive
Decency
in
them
.
Now
we
may
distinguish
between
the
decency
of
circumstances
,
and
the
decency
of
things
or
actions
.
No
action
can
be
performed
without
some
circumstances
,
and
no
action
can
be
decently
per●●rmed
without
decent
circumstances
,
such
as
●ime
,
and
place
,
and
posture
,
and
habit
;
and
this
is
as
absolutely
necessary
as
the
Decency
of
publick
Worship
is
.
And
to
this
Head
of
decent
circumstances
we
reduce
the
Surplice
,
which
is
a
decent
habit
for
the
Minister
when
he
performs
the
publick
Offices
of
Religion
;
and
kneeling
at
the
Lords
Supper
,
which
are
two
of
the
three
Ceremonies
of
the
Church
of
England
.
The
Cross
in
Baptism
,
which
is
the
third
Ceremony
,
is
not
a
circumstance
of
action
,
and
therefore
has
not
the
same
kind
of
Decency
,
nor
the
same
necessity
that
the
other
Ceremonies
have
;
but
it
is
to
be
considered
as
a
decent
thing
or
action
.
Now
these
two
being
of
so
distinct
a
nature
,
must
be
considered
distinctly
also
;
and
therefore
I
must
advertise
my
Reader
,
that
what
I
shall
now
discourse
about
the
Decency
of
Worship
,
and
the
necessity
of
i●
,
concerns
onely
the
decent
circumstances
of
religious
actions
;
such
as
the
Surplice
and
knee●ing
at
the
Lords
Supper
are
.
As
for
decent
things
or
actions
,
such
as
the
signe
of
the
Cross
is
at
Baptism
,
I
shall
discourse
of
that
distinctly
by
its
self
.
Having
premised
this
,
let
us
now
return
to
our
Reconciler
.
This
modest
man
,
who
is
so
sensible
of
his
own
weakness
and
proneness
to
mistake
in
judging
,
who
is
so
unwilling
to
do
the
least
disservice
to
the
Church
of
England
,
who
has
such
a
hearty
honour
for
his
Reverend
Superiours
;
yet
with
great
humility
ventures
to
confute
and
expose
all
the
Savoy-Commissioners
,
The
Commissioners
observed
,
That
the
Apostle
hath
commanded
that
all
things
be
done
decently
,
and
that
there
may
be
uniformity
;
let
there
be
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
a
Rule
and
Canon
for
that
purpose
:
And
hence
,
he
says
,
they
infer
,
that
though
charity
will
move
to
pity
and
relieve
those
that
are
perplexed
and
scrupulous
,
that
we
must
not
break
Gods
commandment
in
charity
to
them
;
and
therefore
we
must
not
perform
publick
Services
indecently
and
disorderly
for
the
sake
of
tender
Consciences
.
Which
,
he
adds
,
is
expresly
said
,
to
justifie
their
refusal
to
abate
the
imposition
of
the
Ceremonies
,
especially
these
three
,
the
Surplice
,
the
signe
of
the
Cross
,
and
Kneeling
.
This
seems
to
me
to
be
very
wisely
and
judiciously
urged
by
our
Commissioners
;
but
our
Reconciler
thinks
they
have
greatly
overshot
themselves
,
when
they
assert
,
That
by
abating
the
use
and
imposition
of
these
Ceremonies
,
they
should
break
Gods
Commandment
,
and
perform
publick
Service
indecently
and
disorderly
.
Truly
I
think
this
is
a
little
too
much
;
and
our
Author
has
loaded
it
with
a
great
many
hard
consequences
,
which
I
see
not
how
they
can
answer
:
but
the
best
of
it
is
,
that
the
Commissioners
never
said
any
such
thing
:
I
am
sure
there
is
no
such
thing
contained
in
the
words
cited
by
him
,
which
he
reduces
to
this
absurd
Proposition
.
But
do
not
they
say
,
that
they
must
not
break
Gods
Command
in
Charity
,
and
therefore
must
not
perform
publick
Services
indecently
and
disorderly
for
the
sake
of
tender
Consciences
?
Yes
,
they
do
say
so
.
And
was
not
that
said
to
justifie
their
refusal
to
abate
the
imposition
of
the
Ceremonies
?
Suppose
that
too
.
Does
not
this
then
signifie
,
that
by
abating
the
use
or
imposition
of
these
Ceremonies
,
they
shall
break
Gods
Commandment
,
and
perform
publick
Service
indecently
and
disorderly
?
By
no
means
.
This
is
onely
one
instance
of
our
Author's
proneness
to
mistake
in
judging
;
which
I
wish
he
were
more
thoroughly
sensible
of
,
and
that
would
make
him
more
modest
without
a
complement
.
The
Commissioners
assert
very
truly
,
That
the
Apostle
commands
that
all
things
be
done
decently
and
in
order
.
This
they
take
to
be
Gods
Command
,
as
well
they
might
▪
and
therefore
it
is
a
breach
of
Gods
Command
to
perform
publick
Services
indecently
and
disorderly
;
and
charity
does
not
oblige
them
to
break
any
Command
of
God
,
and
therefore
they
must
not
do
this
for
the
sake
of
tender
Consciences
.
All
this
I
presume
our
Reconciler
himself
will
acknowledge
.
What
then
is
the
fault
?
Why
the
Commissioners
urge
this
upon
occasion
of
the
Dispute
about
abating
the
Ceremonies
of
the
Church
of
England
;
and
therefore
it
proves
,
that
they
thought
the
Worship
of
God
could
not
be
decently
and
reverently
performed
,
without
those
particular
Ceremonies
:
for
otherwise
their
Argument
is
not
good
.
Yes
,
say
I
,
the
Argument
is
very
good
without
this
Supposition
;
and
therefore
the
Reconciler's
consequence
is
not
good
.
For
I
would
ask
him
one
plain
Question
:
Can
any
particular
Church
urge
this
Rule
of
the
Apostle
,
that
all
things
be
done
decently
and
in
order
,
in
justification
of
their
imposition
of
some
indifferent
but
decent
Rites
and
Ceremonies
in
religious
Worship
,
which
are
not
commanded
by
God
?
If
any
Church
may
,
why
not
the
Church
of
England
?
unless
he
can
prove
that
our
Ceremonies
are
indecent
,
irreverent
,
and
disorderly
.
If
they
may
not
,
then
the
Apostles
Rule
signifies
nothing
;
for
it
will
not
justifie
the
Governours
of
the
Church
in
taking
care
of
the
Decency
and
Reverence
of
Worship
.
And
if
this
Rule
will
justifie
any
one
Church
in
appointing
decent
Rites
and
Ceremonies
of
Worship
,
it
will
equally
justifie
all
the
Churches
in
the
World
in
their
Rites
and
Ceremonies
,
how
different
soever
they
be
from
each
other
,
so
they
be
all
decent
and
reverent
.
And
yet
I
suppose
,
should
the
Advocates
of
any
particular
Church
,
as
for
instance
,
the
Commissioners
of
the
Savoy
,
urge
this
Apostolical
Rule
in
vindication
of
the
Ceremonies
of
their
own
Church
,
no
man
in
his
wits
would
hence
conclude
,
that
they
did
believe
the
particular
Ceremonies
of
their
Church
to
be
the
Command
of
God
,
and
that
religious
Worship
could
not
be
decently
or
reverently
performed
without
them
,
which
would
be
to
condemn
all
other
Churches
which
did
not
observe
the
same
Rites
and
Ceremonies
with
themselves
.
And
thus
all
the
several
Church●s
in
the
World
,
which
enjoyn
nothing
but
what
contributes
to
the
external
Decency
and
Solemnity
of
Worship
,
may
by
the
Apostles
Rule
justifie
themselves
;
and
yet
,
according
to
this
way
of
arguing
,
cannot
justifie
themselves
,
without
condemning
all
other
Churches
:
which
I
confess
is
very
hard
to
my
understanding
.
Does
not
such
a
general
Rule
for
the
Decency
of
Worship
,
require
that
there
should
be
some
particular
Rules
of
Decency
and
Order
prescribed
?
Does
not
such
a
general
Rule
suppose
that
there
may
be
several
Rules
given
,
several
Rites
and
Ceremonies
of
Worship
prescribed
,
differing
indeed
from
each
other
,
but
all
complying
with
the
general
Rule
of
Decency
and
Order
?
for
that
is
a
strange
general
Rule
,
which
contains
but
one
particular
under
it
.
Does
not
such
a
general
Rule
suppose
that
the
choice
of
particulars
is
left
to
the
prudence
of
Ecclesiastical
Governours
,
while
they
keep
themselves
within
the
general
Rule
?
And
is
not
the
true
reason
of
this
general
Rule
,
and
consequently
of
those
particular
Rules
and
Orders
for
Worship
which
are
prescribed
by
vertue
of
this
general
Rule
,
to
prevent
a
disorderly
,
irreverent
,
indecent
performance
of
religious
Worship
?
And
may
not
Church-Governours
then
assigne
this
as
a
reason
why
they
prescribe
these
Rules
,
and
why
they
will
not
alter
them
,
because
they
must
not
perform
the
publick
Service
indecently
and
irreverently
?
If
they
may
,
then
their
saying
so
does
indeed
suppose
that
those
Ceremonies
which
they
prescribe
,
are
decent
and
reverent
;
but
it
does
not
suppose
that
there
are
no
other
decent
or
reverent
ways
of
performing
religious
offices
,
and
that
whoever
does
not
use
those
Ceremonies
which
they
institute
and
command
,
must
be
guilty
of
an
indecent
and
irreverent
performance
of
publick
Worship
.
For
that
would
be
to
overthrow
the
main
Principle
by
which
they
act
,
which
is
the
authority
of
a
general
Rule
,
which
does
not
prescribe
the
particular
Rules
of
Decency
and
Order
;
and
therefore
supposes
that
there
may
be
several
,
and
that
every
Church
has
liberty
to
chuse
for
her self
.
In
short
,
I
would
desire
our
Reconciler
to
consider
,
that
if
Church-Governours
must
not
prescribe
any
particular
Rites
and
Ceremonies
to
prevent
the
disorders
and
indecencies
of
Worship
,
while
there
are
any
other
Rites
and
Ceremonies
as
decent
and
orderly
as
those
which
they
prescribe
,
then
this
Apostolical
Rule
signifies
nothing
;
for
it
can
never
be
reduced
into
practice
.
As
for
instance
,
suppose
the
French
Protestants
enjoyn
standing
at
receiving
the
Lords
Supper
,
or
at
publick
Prayers
,
as
the
Primitive
Church
did
on
the
Lords
days
,
and
should
assigne
this
reason
for
it
,
that
they
must
not
suffer
the
Worship
of
God
to
be
indecently
or
irreverently
performed
,
and
so
break
that
Commandment
,
Let
all
things
be
done
decently
and
in
order
;
presently
our
Reconciler
has
seven
Arguments
to
oppose
against
them
,
though
they
may
all
be
reduc'd
to
one
:
That
this
makes
standing
at
the
Lords
Supper
not
to
be
an
indifferent
Ceremony
of
humane
institution
,
with
all
humility
intreated
to
answer
seven
terrible
Arguments
in
his
own
vindication
.
The
plain
Answer
to
our
Reconciler
then
is
this
:
That
the
Governours
of
every
Church
are
,
by
vertue
of
this
Apostolical
Command
,
required
to
prevent
the
indecency
and
irreverence
of
publick
Worship
;
and
they
have
no
other
way
of
doing
this
,
but
by
prescribing
some
particular
Rules
of
Decency
and
Order
:
And
though
the
constitutions
and
usages
of
several
Churches
may
be
very
various
and
different
from
each
other
,
yet
every
constitution
which
is
decent
and
orderly
,
prevents
the
indecent
and
irreverent
performance
of
publick
Worship
;
and
therefore
all
Church-Governours
may
justifie
such
Impositions
as
the
Commissioners
at
the
Savoy
did
,
by
saying
,
that
they
must
not
break
Gods
Commandment
,
and
therefore
must
not
suffer
the
publick
Service
to
be
indecently
and
irreverently
performed
;
and
therefore
must
prescribe
some
particular
Rules
of
Order
and
Decency
,
without
either
making
their
own
Rites
and
Ceremonies
essential
to
the
Decency
of
Worship
,
or
censuring
and
condemning
the
decent
usages
and
customs
of
other
Churches
.
But
since
great
part
of
this
Controversie
turns
upon
this
hinge
,
that
it
is
a
very
trifling
and
inconsiderable
thing
to
prescribe
Rules
for
Habits
,
Postures
,
or
Gestures
in
the
Worship
of
God
,
much
more
to
institute
any
significant
and
symbolical
Rites
and
Ceremonies
;
that
such
things
have
no
real
and
positive
goodness
in
them
,
and
therefore
are
not
worth
contending
for
:
I
shall
discourse
this
matter
more
particularly
,
and
shall
,
1.
shew
how
necessary
some
decent
Rites
and
Ceremonies
are
to
the
external
Decency
of
Worship
;
which
will
justifie
the
Governours
of
the
Church
in
such
Impositions
.
2.
Wherein
the
Decency
of
religious
Worship
consists
;
which
will
justifie
the
Ceremonies
in
use
among
us
,
as
having
a
positive
Order
,
Decency
,
and
Reverence
.
3.
I
shall
consider
how
our
Reconciler
states
this
matter
.
First
.
How
necessary
some
decent
Rites
and
Ceremonies
are
to
the
external
Decency
of
Worship
.
For
though
any
one
particular
Habit
,
or
Posture
,
or
Gesture
in
religious
Worship
,
is
so
far
indifferent
as
it
is
no-where
expresly
commanded
;
yet
a
decent
Habit
and
Posture
,
&c.
is
not
indifferent
,
but
as
necessary
as
external
Worship
is
,
and
expresly
commanded
by
this
Apostolical
Rule
,
That
all
things
be
done
decently
and
in
order
.
If
men
will
acknowledge
that
God
requires
publick
,
external
,
and
visible
Worship
,
as
well
as
the
Worship
of
the
Mind
and
Spirit
,
We
know
of
what
mighty
consequence
the
Ceremonies
of
State
are
,
and
how
punctual
Princes
are
in
exacting
them
;
and
when
we
remember
that
no
Prince
can
be
so
jealous
of
his
Honour
as
God
is
of
his
Worship
,
we
cannot
think
that
the
publick
Solemnities
and
external
Decen●y
of
Worship
are
such
inconsiderable
things
,
when
the
glory
of
God
is
so
nearly
concerned
in
them
.
For
the
external
and
visible
glory
of
God
consists
in
external
and
visible
Worship
;
and
external
Worship
is
nothing
else
but
external
significations
of
Reverence
and
Devotion
.
And
therefore
though
the
particular
modes
and
circumstances
of
Worship
are
not
particularly
prescribed
by
God
,
yet
some
particular
Rites
of
Worship
for
external
Decency
and
Order
,
are
necessary
,
and
ought
to
be
prescribed
by
those
who
have
the
care
of
publick
Worship
.
For
if
the
external
Decency
of
Worship
be
necessary
by
an
Apostolical
Precept
,
and
yet
this
external
Decency
cannot
be
secured
without
some
particular
Rules
of
Decency
and
Order
;
then
some
such
particular
Rules
are
as
necessary
as
Decency
and
Order
is
;
and
whatever
external
Rites
do
contribute
to
the
Decency
and
Order
of
Worship
,
have
all
that
real
goodness
in
them
which
ther●
is
in
Decency
and
Order
:
and
no
man
can
truly
say
,
that
any
such
Rites
and
Ceremonies
have
no
real
goodness
in
them
,
wherefore
they
ought
to
be
commanded
,
without
asserting
at
the
same
time
,
that
there
is
no
real
goodness
in
Decency
and
Order
:
for
if
they
are
decent
and
orderly
,
they
must
have
all
that
real
goodness
which
is
in
Decency
and
Order
.
For
it
is
a
manifest
Fallacy
,
to
argue
that
such
or
such
Rites
or
Ceremonies
are
in
their
own
nature
indifferent
,
and
not
commanded
by
any
positive
Law
of
God
,
and
therefore
have
no
real
or
necessary
goodness
in
them
,
when
the
end
for
which
they
serve
is
not
indifferent
,
but
necessary
,
and
expresly
commanded
by
God
.
For
I
cannot
see
but
that
these
men
▪
if
they
pleased
,
might
as
well
prove
that
those
Rites
and
Ceremonies
which
serve
the
ends
of
Decency
and
Order
,
are
not
indifferent
,
but
necessary
,
by
vertue
of
that
Law
which
enjoyns
the
external
Decency
of
Worship
,
as
that
they
are
not
necessary
,
but
indifferent
,
because
they
are
not
in
particular
commanded
by
God
.
For
the
same
Law
which
makes
the
external
Decency
of
Worship
necessary
,
makes
the
use
of
decent
Rites
necessary
,
because
the
end
cannot
be
attained
without
the
means
;
but
the
natural
indifferency
of
things
does
not
make
them
indifferent
in
their
use
,
when
they
are
to
serve
a
necessary
end
.
But
the
fallacy
of
this
consists
in
the
equivocal
use
of
these
terms
,
real
goodness
,
necessity
,
indifferency
;
which
therefore
I
shall
briefly
explain
,
and
apply
to
the
present
Controversie
.
Real
goodness
may
respect
the
intrinsick
nature
,
or
the
use
of
things
:
In
the
first
sence
we
call
all
moral
Vertues
good
,
which
have
an
intrinsick
and
eternal
reason
,
such
as
Prudence
,
T●mperance
,
Fortitude
,
Justice
,
and
all
those
natural
acts
of
Homage
and
Worship
which
we
owe
to
God
:
and
in
this
sence
,
no
Habits
,
Postures
,
or
Gestures
,
have
any
real
goodness
in
them
;
for
they
are
no
acts
nor
parts
of
Worship
.
This
turns
all
these
external
observances
into
superstition
(
which
our
Saviour
charged
the
Pharisees
with
of
old
,
and
which
we
very
justly
charge
the
Church
of
Rome
with
at
this
day
)
when
we
place
such
Vertue
and
Sanctity
in
these
things
,
as
to
advance
them
into
proper
Acts
and
Ministries
of
Religion
;
the
very
doing
of
which
,
is
as
acceptable
,
or
more
acceptable
to
God
,
than
the
most
real
and
natural
acts
of
Homage
and
Worship
.
But
then
there
are
other
things
which
have
no
natural
nor
intrinsick
goodness
in
them
,
which
yet
may
be
properly
enough
called
,
and
are
really
good
,
with
respect
to
their
use
,
and
the
end
they
serve
,
if
the
end
be
good
;
and
such
are
those
external
Rites
and
Ceremonies
which
conduce
to
the
decent
and
orderly
performance
of
religious
Worship
:
For
if
the
external
Decency
of
Worship
be
good
,
then
those
Ceremonies
wherein
the
external
Decency
of
Worship
consists
,
must
be
so
far
good
also
,
and
fit
to
be
commanded
.
The
like
may
be
said
about
the
different
kinds
of
necessity
,
as
far
as
it
concerns
this
matter
.
For
some
things
are
necessary
in
their
own
nature
;
as
all
those
things
are
which
have
an
internal
and
immutable
goodness
,
and
being
founded
on
eternal
reasons
:
other
things
which
are
not
necessary
in
their
own
nature
,
yet
may
be
necessary
by
a
divine
and
positive
Institution
;
as
the
Levitical
Sacrifices
and
Ceremonies
were
under
the
Mosaical
Law
,
and
as
the
Christian
Sacraments
are
under
the
Gospel
:
other
things
are
neither
necessary
in
their
own
nature
,
nor
by
a
positive
Law
,
which
yet
may
be
necessary
as
means
in
order
to
a
necessary
end
.
And
here
are
two
degrees
of
necessity
:
1.
When
the
means
is
so
absolutely
necessary
to
the
end
,
that
the
end
cannot
be
obtained
without
it
;
as
it
is
in
all
those
cases
where
there
is
but
one
way
of
doing
a
thing
,
which
makes
that
one
way
as
absolutely
necessary
as
the
thing
it self
is
;
as
,
if
there
were
but
one
Road
from
London
to
York
,
it
would
be
as
necessary
to
travel
that
Road
,
as
it
is
to
go
to
York
:
but
there
are
very
few
such
cases
as
these
in
matters
of
Morality
.
But
,
2.
There
is
another
kind
of
necessity
,
when
there
are
various
means
equally
fitted
and
suited
to
attain
the
same
end
;
as
in
the
case
before
us
:
the
external
Decency
of
Worship
is
necessary
,
but
yet
there
may
be
different
Rites
and
Modes
of
Worship
,
which
may
be
all
very
decent
.
Now
in
this
case
all
these
Rites
and
Ceremonies
are
on
different
accounts
both
necessary
and
indifferent
.
They
are
necessary
,
considered
as
to
their
general
nature
and
use
,
as
they
are
decent
Rites
and
Ceremonies
of
Worship
,
because
the
Decency
of
Worship
is
necessary
;
they
are
indifferent
,
considered
as
such
particular
Rites
and
Modes
of
Worship
,
because
there
are
other
decent
ways
of
Worship
besides
them
.
As
to
shew
this
in
a
parallel
case
:
All
wholsom
Food
is
necessary
to
preserve
life
and
health
,
and
yet
no
one
particular
kind
of
Food
,
considered
as
such
a
particular
kind
,
is
necessary
to
our
life
and
health
,
because
men
may
live
very
healthfully
who
use
very
different
Diets
;
but
yet
considered
as
to
its
general
nature
,
as
wholsome
Food
:
and
so
we
may
say
of
any
particular
Diet
,
that
it
is
necessary
to
our
life
and
health
.
Every
particular
sort
of
wholsome
Diet
has
the
necessity
of
a
means
and
cause
,
which
can
produce
the
effect
,
though
not
the
necessity
of
an
onely
cause
,
without
which
the
effect
cannot
be
produced
.
And
this
is
a
true
degree
of
necessity
,
though
not
an
absolute
necessity
.
It
is
sufficient
to
justifie
any
man
in
using
any
wholsome
Diet
,
and
to
justifie
any
Church
in
chusing
and
determining
any
decent
Rites
and
Ceremonies
of
Worship
.
Food
is
necessary
to
preserve
our
lives
,
and
external
Decency
is
necessary
in
religious
Worship
;
but
no
particular
sort
of
Food
is
so
necessary
that
we
cannot
live
without
it
,
nor
any
particular
Ceremonies
so
necessary
that
we
cannot
worship
God
without
them
;
but
yet
they
have
the
necessity
of
a
cause
to
produce
the
effect
,
which
is
all
the
necessity
things
of
this
nature
are
capable
of
,
the
necessity
of
a
means
to
an
end
,
though
not
of
an
onely
means
:
and
therefore
they
cannot
be
called
indifferent
,
with
respect
to
producing
the
effect
,
for
they
have
a
proper
and
necessary
influence
on
the
effect
;
but
they
are
indifferent
onely
with
respect
to
other
causes
,
which
can
equally
produce
the
effect
.
But
this
will
be
better
understood
by
considering
the
several
kinds
of
things
indifferent
.
Some
things
are
indifferent
in
their
own
nature
,
as
being
neither
morally
good
nor
evil
;
or
with
respect
to
a
divine
Law
,
as
being
neither
particularly
commanded
nor
forbid
:
and
upon
both
these
accounts
the
particular
Ceremonies
of
Religion
may
be
called
indifferent
things
.
But
then
these
indifferent
things
,
which
considered
absolutely
in
their
own
nature
,
are
neither
morally
good
nor
evil
,
nor
particularly
forbid
nor
commanded
by
God
;
yet
with
respect
to
some
end
they
are
fitted
to
serve
,
or
as
they
are
reducible
to
some
general
Law
,
may
lose
this
absolute
indifferency
of
their
nature
,
and
be
capable
of
being
advanced
to
be
the
Rites
and
Ceremonies
of
religious
Worship
.
Thus
for
instance
:
a
white
,
or
black
,
or
red
Garment
,
are
all
indifferent
Habits
;
standing
,
sitting
,
or
kneeling
,
are
all
indifferent
Postures
;
the
like
may
be
said
of
times
and
places
:
but
when
they
come
to
be
applied
to
Religion
,
they
may
not
all
be
equally
fitted
to
the
Gravity
,
Decency
,
and
Solemnity
of
religious
Worship
.
And
therefore
by
vertue
of
that
general
Law
,
That
all
things
be
done
decently
and
in
order
,
some
of
these
Habits
or
Postures
,
times
and
places
,
are
more
proper
to
be
made
the
Circumstances
of
Religion
;
and
therefore
are
not
wholly
indifferent
with
respect
to
the
Decency
of
Worship
,
because
their
natural
or
instituted
signification
makes
them
fitter
for
the
Service
and
Ministries
of
Religion
,
than
other
things
are
;
and
therefore
antecedently
to
all
Laws
,
have
so
much
goodness
and
necessity
in
them
,
that
they
have
an
aptitude
and
fitness
to
serve
the
external
Decency
of
Worship
;
and
by
vertue
of
that
Apostolical
Precept
of
Decency
and
Order
,
some
or
other
of
them
must
be
used
in
publick
Worship
.
But
then
since
there
may
be
different
Rites
and
Usages
which
may
equally
secure
the
Decency
of
Worship
,
all
these
decent
Rites
and
Modes
of
Worship
may
still
be
called
indifferent
,
as
considered
in
particular
,
and
as
compared
with
each
other
:
for
till
the
particular
Circumstances
of
Religion
are
determined
by
a
just
Authority
,
either
of
them
may
be
decently
used
;
but
none
of
them
are
indifferent
,
considered
in
their
general
nature
as
decent
Rites
and
Ceremonies
,
and
as
compared
with
other
Rites
and
Modes
of
Worship
,
which
are
indecent
.
The
indifferency
is
not
in
the
nature
of
the
things
,
considered
as
decent
,
and
as
opposed
to
that
which
is
indecent
;
but
the
indifferency
is
onely
in
our
choice
,
occasioned
by
the
variety
of
decent
Rites
.
It
is
not
indifferent
whether
we
will
use
any
decent
Ceremonies
,
or
none
;
it
is
not
indifferent
whether
we
use
decent
or
indecent
Ceremonies
;
but
the
onely
indifferency
is
in
a
variety
of
decent
Ceremonies
which
we
will
chuse
.
From
hence
I
hope
by
this
time
it
appears
,
that
all
decent
Rites
and
Ceremonies
have
such
a
goodness
in
them
,
as
makes
them
fit
to
be
commanded
:
for
though
they
have
no
in●ernal
nor
necessary
goodness
,
considered
absolutely
in
their
own
natures
▪
yet
with
respect
to
the
acts
of
Worship
,
they
have
the
goodness
of
Decency
,
which
is
commanded
by
an
express
law
,
and
is
essential
to
publick
Worship
:
and
therefore
they
are
not
absolutely
indifferent
,
as
things
which
can
neither
do
good
nor
hurt
,
which
we
may
use
or
may
let
alone
;
but
are
necessary
to
the
Decency
of
Worship
,
as
means
to
an
end
,
or
as
a
cause
is
to
produce
its
effect
.
We
may
safely
say
in
general
,
that
decent
Rites
and
Ceremonies
are
necessary
to
publick
Worship
,
because
publick
Worship
cannot
be
performed
decently
without
them
:
and
the
reason
why
we
cannot
say
this
of
any
particular
Ceremonies
,
is
not
because
they
are
absolutely
indifferent
in
their
own
nature
considered
as
decent
,
but
they
are
indifferent
as
to
our
choice
and
election
,
when
there
is
a
variety
of
such
decent
Ceremonies
:
for
in
this
case
the
Governours
of
the
Church
are
not
confined
to
any
one
decent
Garb
or
Posture
,
but
may
command
the
use
of
any
one
that
is
decent
.
But
yet
this
is
no
Argument
against
any
particular
Ceremonies
,
that
they
have
not
so
much
goodness
or
necessity
,
that
they
ought
to
be
commanded
,
because
there
are
other
Rites
and
Modes
of
Worship
as
decent
as
they
:
for
this
Argument
will
hold
against
all
particular
Ceremonies
considered
in
particular
,
and
so
no
particular
Ceremonies
of
Decency
must
be
commanded
;
and
yet
this
general
notion
of
the
Decency
of
Worship
can
never
be
put
in
practice
,
but
by
the
use
of
some
particular
decent
Rites
.
And
I
cannot
but
observe
by
the
way
,
that
the
very
name
of
indifferent
things
is
very
unduly
and
improperly
given
to
those
Rites
and
Ceremonies
of
Religion
,
which
serve
the
ends
of
Decency
and
Order
;
and
I
doubt
not
but
this
has
in
part
occasioned
those
fierce
Disputes
and
Contentions
about
them
.
For
indeed
,
indifferent
things
,
which
are
upon
all
accounts
indifferent
,
and
have
neither
any
good
nor
hurt
in
them
,
are
by
no
means
fit
to
be
commanded
in
religious
Worship
;
for
this
is
to
trifle
in
sacred
things
,
which
is
contrary
to
the
Decency
and
Gravity
of
Worship
:
but
those
Ceremonies
which
serve
the
ends
of
Order
and
Decency
,
are
not
indifferent
things
,
but
necessary
,
considered
as
decent
.
There
must
,
upon
some
account
or
other
,
be
an
antecedent
Decency
in
things
,
before
they
are
fit
to
be
commanded
:
Church-Governours
must
take
care
to
maintain
the
Decency
of
Worship
,
but
they
must
find
things
decent
;
for
by
their
meer
command
they
cannot
make
them
so
.
All
decent
Rites
and
Ceremonies
are
,
by
the
Apostolical
Rule
to
do
all
things
decently
and
in
order
,
fitted
and
qualified
to
be
made
the
Ceremonies
of
Religion
,
which
nothing
purely
indifferent
is
;
and
all
the
Authority
of
Church-Governours
in
this
matter
,
is
onely
to
determine
what
particular
decent
Rites
of
Worship
shall
be
used
in
their
Church
;
that
is
,
to
apply
the
Apostles
general
Rule
to
particular
instances
.
I
know
very
well
how
jealous
and
fearful
most
men
are
of
owning
any
other
necessity
or
obligation
to
observe
the
external
Rites
and
Ceremonies
of
Religion
,
but
what
is
derived
from
the
Authority
of
Ecclesiastical
or
Civil
Governours
;
and
therefore
no
wonder
if
in
an
Age
wherein
the
Authority
of
the
Church
is
so
much
despised
,
and
the
Authority
of
the
Prince
in
matters
of
Religion
is
absolutely
denied
,
they
fall
under
such
a
general
Contempt
.
But
I
confess
,
I
see
no
reason
why
any
man
should
be
afraid
to
own
some
kind
of
necessity
antecedent
to
all
humane
Authority
.
For
,
as
I
have
already
proved
,
1.
The
external
Decency
of
Worship
is
absolutely
necessary
by
an
Apostolical
Precept
antecedent
to
all
humane
Authority
.
2.
This
makes
it
necessary
that
some
decent
Rites
and
Ceremonies
should
be
used
in
religious
Worship
.
3.
This
makes
it
necessary
,
that
nothing
but
what
is
decent
should
be
used
.
And
therefore
,
4.
All
particular
decent
Ceremonies
have
this
necessity
antecedent
to
all
humane
Authority
,
that
some
of
them
must
be
used
in
religious
Worship
,
and
no
other
must
.
And
therefore
,
5.
When
the
Governours
of
the
Church
have
determined
which
particular
decent
Ceremonies
shall
be
used
in
religious
Worship
,
these
particular
Ceremonies
become
necessary
,
not
meerly
by
Ecclesiastical
Authority
,
but
by
vertue
of
the
Apostolical
Command
,
and
their
own
natural
Decency
,
which
brings
them
within
the
compass
of
that
general
Rule
.
Church-Governours
have
Authority
to
apply
that
general
Rule
to
particular
Ceremonies
,
which
have
such
Order
and
Decency
as
comprehends
them
within
that
general
Rule
:
But
these
Rites
and
Ceremonies
,
when
they
are
fixt
and
determined
,
do
not
derive
their
obligation
meerly
from
the
Authority
of
the
Church
,
but
from
the
Apostolical
Canon
;
we
must
observe
them
not
meerly
because
the
Church
has
commanded
them
,
but
because
they
are
in
themselves
decent
,
and
so
comprehended
within
the
Apostolical
Canon
,
and
therefore
the
proper
Object
of
Church-Authority
.
The
Authority
of
the
Church
consists
onely
in
applying
the
Apostolical
Authority
to
such
particular
Rites
and
Ceremonies
,
as
by
their
own
Decency
are
fit
and
qualified
to
be
used
in
religious
Worship
▪
but
it
is
the
Apostolical
Authority
,
as
applied
by
the
Church
to
such
particular
Ceremonies
,
which
gives
them
their
necessity
and
obligation
.
Hence
Mr.
Calvin
observes
,
that
those
Ecclesiastical
Laws
which
relate
to
Discipline
and
Order
,
doing
all
things
decently
and
in
order
,
and
so
receive
their
approbation
as
it
were
from
the
mouth
of
Christ
himself
.
This
,
I
think
,
is
sufficient
to
shew
that
the
decent
Rites
and
Ceremonies
of
Religion
have
such
goodness
and
necessity
,
that
they
ought
to
be
commanded
:
for
they
have
the
goodness
and
necessity
of
Decency
,
which
is
enjoyned
by
an
Apostolical
Canon
.
But
still
the
Controversie
remains
,
what
this
external
Decency
of
Worship
is
,
and
by
what
Rules
we
must
judge
of
it
:
for
one
man
may
account
that
decent
,
which
another
may
think
has
no
positive
Decency
at
all
;
as
it
is
in
our
present
case
.
The
Church
of
England
retains
the
use
of
some
Ceremonies
for
the
sake
of
Decency
;
our
modest
Reconciler
,
who
is
very
sensible
of
his
own
proneness
to
mistake
,
yet
ventures
to
contradict
the
judgment
of
the
Church
,
and
affirms
that
there
is
no
positive
Order
or
Decency
in
the
Ceremonies
of
the
Church
of
England
,
wherefore
they
ought
to
be
commanded
.
And
therefore
it
will
be
necessary
,
Secondly
,
To
consider
what
the
general
notion
of
Decency
in
religious
Worship
is
,
and
by
what
Rules
we
must
judge
of
it
.
Now
in
general
,
the
external
Decency
of
religious
Worship
consists
in
performing
the
Duties
of
Religion
in
such
a
manner
as
is
expressive
of
Honour
,
Reverence
,
and
Devotion
.
This
,
I
suppose
,
will
not
be
denied
by
any
man
who
acknowledges
any
such
thing
as
external
Worship
;
but
the
difficulty
is
,
by
what
Rules
we
must
judge
of
external
Honour
and
Reverence
:
and
yet
most
men
understand
this
very
well
also
,
when
they
speak
of
civil
Honour
.
They
know
what
Postures
,
what
Actions
,
what
Habit
,
what
Behaviour
,
what
Language
,
what
Address
,
becomes
them
,
when
they
approach
their
Prince
,
and
their
Parents
,
or
any
other
Persons
,
whom
they
ought
to
honour
or
respect
.
And
this
suggests
to
us
two
general
Rules
to
direct
us
in
religious
Worship
.
1.
That
whatever
would
be
deservedly
thought
a
breach
of
good
manners
in
common
Conversation
,
or
a
violation
of
that
civil
Respect
and
Honour
which
is
due
to
Princes
and
all
Superiours
,
can
never
become
the
Worship
of
God
.
What
God
tells
the
Israelites
,
who
offered
the
blind
,
and
the
lame
,
and
the
sick
in
Sacrifice
,
holds
good
in
all
other
cases
:
Offer
it
now
to
thy
Governour
;
will
he
be
pleased
with
thee
,
or
accept
thy
person
,
saith
the
Lord
of
Hosts
,
1
Mal.
8.
Such
words
,
and
actions
,
and
behaviour
,
as
would
be
an
affront
to
the
Majesty
of
a
Prince
,
do
much
more
unbecome
religious
Worship
,
because
God
is
much
greater
than
the
greatest
Prince
.
2.
That
whatever
is
a
necessary
expression
of
our
Honour
and
Reverence
to
men
,
as
far
as
it
is
agreeable
with
the
nature
of
religious
Worship
,
is
in
a
peculiar
and
eminent
degre●
due
to
Almighty
God
.
Many
of
the
external
expressions
and
signs
of
Honour
both
to
God
and
man
,
must
of
necessity
be
alike
,
and
if
not
the
very
same
,
yet
of
the
same
kind
and
nature
.
For
whether
we
intend
to
honour
God
or
men
,
it
must
be
done
by
some
visible
signs
of
Honour
which
are
not
necessarily
determined
either
to
religious
or
civil
Worship
,
but
applicable
to
both
.
If
it
be
a
signe
of
Honour
to
our
Prince
,
to
be
uncovered
in
his
presence
,
to
deliver
our
Petitions
upon
the
knee
,
to
come
in
a
decent
apparel
,
to
put
on
a
grave
and
modest
countenance
,
to
keep
our
distance
,
&c.
that
is
,
if
we
must
express
our
Reverence
for
our
Prince
in
our
words
and
gestures
,
in
our
looks
,
and
habit
,
and
deportment
of
our
selves
while
we
are
in
his
presence
,
we
must
honour
God
too
in
the
same
manner
;
that
is
,
by
the
gravity
and
reverence
of
our
words
and
actions
,
postures
,
habits
,
behaviour
,
&c.
when
we
approach
his
presence
.
There
may
be
indeed
,
and
is
,
a
great
difference
between
the
particular
expressions
of
civil
and
religious
Honour
:
that
which
may
become
a
Prince
,
is
not
always
fit
for
religious
Worship
;
and
that
which
is
proper
for
the
Worship
of
God
,
must
not
always
be
given
to
Princes
.
But
the
Comparison
consists
onely
in
this
,
That
since
the
external
signs
of
Honour
consist
in
our
words
,
postures
,
looks
,
habit
,
behaviour
,
and
such-like
external
circumstances
of
action
,
as
he
who
does
not
observe
such
a
good
decorum
in
all
these
,
as
is
required
in
civil
Honour
,
affronts
the
Majesty
of
his
Prince
;
so
does
he
who
neglects
such
a
Decency
in
these
things
,
as
is
proper
to
religious
Honour
,
profane
the
Worship
,
and
pollute
the
Name
and
Majesty
of
God
.
But
still
we
want
some
Rule
whereby
to
determine
what
that
Decency
is
in
these
external
Circumstances
,
which
is
proper
for
religious
Worship
:
and
to
explain
this
,
I
shall
lay
down
these
three
Rules
.
-
I.
That
the
external
Decency
of
Worship
consists
in
a
peculiar
regard
to
the
Majesty
of
that
God
who
is
the
sole
Object
of
our
Worship
.
-
II.
In
a
regard
to
the
particular
nature
of
those
acts
of
Worship
in
which
we
are
employed
.
-
III.
In
a
regard
to
the
quality
,
conditions
,
and
relations
of
those
Persons
who
worship
God
.
I.
The
external
Decency
of
Worship
consists
in
a
peculiar
regard
to
the
Majesty
of
that
God
who
is
the
sole
Object
of
our
Worship
.
This
Rule
God
himself
gives
us
by
the
Prophet
Malachi
:
A
son
honoureth
his
father
,
and
a
servant
his
master
.
If
then
I
be
a
father
,
where
is
my
honour
?
if
I
be
a
master
,
where
is
my
fear
?
Which
plainly
signifies
,
that
we
must
worship
God
in
such
a
manner
as
is
expressive
of
a
just
Honour
and
Reverence
for
his
excellent
Majesty
:
As
he
adds
,
For
I
am
a
great
King
,
saith
the
Lord
of
hosts
,
and
my
Name
is
dreadful
among
the
heathen
.
Now
we
express
a
just
regard
to
the
Majesty
of
God
,
these
two
ways
.
1.
When
we
worship
him
with
all
the
external
significations
of
Awe
and
Reverence
.
When
our
words
and
actions
,
postures
and
behaviour
,
declare
to
all
the
world
what
a
great
sence
we
have
of
the
Majesty
of
God
,
and
that
infinite
distance
which
is
between
him
and
us
;
that
is
,
when
our
words
are
few
and
wise
,
as
Solomon
directs
;
when
we
worship
,
and
fall
down
,
and
kneel
before
the
Lord
our
Maker
,
and
not
onely
bind
our
hearts
but
our
bodies
to
him
,
and
are
very
cautious
of
being
guilty
of
the
least
indecency
in
his
presence
.
2.
Then
we
honour
the
divine
Majesty
,
when
we
worship
him
in
a
peculiar
and
appropriate
manner
,
and
do
make
a
visible
distinction
between
the
Worship
of
God
,
and
all
the
other
actions
of
our
lives
.
The
sanctification
of
Gods
Name
consists
in
the
peculiarity
of
his
Worship
,
when
we
separate
him
from
all
other
beings
,
and
ascribe
incommunicable
and
eminent
Perfections
to
him
;
and
therefore
that
Worship
is
most
suitable
to
the
divine
Majesty
,
to
his
peculiar
and
incommunicable
Perfections
,
which
is
performed
in
the
most
peculiar
and
distinguishing
manner
.
We
know
the
Worship
of
God
under
the
Law
was
by
his
own
command
performed
in
the
most
peculiar
and
appropriate
manner
;
by
peculiar
persons
,
by
Aaron
and
his
Sons
,
and
the
whole
Tribe
of
Levi
,
who
were
separated
to
the
service
of
the
Altar
and
Tabernacle
;
in
a
peculiar
place
,
at
the
Tabernacle
or
Temple
;
and
at
peculiar
and
appropriate
times
,
the
seventh-day-Sabbath
,
and
those
other
annual
Festivals
;
and
by
peculiar
Rites
and
Ceremonies
.
The
Priests
had
their
peculiar
Garments
to
minister
in
before
the
Lord
,
and
all
the
Vessels
and
Utensils
of
the
Tabernacle
were
appropriated
to
those
uses
:
not
to
mention
now
their
Sacrifices
,
and
Oblations
,
and
Incense
,
&c.
Now
though
these
Persons
,
Times
,
Places
,
Rites
,
and
Ceremonies
,
which
by
the
Law
of
Moses
were
appropriated
to
the
Worship
of
God
,
had
something
mystical
and
typical
in
their
signification
,
yet
the
appropriation
of
peculiar
Persons
,
Times
,
Places
,
and
Habits
,
to
the
Worship
of
God
,
is
not
mystical
and
typical
;
but
besides
other
uses
it
may
serve
,
is
the
natural
Decency
of
Worship
,
and
that
which
the
peculiar
Excellencies
of
God
,
and
the
peculiarity
of
the
divine
Worship
requires
.
The
Light
of
Nature
instructed
all
mankind
in
this
,
as
much
as
in
the
necessity
of
religious
Worship
;
insomuch
that
there
never
was
any
Nation
which
paid
publick
and
solemn
Adorations
to
any
Deity
,
but
had
their
Priests
,
their
Temples
,
their
holy
Garments
,
and
other
Ceremonies
appropriated
to
religious
uses
.
And
if
it
be
thought
enough
to
say
,
that
these
men
were
Idolaters
,
and
their
Worship
idolatrous
,
and
therefore
we
cannot
learn
from
them
,
what
is
proper
and
decent
in
the
Worship
of
God
;
we
ought
to
consider
,
that
when
the
Devil
set
up
for
a
God
,
he
challenged
divine
Honours
to
himself
,
and
therefore
retained
all
the
external
form
of
religious
Worship
,
though
he
corrupted
it
with
impure
,
and
obscene
,
and
inhumane
Rites
.
He
would
not
have
valued
either
Priests
,
or
their
Vestments
,
or
Temples
,
or
Altars
,
had
not
these
been
very
necessary
and
essential
to
religious
Worship
,
and
always
judged
so
by
mankind
.
When
a
Rebel
usurps
the
Throne
,
he
usurps
the
Honour
too
of
a
natural
Prince
;
and
when
the
Devil
would
be
thought
a
God
,
he
challenges
such
a
Worship
,
as
according
to
the
general
sence
of
mankind
,
is
due
to
God
,
though
he
adapts
the
particular
Rites
and
Ceremonies
of
it
to
his
own
impure
nature
,
and
barbarous
and
cruel
inclinations
.
As
for
appropriate
Persons
,
Times
,
and
Places
,
I
suppose
our
Reconciler
will
not
dispute
the
fitness
and
decency
of
it
under
the
Gospel
:
And
there
is
as
little
reason
why
he
should
dispute
the
Decency
of
an
appropriate
and
peculiar
habit
for
religious
Worship
;
which
God
himself
commanded
under
the
Law
,
and
which
has
been
used
in
all
Religions
,
and
in
the
early
Ages
of
the
Christian
Church
.
Appropriate
Times
and
Places
,
are
as
Jewish
as
appropriate
Habits
;
and
whoever
considers
the
peculiarity
of
the
divine
Worship
,
cannot
think
it
indecent
,
that
it
should
be
distinguisht
from
other
common
actions
by
peculiar
Times
,
and
Places
,
and
Habits
,
as
well
as
Persons
.
II.
The
Decency
of
Worship
consists
in
adapting
the
Rites
and
Ceremonies
of
it
to
the
nature
of
those
particular
acts
of
Worship
in
which
we
are
employed
.
Thus
,
when
we
beg
of
God
the
pardon
of
our
sins
,
or
that
he
would
bestow
on
us
those
Blessings
which
we
want
,
it
becomes
us
to
do
this
with
the
greatest
humility
;
and
therefore
kneeling
,
and
prostration
are
very
decent
postures
of
Prayer
,
as
being
natural
expressions
of
great
modesty
,
and
a
just
sence
of
our
own
unworthiness
.
When
we
profess
our
Faith
in
God
,
or
offer
up
Hymns
of
Praise
and
Thanksgiving
,
standing
may
be
a
very
decent
posture
,
as
expressive
both
of
our
Reverence
of
God
,
and
of
the
Vigour
and
Chearfulness
of
our
Minds
.
But
I
shall
onely
instance
here
in
kneeling
at
the
Sacrament
,
which
,
with
our
Reconciler's
leave
,
I
must
needs
think
a
very
decent
Ceremony
,
both
as
it
distinguishes
it
from
a
common
Feast
,
and
is
very
agreeable
to
the
nature
of
that
holy
Mystery
.
In
this
holy
Supper
we
feast
indeed
at
the
Table
of
our
Lord
;
but
this
is
not
a
common
and
ordinary
Feast
,
and
therefore
an
ordinary
Table-posture
does
not
become
us
,
for
this
is
not
to
discern
the
Lords
body
,
that
is
,
not
to
distinguish
it
from
a
common
Feast
.
If
the
Decency
of
religious
Worship
consists
in
peculiar
and
appropriate
Ceremonies
,
certainly
there
ought
to
be
some
distinguishing
marks
on
this
mysterious
Feast
:
And
what
more
proper
,
than
to
receive
our
Pardon
upon
our
knees
,
which
is
here
sealed
and
conveyed
to
us
?
What
more
proper
,
than
in
the
highest
act
of
Worship
to
our
Saviour
,
to
express
the
greatest
humility
of
Soul
and
Body
;
and
when
we
receive
the
greatest
and
most
ample
favours
from
him
,
to
acknowledge
our
own
unworthiness
,
and
pay
the
lowest
Adorations
to
him
?
I
could
be
tempted
to
say
,
that
if
any
particular
Ceremony
in
Religion
be
necessarily
determined
by
an
innate
Decency
and
Fitness
,
kneeling
at
the
Lords
Table
is
.
III.
The
Decency
of
Worship
consists
in
a
respect
to
the
quality
,
conditions
,
and
relations
of
those
who
worship
God
.
This
Rule
I
learn
from
that
reason
the
Apostle
gives
,
why
a
man
should
pray
uncovered
,
I
confess
I
cannot
see
what
can
reasonably
be
objected
against
this
.
For
why
should
not
the
Ministers
of
Religion
worship
God
in
a
Habit
expressive
of
the
Dignity
and
Holiness
of
their
Office
,
as
well
as
men
and
women
in
such
Habits
as
signifie
the
natural
Honour
and
Dignity
or
Subjection
of
these
different
Sexes
?
Is
not
Religion
as
much
concerned
in
the
Honour
and
Purity
of
the
Ministerial
Office
,
as
in
such
oeconomical
relations
?
And
is
it
not
as
fitting
then
to
signifie
one
,
as
the
other
,
by
distinct
and
appropriate
Habits
?
If
it
be
said
,
that
these
external
signs
are
nothing
worth
,
and
that
the
Honour
of
the
Ministry
is
more
concerned
in
the
Purity
of
their
Lives
,
than
in
the
whiteness
of
their
Garments
;
this
answer
might
have
been
given
to
St.
Paul
when
he
commanded
the
men
to
pray
uncovered
,
and
the
women
covered
,
That
the
Obedience
and
Subjection
of
Wives
to
their
own
Husbands
is
much
more
valuable
than
their
praying
covered
,
in
token
of
such
Subjection
.
But
it
seems
S.
Paul
thought
that
the
Decency
and
Solemnity
of
Worship
did
require
the
external
signs
and
significations
of
this
,
though
every
body
knows
that
a
signe
is
not
so
valuable
as
the
thing
signified
.
This
,
I
hope
,
is
a
sufficient
Vindication
of
those
Rites
and
Ceremonies
of
Religion
,
which
are
also
the
necessary
circumstances
of
action
;
and
it
is
a
wonderful
thing
that
this
should
ever
be
a
Controversie
,
whether
the
Governours
of
the
Church
have
any
Authority
in
these
matters
.
The
Dissenters
themselves
,
at
other
times
,
will
acknowledge
that
the
Church
has
Authority
to
prescribe
the
necessary
circumstances
of
action
;
and
I
take
that
to
be
necessary
,
without
which
an
action
cannot
be
performed
,
as
,
I
think
,
it
cannot
be
,
without
time
,
place
,
habit
,
and
posture
.
And
since
different
times
,
places
,
habits
,
postures
,
may
be
lawful
,
and
some
are
necessary
,
it
must
be
left
to
the
prudence
of
Governours
to
determine
which
shall
be
observed
according
to
the
Rules
of
Decency
and
Order
.
And
when
the
determination
of
these
things
is
necessary
,
it
seems
a
more
ridiculous
thing
to
me
,
to
quarrel
with
Habits
and
Postures
for
their
signification
,
if
they
signifie
well
:
for
there
is
no
other
Rule
,
that
I
know
of
,
But
as
I
observed
before
,
there
are
another
sort
of
Ceremonies
which
are
not
the
necessary
circumstances
of
action
,
but
yet
may
be
very
decently
used
,
and
do
contribute
to
the
Gravity
and
Solemnity
of
religious
actions
.
Of
this
nature
is
the
signe
of
the
Cross
in
Baptism
,
which
is
no
necessary
circumstance
,
for
Baptism
may
be
very
decently
and
reverently
administred
without
it
;
but
it
is
a
thing
very
fitting
and
decent
to
be
done
at
the
time
of
Baptism
,
and
which
adds
to
the
external
Solemnity
of
it
.
Our
Church
has
enjoyned
no
other
Ceremony
of
this
nature
,
but
onely
the
signe
of
the
Cross
;
but
yet
it
will
be
necessary
to
discourse
something
briefly
about
the
nature
,
the
decency
,
and
lawfulness
of
such
Ceremonies
as
these
,
and
in
particular
about
the
Cross
in
Baptism
.
First
,
As
to
the
nature
of
these
Ceremonies
,
I
shall
observe
three
things
;
which
I
presume
will
contain
all
that
is
necessary
to
be
known
about
them
.
1.
That
though
they
are
symbolical
and
significant
Ceremonies
,
they
are
not
meerly
for
signification
;
that
is
,
they
are
not
meer
Images
and
Pictures
of
things
,
which
would
transform
Religion
into
an
external
piece
of
Pageantry
.
A
great
many
such
things
indeed
have
been
used
,
and
are
still
in
use
in
the
Church
of
Rome
;
as
,
dressing
up
a
Baby
,
and
rocking
it
in
a
Cradle
,
as
a
Figure
and
Emblem
of
Christs
birth
,
about
the
time
of
his
Nativity
,
and
such-like
childish
and
ludicrous
shows
,
which
unbecome
the
Gravity
and
Simplicity
of
the
Christian
Religion
.
Such
mean
Representations
as
these
,
are
onely
for
the
entertainment
of
Children
,
but
do
mightily
debase
the
Spirits
of
men
,
and
detain
them
by
earthly
Figures
and
Similitudes
from
contemplating
those
sublime
Mysteries
.
God
never
instituted
such
a
Religion
as
this
,
nor
did
Christ
and
his
Apostles
give
any
countenance
or
authority
to
it
.
The
Law
of
Moses
indeed
consisted
of
a
great
many
significant
Rites
and
Ceremonies
,
such
as
Circumcision
,
Washings
,
Purifications
,
Sacrifices
,
&c.
many
of
which
were
instituted
purely
for
their
signification
;
but
then
the
designe
of
it
was
to
teach
them
by
such
external
Rites
those
things
,
which
at
that
time
he
did
not
think
fit
to
give
any
express
Laws
about
,
nor
to
make
a
plain
and
clear
revelation
of
.
The
Rites
and
Ceremonies
of
their
Law
were
either
typical
of
Christ
and
the
state
of
the
Gospel
,
or
had
a
moral
signification
to
instruct
them
in
those
Evangelical
Graces
and
Vertues
,
which
God
did
not
think
fit
then
expresly
to
command
.
Now
in
such
a
dispensation
as
this
,
it
did
highly
become
the
divine
Wisdom
by
such
external
Signs
and
Figures
to
give
some
hints
and
intimations
of
diviner
Mysteries
,
and
a
more
excellent
Philosophy
,
to
devout
and
inquisitive
minds
:
The
designe
of
these
legal
Ceremonies
was
to
teach
them
that
by
Hieroglyphicks
,
which
it
was
not
yet
time
to
teach
them
by
plain
Precepts
and
express
Revelations
.
But
to
transform
the
plain
Precepts
and
Revelations
of
the
Gospel
into
earthly
Figures
,
is
to
teach
men
backward
,
to
draw
them
off
from
the
immediate
contemplation
of
pure
and
naked
Truth
to
court
a
Picture
and
a
Shadow
,
and
to
dote
upon
earthly
Figures
and
Images
of
it
.
And
therefore
it
is
a
reproach
to
the
wisdom
of
the
Mosaical
Dispensation
,
to
call
such
fooleries
as
these
,
Jewish
Rites
and
Superstitions
.
There
was
a
great
deal
of
hidden
and
secret
Wisdom
contained
in
and
taught
by
those
Rites
,
which
at
that
time
they
had
no
other
way
to
learn
;
but
such
significant
Ceremonies
as
are
meerly
for
signification
,
in
the
Christian
Religion
do
onely
obscure
and
debase
divine
Mysteries
,
are
wholly
useless
,
when
we
are
instructed
in
those
things
by
plain
and
express
Revelations
,
which
these
Ceremonies
teach
,
or
rather
darken
by
earthly
Figures
;
and
they
corrupt
a
Spiritual
Worship
,
which
hereby
degenerates
into
external
pomp
and
show
.
2.
These
Ceremonies
therefore
,
though
they
are
significant
,
must
not
be
meer
teaching
Signs
,
which
are
out
of
date
under
the
Gospel
,
and
a
reproach
to
the
clear
Revelations
and
perfect
light
of
it
;
but
are
visible
signs
and
expressions
of
some
Grace
,
or
Vertue
,
or
Duty
,
which
we
at
that
time
exercise
,
or
profess
the
exercise
of
.
As
to
give
you
some
instances
of
such
Ceremonies
as
were
both
allowed
and
practised
by
Christ
and
his
Apostles
.
Thus
the
Kiss
of
Charity
,
or
the
holy
Kiss
,
which
was
used
in
the
Apostles
days
,
was
not
a
meer
significant
Signe
,
but
a
real
exercise
and
expression
of
that
Brotherly
love
which
they
had
,
and
which
they
expressed
to
each
other
;
and
those
who
kissed
without
this
divine
Charity
,
profaned
the
Ceremony
.
Thus
the
Love-Feast
,
which
was
in
use
also
in
the
Apostles
days
,
where
all
Christians
,
the
rich
and
the
poor
,
eat
together
at
a
common
Table
,
was
not
onely
a
significant
Signe
of
mutual
Love
,
but
an
Exercise
and
a
visible
Profession
of
it
;
and
therefore
the
Apostle
severely
reproves
them
for
such
disorders
at
that
holy
Feast
,
as
were
inconsistent
with
that
Brotherly
Love
and
Charity
which
they
profess'd
in
it
.
Thus
the
signe
of
the
Cross
,
as
it
is
used
in
our
Church
at
Baptism
,
is
not
meerly
for
signification
,
but
is
a
visible
Profession
of
our
Faith
in
a
crucified
Saviour
,
and
a
Promise
and
Engagement
of
our selves
to
take
up
his
Cross
,
and
to
suffer
as
he
did
,
rather
than
to
deny
him
.
In
token
that
we
shall
not
hereafter
be
ashamed
to
confess
the
Faith
of
Christ
crucified
,
and
manfully
to
fight
under
his
Banner
against
the
World
,
the
Flesh
,
and
the
Devil
,
and
to
continue
Christs
faithful
Servants
and
Souldiers
unto
our
lives
end
.
But
yet
we
must
observe
farther
,
that
though
these
Ceremonies
may
be
called
religious
Actions
or
Ceremonies
,
yet
they
are
not
properly
acts
of
Religion
in
a
strict
sence
,
as
that
signifies
acts
of
Worship
.
They
are
religious
actions
,
as
being
done
upon
a
religious
account
,
as
being
the
Exercise
or
Profession
of
some
Vertue
;
but
we
do
not
properly
worship
God
in
them
,
no
more
than
we
do
by
being
meek
,
and
humble
,
and
charitable
,
and
professing
the
Faith
of
Christ
before
men
.
To
kiss
each
other
,
and
to
eat
together
at
a
common
Table
,
is
a
civil
action
,
and
a
testimony
of
civil
kindnesses
and
respects
;
but
when
this
is
done
upon
a
religious
account
,
as
a
testimony
and
expression
of
Christian
Charity
,
it
becomes
a
holy
Kiss
,
and
a
religious
Feast
.
These
Ceremonies
are
as
acceptable
to
God
,
as
those
Duties
and
Graces
are
which
we
exercise
and
profess
in
them
,
if
we
be
sincere
;
but
they
are
no
parts
nor
acts
of
Worship
,
though
performed
in
the
time
of
Worship
.
This
short
account
of
the
nature
of
these
Ceremonies
,
shews
us
what
a
ridiculous
pretence
it
is
to
charge
them
with
being
Sacraments
of
humane
Institution
.
Some
tell
us
,
that
the
definition
our
Church
gives
of
a
Sacrament
,
belongs
to
such
Ceremonies
as
these
;
that
it
is
an
outward
visible
signe
of
an
inward
spiritual
Grace
;
and
here
they
stop
,
as
if
this
were
the
full
definition
of
a
Sacrament
:
but
our
Church
adds
,
given
unto
us
,
and
ordained
by
Christ
himself
,
as
a
means
whereby
we
receive
the
same
,
and
as
a
pledge
to
assure
us
thereof
.
So
that
there
can
be
no
such
thing
as
a
humane
Sacrament
,
because
there
can
be
no
Sacrament
but
what
is
ordained
by
Christ
.
True
,
say
they
,
but
that
is
the
fault
of
it
,
that
when
upon
other
accounts
it
has
the
nature
of
a
Sacrament
,
it
has
not
that
authority
which
should
make
it
a
divine
,
and
therefore
it
is
onely
a
humane
Sacrament
.
These
Ceremonies
then
it
seems
would
be
Sacraments
,
if
they
had
the
authority
of
Christ
:
then
there
is
one
Sacrament
more
than
they
think
of
,
viz.
washing
the
Disciples
feet
;
which
was
instituted
by
Christ
himself
,
and
is
as
much
an
outward
visible
signe
of
an
inward
spiritual
Grace
,
as
the
Cross
in
Baptism
,
or
any
other
significant
Ceremony
can
be
;
but
it
wants
what
our
Church
adds
to
make
up
the
nature
of
a
Sacrament
,
that
it
is
ordained
as
a
means
whereby
we
receive
this
spiritual
Grace
,
and
as
a
pledge
to
assure
us
thereof
:
Which
shews
,
that
no
Ceremony
,
how
symbolical
soever
it
be
,
can
be
a
Sacrament
,
which
is
not
the
Seal
of
a
Covenant
and
Promise
,
and
an
instituted
means
for
the
conveyance
of
Grace
.
But
to
let
that
pass
:
the
nature
of
these
Ceremonies
does
not
consist
in
this
,
That
they
are
outward
visible
signs
of
an
inward
spiritual
Grace
;
but
that
they
are
the
visible
Exercise
or
Profession
of
some
Grace
or
Duty
.
Their
nature
does
not
consist
in
being
signifying
signs
to
teach
a
Duty
,
but
in
signifying
the
actual
Exercise
or
Profession
of
some
Duty
:
and
this
,
I
suppose
,
does
not
make
them
Sacraments
.
Secondly
,
Let
us
now
consider
the
Decency
of
such
Ceremonies
,
and
I
cannot
imagine
what
dispute
there
can
be
about
it
.
For
if
the
Exercise
or
Profession
of
such
Vertues
be
decent
,
then
the
external
Rite
and
Ceremony
whereby
such
a
Profession
is
made
,
if
it
be
used
in
a
grave
manner
,
and
upon
a
solemn
occasion
,
and
be
a
proper
and
natural
signe
of
such
a
Profession
,
must
be
decent
too
.
If
it
be
a
decent
thing
for
Christians
to
express
their
mutual
love
and
charity
to
each
other
,
when
they
come
together
to
worship
God
,
and
to
offer
up
their
united
Prayers
to
their
common
Father
,
or
to
feast
at
the
Table
of
their
common
Lord
and
Saviour
;
then
,
to
kiss
one
another
,
and
to
feast
at
a
common
Table
,
which
are
proper
and
significant
expressions
of
mutual
Charity
,
must
be
decent
also
at
such
times
.
And
thus
they
were
used
by
the
Primitive
Christians
;
they
used
to
kiss
each
other
after
Prayers
,
upon
which
account
it
is
called
Signaculum
orationis
,
or
the
Seal
of
Prayer
.
Thus
they
kissed
each
other
before
their
receiving
the
Lords
Supper
,
and
began
this
mysterious
Supper
with
a
Love-Feast
,
which
was
a
common
Table
for
the
poor
and
the
rich
.
And
if
it
were
decent
at
such
times
to
express
their
servent
charity
to
each
other
,
the
external
Rite
and
Ceremony
of
this
must
be
decent
also
:
for
inward
Charity
cannot
be
expressed
but
either
by
words
or
signs
;
and
visible
signs
,
which
are
also
the
external
acts
and
exercise
of
Charity
,
are
to
be
preferred
before
words
.
Thus
if
it
be
decent
upon
some
solemn
occasions
to
make
a
publick
profession
of
our
Faith
in
a
crucified
Christ
,
and
our
resolution
to
follow
him
even
to
the
Cross
,
and
rather
to
die
with
him
than
deny
him
;
there
cannot
be
a
more
solemn
occasion
for
this
,
than
at
our
Baptism
,
when
we
are
received
into
the
Communion
of
his
Church
,
this
being
an
express
Condition
of
our
Discipleship
,
to
take
up
our
Cross
and
follow
him
:
and
therefore
also
there
cannot
be
a
more
proper
signe
and
emblem
of
this
Profession
,
than
to
receive
the
signe
of
the
Cross
in
our
foreheads
:
for
,
to
receive
the
signe
of
the
Cross
,
is
a
natural
profession
of
our
crucified
Lord
,
and
a
suffering
Religion
;
and
to
receive
this
signe
in
our
foreheads
,
which
are
the
seat
of
Modesty
and
Bashfulness
,
is
a
visible
Profession
that
we
are
not
and
will
not
be
ashamed
of
the
Cross.
And
as
this
is
decent
in
it self
,
so
it
contributes
to
the
Gravity
and
Solemnity
of
that
religious
Administration
,
as
all
awful
,
grave
,
and
solemn
Ceremonies
do
.
If
we
consider
this
as
the
profession
of
the
Person
baptised
,
nothing
can
be
more
decent
at
such
a
time
,
than
to
confess
a
crucified
Christ
,
(
under
whose
command
we
then
lift
our selves
)
and
our
resolution
to
fight
under
the
Banner
of
the
Cross.
If
we
consider
it
as
the
Profession
of
the
Church
,
who
by
her
publick
Ministers
solemnly
owns
the
Doctrine
of
the
Cross
,
and
declares
it
as
the
Condition
of
our
Discipleship
,
when
she
receives
any
persons
into
the
Communion
of
the
Church
;
is
there
any
thing
unbecoming
in
this
?
Nay
,
can
any
thing
be
more
comely
and
decent
,
than
upon
such
solemn
occasions
to
make
such
a
solemn
Profession
of
the
Religion
of
the
Cross
?
Thirdly
,
As
for
the
lawfulness
of
these
Ceremonies
,
I
think
there
is
no
need
to
prove
that
,
after
what
I
have
now
discoursed
;
for
they
being
nothing
else
but
the
visible
Exercise
or
Profession
of
some
Grace
or
Duty
upon
fit
and
solemn
occasions
,
they
cannot
be
unlawful
,
unless
the
external
Acts
and
visible
Profession
of
a
known
Duty
can
be
unlawful
.
If
it
is
our
duty
to
make
a
publick
Profession
of
our
Faith
in
a
crucified
Saviour
,
no
time
can
be
more
proper
for
such
a
Profession
than
the
time
of
our
Baptism
,
no
signe
can
more
naturally
signifie
this
Profession
than
the
signe
of
the
Cross.
Now
I
would
gladly
hear
a
wise
reason
,
why
it
should
be
unlawful
to
make
such
a
Profession
as
this
at
our
Baptism
,
or
unlawful
to
do
it
by
signs
as
well
as
words
.
I
would
desire
to
know
why
we
may
not
profess
our
Faith
in
a
crucified
Saviour
by
the
signe
of
the
Cross
,
as
innocently
and
decently
,
as
make
our
Appeals
to
God
in
an
Oath
,
by
laying
our
hand
upon
the
Bible
and
kissing
it
.
Nay
,
I
would
desire
to
know
why
the
Church
may
not
as
well
receive
men
into
her
Communion
with
the
signe
of
the
Cross
,
as
a
solemn
Profession
of
a
crucified
Saviour
,
and
a
suffering
Religion
,
as
Constantine
make
the
Cross
his
Banner
and
Royal
Standard
;
and
yet
would
any
Christian
refuse
to
fight
under
a
General
who
bore
the
Cross
in
his
Banner
?
If
you
say
,
that
this
is
onely
a
civil
Signe
and
Ceremony
,
I
deny
it
,
and
affirm
,
that
it
was
as
much
a
religious
Ceremony
as
the
signe
of
the
Cross
in
Baptism
;
unless
any
man
think
that
there
can
be
no
Religion
in
the
Field
,
but
onely
in
the
Church
.
That
which
makes
it
a
religious
Ceremony
either
upon
a
mans
forehead
,
or
in
the
Emperours
Standard
,
is
,
that
it
is
done
upon
a
religious
account
,
as
a
publick
and
visible
profession
of
our
Faith
in
a
crucified
Saviour
:
and
I
think
the
Cross
in
the
Emperours
Standard
displayed
in
the
open
Field
in
the
sight
of
Pagans
,
is
a
more
publick
and
visible
Profession
of
the
Cross
,
than
what
is
privately
transacted
in
the
Church
,
and
leaves
no
visible
signe
behind
it
.
And
I
cannot
imagine
why
any
man
should
not
as
much
scruple
to
fight
under
such
a
visible
Banner
of
the
Cross
,
as
to
receive
an
invisible
signe
of
it
upon
his
forehead
,
since
the
Profession
,
the
Ceremony
,
and
the
Religion
of
it
is
the
same
.
It
is
true
,
such
Ceremonies
as
these
ought
not
to
be
numerous
,
nor
too
familiarly
used
,
nor
upon
slight
occasions
;
for
this
burdens
Religion
,
and
makes
them
degenerate
into
Superstition
or
Formality
:
But
our
Church
has
retained
but
one
such
Ceremony
,
and
that
used
but
once
in
a
mans
life
,
upon
the
most
solemn
occasion
in
the
world
,
at
our
admission
to
Baptism
:
and
it
argues
very
little
understanding
in
our
Reconciler
,
to
reproach
the
Church
for
this
,
and
scornfully
to
ask
,
Why
she
rejects
crossing
of
the
breast
,
and
retains
crossing
in
the
forehead
;
why
she
rejects
crossing
at
the
consecration
of
the
Eucharist
,
and
the
Baptismal
Water
,
and
retains
it
at
the
baptizing
of
the
Infant
;
why
she
rejects
Exorcism
,
Chrysom
,
Vnction
,
Dipping
,
trine
Immersion
,
and
retains
the
Cross
in
Baptism
.
It
does
not
become
me
to
censure
the
Practice
of
the
ancient
Church
in
any
of
these
Ceremonies
;
but
I
think
,
if
the
ancient
Church
cannot
be
condemned
for
these
things
,
our
Church
cannot
.
One
Ceremony
is
more
easily
justified
than
twenty
,
and
the
using
of
it
once
upon
a
very
solemn
occasion
,
than
a
too
familiar
use
;
especially
where
it
cannot
so
properly
be
called
a
professing
Signe
:
which
is
all
I
undertake
for
.
The
onely
Objection
I
can
think
of
against
the
signe
of
the
Cross
in
Baptism
,
as
a
professing
Signe
,
is
this
:
That
there
is
no
need
of
such
a
Profession
as
this
,
because
we
make
the
very
same
Profession
at
our
Baptism
,
which
represents
and
signifies
our
conformity
to
the
Death
and
Resurrection
of
Christ
;
and
therefore
this
is
a
vain
and
superfluous
addition
to
the
Sacrament
of
Baptism
,
and
does
tacitly
charge
that
divine
Institution
with
defect
.
I
answer
,
The
same
Objection
,
for
the
very
same
reason
,
might
have
been
made
against
the
Love-Feast
,
which
was
celebrated
at
the
very
same
time
with
the
Lords
Supper
,
to
signifie
that
Brotherly
love
and
charity
which
was
and
ought
to
be
among
the
Disciples
of
Christ
:
and
yet
that
heavenly
Feast
of
the
Lords
Supper
does
not
onely
signifie
our
Union
to
Christ
our
Head
,
but
our
Union
to
each
other
,
as
Members
of
the
same
Body
;
and
therefore
required
the
actual
exercise
of
Brotherly
love
in
receiving
.
And
yet
this
is
acknowledged
on
all
hands
to
be
an
Apostolical
Institution
,
observed
by
the
Apostles
themselves
,
and
all
the
Apostolical
Churches
of
those
days
.
The
same
Answer
then
will
serve
for
both
:
That
Christian
Love
and
Unity
is
included
in
the
Supper
of
our
Lord
,
and
a
patient
suffering
for
the
Name
of
Christ
,
in
the
Sacrament
of
Baptism
;
but
neither
of
these
Sacraments
were
instituted
to
signifie
these
Duties
,
nor
do
they
signifie
them
otherwise
than
collaterally
and
consequentially
.
The
proper
use
of
these
Sacraments
is
not
to
signifie
and
represent
a
Duty
,
but
to
convey
divine
Blessings
and
Vertues
to
us
:
The
Pardon
of
our
sins
,
and
the
Gift
of
the
holy
Spirit
in
Baptism
,
which
incorporates
us
into
the
Body
of
Christ
,
and
the
continual
supplies
of
Grace
,
and
renewals
of
Pardon
in
the
Lords
Supper
,
where
we
feast
on
the
Sacrifice
of
Christ
,
and
partake
in
the
Merits
of
it
.
But
then
as
we
all
feast
on
the
same
Sacrifice
of
Christ
,
eat
of
the
same
Bread
,
and
drink
of
the
same
Cup
,
this
consequentially
signifies
,
that
we
are
Members
of
the
same
Body
,
and
that
we
ought
to
love
one
another
with
the
most
tender
and
natural
affections
.
But
the
mutual
love
and
charity
of
Christians
being
so
great
a
Duty
of
the
Christian
Religion
,
and
so
proper
to
be
exercised
at
this
time
(
for
which
reason
they
used
also
to
kiss
each
other
before
receiving
)
,
and
yet
not
directly
and
primarily
represented
in
this
holy
Feast
,
the
Apostles
did
not
think
it
any
derogation
from
the
Lords
Supper
,
to
appoint
a
common
Table
for
all
Christians
to
eat
at
,
as
a
Testimony
and
Exercise
of
mutual
love
and
charity
with
each
other
.
When
we
feast
with
any
person
,
it
is
a
direct
signification
that
we
are
in
a
state
of
Friendship
and
Reconciliation
with
him
at
whose
Table
we
eat
;
but
it
does
not
so
immediately
signifie
,
that
all
the
Guests
who
eat
at
the
same
Table
are
Friends
to
each
other
.
It
is
reasonable
indeed
that
it
should
be
so
,
and
God
expects
and
requires
that
it
should
be
so
;
and
none
are
welcome
at
Gods
Table
,
who
do
not
come
in
perfect
love
and
charity
.
But
I
say
,
the
Lords
Supper
,
considered
as
a
symbolical
Rite
,
does
not
primarily
and
directly
signifie
it
:
and
therefore
the
Apostles
thought
fit
to
signifie
and
profess
this
by
a
common
Table
,
where
Christians
first
eat
and
drank
together
as
Friends
;
and
having
thus
testified
their
mutual
kindness
to
each
other
,
they
were
the
better
prepared
to
eat
together
at
the
Table
of
their
common
Lord
and
Saviour
,
and
receive
the
Tokens
and
Pledges
of
his
love
to
them
all
.
So
that
this
Love-Feast
did
not
at
all
intrench
upon
the
Lords
Supper
,
it
being
instituted
for
a
different
end
,
though
in
subserviency
to
it
.
And
thus
it
is
in
Baptism
.
It
is
the
Sacrament
of
our
Initiation
,
whereby
we
are
made
Members
of
the
Body
of
Christ
,
and
intituled
to
all
the
Blessings
of
the
New
Covenant
;
but
the
external
Ceremony
of
Baptism
,
whereby
we
are
said
to
be
implanted
into
the
likeness
of
Christs
death
,
does
not
primarily
signifie
our
laying
down
our
lives
for
Christ
,
(
though
that
be
a
necessary
Condition
of
our
Discipleship
)
but
it
signifies
our
new
Birth
,
our
spiritual
conformity
to
the
death
of
Christ
,
by
dying
to
sin
,
and
walking
in
newness
of
life
;
as
St.
Paul
discourses
in
the
6
Rom.
And
therefore
taking
up
the
Cross
being
by
Christ
himself
made
such
an
express
Condition
of
our
Discipleship
,
the
Primitive
Christians
thought
it
very
fitting
to
make
a
visible
Profession
of
this
,
by
receiving
the
signe
of
the
Cross
on
their
foreheads
,
at
the
same
time
that
they
were
received
into
the
Church
by
Baptism
:
which
does
no
more
derogate
from
the
perfection
of
Baptism
,
than
their
forms
of
renouncing
the
Devil
with
their
faces
towards
the
West
,
and
spitting
at
him
.
Those
constant
Persecutions
which
in
those
days
attended
Christianity
,
made
this
a
very
useful
and
necessary
Ceremony
:
And
it
may
be
observed
,
that
no
Christians
in
any
Age
of
the
Church
,
ever
scrupled
to
receive
the
signe
of
the
Cross
on
their
foreheads
,
but
those
who
think
the
Doctrine
of
the
Cross
now
out
of
date
,
and
can
as
profanely
scoff
at
a
suffering
Religion
,
as
the
Heathens
did
at
a
crucified
Christ
:
None
but
those
,
who
profess
Treasons
and
Rebellions
for
Christ
,
and
never
think
it
their
duty
to
suffer
,
but
when
they
want
●trength
and
power
to
fight
for
him
;
which
●ives
little
encouragement
to
Christian
Prin●es
to
part
with
this
symbolical
Signe
and
Ce●●mony
of
a
suffering
Religion
.
But
there
is
one
Objection
which
our
Reconciler
makes
against
the
positive
Order
and
Dcency
of
these
Ceremonies
which
a●e
used
in
the
Church
of
England
,
1.
That
all
the
time
Christ
was
upon
Earth
,
he
never
set
up
any
publick
Worship
distinct
from
the
Jewish
Worship
.
He
lived
in
Communion
with
the
Jewish
Church
,
an●
worshipped
God
with
them
at
the
Temple
,
o●
in
their
Synagogues
.
And
it
is
as
pleasant
〈◊〉
Argument
to
prove
that
there
is
no
reason
〈◊〉
using
such
Ceremonies
now
,
because
〈◊〉
did
not
use
them
,
as
it
would
be
to
proveth
tht
we
must
not
use
such
Ceremonies
as
are
pro●er
to
the
Christian
Worship
,
because
they
wre
not
used
in
the
Temple
or
Jewish
Synagog●es
in
our
Saviours
days
:
for
he
never
performed
any
act
of
publick
Worship
any-where
else
.
But
you
will
say
,
Christ
instituted
the
Sacrament
of
his
own
Body
and
Bloud
,
but
he
neither
received
kneeling
himself
,
nor
commanded
his
Apostles
to
do
so
.
Now
in
answer
to
this
,
it
is
not
evident
to
me
,
that
Christ
received
at
all
himself
,
much
less
does
it
appear
in
what
posture
he
received
.
It
is
said
in
St.
Matthew
and
St.
Mark
,
that
after
the
institution
of
this
holy
Supper
,
when
he
had
blessed
the
Bread
and
brake
it
,
and
divided
it
among
his
Disciples
,
and
commanded
them
all
to
eat
of
it
,
and
had
likewise
took
the
Cup
,
and
having
given
thanks
,
commanded
them
all
to
drink
of
it
,
that
he
added
,
But
I
say
unto
you
,
I
will
not
henceforth
drink
of
this
fruit
of
the
vine
,
until
that
day
that
I
drink
it
new
with
you
●n
my
Fathers
kingdom
.
From
whence
some
●ay
conclude
,
that
he
did
at
that
time
drink
〈◊〉
the
Cup
,
though
he
tells
them
it
was
the
〈◊〉
time
he
would
drink
of
it
.
But
St.
Luke
〈◊〉
us
,
Nor
is
it
likely
the
Apostles
would
do
〈◊〉
of
themselves
,
any
more
than
that
they
〈◊〉
any
other
act
of
religious
Worship
to
Chst
on
Earth
:
for
though
they
heard
the
wrds
of
institution
,
yet
at
that
time
they
understod
nothing
of
the
mystery
of
it
;
as
it
is
impo●ble
they
should
,
who
understood
so
little
o●
his
Death
and
Passion
,
much
less
of
the
merorious
Vertue
and
Expiation
of
his
Bloud
.
2.
As
for
the
Apostles
,
who
founed
a
Christian
Church
,
and
set
up
Christian
Worship
after
the
Death
and
Resurrection
of
our
Saviour
,
what
particular
Rites
and
Ceremonies
of
Worship
they
used
,
we
are
no
certain
;
though
that
they
were
careful
of
the
Decency
of
Worship
,
is
evident
from
this
Apostolical
Precept
,
That
all
things
be
done
decotly
and
in
ord●r
.
And
their
Love-Feasts
an●
the
holy
Kiss
,
are
a
plain
proof
that
they
were
not
without
their
religious
Rites
also
.
And
if
we
may
judge
of
the
Apostolical
Churches
by
the
succeeding
Ages
of
the
Church
,
even
while
they
were
under
Sufferings
and
Persecutions
,
there
was
no
Age
of
the
Church
:
till
the
Reformation
,
so
free
from
Rituals
and
Ceremonies
,
as
the
Church
of
England
is
at
this
day
.
Thirdly
,
Let
us
now
consider
,
how
our
Reconciler
states
this
matter
;
and
here
I
shall
once
for
all
examine
whatever
I
can
find
in
his
Book
pertinent
to
this
Argument
.
I.
Now
in
the
first
place
I
observe
,
that
our
Reconciler
agrees
with
Bishop
Taylor
,
That
it
is
for
ever
necessary
that
things
should
be
done
in
the
Church
decently
and
in
order
;
and
that
the
Rulers
of
the
Church
,
who
have
the
same
power
as
the
Apostles
had
in
this
,
must
be
the
perpetual
Iudges
of
it
.
And
he
adds
,
It
cannot
therefore
rationally
be
denied
,
that
the
Rulers
of
the
Church
have
power
to
command
things
which
belong
unto
the
positive
Order
and
Decency
of
the
Service
of
God
.
This
is
so
fair
a
Concession
,
that
methinks
we
might
agree
upon
it
:
but
he
immediately
undoes
all
again
,
and
says
,
That
this
Command
affords
no
ground
for
the
imposing
the
Ceremonies
now
used
in
the
Church
of
England
,
because
it
hath
been
proved
already
,
that
they
have
nothing
of
this
nature
in
them
;
that
is
,
nothing
of
positive
Order
or
Decency
.
But
what
he
says
has
been
proved
already
,
I
have
made
appear
is
not
proved
by
him
yet
;
and
I
hope
I
have
proved
the
contrary
.
But
if
the
Ceremonies
of
our
Church
,
which
are
nothing
else
but
the
decent
circumstances
of
action
,
or
contribute
to
the
Gravity
and
Solemnity
of
religious
actions
,
have
no
positive
Decency
,
and
therefore
cannot
be
prescribed
by
the
Church
;
I
desire
to
know
what
that
positive
Decency
is
,
which
the
Church
has
authority
to
command
:
for
if
it
does
not
extend
to
the
determination
of
the
necessary
circumstances
of
action
,
I
cannot
see
that
the
Church
has
any
authority
in
matters
of
Decency
.
And
if
,
as
the
Bishop
says
,
the
Rulers
of
the
Church
are
the
perpetual
Iudges
and
Dictators
in
such
matters
,
which
he
seems
to
assent
to
,
how
does
it
become
the
great
modesty
of
our
Reconciler
to
assert
,
That
there
is
no
positive
Decency
and
Order
in
those
Ceremonies
which
the
Church
has
appointed
for
the
sake
of
Decency
and
Order
?
If
the
Rulers
of
the
Church
be
the
proper
Judges
of
this
,
how
does
our
Reconciler
come
by
this
authority
to
judge
his
Judges
?
II.
Our
Reconciler
adds
a
limitation
of
this
Rule
,
That
all
things
be
done
decently
and
in
order
,
in
the
words
of
the
same
Reverend
Bishop
,
That
it
is
not
to
be
extended
to
such
Decencies
as
are
onely
ornament
,
but
is
to
be
limited
to
such
as
onely
rescue
from
confusion
.
The
reason
is
,
because
the
Prelates
and
spiritual
Guides
cannot
do
their
duty
,
unless
things
be
so
orderly
that
there
is
no
confusion
.
But
if
it
can
go
beyond
this
limit
,
then
it
can
have
no
natural
limit
,
but
may
extend
to
Sumptuousness
,
to
Ornaments
of
Churches
,
to
rich
Vtensits
,
to
Splendour
and
Majesty
:
for
all
that
is
decent
enough
,
and
in
some
circumstances
very
fit
.
But
because
this
is
too
subject
to
abuse
,
and
gives
a
secular
power
into
the
hands
of
Bishops
,
and
an
authority
over
mens
estates
and
fortunes
,
and
is
not
necessary
for
Souls
,
nor
any
part
of
spiritual
Government
,
it
is
more
than
Christ
gave
to
his
Ministers
.
How
much
our
Reconciler
has
injured
this
learned
Prelate
by
his
numerous
citations
of
his
words
,
to
a
quite
different
sence
from
what
he
intended
,
shall
be
made
appear
before
I
leave
this
Argument
;
though
he
has
dealt
no
worse
by
him
,
than
he
has
by
Christ
and
his
Apostles
,
whose
words
●e
has
as
grosly
abused
.
That
this
excellent
Bishop
had
no
designe
in
this
or
any
thing
else
which
our
Reconciler
transcribes
from
him
,
to
reflect
on
the
Rites
and
Ceremonies
of
the
Church
of
England
,
I
have
more
than
one
reason
to
believe
,
as
will
appear
presently
:
and
therefore
though
I
could
not
give
an
account
of
every
particular
expression
,
yet
none
but
such
a
Protestant
Reconciler
would
expound
any
of
his
words
in
contradiction
to
his
declared
sence
of
things
.
I
am
sure
what
he
here
says
,
if
it
be
applied
to
the
Ceremonies
of
the
Church
of
England
,
has
no
reason
in
it
;
and
that
is
a
sufficient
Argument
to
me
,
that
he
never
meant
it
so
.
For
,
1.
Supposing
this
to
be
true
,
That
this
Rule
is
not
to
be
extended
to
such
Decencies
as
are
onely
ornament
,
this
does
not
concern
the
Church
of
England
,
which
has
no
such
Ceremonies
as
are
meerly
for
ornament
.
And
therefore
the
Church
has
authority
enough
to
prescribe
the
decent
Rites
and
Modes
of
Worship
,
though
she
have
not
authority
to
make
her
Worship
gay
and
theatrical
;
which
indeed
is
not
decent
,
and
therefore
not
contained
within
this
Rule
.
The
Bishop
never
thought
of
the
Church
of
England
,
when
he
gave
this
Rule
,
but
had
his
eye
upon
the
fantastick
Ceremonies
and
Amusements
of
the
Romish
Worship
.
2.
But
yet
when
he
says
,
That
this
Rule
is
not
to
be
extended
to
such
Decencies
as
are
onely
ornament
,
it
is
evident
that
he
does
not
exclude
all
Ornaments
neither
,
if
they
serve
any
ends
of
Religion
beside
.
For
if
they
be
really
such
Decencies
and
Ornaments
as
become
Religion
and
Christian
Worship
,
I
cannot
imagine
any
reason
why
they
should
not
be
included
in
the
Rule
of
Decency
and
Order
.
Such
Decency
and
Order
as
is
opposed
to
confusion
and
disorder
,
is
always
necessary
,
and
may
always
be
had
,
what
state
soever
the
Church
is
in
,
while
there
is
any
publick
face
of
a
Church
.
Ornamental
▪
Decencies
cannot
always
be
had
,
and
therefore
do
not
always
oblige
,
as
in
the
case
of
Persecutions
.
But
why
any
man
should
say
that
the
Authority
of
the
Church
does
not
extend
to
Ornaments
,
when
it
is
in
her
power
to
adorn
the
Worship
of
God
,
I
cannot
guess
.
Must
there
be
no
difference
between
the
afflicted
,
and
prosperous
state
of
the
Church
?
When
God
has
made
in
all
other
things
a
distinction
between
Necessaries
,
Conveniences
,
and
Ornaments
,
does
he
allow
nothing
but
what
is
barely
ne●essary
to
his
own
Worship
?
It
is
possible
indeed
,
that
men
may
mistake
in
what
they
call
the
Ornaments
of
Religion
,
as
the
Church
of
Rome
evidently
does
;
but
if
they
do
not
mistake
,
and
have
it
in
their
power
to
give
an
external
beauty
and
lustre
to
Religion
,
do
they
exceed
their
Commission
in
this
too
?
The
Bishop
acknowledges
,
that
Sumptuousness
,
Ornaments
of
Churches
,
rich
Vtensils
,
Splendour
,
and
Majesty
,
is
decent
enough
,
and
in
some
circumstances
very
fit
;
and
I
should
much
have
wondered
,
had
he
denied
it
.
Now
when
these
things
are
decent
and
fit
,
does
it
exceed
the
Authority
of
the
Church
to
appoint
them
?
Can
any
thing
be
decent
and
fit
to
be
done
in
any
circumstances
,
which
the
Church
has
no
Authority
to
do
?
And
therefore
when
he
says
,
that
meer
Ornaments
are
not
comprehended
within
the
Rule
of
Decency
and
Order
,
he
means
no
more
by
it
,
than
that
the
Governours
of
the
Church
are
not
so
strictly
obliged
to
take
care
of
the
external
Ornaments
of
Religion
,
which
cannot
be
had
at
all
times
,
as
they
are
of
the
Decency
and
Order
of
Worship
.
Ornaments
are
very
fitting
,
when
they
can
be
had
;
but
the
Bishop
has
not
authority
to
oblige
the
People
to
the
charges
and
expences
of
such
Ornaments
,
unless
they
freely
and
willingly
consent
.
And
that
this
is
his
meaning
,
appears
from
the
Reasons
he
gives
of
it
:
That
this
is
too
subject
to
abuse
,
and
that
it
gives
a
secular
power
into
the
hands
of
Bishops
,
and
an
authority
over
mens
Estates
and
Fortunes
:
Which
are
good
Arguments
onely
upon
this
supposition
,
that
the
Bishop
had
such
authority
as
to
oblige
his
People
to
such
expences
as
he
should
think
fit
for
the
Ornaments
of
Religion
;
but
suppose
devout
people
liberally
contribute
to
such
pious
uses
,
if
his
Authority
and
Commission
does
not
extend
to
Ornaments
,
he
must
not
receive
their
money
,
nor
adorn
the
Church
with
it
;
if
he
may
,
then
his
Authority
extends
to
Ornaments
,
though
he
has
no
Authority
over
mens
Estates
:
for
he
must
not
do
any
thing
in
the
Church
,
which
he
has
no
authority
to
do
.
But
this
is
not
necessary
for
mens
Souls
.
Right
;
and
therefore
not
an
absolute
and
necessary
Duty
:
otherwise
,
how
does
it
appear
that
the
Bishops
Authority
extends
onely
to
Necessaries
?
Why
may
not
the
Honour
of
God
,
and
the
external
Beauty
of
his
Worship
,
be
considered
in
Religion
,
as
well
as
the
salvation
of
mens
Souls
?
Why
may
not
spiritual
advantages
find
place
in
our
Worship
,
as
well
as
what
is
barely
necessary
?
But
it
is
no
part
of
spiritual
Government
.
Right
;
not
to
seize
mens
Estates
to
adorn
the
Worship
of
God
.
By
these
Reasons
he
proves
,
that
this
is
more
Authority
than
Christ
has
given
to
his
Ministers
:
From
whence
we
may
easily
learn
what
kind
of
Authority
he
means
,
such
an
absolute
Authority
to
adorn
Religion
,
as
gives
the
Bishop
authority
over
mens
Estates
for
such
prous
uses
.
But
Christ
has
given
Authority
to
his
Ministers
to
take
care
of
the
Decency
of
Worship
;
and
therefore
their
Authority
is
of
equal
extent
with
the
Decencies
of
Religion
.
3.
When
that
Reverend
Bishop
says
,
That
Rule
,
Let
all
things
be
done
decently
and
in
order
,
must
be
limited
to
such
as
onely
rescue
from
confusion
,
he
must
have
some
larger
notion
of
confusion
than
the
usual
signification
of
that
word
will
justifie
:
for
men
may
avoid
all
confusion
,
and
yet
neglect
all
the
natural
Decencies
of
religious
Worship
.
The
Meetings
of
Quakers
may
be
very
orderly
,
without
any
confusion
,
and
yet
without
any
Decency
.
And
the
reason
the
Bishop
assigns
for
this
,
Because
the
Prelates
and
spiritual
Guides
cannot
do
their
Duty
,
unless
things
be
so
orderly
that
there
be
no
confusion
,
is
a
very
good
reason
against
confusion
;
but
is
no
reason
at
all
to
prove
that
the
Rule
of
Decency
and
Order
extends
no
farther
than
to
rescue
from
confusion
,
in
the
common
acceptation
of
the
word
:
for
there
is
something
more
required
in
religious
Assemblies
,
than
meerly
that
the
Bishop
or
Pastor
may
do
his
Duty
without
disturbance
and
confusion
;
viz.
that
the
People
worship
God
in
such
a
decent
manner
as
becomes
the
divine
Majesty
.
The
external
Decencies
and
Solemnities
of
Worship
,
are
an
essential
part
of
Religion
,
and
therefore
naturally
belong
to
the
care
of
Church-Governours
,
whether
there
had
been
any
Law
for
it
or
no
,
much
more
when
they
are
commanded
to
do
all
things
decently
and
in
order
,
we
may
reasonably
conclude
,
that
their
Authority
extends
to
whatever
is
truly
decent
in
Religion
.
But
our
Reconciler
thinks
that
this
limitation
of
the
words
to
matters
done
in
confusion
and
disorder
,
may
be
plainly
gathered
from
all
the
instances
preceding
,
which
gave
occasion
to
the
Rule
,
they
being
instances
of
great
indecencies
and
disorders
committed
in
the
Church
of
Corinth
:
And
from
thence
he
tells
us
,
This
onely
can
be
certainly
collected
,
that
when
any
thing
is
performed
indecently
and
disorderly
in
the
Service
of
the
Church
,
the
Rulers
of
it
should
correct
them
.
And
to
the
same
purpose
,
he
urges
an
Argument
of
Mr.
Ieanes
:
The
words
of
the
Apostle
,
Let
all
things
be
done
decently
and
in
order
,
are
not
disobeyed
,
unless
there
be
some
indecency
committed
in
the
Worship
and
Service
of
God
,
or
some
disorder
in
it
:
for
Decency
and
Indecency
,
Order
and
Disorder
or
Ataxy
,
are
privatively
opposite
;
and
between
privative
opposites
in
a
capable
subject
,
there
is
no
medium
;
and
therefore
there
is
Decency
sufficient
in
those
actions
where
is
no
indecency
.
But
now
by
the
omission
of
symbolical
Ceremonies
of
humane
institution
,
such
as
the
Cross
in
Baptism
,
Surplice
in
Prayer
,
Kneeling
when
we
receive
the
Sacrament
,
there
is
committed
no
indecency
in
those
parts
of
the
Worship
of
God
;
and
therefore
the
Apostles
Precept
is
not
disobeyed
by
the
omission
of
such
Ceremonies
,
and
consequently
this
Precept
cannot
warrant
the
imposing
of
them
.
I
wonder
how
learned
men
can
impose
upon
themselves
and
others
with
such
silly
Sophisms
as
these
:
for
let
us
consider
,
1.
Suppose
this
Precept
,
to
do
all
things
decently
and
in
order
,
were
given
upon
occasion
of
those
disorders
and
indecencies
which
were
committed
in
the
Church
of
Corinth
,
how
does
it
hence
follow
,
that
the
Apostle
requires
no
other
Decency
than
just
what
will
remove
the
indecencies
of
Worship
?
Is
Decency
a
thing
valuable
for
it self
,
or
onely
as
it
is
opposed
to
indecency
?
If
the
Decency
of
Worship
be
a
good
thing
,
(
and
if
it
be
not
,
Indecency
cannot
be
a
fault
)
then
it
is
a
ridiculous
thing
to
say
,
that
the
end
of
Decency
is
onely
to
prevent
Indecency
:
as
if
the
end
of
seeing
,
were
onely
to
prevent
blindness
;
or
the
end
of
Vertue
,
onely
to
prevent
Vice
.
They
tell
us
that
Decency
and
Indecency
are
privatively
opposite
;
that
is
,
I
suppose
,
that
Indecency
is
the
privation
of
Decency
,
not
that
Decency
is
the
privation
of
Indecency
:
and
therefore
though
the
nature
of
Indecency
consists
in
its
opposition
to
Decency
,
yet
the
nature
of
Decency
does
not
consist
in
its
opposition
to
Indecency
.
Though
we
should
allow
that
to
be
decent
which
is
not
indecent
,
yet
it
is
not
decent
meerly
because
it
is
not
indecent
,
but
because
it
is
agreeable
to
the
Laws
and
Rules
of
Decency
:
And
therefore
though
the
Apostle
gave
this
Precept
upon
occasion
of
these
Indecencies
committed
in
the
Church
of
Corinth
,
yet
the
Command
extends
to
any
instances
and
degrees
of
Decency
:
for
he
does
not
command
Decency
meerly
out
of
opposition
to
Indecency
,
(
which
is
to
invert
the
natural
order
of
things
)
but
for
its
own
sake
,
as
necessary
and
essential
to
publick
Worship
;
as
he
who
reproves
the
Vices
of
the
Age
,
and
exhorts
men
to
the
contrary
Vertues
,
does
not
mean
that
they
should
onely
practise
so
much
Vertue
as
not
to
be
guilty
of
these
popular
Vices
,
but
that
they
should
aim
at
the
highest
degrees
and
instances
of
Vertue
.
2.
And
therefore
those
Rites
and
Ceremonies
of
Religion
may
be
included
in
this
Apostolical
Precept
,
to
do
all
things
decently
and
in
order
;
the
omission
of
which
,
is
not
disorderly
and
indecent
,
if
they
be
agreeable
to
the
Laws
and
Rules
of
Decency
;
because
the
Decency
of
our
Actions
does
not
consist
in
its
opposition
to
Indecency
,
but
in
conformity
to
the
Rules
of
Decency
.
This
is
the
principal
Argument
on
which
our
Reconciler
and
Mr.
Ieanes
rely
,
to
prove
that
the
Ceremonies
of
the
Church
of
England
cannot
be
included
in
that
Apostolical
Precept
of
doing
things
decently
and
in
order
,
because
the
omission
of
these
Ceremonies
is
not
indecent
.
If
then
(
says
the
Reconciler
)
it
can
appear
that
praying
without
a
Surplice
,
or
receiving
the
Sacrament
without
kneeling
,
or
baptizing
without
the
Cross
,
is
doing
these
things
indecently
and
disorderly
,
then
must
it
be
confess'd
that
this
is
a
good
warrant
for
the
imposition
of
these
things
;
but
till
this
can
be
made
appear
,
it
must
be
vainly
pleaded
to
that
end
.
But
now
(
says
Mr.
Ieanes
)
by
the
omission
of
symbolical
Ceremonies
of
humane
institution
,
such
as
the
Cross
in
Baptism
,
Surplice
in
Prayer
,
Kneeling
when
we
receive
the
Sacrament
,
there
is
committed
no
Indecency
in
those
parts
of
the
Service
of
God
;
and
therefore
the
Apostles
Precept
is
not
disobeyed
by
the
omission
of
such
Ceremonies
,
and
consequently
this
Precept
cannot
warrant
the
imposing
of
them
.
That
the
Apostolical
Precept
is
not
disobeyed
by
the
omission
of
these
Ceremonies
,
I
readily
grant
;
but
not
for
his
reason
,
that
the
omission
of
them
is
not
indecent
;
for
this
Precept
commands
the
positive
Decency
of
Worship
,
as
well
as
forbids
the
Indecency
of
it
;
but
because
the
Decency
of
Worship
may
be
secured
by
other
decent
Rites
and
Ceremonies
,
though
these
were
omitted
:
but
his
consequently
is
a
far-fetch'd
one
.
The
imposing
any
decent
Rites
may
be
warranted
by
this
Precept
,
though
the
neglect
of
them
be
not
indecent
:
for
every
decent
Rite
excludes
Indecency
,
and
makes
the
Worship
decent
;
which
is
the
sum
of
this
Apostolical
Precept
.
Decent
Rites
and
Ceremonies
are
not
opposed
to
the
Indecency
of
omitting
such
Rites
,
but
to
other
indecent
Modes
of
Worship
.
Kneeling
at
the
Sacrament
ought
not
to
be
opposed
to
not
kneeling
,
nor
wearing
a
Surplice
to
not
wearing
a
Surplice
:
for
they
cannot
be
opposed
as
doing
a
thing
decently
or
indecently
,
but
as
doing
or
not
doing
a
thing
which
may
be
decent
or
indecent
according
to
the
nature
of
things
;
but
they
must
be
opposed
to
other
Postures
or
Habits
in
Worship
:
And
such
Rites
as
exclude
Indecency
,
and
have
a
natural
Decency
in
them
,
are
comprehended
in
this
Rule
.
3.
As
for
his
Logick
,
he
tells
us
,
That
Decency
and
Indecency
are
privatively
opposite
;
and
between
privative
opposites
in
a
capable
subject
there
is
no
medium
,
and
therefore
there
is
Decency
sufficient
in
those
actions
where
is
no
Indecency
.
This
our
Reconciler
calls
a
plain
Argument
,
which
is
nothing
else
but
a
plain
Fallacy
.
For
suppose
we
grant
him
that
Decency
and
Indecency
,
Reverence
and
Irreverence
,
are
privative
Opposites
,
that
is
,
opposed
to
each
other
as
a
habit
,
and
its
privation
as
sight
and
blindness
;
how
does
it
hence
follow
,
that
there
is
Decency
enough
where
there
is
no
Indecency
?
Sight
and
blindness
are
privatively
opposite
;
but
will
you
say
,
that
man
sees
well
enough
,
who
is
not
blind
?
Though
there
be
no
medium
between
a
habit
and
a
total
privation
,
yet
there
are
great
degrees
in
habits
;
and
no
man
thinks
he
sees
well
enough
,
though
he
be
not
stark
blind
,
if
his
eye
be
weak
and
tender
,
or
short-sighted
,
or
wants
the
assistance
of
Spectacles
,
or
other
helps
of
Art
.
Thus
though
Indecency
were
nothing
else
but
the
privation
of
Decency
,
yet
there
are
great
degrees
of
Decency
.
And
when
the
Apostle
commands
,
that
all
things
be
done
decently
and
in
order
,
our
Reconciler
must
prove
that
he
meant
onely
the
lowest
degree
of
Decency
,
which
is
but
one
bare
remove
from
Indecency
;
otherwise
he
must
give
us
leave
to
conclude
,
that
whatever
is
truly
decent
,
is
comprehended
in
this
Precept
;
and
the
more
decent
any
thing
is
,
the
more
agreeable
is
it
to
the
Apostles
designe
.
But
besides
this
,
Mr.
Ieanes
,
and
our
Reconciler
after
him
,
are
grievously
out
in
their
Logick
.
For
Decency
and
Indecency
,
Reverence
and
Irreverence
,
are
not
privative
opposites
:
for
Indecency
is
not
the
meer
privation
of
Decency
,
but
they
are
opposed
as
Vertue
and
Vice
;
that
is
,
as
two
extreams
are
opposed
to
each
other
,
which
are
properly
called
adversa
,
which
are
affirmative
,
not
negative
opposites
,
though
the
Grammatical
Notation
of
the
words
Indecency
and
Irreverence
,
seems
to
have
betrayed
him
into
that
mistake
.
And
I
suppose
they
will
allow
that
there
is
a
medium
between
two
extreams
:
and
let
our
Reconciler
consider
how
it
would
sound
to
say
,
That
man
is
vertuous
enough
,
who
is
not
vicious
.
Indecent
and
not
decent
,
do
not
signifie
the
same
thing
,
no
more
than
unlearned
and
not
learned
.
I
have
been
taught
in
Logick
,
that
homo
est
indoctus
,
and
homo
est
non
doctus
,
are
not
equipollent
Propositions
:
To
say
,
A
man
is
learned
,
a
man
is
not
learned
,
a
man
is
unlearned
,
signifie
very
differently
;
and
so
do
these
Propositions
,
An
action
is
decent
,
an
action
is
not
decent
,
an
action
is
indecent
:
the
first
signifies
a
positive
Decency
;
the
second
,
that
there
is
no
positive
Decency
;
the
third
,
that
there
is
a
plain
opposition
and
contrariety
to
the
Laws
of
Decency
.
Civility
and
●udeness
in
common
conversation
,
are
opposed
as
Decency
and
Indecency
are
;
but
there
is
an
untutored
and
undisciplined
humour
,
which
is
neither
civil
nor
rude
.
This
,
I
think
,
is
sufficient
to
prove
,
that
there
may
be
no
Decency
nor
Reverence
in
such
actions
which
cannot
be
strictly
charged
with
Indecency
and
Irreverence
:
and
therefore
when
the
Apostle
commands
,
that
all
things
be
done
decently
,
he
require●
something
more
than
not
to
be
guilty
of
a●●
Indecency
or
Irreverence
in
Worship
.
III.
To
proceed
:
He
observes
,
that
the
same
Reverend
Bishop
proves
,
That
beyond
commanding
that
which
hath
a
necessary
relation
to
the
express
command
of
God
,
or
is
so
requisite
for
the
doing
of
it
,
that
it
cannot
be
well
done
without
it
by
any
other
instrument
,
or
by
it self
alone
,
the
Bishops
can
give
no
Laws
which
properly
and
immediately
bind
the
transgressors
under
sin
.
I
confess
I
do
not
certainly
understand
what
this
learned
man
refers
to
,
he
having
given
us
no
particular
instances
;
which
has
given
advantage
to
our
Reconciler
to
apply
it
as
he
pleases
.
But
let
us
consider
his
Reasons
;
and
by
that
we
may
guess
how
far
we
are
concerned
.
1.
Because
we
never
find
the
Apostles
using
their
Coertion
upon
any
man
,
but
the
express
breakers
of
a
divine
Commandment
,
or
the
publick
disturbers
of
the
peace
of
the
Church
,
and
the
establisht
necessary
Order
.
Thus
far
the
Bishop
.
To
which
the
Reconciler
adds
,
Men
must
not
therefore
first
make
unnecessary
Orders
,
and
when
men
cannot
conscientiously
submit
unto
them
,
and
therefore
do
not
so
,
cry
out
that
they
disturb
the
Churches
peace
.
These
words
he
represents
as
the
Bishops
also
,
though
they
are
his
own
;
which
is
one
of
his
pious
frauds
.
But
as
for
the
Argument
,
I
think
it
is
evident
,
it
does
not
relate
to
our
Dispute
,
who
pretend
no
other
authority
but
to
censure
those
who
disturb
the
peace
of
the
Church
,
and
the
establisht
necessary
Order
:
for
such
the
Rules
of
Order
and
Decency
are
.
But
how
the
Apostles
censured
such
persons
,
we
cannot
tell
neither
:
for
we
never
read
that
any
Christians
in
those
days
disputed
the
Apostolical
authority
in
such
matters
,
or
refused
to
obey
their
Canons
and
Injunctions
;
and
therefore
there
was
no
occasion
to
exercise
such
censures
.
2.
Because
even
in
those
things
which
were
so
convenient
,
that
they
had
power
to
use
Injunctions
,
yet
the
Apostles
were
very
backward
to
use
their
authority
of
commanding
,
much
less
would
they
use
severity
,
but
entreaty
.
It
was
St.
Paul
's
case
to
Philemon
before-mentioned
,
Though
I
might
be
much
bold
in
Christ
to
enjoyn
that
which
is
convenient
,
yet
for
loves
sake
I
rather
entreat
thee
.
But
this
does
not
concern
us
neither
:
for
what
is
this
to
the
Rules
and
Orders
of
Worship
,
that
he
would
not
take
Philemon's
servant
Onesimus
from
him
,
without
his
consent
?
for
I
doubt
Church-authority
does
not
extend
to
such
matters
,
which
are
purely
civil
and
secular
:
and
though
when
such
things
are
highly
expedient
for
the
Worship
of
God
,
the
Bishop
has
authority
to
exhort
and
perswade
,
and
that
man
sins
who
disobeys
,
yet
this
is
not
properly
the
object
of
Church-censures
,
and
Ecclesiastical
authority
,
no
more
than
when
men
refuse
to
do
some
pious
or
charitable
act
at
the
Bishops
request
.
Philemon's
obligations
to
St.
Paul
,
who
was
his
spiritual
Father
,
who
had
converted
him
to
the
Christian
Faith
,
gave
him
a
peculiar
authority
over
him
;
but
the
bare
Apostolical
authority
did
not
extend
to
the
disposal
of
mens
Fortunes
and
Servants
,
which
in
those
days
were
part
of
their
Estates
.
3.
In
those
things
where
God
had
interposed
no
command
,
though
the
Rule
they
gave
contained
in
it
that
which
was
fit
and
decent
,
yet
if
men
would
resist
,
they
gently
did
admonish
&
reprove
them
,
&
let
them
alone
.
So
S.
Paul
,
in
case
of
the
Corinthian
men
wearing
long
hair
,
If
any
man
list
to
be
contentious
,
we
have
no
such
custom
,
nor
the
Churches
of
God
;
that
is
,
let
him
chuse
,
it
is
not
well
done
,
we
leave
him
to
his
own
liberty
,
but
let
him
look
to
it
.
But
this
does
not
reach
the
case
neither
:
for
wearing
long
hair
did
not
concern
the
Rites
,
and
Ceremonies
,
and
Uniformity
of
religious
Worship
,
(
which
is
our
onely
Dispute
)
but
was
an
Indecency
in
common
conversation
;
and
a
great
many
such
things
the
Apostles
indulged
both
to
Jews
and
Heathens
,
till
they
could
be
reformed
by
Reason
and
better
Instructions
;
though
at
the
same
time
they
did
more
severely
correct
the
Disorders
and
Indecencies
of
Worship
.
And
yet
I
confess
,
it
seems
a
very
odd
Comment
upon
the
Apostles
words
,
We
have
no
such
custom
,
nor
the
Churches
of
God
;
viz.
let
him
chuse
,
it
is
not
well
done
,
we
leave
him
to
himself
.
Whereas
in
these
words
the
Apostle
is
so
far
from
leaving
them
to
do
as
they
please
,
that
he
determines
the
Controversie
against
them
by
the
highest
Authority
,
to
a
Christian
,
next
to
an
express
Law
of
God
,
viz.
the
Customs
and
Usages
of
the
Christian
Church
.
The
Apostle
indeed
does
not
here
threaten
Church-censures
against
them
,
but
first
tries
what
Reason
and
Argument
will
do
;
which
is
a
very
proper
method
for
Bishops
to
use
,
but
a
very
ill
Argument
to
prove
that
the
Church
must
not
censure
those
who
refuse
Obedience
to
her
Laws
and
Constitutions
.
4.
If
the
Bishops
power
were
extended
farther
,
it
might
extend
to
Tyranny
,
and
there
could
be
no
limits
beyond
this
to
keep
him
within
the
measures
and
sweetness
of
the
Government
Evangelical
;
but
if
he
pretend
to
go
farther
,
he
may
be
absolute
and
supreme
in
the
things
of
this
life
,
which
do
not
concern
the
Spirit
;
and
so
fall
into
Dynasty
,
as
one
anciently
complained
of
the
Bishop
of
Rome
,
and
change
the
Father
into
a
Prince
,
and
the
Church
into
an
Empire
.
This
is
a
plain
Argument
,
that
the
Bishop
does
not
speak
here
of
the
decent
Rites
and
Circumstances
of
Worship
:
for
how
the
Authority
of
the
Church
to
prescribe
the
decent
Rites
and
Ceremonies
of
Religion
should
degenerate
into
Tyranny
and
secular
Power
,
is
unintelligible
to
me
.
The
Usurpations
of
the
Church
of
Rome
,
we
know
,
came
in
at
another
door
;
and
the
Presbyter
,
who
has
little
regard
to
the
external
Order
and
Decency
of
Worship
,
can
find
other
pretences
to
get
some
secular
power
into
his
hands
.
But
what
limit
can
be
set
to
Ecclesiastical
Authority
,
if
the
Church
exceed
what
is
barely
necessary
to
prevent
confusion
in
religious
Worship
?
I
answer
,
Decency
is
the
bound
of
it
,
and
there
needs
no
other
.
What
is
decent
and
orderly
in
religious
Worship
,
belongs
to
Church-authority
;
what
is
more
,
is
an
irregular
abuse
:
and
there
is
no
great
danger
that
such
a
Power
as
this
should
make
Bishops
secular
Princes
.
This
makes
it
evident
to
me
,
that
this
learned
Prelate
intended
not
one
word
of
all
this
against
the
Ceremonies
of
the
Church
of
England
,
or
the
imposition
of
them
:
and
it
is
certain
he
could
not
,
unless
we
will
say
,
that
he
contradicts
himself
;
and
then
his
authority
is
good
on
neither
side
.
And
I
shall
make
this
appear
once
for
all
,
and
thereby
answer
the
Citations
out
of
the
Writings
of
this
excellent
Bishop
,
to
countenance
this
Reconciling
Designe
,
all
together
.
I
observe
then
,
that
the
Bishop
himself
does
expresly
justifie
the
Ceremonies
of
the
Church
of
England
,
as
not
offending
against
any
of
those
Rules
he
had
prescribed
for
Ecclesiastical
Laws
.
There
is
reason
to
celebrate
and
honour
the
Wisdom
of
the
Church
of
England
,
which
hath
in
all
her
Offices
retained
but
one
Ritual
or
Ceremony
that
is
not
of
divine
Ordinance
,
or
Apostolical
Practice
,
and
that
is
,
the
Cross
in
Baptism
;
which
though
it
be
a
significant
Ceremony
,
and
of
no
other
use
,
(
though
in
this
I
cannot
agree
with
the
Bishop
,
and
have
given
my
reasons
for
it
above
)
so
it
is
very
innocent
in
it self
;
and
being
one
and
alone
,
is
in
no
regard
troublesome
or
afflective
to
those
who
understand
her
power
,
her
liberty
,
and
reason
.
I
say
,
she
hath
one
onely
Ceremony
of
her
own
appointment
:
for
the
Ring
in
Marriage
is
the
Symbol
of
a
●ivil
and
religious
Contract
;
it
is
a
Pledge
and
Custom
of
the
Nation
,
not
of
the
Religion
.
And
those
other
Circumstances
of
her
Worship
,
are
but
determinations
of
time
and
place
,
and
manner
of
a
Duty
;
they
serve
to
other
purposes
besides
signification
;
they
were
not
made
for
that
,
but
for
Order
and
Decency
;
for
which
there
is
an
Apostolical
Precept
,
and
a
natural
reason
,
and
an
evident
necessity
,
or
a
great
convenience
.
Now
if
,
besides
these
uses
,
they
can
be
construed
to
any
good
signification
or
instruction
,
that
is
so
far
from
being
a
prejudice
to
them
,
that
it
is
their
advantage
;
their
principal
end
being
different
,
and
warranted
,
and
not
destroyed
by
their
superinduc'd
and
accidental
use
.
In
other
things
we
are
to
remember
that
Figures
and
Shadows
were
for
the
Old
Testament
,
but
Light
and
Manifestation
is
in
the
New
.
This
is
the
judgment
of
this
excellent
Bishop
about
the
Ceremonies
of
the
Church
of
England
;
which
I
think
makes
little
for
our
Reconcilers
purpose
;
and
therefore
when
he
had
transcribed
that
large
Discourse
about
Rituals
and
Ceremonies
meerly
for
signification
,
out
of
the
Bishops
Writings
,
And
indeed
,
all
his
other
Citations
out
of
the
Writings
of
this
excellent
Bishop
are
as
little
to
his
purpose
,
because
none
of
them
concern
the
decent
circumstances
of
religious
Worship
,
which
is
our
present
Dispute
;
and
therefore
we
cannot
from
thence
learn
what
the
Bishop's
judgment
was
in
these
matters
:
as
to
take
a
brief
survey
of
these
Arguments
,
as
he
calls
them
,
taken
out
of
Bishop
Taylor
's
Ductor
Dubitantium
.
His
first
Argument
is
patcht
up
of
two
Sayings
,
The
Bishop
truly
saith
,
That
't
is
not
reasonable
to
think
that
God
would
give
the
Church-Rulers
his
Authority
for
trifling
and
needless
purposes
.
This
is
said
in
one
place
;
and
to
make
up
his
Argument
,
he
tacks
another
Saying
to
it
:
Now
Rituals
,
saith
he
,
and
Externals
are
nothing
of
the
substance
of
Religion
,
but
onely
appendages
,
and
manner
,
and
circumstances
;
a
wise
man
will
observe
them
,
not
that
they
are
pleasing
to
God
,
but
because
they
are
commanded
by
Laws
.
The
first
of
these
Sayings
is
under
the
third
Rule
,
That
the
Church
hath
power
to
make
Laws
in
all
things
of
necessary
Duty
,
by
a
direct
Power
and
divine
Authority
.
So
that
this
does
not
relate
to
the
circumstances
of
religious
actions
,
but
to
some
necessary
Duties
.
The
instance
the
Bishop
gives
in
that
place
,
is
this
:
That
the
Bishop
hath
power
to
command
his
Subject
or
Parishioner
to
put
away
his
Concubine
;
and
if
he
does
not
,
he
not
onely
sins
by
uncleanness
,
but
by
disobedience
too
.
This
sure
is
remote
enough
from
the
Dispute
of
Ceremonies
.
But
then
he
proves
,
that
such
men
sin
by
disobeying
the
Bishop
in
such
cases
,
by
this
Argument
among
others
,
That
it
is
not
reasonable
to
think
that
God
would
give
the
Church-Rulers
his
Authority
for
trifling
and
needless
purposes
.
For
it
is
a
trifling
thing
to
have
Authority
to
command
,
if
that
Authority
have
no
effect
;
if
men
may
disobey
such
commands
,
without
sin
.
So
that
these
words
,
whereby
the
Bishop
proves
the
Authority
of
the
Church
to
command
,
and
that
those
sin
who
disobey
,
our
Reconciler
produces
to
prove
that
the
Church
has
no
Authority
to
command
the
decent
Ceremonies
of
Religion
,
because
in
his
opinion
they
are
trifling
and
needless
things
.
The
latter
part
of
his
Argument
is
taken
from
the
Bishops
sixth
Rule
,
which
is
this
:
Kings
and
Princes
are
by
the
ties
of
Religion
,
not
of
Power
,
obliged
to
keep
the
Laws
of
the
Church
.
His
resolution
of
which
,
in
short
,
is
this
:
That
such
Ecclesiastical
Laws
which
are
the
Exercises
of
internal
Religion
,
cannot
be
neglected
by
Princes
,
without
some
straining
of
their
duty
to
God
,
which
is
by
the
wisdom
and
choice
of
men
determined
in
such
an
instance
to
such
a
specification
;
but
in
Externals
and
Rituals
they
have
a
greater
liberty
;
so
that
every
omission
is
not
a
sin
in
them
,
though
it
may
be
in
Subjects
:
and
his
reason
is
,
That
they
are
nothing
of
the
substance
of
Religion
,
but
onely
appendages
,
and
manner
,
and
circumstances
;
and
therefore
a
wise
man
will
observe
Rituals
,
because
they
are
commanded
by
Laws
,
not
that
they
are
pleasing
to
God
.
Since
therefore
these
are
wholly
matter
of
obedience
,
Kings
are
free
,
save
onely
when
they
become
bound
collaterally
and
accidentally
.
So
that
the
Bishop
does
not
here
speak
one
word
of
Externals
and
Rituals
,
as
such
trifling
and
needless
things
,
that
the
Church
has
no
Authority
to
command
them
(
to
which
purpose
our
Reconciler
applies
it
)
but
as
such
things
,
which
being
bound
on
us
onely
by
humane
Authority
,
a
Soveraign
Prince
who
owns
no
higher
humane
Authority
than
his
own
,
is
not
so
strictly
obliged
by
them
,
as
his
Subjects
are
,
but
may
dispense
with
himself
when
he
sees
fit
.
These
are
excellent
premises
for
such
a
conclusion
as
our
Reconciler
draws
from
them
.
But
yet
it
is
worth
the
while
to
consider
what
the
Bishop
means
by
the
Externals
or
Rituals
of
Religion
.
Whatever
our
Reconciler
finds
said
about
Ecclesiastical
Laws
,
or
the
Externals
and
Rituals
of
Religion
,
he
presently
applies
to
the
Ceremonies
of
the
Church
of
England
,
which
(
excepting
the
Cross
)
are
onely
decent
circumstances
,
without
which
,
or
such-like
,
the
Worship
of
God
cannot
be
decently
or
reverently
performed
;
that
is
,
without
which
there
can
be
no
external
Worship
,
which
consists
in
the
external
expressions
of
Honour
and
Devotion
.
It
is
sufficiently
evident
what
a
vast
difference
the
Bishop
makes
between
these
two
.
Thus
he
expresly
does
in
these
words
:
To
the
ceremonial
Law
of
the
Iews
nothing
was
to
be
added
,
and
from
it
nothing
was
to
be
substracted
▪
and
in
Christianity
we
have
less
reason
to
adde
any
thing
of
Ceremony
,
excepting
(
N.
B.
)
the
circumstances
and
advantages
of
the
very
Ministry
,
as
time
,
and
place
,
and
vessels
,
and
ornaments
,
and
necessary
appendages
.
But
when
we
speak
of
Rituals
and
Ceremonies
,
that
is
,
exterior
actions
or
things
besides
the
institution
and
command
of
Christ
,
&c.
Where
he
expresly
distinguishes
between
the
circumstances
and
advantages
of
the
very
Ministry
(
what
is
necessary
or
convenient
for
the
decent
and
orderly
performance
of
the
publick
acts
of
Worship
)
from
Rituals
or
Ceremonies
,
whereby
he
understands
exterior
actions
or
things
;
that
is
,
such
Ceremonies
as
are
not
the
circumstances
of
religious
actions
,
but
are
distinct
acts
themselves
,
either
instituted
as
parts
of
Worship
,
and
then
,
he
says
,
they
are
intolerable
;
or
meerly
for
signification
,
and
that
is
a
very
little
thing
,
and
of
very
inconsiderable
use
in
the
fulness
and
charity
of
the
Revelations
Evangelical
.
Such
he
reckons
,
giving
Milk
and
Honey
,
or
a
little
Wine
,
to
persons
to
be
baptized
;
and
to
present
Milk
,
together
with
Bread
and
Wine
,
at
the
Lords
Table
,
to
signifie
nutrition
by
the
Body
and
Bloud
of
Christ
;
to
let
a
Pidgeon
flie
,
to
signifie
the
coming
of
the
Holy
Spirit
;
to
light
up
Candles
,
to
represent
the
Epiphany
;
to
dress
a
Bed
,
to
express
the
secret
and
ineffable
Generation
of
the
Saviour
of
the
World
;
to
prepare
the
figure
of
the
Cross
,
and
to
bury
an
Image
,
to
describe
the
great
Sacrifice
of
the
Cross.
A
great
many
such
things
our
Reconciler
himself
has
collected
in
his
eighth
Chapter
,
which
may
properly
be
called
the
Rituals
or
Ceremonies
or
Religion
;
most
of
which
are
now
out
of
use
in
most
Churches
which
formerly
used
them
,
and
none
of
them
are
in
u●e
among
us
.
But
what
we
call
the
Ceremonies
of
the
Church
of
England
,
are
not
in
this
sence
Rituals
or
Ceremonies
,
but
the
decent
circumstances
of
Worship
,
as
the
Bishop
acknowledges
,
excepting
the
Cross
in
Baptism
;
which
yet
is
not
a
meer
significant
,
but
a
professing
Signe
,
as
I
have
already
discours'd
:
and
for
such
Ceremonies
as
these
,
which
serve
for
Order
and
Decency
,
the
Bishop
tells
us
,
There
is
an
Apostolical
Precept
,
and
a
natural
Reason
,
and
an
evident
Necessity
,
or
a
great
Convenience
.
In
a
word
,
when
the
Bishop
speaks
of
Rituals
and
Ceremonies
,
he
understands
by
them
exterior
actions
or
things
,
something
which
is
like
the
ceremonial
observances
of
the
Jewish
Law
,
which
were
not
meer
circumstances
of
action
,
but
religious
Rites
.
Such
were
their
Sacrifices
,
Washings
,
and
Purifications
,
their
Phylacteries
,
their
Fasts
,
and
Festivals
,
new
Moons
and
Sabbaths
;
not
considered
meerly
as
circumstances
of
time
,
but
as
having
such
a
Sacredness
and
Religion
stamped
on
them
,
that
the
very
observing
them
was
an
act
of
Religion
;
that
the
religious
Duties
observed
on
them
,
were
appointed
for
the
sake
of
the
day
,
not
the
day
meerly
for
the
sake
of
the
Religion
.
Such
were
the
numerous
Traditions
of
the
Scribes
and
Pharisees
about
making
broad
their
Phylacteries
,
washing
their
Cups
and
Platters
,
and
their
hands
before
dinner
;
and
an
infinite
number
of
other
superstitious
observances
.
Now
though
some
external
actions
and
things
,
wisely
chosen
,
and
prudently
used
,
may
be
for
the
service
of
Religion
,
at
least
are
not
unlawful
to
be
used
,
unless
we
will
condemn
the
whole
Christian
Church
for
several
Ages
,
which
used
a
great
many
external
Rites
;
yet
every
one
sees
what
a
vast
difference
there
is
between
such
Rites
as
these
,
and
the
decent
Circumstances
of
religious
Worship
.
And
therefore
those
men
mistake
the
case
of
the
Church
of
England
,
who
lay
the
Controversie
upon
Rituals
and
Ceremonies
:
for
there
is
no
such
thing
in
the
Church
of
England
,
according
to
the
true
and
proper
signification
of
these
words
.
Our
Fasts
and
Festivals
look
most
like
such
Rituals
and
Ceremonies
,
but
are
not
so
:
for
with
us
they
are
not
religious
days
,
but
days
appointed
for
the
solemn
Exercises
of
Religion
;
which
differ
as
much
as
a
circumstance
of
time
,
does
from
an
act
of
Religion
;
as
making
a
day
religious
,
which
none
but
God
can
do
,
differs
from
appointing
a
day
for
the
publick
Solemnities
of
Religion
,
which
the
Governours
of
the
Church
and
State
may
do
;
as
the
Religion
of
observing
a
day
,
differs
from
those
acts
of
Religion
which
are
performed
on
such
a
day
.
Now
this
very
observation
of
the
difference
between
Rituals
and
Ceremonies
,
and
the
decent
circumstances
of
Worship
,
will
answer
most
of
his
Citations
which
he
has
impertinently
alleadged
out
of
the
Bishops
Writings
,
and
a
multitude
of
Objections
,
which
for
want
of
observing
this
,
have
been
very
injudiciously
made
against
those
which
we
call
the
Ceremonies
of
the
Church
of
England
.
Ecclesiastical
Laws
,
which
are
meerly
such
,
cannot
be
universal
and
perpetual
.
But
then
he
should
have
told
us
what
the
Bishop
meant
by
Ecclesiastical
Laws
meerly
such
;
That
is
,
saith
he
,
those
which
do
not
involve
a
divine
Law
within
their
matter
.
And
therefore
this
cannot
relate
to
the
decent
circumstances
of
Worship
:
for
they
all
involve
a
divine
Law
in
the
matter
of
them
;
they
are
onely
the
specification
of
the
Law
of
Decency
,
and
include
those
very
acts
of
Worship
to
which
they
belong
.
To
kneel
at
the
Lords
Supper
,
is
a
command
to
receive
the
Lords
Supper
kneeling
;
and
when
the
Minister
is
enjoyn'd
to
wear
the
surplice
,
it
signifies
that
he
must
perform
divine
Offices
in
a
Surplice
.
These
are
but
the
decent
circumstances
of
necessary
Duties
,
and
they
founded
on
the
Apostolical
Rule
of
Decency
.
Well
,
but
the
Bishop
adds
,
When
Christ
had
made
us
free
from
the
Law
of
Ceremonies
,
which
God
appointed
to
the
Iewish
Nation
,
and
to
which
all
other
Nations
were
bound
,
if
they
came
into
that
Communion
;
it
would
be
intolerable
that
the
Churches
who
rejoyced
in
their
freedom
from
that
Yoke
which
God
had
imposed
,
should
submit
themselves
to
a
Yoke
of
Ordinances
which
men
should
make
.
For
though
before
they
could
not
,
yet
now
they
may
exercise
Communion
,
and
use
the
same
Religion
without
communicating
in
Rites
and
Ordinances
.
Now
does
not
this
make
it
plain
,
that
the
Bishop
does
not
speak
of
the
decent
circumstances
of
Worship
,
such
as
our
English
Ceremonies
are
,
but
of
such
Rituals
and
Ceremonies
as
answer
to
the
Jewish
Rites
and
Ordinances
,
which
he
calls
exterior
things
and
actions
,
which
are
of
a
different
consideration
,
and
must
be
governed
by
different
Rules
and
Measures
?
And
yet
our
Reconciler
is
so
unfortunate
,
that
if
the
Bishop
had
meant
this
of
the
Ceremonies
of
our
Church
,
it
had
been
nothing
to
his
purpose
:
for
he
adds
in
the
very
next
words
,
This
does
no
way
concern
the
Subjects
of
any
Government
,
(
what
Liberty
they
are
to
retain
and
use
,
I
shall
discourse
in
the
following
numbers
)
but
it
concerns
distinct
Churches
under
distinct
Governments
;
and
it
means
,
as
it
appears
plainly
by
the
Context
,
and
the
whole
Analogie
of
the
thing
,
that
the
Christian
Churches
must
suffer
no
man
to
put
a
Law
upon
them
,
who
is
not
their
Governour
.
For
when
he
says
,
that
Ecclesiastical
Laws
that
are
meerly
such
,
must
not
be
universal
,
he
means
,
that
they
must
not
be
intended
to
oblige
all
Christendom
,
except
they
will
be
obliged
,
that
is
,
do
consent
:
That
no
Church
or
company
of
Christians
have
such
authority
as
to
oblige
the
whole
Christian
World
,
and
all
the
Churches
in
it
,
to
conform
to
their
Rituals
and
Ceremonies
,
which
he
says
is
contrary
to
Christian
liberty
,
and
such
an
Usurpation
as
must
not
be
endured
;
which
is
directly
levelled
against
the
Usurpations
of
the
Church
of
Rome
.
But
though
one
Church
cannot
impose
upon
another
,
yet
every
Church
has
power
over
her
own
Members
;
and
they
are
bound
to
obey
that
Authority
which
is
over
them
.
And
by
the
way
,
this
answers
all
his
Testimonies
from
Bishop
Davenant
,
This
our
Reconciler
was
aware
of
;
and
therefore
in
his
Preface
,
Why
that
agreement
in
Fundamentals
which
is
sufficient
to
preserve
Communion
betwixt
Churches
disagreeing
in
Rites
and
Ceremonies
,
and
Doctrines
of
inferior
moment
,
may
not
be
sufficient
also
to
preserve
Communion
among
those
Members
of
the
same
Church
,
though
disagreeing
in
like
matters
?
For
if
the
reason
why
Christian
Churches
which
do
thus
differ
,
should
be
received
and
owned
as
Christians
,
and
Brethren
of
the
same
Communion
with
us
,
is
because
these
differences
do
not
hinder
their
being
real
Members
of
Christs
Body
,
and
therefore
Fellow-members
of
the
same
Church
and
Body
with
us
,
since
the
same
reason
proves
the
Members
of
any
Church
whatsoever
,
who
differ
onely
in
non-fundamentals
,
capable
of
being
real
Christians
,
and
so
of
the
same
Church
and
Body
with
us
;
why
should
it
not
oblige
us
to
receive
them
as
Christian
Brethren
,
i.
e.
persons
of
the
same
Communion
with
us
,
if
we
can
do
it
without
sin
?
Now
the
Answer
to
this
is
so
obvious
,
that
I
wonder
our
Reconciler
should
miss
it
.
For
,
1.
The
reason
of
Communion
between
distinct
Churches
can
be
nothing
else
but
the
common
Principles
of
Christianity
,
one
Lord
,
one
Faith
,
one
Hope
,
one
Baptism
,
&c.
that
is
,
whatever
is
essential
to
Christian
Faith
and
Worship
:
for
what
is
more
than
this
,
as
the
particular
Rules
and
Orders
of
Discipline
and
Government
,
and
Modes
of
Worship
,
are
the
Object
of
Ecclesiastical
Authority
;
and
since
no
Church
has
authority
over
another
,
they
ought
not
to
impose
their
own
Rules
of
Discipline
or
Worship
upon
each
other
.
But
now
no
private
Christian
can
live
in
the
Communion
of
any
particular
Church
,
without
submitting
to
its
Government
and
Discipline
,
and
conforming
to
its
Rules
of
Worship
.
Though
one
Church
must
not
usurp
Authority
over
another
,
yet
every
Church
must
govern
her
own
Members
,
and
direct
her
own
Worship
;
and
there
can
be
no
Order
nor
Decency
of
Worship
,
where
there
are
no
Rules
of
Worship
,
no
Uniformity
,
but
every
man
is
left
to
do
as
he
pleases
.
And
yet
,
2.
Though
the
Communion
of
distinct
Churches
with
each
other
,
does
not
require
that
they
should
all
observe
the
same
Usages
and
Rites
of
Worship
in
their
own
Churches
,
yet
it
requires
that
the
Members
of
these
distinct
Churches
should
communicate
with
each
other
,
and
conform
to
each
others
Customs
,
where
they
happen
to
be
present
.
It
is
a
ridiculous
thing
to
talk
of
two
Churches
being
in
Communion
with
each
other
,
who
will
not
,
as
occasion
serves
,
communicate
together
upon
the
terms
of
each
others
Communion
.
For
Calvinists
to
call
the
Lutherans
,
or
Lutherans
the
Calvinists
,
Brethren
;
but
to
refuse
to
joyn
in
Communion
,
when
they
happen
to
be
in
each
others
Churches
,
this
is
not
to
live
in
Communion
with
each
other
:
or
for
a
Calvinist
to
communicate
in
the
Lutheran
Church
,
or
a
Lutheran
in
the
Calvinists
,
but
according
to
the
Rites
of
their
own
Churches
,
not
of
the
Church
in
which
they
communicate
;
this
is
not
to
communicate
with
,
but
publickly
to
affront
each
other
.
The
onely
Principle
of
Catholick
Communion
between
distinct
Churches
in
such
matters
as
these
,
is
so
far
to
allow
of
each
others
Rules
and
Modes
of
Worship
,
as
to
conform
,
when
occasion
serves
,
to
such
indifferent
Customs
and
Usages
,
though
very
different
from
their
own
,
rather
than
divide
the
Communion
of
the
Church
:
and
if
this
be
necessary
to
the
Communion
of
distinct
Churches
with
each
other
,
then
certainly
it
is
necessary
for
the
Members
of
every
particular
Church
to
submit
to
its
Authority
,
and
conform
to
its
Rules
and
Orders
of
Worship
.
For
,
3.
It
is
ridiculous
to
imagine
that
nothing
more
is
necessary
to
a
Christian
in
Church-Communion
,
than
what
is
absolutely
necessary
to
the
State
of
a
Christian
out
of
the
visible
Communion
of
any
Church
;
as
if
nothing
more
were
necessary
to
make
a
man
a
Member
of
the
Commonwealth
,
than
what
is
necessary
to
make
him
a
man
.
The
belief
of
the
fundamental
Doctrines
of
Christianity
,
and
Obedience
to
those
Laws
of
Righteousness
,
which
have
an
eternal
and
immutable
goodness
in
them
,
will
make
a
man
a
good
Christian
in
a
private
and
single
capacity
;
but
obedience
to
Government
,
and
conformity
to
the
Rules
of
Discipline
and
Worship
,
are
as
necessary
to
make
a
man
a
good
Christian
in
Church-society
,
as
they
are
essential
to
the
being
and
constitution
of
a
Church
;
and
it
is
impossible
to
form
a
Church-Society
onely
of
the
Essentials
of
Christianity
,
considered
as
a
Systeme
of
Doctrines
and
Laws
,
which
every
private
Christian
ought
to
observe
:
for
there
are
the
Essentials
of
Christian-Communion
,
as
well
as
of
Christian
Religion
.
Christ
did
not
onely
publish
the
Gospel
,
but
instituted
a
Church
;
and
the
Government
and
Discipline
of
the
Church
is
of
a
distinct
consideration
from
the
belief
of
the
Gospel
.
No
man
can
be
a
Member
of
the
Church
,
without
believing
the
Gospel
;
but
Church-Society
lays
some
new
obligations
upon
us
,
beyond
what
is
necessary
in
a
single
state
out
of
Church-Society
.
But
to
return
.
Though
this
learned
Bishop
did
not
urge
the
abrogation
of
the
Mosaical
Law
against
the
imposition
of
the
Ceremonies
of
the
Church
of
England
,
nor
against
any
other
Rituals
or
Ceremonies
neither
,
but
only
against
such
usurpt
Authority
as
challenge
a
power
to
make
Laws
for
the
whole
Christian
World
;
yet
this
Argument
is
frequently
alleadged
by
others
,
and
more
than
once
repeated
by
our
Reconciler
to
this
purpose
:
but
how
trifling
it
is
,
appears
from
this
distinction
between
Rituals
and
Ceremonies
,
and
the
decent
Circumstances
of
Worship
.
They
tell
us
,
that
Christ
removed
those
burdens
which
were
on
the
Church
,
and
therefore
would
not
impose
new
ones
.
But
does
the
Church
of
England
lay
any
new
burdens
upon
men
?
Does
she
require
any
thing
more
than
what
is
necessary
?
Christ
requires
that
we
should
celebrate
his
last
Supper
in
remembrance
of
him
,
that
the
Minister
should
perform
all
the
publick
Offices
of
Religion
,
and
that
this
should
be
done
in
a
decent
and
reverent
manner
;
and
does
the
Church
of
England
require
any
more
?
Does
she
institute
any
Ceremonies
(
excepting
the
Cross
in
Baptism
,
which
is
a
professing
Signe
,
and
relates
to
no
act
of
Worship
,
though
it
be
thought
decent
to
be
done
at
the
time
of
Baptism
)
but
what
are
decent
circumstances
of
action
?
And
is
Decency
then
a
new
burden
,
which
Christ
hath
not
imposed
on
his
Disciples
?
Is
Decency
an
unnecessary
or
unreasonable
thing
?
Did
Christ
leave
it
at
liberty
then
,
whether
his
Disciples
should
worship
God
decently
or
not
?
Christ
hath
taken
away
the
Yoke
of
Jewish
Ceremonies
,
and
has
the
Church
of
England
put
another
Jewish
Yoke
on
the
Disciples
necks
?
Are
there
any
such
Rituals
and
Ceremonies
in
the
Church
of
England
,
as
have
the
least
affinity
with
the
Jewish
Yoke
?
Did
Christ
,
when
he
abrogated
the
Jewish
Law
,
abrogate
all
Decency
of
Worship
too
?
or
is
the
bare
Decency
of
Worship
a
Jewish
Yoke
?
What
correspondence
is
there
between
the
Ceremonies
of
the
Jewish
Law
,
and
the
decent
circumstances
of
Worship
?
between
new
and
distinct
acts
,
and
the
decent
Modes
of
actions
?
But
our
Reconciler
proceeds
.
Ecclesiastical
Laws
must
not
be
perpetual
;
that
is
,
when
they
are
made
,
they
are
relative
to
time
and
place
,
to
persons
and
occasions
,
subject
to
all
changes
,
&c.
Now
besides
that
the
Bishop
stills
speaks
of
such
Laws
as
concern
Rituals
and
external
Observances
,
not
the
decent
circumstances
of
Worship
;
and
therefore
it
is
impertinently
alleadged
in
our
present
Controversie
:
yet
suppose
it
did
relate
to
our
Ceremonies
,
what
advantage
could
he
make
of
it
?
They
must
not
be
perpetual
,
that
is
,
they
are
alterable
,
when
the
wisdom
of
Governours
sees
fit
;
and
who
denies
it
?
But
must
every
one
who
believes
these
Ceremonies
alterable
,
presently
grant
that
they
must
be
altered
right
or
wrong
?
This
is
much
like
another
mangled
Testimony
,
which
he
cites
from
Rule
12.
n.
9.
I
shall
transcribe
the
whole
,
because
our
Reconciler
has
concealed
the
sence
,
by
transcribing
onely
part
of
it
.
Excepting
those
things
which
the
Apostles
received
from
Christ
,
in
which
they
were
Ministers
to
all
Ages
,
once
for
all
conveying
the
mind
of
Christ
to
Generations
to
come
,
in
all
other
things
they
were
but
ordinary
Ministers
to
govern
the
Churches
in
their
own
times
,
and
left
all
that
ordinary
power
to
their
Successors
,
with
a
power
to
rule
their
Churches
,
such
as
they
had
;
and
therefore
whatever
they
conveyed
as
from
Christ
,
a
part
of
his
Doctrine
,
or
any
thing
of
his
appointment
,
this
was
to
bind
for
ever
.
All
this
our
Reconciler
leaves
out
;
which
is
a
Key
to
what
follows
.
For
Christ
is
our
onely
Lawgiver
,
and
what
he
said
was
to
bind
for
ever
:
In
all
things
which
he
said
not
,
the
Apostles
could
not
be
Lawgivers
,
they
had
no
such
authority
;
and
therefore
whatsoever
they
ordered
by
their
own
wisdom
,
was
to
abide
as
long
as
the
reason
did
abide
;
but
still
with
the
same
liberty
with
which
they
appointed
it
:
for
of
all
men
in
the
world
,
they
would
least
put
a
Snare
upon
the
Disciples
,
or
tye
Fetters
upon
Christian
liberty
.
To
what
purpose
he
cites
this
,
he
does
not
say
;
but
I
suppose
it
was
to
insinuate
that
there
is
no
Authority
in
the
Church
to
make
any
Laws
which
Christ
has
not
made
,
because
he
is
our
onely
Lawgiver
;
and
that
to
make
such
Laws
,
is
to
put
a
Snare
upon
the
Disciples
,
and
to
tye
Fetters
upon
Christian
Liberty
,
which
the
Apostles
of
all
men
would
not
do
:
but
this
is
directly
contrary
to
the
designe
of
the
Bishop
.
All
that
he
says
,
is
no
more
than
this
:
That
the
Apostles
had
not
authority
to
make
such
Laws
as
should
perpetually
oblige
the
Church
in
all
Ages
:
for
Christ
onely
is
so
our
Lawgiver
,
that
his
Laws
are
perpetual
and
unalterable
;
and
therefore
what
they
taught
as
from
Christ
,
that
was
to
bind
for
ever
;
but
what
Laws
they
made
as
ordinary
Ministers
to
govern
the
Churches
in
their
own
times
,
they
might
be
altered
,
when
the
reason
of
them
ceas'd
,
by
the
Bishops
and
Ministers
of
following
Ages
,
who
have
as
much
ordinary
authority
for
the
government
of
the
Church
,
as
the
Apostles
themselves
had
.
So
that
the
Governours
of
the
Church
have
authority
to
make
Laws
,
though
not
unalterable
ones
;
and
therefore
it
is
not
making
Laws
,
but
making
perpetual
Laws
,
which
he
calls
putting
a
Snare
upon
the
Disciples
,
and
tying
Fetters
on
Christian
Liberty
:
for
the
more
unalterable
Laws
there
are
,
the
less
Liberty
the
Church
enjoys
;
and
those
Laws
which
were
of
excellent
use
when
they
were
first
made
yet
when
their
reason
and
use
ceases
,
might
prove
Snares
to
Christians
,
if
there
were
no
power
in
the
Church
to
repeal
them
.
All
his
Citations
from
this
excellent
Bishop
about
Ecclesiastical
Laws
,
are
of
the
same
nature
;
they
do
not
concern
the
decent
circumstances
of
Worship
,
but
Rituals
and
external
Ministeries
of
Religion
:
and
I
suppose
I
need
not
tell
any
man
how
impertinent
his
Testimonies
about
Fasts
,
and
Evangelical
Councils
,
and
Subscriptions
to
Articles
,
&c.
are
to
this
Controversie
.
This
is
sufficient
to
prove
,
that
this
excellent
Bishop
is
ours
;
and
to
satisfie
all
men
,
that
this
Protestant
Reconciler
is
either
a
very
ignorant
and
careless
Reader
of
Books
,
or
a
shameless
Impostor
,
in
suborning
mens
words
to
give
testimony
against
their
own
protest
and
avowed
Principles
and
Doctrines
.
There
are
several
other
little
Arguments
which
are
frequently
repeated
by
our
Reconciler
,
and
confirmed
with
great
Names
and
great
Authorities
,
though
it
is
probable
enough
that
he
has
as
much
abused
other
great
men
,
as
he
has
done
the
Bishop
;
and
I
have
not
leisure
nor
opportunity
to
examine
all
;
and
it
is
no
great
matter
,
when
the
Argument
is
weak
and
trifling
,
whose
Argument
it
is
.
They
tell
us
,
that
to
impose
such
Ceremonies
and
Rites
of
Worship
,
is
to
come
after
Christ
,
and
to
mend
and
correct
his
Laws
,
and
to
require
new
terms
of
Communion
which
Christ
hath
not
required
.
This
is
a
great
fault
,
if
the
charge
be
good
and
just
:
but
is
the
Church
of
England
guilty
of
any
such
thing
?
Does
she
require
any
new
acts
of
Worship
,
which
Christ
has
not
required
?
Has
not
Christ
required
that
we
should
worship
God
decently
?
Has
he
not
made
Obedience
to
our
Rulers
and
Governours
a
necessary
condition
of
Communion
?
And
does
the
Church
of
England
require
any
more
?
Has
the
Church
of
England
imposed
any
thing
upon
her
People
,
but
the
Rules
of
Order
and
Decency
?
and
has
not
Christ
enjoyned
this
?
Are
the
Ceremonies
of
our
Church
decent
circumstances
of
Worship
,
or
are
they
not
?
If
they
be
,
then
here
are
no
new
terms
of
Communion
,
here
is
no
mending
nor
correcting
the
Laws
of
Christ
,
but
onely
a
determination
of
some
necessary
circumstances
which
Christ
left
undetermined
,
and
gave
authority
to
his
Church
to
determine
.
But
why
should
Church-Communion
be
suspended
upon
such
terms
as
are
not
necessary
to
Salvation
?
Why
is
not
that
sufficient
to
make
a
man
a
Member
of
a
Church
,
which
is
sufficient
to
carry
him
to
Heaven
?
No
doubt
but
it
is
;
and
the
Church
of
England
requires
no
more
.
The
Decency
of
Worship
is
as
necessary
to
eternal
Salvation
,
as
publick
Worship
is
;
which
is
not
Worship
,
if
it
be
not
decent
.
Decency
is
necessary
;
and
though
such
or
such
particular
Modes
of
Decency
be
not
necessary
,
yet
some
decent
Mode
of
Worship
is
:
and
therefore
that
Church
which
requires
no
more
than
the
Decency
of
Worship
,
requires
nothing
but
what
is
necessary
to
Salvation
.
That
which
confounds
and
blunders
these
men
,
and
makes
them
dream
of
new
terms
of
Communion
,
is
this
:
That
they
distinguish
the
act
of
Worship
from
the
manner
of
performing
it
;
and
because
Christ
hath
onely
instituted
and
commanded
the
act
,
but
the
Church
directs
and
prescribes
the
manner
,
therefore
they
say
the
Church
mends
Christs
Laws
;
and
makes
new
terms
of
Communion
,
by
requiring
something
more
than
Christ
has
instituted
and
commanded
.
As
for
instance
,
Christ
has
instituted
his
Mystical
Supper
,
and
commanded
us
to
eat
Bread
and
drink
Wine
in
remembrance
of
his
Body
,
which
was
broken
,
and
of
his
Bloud
,
which
was
shed
for
us
;
but
has
not
commanded
us
to
do
this
either
sitting
,
standing
,
or
kneeling
;
though
it
is
absolutely
necessary
that
we
should
do
it
in
one
posture
or
other
.
Now
the
Church
of
England
commands
us
to
receive
kneeling
,
and
will
admit
none
to
the
Lords
Table
,
who
will
not
receive
kneeling
.
This
,
say
they
,
is
to
mend
the
Laws
of
Christ
,
and
to
make
new
terms
of
Communion
.
Why
so
?
Does
the
Church
require
any
more
than
Christ
hath
required
?
Yes
,
say
they
,
she
requires
kneeling
,
which
Christ
does
not
require
.
But
how
does
that
appear
,
that
Christ
does
not
require
it
?
Because
,
say
they
,
he
has
not
commanded
us
to
receive
kneeling
.
No
,
say
I
,
that
is
no
Argument
at
all
that
Christ
does
not
require
it
:
for
he
who
commands
us
to
receive
,
commands
us
to
receive
in
some
posture
or
other
:
for
though
we
may
logically
distinguish
between
the
act
of
receiving
and
the
posture
wherein
we
receive
,
yet
these
cannot
be
actually
separate
;
for
no
man
can
receive
,
but
he
must
receive
in
some
posture
;
and
therefore
he
who
commands
doing
such
an
act
,
includes
whatever
is
necessary
to
the
doing
of
it
right
.
You
will
say
,
But
yet
Christ
has
not
determined
what
posture
we
shall
receive
in
,
but
left
them
all
indifferent
.
Suppose
this
to
be
true
,
yet
the
posture
must
of
necessity
be
determined
before
we
can
receive
:
for
no
man
can
receive
but
in
some
particular
posture
;
and
therefore
either
every
man
must
determine
himself
,
or
the
Authority
of
the
Church
must
determine
us
:
which
seems
to
be
much
more
reasonable
,
both
because
it
is
most
decent
and
orderly
that
there
should
be
some
uniform
posture
of
receiving
,
and
because
the
Governours
of
the
Church
,
not
private
Christians
,
have
the
sole
authority
in
such
cases
,
committed
to
them
by
Christ
himself
.
But
now
the
question
is
,
whether
to
determine
what
Christ
,
has
not
determined
,
and
yet
what
must
be
determined
before
we
can
perform
that
Duty
which
Christ
commands
,
be
to
come
after
Christ
to
correct
his
Laws
,
and
to
make
new
terms
of
Communion
?
If
it
be
,
then
whoever
receives
the
Lords
Supper
,
whatever
posture
he
receives
in
,
must
of
necessity
correct
the
Laws
of
Christ
,
and
make
new
terms
of
Communion
,
at
least
for
himself
,
because
he
must
receive
in
some
particular
and
determined
posture
;
whereas
Christ
has
left
all
postures
indifferent
and
undetermined
:
which
shews
what
a
senceless
and
ridiculous
imputation
this
is
.
No
,
you
will
say
,
to
receive
in
some
particular
posture
,
though
it
be
not
determined
by
Christ
,
is
no
correcting
his
Laws
,
nor
making
new
terms
of
Communion
,
because
Christ
has
left
all
postures
indifferent
and
undetermined
;
and
therefore
has
left
it
to
our
liberty
to
use
which
we
please
;
and
when
we
do
so
,
we
onely
use
that
liberty
which
Christ
has
given
us
.
But
so
to
determine
any
one
posture
of
receiving
,
as
not
to
allow
of
any
other
,
nor
to
admit
any
to
our
Communion
who
will
not
use
that
posture
,
this
is
to
make
new
terms
of
Communion
which
Christ
has
not
made
:
for
if
he
have
left
all
postures
undetermined
,
then
to
be
sure
he
has
not
said
,
that
no
man
shall
be
admitted
to
the
Sacrament
,
who
will
not
kneel
.
And
though
every
man
may
determine
for
himself
,
or
the
Church
may
determine
for
us
all
,
yet
it
must
not
be
determined
so
,
as
to
destroy
the
indifferency
of
the
posture
;
which
is
directly
contrary
to
Christ's
Institution
,
who
has
left
all
postures
indifferent
.
This
Objection
,
at
a
distance
,
I
confess
,
seems
very
plausible
,
and
to
bear
hard
upon
the
Church
:
but
when
we
look
more
narrowly
into
it
,
it
vanishes
into
nothing
.
For
,
1.
I
readily
grant
,
should
the
Church
of
England
determine
against
the
lawfulness
of
any
other
posture
but
kneeling
in
receiving
the
Lords
Supper
,
she
might
be
charged
with
correcting
the
Laws
of
Christ
,
and
altering
the
nature
of
things
:
for
this
would
be
to
make
some
things
necessary
,
and
other
things
unlawful
,
which
Christ
had
left
indifferent
.
2.
Should
she
refuse
to
communicate
with
any
other
Church
which
does
not
kneel
at
the
Sacrament
,
meerly
because
she
does
not
kneel
,
she
might
be
charged
with
making
new
terms
of
Communion
which
Christ
has
not
made
:
for
she
has
no
authority
to
prescribe
to
other
Churches
in
matters
of
an
indifferent
and
undetermined
nature
,
and
therefore
cannot
pretend
her
authority
for
such
an
Imposition
,
but
must
pretend
the
nature
of
the
thing
,
that
kneeling
at
the
Sacrament
is
a
necessary
term
of
Communion
;
which
being
no
term
of
Christ's
making
,
must
be
a
term
of
her
own
making
;
and
then
she
would
be
guilty
of
making
new
terms
of
Communion
;
and
if
a
Schism
followed
upon
it
,
she
would
be
the
Schismatick
.
3.
But
yet
for
the
Church
to
determine
,
for
the
regulating
her
own
Communion
,
But
you
will
say
,
Does
not
the
Church
of
England
make
that
a
term
and
condition
of
her
Communion
,
without
which
she
will
not
admit
any
man
to
communicate
with
her
?
I
answer
,
No
,
this
does
not
always
follow
;
every
such
thing
is
a
Rule
of
her
Government
,
but
not
a
term
of
her
Communion
;
which
are
of
a
very
distinct
consideration
in
the
constitution
of
every
Church
.
The
Laws
of
Catholick
Communion
require
,
that
she
make
nothing
a
term
of
her
Communion
,
but
what
is
necessary
for
the
whole
Catholick
Church
and
she
can
never
be
charged
with
making
kneeling
a
term
of
her
Communion
,
while
she
holds
Communion
with
such
Churches
who
do
not
kneel
at
receiving
,
or
at
least
refuses
the
Communion
of
no
Church
upon
that
account
;
but
now
the
Rules
of
Government
in
every
Church
are
very
distinct
from
the
terms
of
her
Communion
,
Every
Church
has
authority
to
make
Laws
for
her self
,
to
prescribe
the
Forms
and
Rules
of
Worship
and
Discipline
and
though
she
have
not
authority
to
deny
Communion
to
other
Churches
who
will
not
submit
to
her
private
Laws
and
Rules
,
yet
she
has
authority
to
deny
Communion
to
her
own
Members
who
refuse
to
obey
her
Laws
,
or
else
she
has
no
authority
to
make
Laws
,
if
she
have
no
authority
to
punish
the
breach
of
them
.
So
that
here
are
two
distinct
reasons
for
which
a
Church
may
deny
her
Communion
to
any
persons
▪
either
because
they
renounce
the
terms
of
her
Communion
,
or
because
they
refuse
to
submit
to
her
Laws
and
Rules
of
Worship
:
and
therefore
it
is
a
ridiculous
thing
to
say
that
a
Church
makes
every
thing
a
term
of
her
Communion
,
for
the
refusal
of
which
she
denies
her
Communion
to
her
own
Members
.
We
may
call
these
,
if
we
please
,
the
terms
of
her
particular
Communion
;
but
this
is
no
greater
fault
for
any
Church
to
make
such
terms
of
Communion
,
than
to
make
Laws
for
Government
and
Discipline
:
for
such
terms
are
nothing
else
.
To
return
then
to
our
Argument
.
Since
the
act
of
Worship
,
and
the
necessary
circumstan●s
of
Action
,
though
they
may
be
distinctly
considered
,
yet
cannot
be
separated
;
that
Church
which
commands
nothing
but
a
decent
performance
of
those
acts
of
Worship
which
Christ
himself
has
commanded
us
to
perform
,
cannot
be
charged
with
making
any
additions
to
the
Laws
of
Christ
,
or
with
commanding
any
new
thing
.
For
the
decent
manner
of
doing
a
thing
,
is
included
in
the
command
of
doing
it
,
unless
we
think
our
Saviour
was
indifferent
whether
we
worship
God
decently
or
indecently
:
and
therefore
if
the
Church
onely
enjoyn
such
habits
and
postures
,
times
and
places
,
as
are
necessary
to
the
doing
of
the
action
,
and
are
decent
circumstances
of
doing
it
,
she
commands
nothing
but
what
Christ
has
virtually
commanded
.
And
this
is
a
plain
Answer
to
that
other
Objection
,
that
the
Apostles
had
authority
to
teach
onely
such
things
as
Christ
had
commanded
them
;
which
if
it
be
opposed
to
their
Authority
of
Governing
the
Church
,
which
required
the
exercise
of
their
own
Wisdom
and
Prudence
,
and
making
occasional
Laws
in
emergent
cases
,
is
a
very
trifling
Objection
:
but
however
,
the
Church
of
England
teaches
nothing
but
what
Christ
taught
.
She
teaches
all
the
acts
of
Worship
which
Christ
commanded
,
and
no
other
;
and
she
●eaches
the
decent
manner
of
doing
this
,
which
is
involved
in
the
very
command
of
doing
it
:
for
though
the
particular
decent
Rites
of
Worship
are
not
expressed
,
yet
all
decent
Rites
are
included
in
the
command
of
doing
it
;
and
therefore
the
Church
may
take
her
choice
.
Well
,
but
the
Apostles
gave
Laws
onely
about
necessary
things
,
as
we
see
in
the
Council
of
Ierusalem
,
they
would
lay
no
other
burden
upon
the
Disciples
,
but
what
they
thought
necessary
,
at
least
for
that
time
,
15
Acts
29.
Now
though
there
might
several
Answers
be
given
to
this
,
I
shall
say
no
more
at
present
,
but
that
I
take
the
Decency
of
Worship
to
be
necessary
;
I
am
sure
St.
Paul
gives
an
express
Law
about
it
.
But
as
for
the
necessary
things
which
were
determined
at
the
Council
in
Ierusalem
,
they
did
not
concern
the
circumstances
of
Worship
,
but
some
external
Rituals
and
Ceremonies
,
which
were
matters
of
burden
.
We
have
nothing
like
it
in
our
Church
;
and
if
ever
the
Church
should
undertake
to
determine
such
matters
,
it
will
be
seasonable
to
urge
the
practice
of
the
Council
at
Ierusalem
,
to
determine
onely
necessary
things
.
These
are
the
most
material
things
our
Reconciler
has
urged
against
the
imposition
of
the
Ceremonies
of
the
Church
of
England
.
Whether
upon
the
whole
it
appears
that
they
are
so
useless
and
unnecessary
,
that
the
Church
ought
not
to
interpose
her
Authority
in
such
matters
,
or
be
justly
blameable
for
doing
it
,
I
must
leave
every
man
to
judge
.
CHAP.
II.
Concerning
charity
to
the
Souls
of
men
;
and
how
far
,
and
in
what
cases
it
obliges
Church-Governours
;
and
what
regard
Church-Governours
ought
to
have
to
the
Errours
,
and
Mistakes
,
and
Scruples
of
PRIVATE
CHRISTIANS
under
their
care
.
HAving
discours'd
thus
largely
of
the
usefulness
and
necessity
of
the
decent
Ceremonies
and
Circumstances
of
religious
Worship
,
in
opposition
to
our
Reconciler
,
who
affirms
them
to
be
useless
and
unnecessary
,
and
to
have
no
positive
Order
or
Decency
,
for
which
they
should
be
commanded
;
it
is
time
now
to
consider
the
other
part
of
his
Argument
,
viz.
that
charity
to
the
Souls
of
men
obliges
Church-Governours
not
to
impose
any
such
unnecessary
things
,
or
to
alter
and
remove
them
,
if
already
imposed
,
when
through
the
mistake
and
scruples
of
some
Christians
about
such
matters
,
they
occasion
their
sin
and
fall
,
and
hazard
their
eternal
Salvation
:
that
is
,
when
such
Impositions
as
these
,
which
some
men
believe
unlawful
,
and
others
doubt
whether
they
be
lawful
or
not
,
tempt
men
to
forsake
the
Communion
of
the
Church
,
and
lift
themselves
in
a
Schism
,
which
is
a
damning
sin
.
I
need
not
point
out
to
any
particular
place
wherein
this
is
said
;
for
it
is
to
be
found
almost
in
every
page
of
his
Book
,
and
comes
in
at
the
tail
of
every
Argument
:
and
therefore
I
shall
once
for
all
consider
these
Principles
also
,
and
begin
here
with
charity
to
the
Souls
of
men
,
which
in
the
method
of
my
Discourse
is
the
second
general
Principle
I
promised
to
examine
.
The
Question
then
is
this
:
Secondly
,
What
obligation
charity
to
the
Souls
of
men
lays
upon
the
Governours
of
the
Church
.
That
the
Governours
of
the
Church
ought
to
exercise
great
tenderness
and
charity
to
the
Souls
of
men
,
I
readily
grant
;
for
the
care
of
Souls
is
their
proper
work
and
business
:
and
our
Reconciler
could
not
have
pitch'd
upon
a
more
popular
Argument
to
declaim
upon
,
as
he
does
at
large
,
p.
187
,
&c.
And
indeed
,
I
find
his
Talent
lies
more
in
some
insinuating
Harangues
,
than
in
c'ose
reasoning
:
but
though
he
has
made
a
fine
S●ory
of
this
,
and
said
things
artificially
enough
to
move
the
Passions
of
his
Readers
,
he
has
never
offered
fairly
to
state
the
extent
and
measures
of
Charity
with
relation
to
acts
of
Government
,
but
onely
asserted
charity
to
the
Souls
of
men
to
be
the
Duty
of
Governours
,
as
well
as
of
private
Christians
(
which
no
body
denies
that
I
know
of
)
;
and
from
thence
infers
the
alteration
of
our
Ceremonies
,
and
that
Church-Governours
act
uncharitably
,
if
they
do
not
consent
to
such
an
alteration
.
Now
the
alteration
of
publick
Laws
and
R●tes
of
Worship
,
which
some
men
take
an
unjust
and
unreasonable
offence
at
,
whatever
mischief
they
do
to
their
own
Souls
by
such
an
unjust
offence
,
does
not
seem
to
me
to
be
an
immediate
consequence
from
the
obligations
of
charity
to
mens
Souls
:
and
therefore
there
should
have
been
something
at
least
offered
for
the
proof
of
it
;
and
,
I
confess
,
I
cannot
see
any
thing
that
looks
like
an
Argument
to
this
purpose
.
Since
therefore
I
have
little
or
nothing
to
answer
upon
this
Argument
,
which
our
Reconciler
thought
better
to
take
for
granted
,
than
to
prove
it
,
I
shall
endeavour
to
state
this
matter
so
plainly
,
as
to
vindicate
our
Governours
from
this
spightful
and
uncharitable
Accusation
,
of
want
of
charity
to
mens
Souls
.
And
to
this
end
,
I
shall
briefly
inquire
wherein
the
Charity
of
Governours
must
consist
,
and
how
it
must
express
it self
;
which
I
shall
explain
by
these
two
Principles
.
-
I.
That
the
Charity
of
Governours
is
consistent
with
the
Duty
and
Authority
of
Government
.
-
II.
That
the
Charity
of
Governours
must
express
it self
in
the
Acts
of
Government
.
1.
That
the
Charity
of
Governours
must
be
such
as
is
consistent
with
the
Duty
and
Authority
of
Government
.
For
charity
to
others
cannot
dispense
with
our
own
duty
;
and
therefore
if
Christ
have
given
authority
to
his
Ministers
to
govern
his
Church
,
whatever
pretences
of
charity
there
be
to
the
contrary
,
they
must
govern
it
,
or
they
are
very
uncharitable
to
themselves
,
in
neglecting
their
own
Duty
,
out
of
pretence
of
charity
to
others
.
Nay
,
all
private
acts
of
charity
must
give
place
to
publick
charity
.
Now
Government
is
a
publick
good
,
that
is
,
is
a
publick
charity
;
and
therefore
must
not
be
neglected
out
of
pretence
of
charity
to
private
Christians
.
Now
to
apply
this
to
our
present
purpose
:
If
the
Governours
of
the
Church
could
do
what
our
Reconciler
desires
,
without
neglecting
their
own
Duty
,
or
injuring
their
Authority
and
Government
,
I
think
this
Plea
of
Charity
would
be
more
specious
and
plausible
;
but
that
they
cannot
do
it
,
is
as
plain
to
me
as
a
first
Principle
.
For
,
1.
It
is
their
duty
to
direct
and
govern
religious
Assemblies
,
and
to
secure
the
Order
and
Decency
of
publick
Worship
;
which
they
cannot
do
,
without
prescribing
the
Rules
,
and
determining
the
decent
circumstances
of
action
.
But
you
will
say
,
Cannot
the
Bishops
govern
the
Church
,
nor
take
care
of
the
Decency
of
Worship
,
unless
they
command
the
Minister
to
officiate
in
a
Surplice
,
and
the
People
to
receive
kneeling
?
Yes
,
no
doubt
they
may
.
Then
these
Laws
are
alterable
.
They
are
so
.
Then
in
charity
they
are
bound
to
alter
them
,
according
to
your
own
Rules
:
for
they
may
do
this
,
without
neglecting
their
duty
of
governing
religious
Assemblies
.
I
deny
the
consequence
,
and
that
for
this
reason
;
because
Charity
does
not
require
any
man
,
much
less
Governours
,
to
do
a
foolish
thing
which
serves
no
good
end
at
all
.
For
if
they
should
alter
our
present
Rules
and
decent
Circumstances
of
Worship
,
they
must
prescribe
some
others
,
or
else
they
neglect
their
Duty
:
for
the
Decency
of
publick
Worship
cannot
be
preserved
,
without
the
decent
Circumstances
of
Worship
;
and
they
cannot
be
secured
(
especially
in
such
an
Age
as
this
,
wherein
so
many
men
think
a
rude
and
slovenly
Worship
to
be
most
pure
and
spiritual
)
without
some
fixt
and
standing
Rules
of
Decency
.
Now
whatever
change
they
make
,
they
cannot
change
for
the
better
,
nor
remove
any
scruple
by
such
a
change
.
For
most
of
the
Principles
upon
which
our
Dissenters
dispute
against
our
present
Ceremonies
,
will
serve
as
well
against
any
other
establish'd
Order
of
Worship
:
and
certainly
it
is
not
worth
the
while
for
Governours
to
alter
Laws
meerly
to
try
the
humours
of
People
,
to
see
whether
those
who
without
reason
scruple
Impositions
in
one
case
,
will
without
reason
submit
to
other
Impositions
,
when
the
same
reasons
hold
in
both
.
It
is
neither
consistent
with
the
prudence
nor
charity
of
Government
,
upon
such
slight
pretences
as
these
,
to
make
alterations
so
much
for
the
worse
,
as
they
must
be
,
if
ever
they
alter
our
present
Rules
of
Worship
.
If
this
should
gratifie
some
humoursome
People
,
it
might
justly
offend
and
scandalize
much
better
men
,
to
see
a
decent
way
of
Worship
changed
for
that
which
is
less
decent
.
No
,
saith
our
Reconciler
,
this
cannot
with
any
truth
be
pretended
.
—
Are
not
things
indifferent
,
such
as
may
be
imposed
or
not
imposed
at
pleasure
?
And
doth
not
our
Church
declare
her
Ceremonies
to
be
things
indifferent
?
Can
therefore
any
regular
Son
of
the
Church
of
England
be
offended
that
she
doth
use
her
liberty
in
matters
wholly
left
unto
her
liberty
,
and
by
her
first
Reformers
declared
to
be
so
?
Yes
,
why
not
,
for
all
this
?
Must
every
thing
which
is
alterable
,
be
altered
for
no
reason
at
all
?
May
it
not
justly
offend
a
regular
Son
of
the
Church
of
England
,
to
see
a
more
decent
way
of
Worship
laid
aside
,
and
that
which
is
less
decent
come
in
the
room
of
it
?
The
Church
of
England
,
I
am
sure
,
is
not
of
this
mind
;
she
allows
that
her
Ceremonies
may
be
changed
and
altered
,
Pref.
to
the
Com.
Pray
.
but
they
ought
to
be
altered
onely
upon
just
causes
,
as
she
expresly
determines
:
and
though
in
such
cases
she
allows
of
some
alteration
in
her
Ceremonies
,
yet
she
judges
it
necessary
,
that
some
Ceremonies
should
be
retained
,
since
without
some
Ceremonies
it
is
not
possible
to
keep
any
Order
or
quite
Discipline
in
the
Church
.
But
,
says
our
Reconciler
,
they
do
not
desire
that
the
Ceremonies
by
Law
establish'd
should
be
abolished
,
or
that
Conformists
should
be
forbid
to
use
them
;
but
onely
that
others
whose
Consciences
will
not
permit
them
so
to
do
,
should
be
dispensed
with
in
their
omission
of
them
.
This
would
be
a
greater
and
more
just
offence
,
than
the
other
:
for
this
must
be
either
in
the
same
,
or
in
distinct
Assemblies
.
If
in
the
same
,
this
introduces
nothing
but
Disorder
,
Confusion
,
and
Schism●
into
the
Bowels
of
the
Church
;
if
in
distinct
Assemblies
,
this
is
to
establish
Schism
by
a
Law
,
and
to
make
them
onely
legal
Conventicles
.
But
he
says
,
As
some
sit
,
some
stand
,
some
kneel
at
Common-Prayer
,
and
Prayer
before
Sermon
,
and
this
without
confusion
;
so
may
some
sit
,
some
kneel
,
some
stand
at
the
receiving
the
Sacrament
.
But
does
our
Reconciler
think
this
variety
of
posture
at
Prayer
,
an
orderly
and
decent
thing
?
especially
for
men
to
sit
at
Prayers
?
Standing
may
be
sometimes
necessary
,
because
especially
in
full
Auditories
all
persons
may
not
have
the
conveniency
of
kneeling
:
But
is
one
Irregularity
sufficient
to
justifie
another
?
Does
not
the
Church
require
an
uniform
posture
at
Prayer
too
?
And
is
it
not
more
decent
and
orderly
,
that
it
should
be
so
?
And
yet
there
is
a
great
difference
between
such
various
postures
at
Prayers
,
and
at
receiving
the
Lords
Supper
.
For
excepting
the
rudeness
of
sitting
,
when
men
have
strength
of
body
to
kneel
or
stand
,
which
is
an
offence
to
pious
and
devout
minds
;
these
variety
of
postures
do
not
proceed
from
mens
differing
judgments
and
opinions
about
them
,
and
therefore
do
not
occasion
mutual
scandal
and
offence
,
censuring
and
judging
one
another
in
the
very
act
of
Worship
.
But
differing
postures
in
receiving
the
Lords
Supper
,
is
matter
of
Dispute
and
scruple
;
one
thinks
kneeling
idolatrous
and
superstitious
,
the
other
deservedly
thinks
it
rude
and
unmannerly
to
sit
;
and
this
must
of
necessity
occasion
mutual
Emulations
in
the
very
act
of
receiving
;
than
which
,
nothing
can
be
more
inconsistent
with
the
nature
of
that
holy
Communion
.
And
if
you
say
,
that
men
must
lay
aside
this
judging
and
censorious
humour
,
you
must
either
mean
,
that
while
men
retain
these
differing
apprehensions
of
things
,
they
must
not
judge
one
another
;
which
is
to
say
,
that
they
must
not
judge
of
men
and
things
as
they
think
;
which
is
ridiculously
impossible
,
unless
you
can
teach
men
not
to
think
as
they
think
:
or
that
they
must
alter
their
apprehensions
of
things
,
and
look
upon
all
these
as
indifferent
postures
;
and
then
there
will
be
no
reason
to
alter
the
Laws
,
or
to
allow
of
such
different
postures
,
when
mens
scruples
are
removed
.
2.
As
the
Governours
of
the
Church
would
neglect
their
Duty
,
so
they
would
manifestly
injure
their
Authority
by
such
a
compliance
with
the
ignorance
,
humour
,
and
scruples
of
men
:
and
therefore
how
charitable
soever
our
Reconciler
may
think
this
,
it
is
not
such
a
Charity
as
becomes
Governours
.
For
private
Christians
to
abridge
themselves
in
the
use
of
their
Christian
liberty
for
the
sake
of
others
,
is
in
many
cases
highly
commendable
,
and
a
generous
act
of
charity
;
but
for
Governours
to
renounce
their
Authority
to
gratifie
Dissenters
,
is
so
far
from
being
an
act
of
charity
,
that
it
is
betraying
their
Trust.
Either
Christ
has
committed
this
power
to
them
to
govern
religious
Assemblies
,
and
to
prescribe
the
decent
Rules
of
Worship
,
or
he
has
not
:
if
he
have
(
as
our
Reconciler
has
more
than
once
owned
in
this
very
Book
)
then
this
power
is
a
Trust
committed
to
them
,
and
such
a
Trust
as
they
must
give
an
account
of
:
and
therefore
no
pretence
of
charity
can
justifie
them
in
renouncing
the
exercise
of
it
.
The
Reconciler
indeed
tells
us
,
That
which
is
here
pleaded
for
,
is
neither
a
denial
,
nor
a
dissembling
of
their
imposing
power
in
Superiours
,
but
onely
an
abatement
of
the
exercise
thereof
toward
some
weak
Dissenters
.
Which
may
be
done
with
the
asserting
of
the
power
,
and
a
profession
that
they
do
suspend
the
exercise
thereof
,
not
through
conviction
that
it
may
not
be
lawfully
used
,
but
out
of
pure
commiseration
and
bowels
of
compassion
towards
their
weak
Brethren
.
But
all
the
Protestations
in
the
World
will
not
salve
this
matter
:
for
the
great
Dispute
about
Ceremonies
turns
upon
this
hinge
,
whether
the
Church
have
authority
to
command
any
thing
relating
to
the
Worship
of
God
,
which
is
not
expresly
instituted
and
enjoyned
by
Christ
.
Hence
all
such
Rules
of
Order
and
Decency
are
,
by
our
modest
and
peaceable
Dissenters
,
opprobriously
call'd
Will-worship
and
Humane
Inventions
,
and
teaching
for
Doctrines
the
commandments
of
men
:
and
though
they
had
nothing
to
say
against
the
lawfulness
of
the
things
themselves
,
(
and
indeed
,
all
that
they
have
to
say
,
is
next
to
nothing
)
yet
their
not
being
commanded
by
God
,
and
their
being
commanded
by
men
,
though
by
such
men
as
are
invested
with
Christ's
authority
to
govern
his
Church
,
is
thought
a
sufficient
reason
not
to
submit
to
them
.
Now
when
the
Authority
of
the
Church
is
the
principal
matter
in
dispute
,
and
Ceremonies
onely
a
collateral
dispute
,
as
depending
upon
an
usurped
and
illegal
Authority
,
I
would
fain
know
of
our
Reconciler
,
how
upon
these
terms
they
can
give
up
these
Ceremonies
to
the
clamours
of
the
Dissenters
,
without
giving
up
their
own
Authority
with
them
;
which
is
the
principal
thing
in
question
,
and
for
the
sake
of
which
the
Ceremonies
are
disputed
.
Now
let
any
man
judge
whether
this
be
an
act
of
charity
,
to
part
with
that
Authority
which
Christ
has
placed
in
his
Church
.
Is
this
Authority
for
the
good
of
the
Church
,
or
is
it
not
?
If
it
be
not
,
then
it
seems
Christ
has
placed
such
an
Authority
in
his
Church
,
as
is
not
for
the
publick
good
;
and
this
charges
our
Saviour
himself
with
want
of
prudence
or
charity
to
his
own
Church
,
in
setting
such
an
uncharitable
power
over
it
:
If
Church-Authority
be
for
the
publick
good
,
then
it
is
no
act
of
charity
to
part
with
it
.
As
to
give
but
one
instance
of
this
,
which
our
Reconciler
is
often
at
.
He
tells
us
,
That
the
Scripture-Exhortations
(
to
Peace
and
Unity
)
are
so
far
from
requiring
such
an
Vnity
and
Vniformity
,
(
as
we
plead
for
)
that
they
perfectly
confute
all
those
who
think
it
fit
to
lay
the
Vnion
of
the
Church
upon
an
uniformity
in
lesser
matters
,
and
do
impose
them
as
the
Conditions
of
Communion
:
for
either
we
must
all
submit
to
some
infallible
Guide
and
Iudge
of
Controversies
,
in
order
to
our
Vnion
,
as
R.
H.
thinks
it
necessary
in
order
to
our
compliance
with
these
Precepts
,
or
else
confess
't
is
morally
impossible
to
comply
with
them
,
it
being
visibly
impossible
to
bring
all
men
unto
an
unity
of
judgment
and
of
practice
in
these
things
;
and
so
we
must
reflect
upon
the
wisdom
of
our
Lord
,
and
of
his
Precepts
.
And
grant
that
Protestants
have
no
sufficient
means
of
Vnity
,
which
is
the
very
thing
that
Papists
do
so
continually
upbraid
us
with
,
or
must
acknowledge
that
the
way
to
this
desired
Vnity
is
not
that
of
imposing
and
requiring
uniformity
in
little
matters
,
concerning
which
the
minds
of
men
are
full
of
doubts
and
scruples
;
but
that
of
mutual
condescension
,
and
forbearance
,
and
charity
in
lesser
differences
.
God
help
that
Church
,
which
meets
with
such
Reconcilers
as
these
!
But
that
which
I
shall
observe
here
,
is
his
own
concession
,
and
his
Dilemma
upon
it
.
He
argues
strongly
,
That
while
men
are
left
to
judge
for
themselves
in
the
Externals
of
Worship
,
it
is
impossible
to
bring
them
unto
an
unity
of
judgment
and
practice
in
these
things
:
for
this
,
he
says
,
must
be
granted
,
unless
we
own
the
necessity
of
an
infallible
Judge
.
Here
indeed
the
Reconciler
and
I
differ
a
little
about
the
infallibility
of
this
Judge
;
but
we
agree
upon
the
main
point
,
that
without
a
Judge
to
determine
these
matters
,
there
can
be
no
Unity
and
Agreement
among
Christians
;
which
certainly
is
a
demonstration
in
the
Age
in
which
we
live
,
how
strange
soever
it
might
have
been
thought
in
the
Primitive
times
of
Unity
.
And
his
Dilemma
is
a
very
sore
one
:
For
either
this
reflects
upon
the
Wisdom
of
Christ
himself
,
and
grants
that
Protestants
have
no
sufficient
means
of
Unity
;
or
that
the
way
to
this
desired
Unity
is
not
requiring
uniformity
in
little
matters
.
Now
to
begin
with
the
last
first
;
it
is
demonstrably
true
,
that
there
is
no
Church-Unity
without
Unity
in
Worship
;
wherein
the
principal
exercise
of
Christian
Communion
consists
;
and
that
there
can
be
no
Decency
and
Order
in
this
(
which
is
an
Apostolical
Precept
)
without
Uniformity
;
and
no
Uniformity
without
such
Impositions
.
What
follows
then
,
but
that
we
must
reflect
on
the
wisdom
of
Christ
in
not
leaving
Authority
in
his
Church
sufficient
to
determine
such
matters
,
and
grant
that
Protestants
have
no
means
of
Union
?
These
are
hard
terms
;
but
I
cannot
see
how
they
can
be
avoided
,
without
granting
that
Christ
has
given
,
though
not
an
infallible
Judge
of
all
Controversies
of
Faith
,
yet
a
supreme
Authority
to
his
Church
to
determine
all
matters
of
Decency
and
Order
;
which
all
Christians
are
bound
to
obey
in
all
cases
,
where
their
Rules
and
Orders
do
not
contradict
some
plain
and
express
Law
of
Christ
.
And
this
Principle
will
quickly
make
us
all
of
a
mind
in
such
matters
.
Now
then
from
hence
I
thus
argue
:
If
the
wisdom
of
Christ
himself
in
instituting
a
Church-Society
,
and
commanding
all
Christians
to
live
in
Peace
,
and
Unity
,
and
Love
;
if
the
Unity
of
Christians
among
themselves
,
and
the
Decency
and
Uniformity
of
Worship
,
are
so
nearly
concerned
in
the
sacredness
of
Church-Authority
,
that
without
it
the
wisdom
of
Christ
is
obscured
and
exposed
to
censure
,
the
Peace
and
Unity
of
Christians
rendered
impracticable
,
Protestants
left
destitute
of
any
means
of
Union
,
and
occasion
given
to
Papists
to
cry
up
the
necessity
of
an
infallible
Judge
,
that
which
draws
so
many
fatal
consequents
after
it
;
does
not
seem
to
me
to
be
any
great
act
of
charity
:
and
yet
thus
it
would
be
,
should
the
Governours
of
the
Church
,
in
compliance
with
the
frowardness
and
scruples
of
Schismaticks
,
give
up
their
authority
in
the
Externals
of
Worship
,
and
leave
every
man
to
do
as
he
pleased
.
While
the
Church
maintains
her
Authority
,
a
little
Discipline
and
Government
,
and
a
few
good
Arguments
,
may
in
time
cure
the
Schism
;
and
if
it
will
not
,
let
Schismaticks
answer
for
it
at
the
last
day
:
but
if
Schismaticks
once
gain
this
point
,
and
wheedle
the
Church
for
peace
sake
out
of
her
Authority
,
then
we
must
bid
an
eternal
farewel
to
Peace
,
and
Order
,
and
Uniformity
in
Religion
:
for
men
will
never
agree
in
these
matters
,
without
the
determination
of
Authority
.
There
is
no
other
means
left
in
the
Church
to
decide
these
differences
,
when
the
Church
has
parted
with
her
Authority
;
and
thus
the
Wisdom
of
Christ
will
be
reproached
and
censured
,
and
the
Protestant
Name
and
Religion
exposed
to
contempt
:
and
this
is
our
Reconciler's
Protestant
Charity
.
Well
,
but
suppose
this
compliance
with
Dissenters
did
not
infer
a
renuntiation
of
their
Power
and
Authority
,
but
onely
a
suspension
of
the
exercise
of
it
,
the
case
is
much
the
same
:
for
this
forbearance
must
be
for
ever
,
unless
we
could
suppose
that
these
men
will
return
to
the
obedience
of
the
Church
,
when
the
Church
leaves
off
to
command
.
Now
it
is
the
same
thing
for
the
Church
to
renounce
her
Power
,
and
to
renounce
the
exercise
of
it
.
I
suppose
Christ
gave
this
Power
to
the
Church
,
that
she
should
exercise
it
;
and
if
the
Power
be
necessary
to
the
welfare
and
unity
,
and
edification
of
the
Church
,
to
be
sure
the
exercise
of
it
is
:
For
Authority
is
a
meer
empty
name
,
and
good
for
nothing
,
when
it
doth
nothing
.
This
,
I
think
,
is
sufficient
to
prove
that
the
charity
of
Governours
does
not
require
them
to
renounce
their
Government
,
neither
in
the
authority
nor
exercise
of
it
:
And
therefore
,
II.
The
Charity
of
Governours
must
consist
in
the
acts
and
exercise
of
Government
;
that
is
,
as
far
as
it
concerns
our
present
Dispute
,
in
making
and
repealing
Laws
.
And
I
dare
joyn
issue
here
with
our
Reconciler
,
and
challenge
him
and
all
his
dissenting
Clients
,
to
fix
the
least
imputation
of
uncharitableness
upon
the
Church
of
England
on
this
account
:
as
to
discourse
this
matter
a
little
more
particularly
,
to
confound
all
such
unjust
Defamers
of
Authority
and
Government
.
1.
I
shall
begin
with
repealing
Laws
,
and
altering
such
Rituals
and
Ceremonies
as
were
either
sinful
,
superstitious
,
or
inconvenient
;
because
here
our
Reformation
began
.
And
what
Rules
our
Church
'
observed
in
this
,
we
learn
from
the
Preface
to
the
Common-Prayer
;
where
the
reasons
are
assigned
why
some
Ceremonies
were
abolish'd
:
As
,
1.
Becau●e
some
of
them
which
were
at
first
well
intended
,
did
in
time
degenerate
into
vanity
and
superstition
.
2.
Others
were
from
the
beginning
the
effects
of
an
indiscreet
Devotion
,
and
such
a
Zeal
as
was
without
knowledge
,
and
dayly
grew
to
more
and
more
abuses
;
and
they
were
rejected
,
because
they
were
unprofitable
,
blinded
the
people
,
hindred
them
from
a
right
understanding
of
the
true
nature
of
Christian
Religion
,
and
obscured
the
glory
of
God
.
3.
Some
were
put
away
,
because
their
very
numbers
were
an
intolerable
burden
,
and
made
the
estate
of
Christian
people
in
worse
case
concerning
this
matter
,
than
were
the
Jews
,
as
St.
Austin
complained
in
his
days
,
when
the
number
of
Ceremonies
was
much
less
than
it
was
in
this
Church
at
the
time
of
Reformation
;
which
was
a
great
injury
to
the
Gospel
of
Christ
,
which
is
not
a
Ceremonial
Law
(
as
much
of
Moses
Law
was
)
but
a
Religion
to
serve
God
,
not
in
the
bondage
of
the
figure
or
shadow
,
but
in
the
freedom
of
the
Spirit
.
And
lastly
,
the
most
weighty
cause
of
the
abolishment
of
certain
Ceremonies
was
,
that
they
were
so
far
abused
,
partly
by
the
superstitious
blindness
of
the
ignorant
and
unlearned
,
and
partly
by
the
unsatiable
avarice
of
such
as
sought
more
their
own
lucre
than
the
glory
of
God
,
that
the
abuses
could
not
well
be
taken
away
,
the
thing
remaining
still
.
With
what
grave
and
mature
consideration
our
Church
proceeded
in
this
affair
,
is
evident
from
this
account
,
which
contains
all
the
wise
reasons
that
can
be
thought
of
for
the
alteration
of
any
publick
Constitutions
.
Here
is
charity
to
the
Souls
of
men
,
in
delivering
them
from
ignorance
and
superstition
,
to
which
they
were
betrayed
by
the
Rituals
and
Ceremonies
of
Religion
;
a
tender
regard
to
the
case
and
liberty
of
Christians
,
which
was
oppressed
by
such
a
multitude
as
were
hard
to
know
and
to
remember
,
and
very
troublesom
to
observe
,
and
almost
impossible
to
understand
;
which
made
them
wholly
useless
and
unprofitable
.
Here
is
a
great
regard
to
the
glory
of
God
,
which
was
obscured
by
these
Ceremonies
;
to
the
purity
of
the
Christian
Religion
,
which
was
transformed
,
by
a
multitude
of
Ceremonies
,
into
a
meer
external
and
figurative
Worship
.
And
here
are
the
true
reasons
why
any
Ceremonies
which
have
been
long
used
in
a
Church
,
and
confirmed
by
Ecclesiastical
Canons
,
or
Civil
Laws
,
ought
,
notwithstanding
that
,
to
be
removed
,
when
either
their
numbers
are
excessive
,
or
the
abuses
of
them
such
as
cannot
be
taken
away
,
without
abolishing
the
Ceremony
it self
.
Several
instances
of
this
may
be
given
,
as
to
name
onely
Images
in
Churches
,
which
could
not
be
safely
retained
at
that
time
,
without
the
danger
of
idolatrous
Worship
.
For
the
generality
of
people
in
those
days
were
so
superstitiously
addicted
to
the
worship
of
Images
,
that
had
they
been
left
in
Churches
,
though
the
worship
of
them
had
been
expresly
forbid
,
yet
infinite
numbers
of
people
would
have
worshipped
them
notwithstanding
.
This
very
reason
our
Church
gives
in
her
Homily
against
the
peril
of
Idolatry
,
part
3.
of
the
necessity
of
removing
Images
out
of
Churches
,
That
as
well
by
the
origine
and
nature
of
Idols
and
Images
themselves
,
as
by
the
proneness
and
inclination
of
mans
corrupt
nature
to
Idolatry
,
it
is
evident
,
that
neither
Images
,
if
they
be
publickly
set
up
,
can
be
separated
,
nor
men
,
if
they
see
Images
in
Temples
and
Churches
,
can
be
stayed
and
kept
from
Idolatry
.
—
Wherefore
they
which
thus
reason
,
though
it
be
not
expedient
,
yet
it
is
lawful
to
have
Images
publickly
,
and
do
prove
that
lawfulness
by
a
few
picked
and
chosen
men
:
if
they
object
that
indifferently
to
all
men
,
which
a
very
few
can
have
without
hurt
and
offence
,
they
seem
to
take
the
multitude
for
vile
Souls
,
of
whose
loss
and
safeguard
no
reputation
is
to
be
had
;
for
whom
Christ
yet
paid
as
dearly
as
for
the
mightiest
Prince
,
or
the
wisest
and
best
learned
of
the
Earth
.
And
they
that
would
have
it
generally
to
be
taken
for
indifferent
,
that
a
very
few
take
no
hurt
of
it
,
though
infinite
multitudes
besides
perish
thereby
,
shew
that
they
put
little
difference
between
the
multitudes
of
Christians
and
bruit
Beasts
,
whose
danger
they
do
so
little
esteem
.
Thus
in
another
place
of
the
same
Homily
;
What
shall
I
say
of
them
who
lay
stumbling-blocks
where
before
there
were
none
,
and
set
snares
for
the
feet
,
nay
for
the
souls
of
weak
and
simple
ones
,
and
work
the
danger
of
everlasting
destruction
,
for
whom
our
Saviour
shed
his
most
pretious
Bloud
?
where
better
it
were
that
the
Arts
of
painting
,
plaistering
,
carving
,
or
graving
,
never
had
been
found
out
or
used
,
than
one
of
them
whose
Souls
in
the
sight
of
God
are
so
precious
,
should
by
occasion
of
Images
or
Pictures
,
perish
and
be
lost
.
This
makes
it
very
evident
,
that
our
Church
in
her
Reformation
had
a
peculiar
regard
to
the
care
of
mens
Souls
,
and
therefore
removed
whatever
might
prove
a
snare
and
temptation
to
them
,
and
so
hazard
their
eternal
salvation
.
Our
Reconciler
transcribes
these
Passages
out
of
that
Homily
,
and
endeavours
from
thence
to
prove
,
that
the
Church
by
a
parity
of
Reason
,
But
the
plain
Answer
to
it
,
is
this
:
The
obligations
of
Charity
extend
no
farther
than
our
own
part
and
duty
does
:
for
we
cannot
shew
our
charity
in
that
which
is
not
our
duty
,
nor
in
our
power
to
help
or
hinder
.
Whatever
evil
happens
to
others
upon
the
neglect
of
our
duty
,
or
the
uncharitable
performance
of
it
,
is
imputable
to
us
;
but
if
other
men
by
the
neglect
of
their
own
duty
,
accidentally
suffer
by
what
we
have
wisely
and
charitably
done
,
the
sin
and
guilt
,
as
well
as
misery
,
is
their
own
.
Otherwise
it
were
a
dangerous
thing
for
us
to
do
our
duty
,
unless
we
were
sure
that
other
men
would
do
theirs
.
For
the
wise
and
charitable
discharge
of
our
duty
,
may
in
most
cases
aggravate
the
sin
and
condemnation
of
those
who
will
not
do
theirs
.
It
may
at
this
rate
prove
the
most
uncharitable
thing
in
the
world
,
to
reprove
an
obstinate
and
incorrigible
sinner
,
or
to
attempt
to
convince
an
obdurate
and
inflexible
Schismatick
;
because
such
reproofs
,
and
such
means
of
conviction
,
if
they
do
not
reclaim
them
,
make
their
sin
more
inexcusable
.
Thus
it
is
between
Governours
and
Subjects
.
It
is
the
duty
of
Governours
to
govern
,
and
they
must
do
it
wisely
and
charitably
;
and
it
is
the
duty
of
Subjects
to
obey
.
If
the
Subjects
suffer
by
the
ill
government
of
their
Superiours
,
it
is
their
fault
;
if
they
suffer
by
their
own
disobedience
,
the
fault
also
is
their
own
.
If
the
Governours
of
the
Church
set
up
Images
in
Churches
,
which
is
a
great
temptation
to
people
to
worship
them
,
especially
if
they
have
been
educated
in
such
an
idolatrous
Worship
;
this
is
very
uncharitably
done
,
and
argues
little
care
of
mens
Souls
:
but
if
they
give
wise
and
charitable
Rules
of
Worship
,
and
people
will
not
obey
them
,
but
divide
themselves
from
the
Church
,
and
unite
in
a
Schism
;
if
they
be
damned
for
their
Disobedience
and
their
Schism
,
the
fault
is
their
own
.
2.
Let
us
now
consider
what
Rules
our
Church
observed
in
retaining
Ceremonies
;
and
if
she
have
acted
as
charitably
there
too
,
I
know
not
where
our
Reconciler
will
fix
the
charge
of
uncharitableness
upon
the
Church
.
Now
she
has
retained
but
very
few
;
and
therefore
they
are
not
burdensom
by
their
numbers
,
nor
do
they
obscure
or
adulterate
the
simplicity
of
the
Christian
Worship
.
She
has
retained
onely
those
which
are
for
decent
Order
and
Edification
,
since
without
some
Ceremonies
it
is
not
possible
to
keep
any
Order
or
quiet
Discipline
in
the
Church
.
She
has
retained
such
as
are
venerable
for
their
antiquity
and
age
,
and
have
a
plain
and
easie
signification
;
are
neither
dark
nor
dumb
Ceremonies
,
but
so
set
forth
,
that
every
man
may
understand
what
they
do
mean
,
and
to
what
use
they
do
serve
.
For
though
meer
signification
,
without
any
other
use
,
is
a
very
little
thing
in
Christian
Religion
,
yet
when
the
decent
circumstances
of
Worship
,
which
are
necessary
to
the
orderly
performance
of
it
,
have
an
additional
signification
also
,
suitable
to
the
nature
of
the
Worship
we
are
engaged
in
,
it
is
an
additional
ornament
and
advantage
to
the
Ministry
,
as
I
have
already
discours'd
.
Nay
,
the
Church
has
taken
care
,
as
she
says
,
to
appoint
such
Ceremonies
as
are
least
capable
of
being
abused
to
superstition
.
That
it
is
not
like
that
they
in
time
should
be
abused
as
others
have
been
.
In
which
case
she
has
left
a
liberty
to
alter
them
,
if
they
should
be
so
abused
;
which
is
the
onely
reasonable
occasion
there
can
be
for
such
an
alteration
.
Now
how
any
Church
can
be
more
easie
and
charitable
in
her
Impositions
,
I
confess
,
I
cannot
tell
;
and
if
that
be
a
charitable
Church
,
whose
Impositions
are
easie
and
charitable
,
which
are
innocent
and
useful
themselves
,
and
not
apt
to
tempt
men
to
any
sin
,
then
the
Church
of
England
is
very
charitable
,
though
Dissenters
should
be
damned
for
their
wilful
and
causeless
Schism
.
But
besides
this
,
as
far
as
it
is
possible
to
prevent
the
Cavils
of
evil-minded
men
,
our
Church
has
taken
care
to
explain
the
meaning
of
the
signe
of
the
Cross
in
Baptism
,
and
kneeling
at
receiving
the
Lords
Supper
,
to
remove
all
suspicions
of
any
superstitious
opinions
about
them
;
which
is
an
Argument
of
great
charity
,
and
great
care
of
the
Souls
of
men
.
But
you
will
say
,
Had
it
not
been
greater
charity
to
the
Souls
of
men
,
not
to
have
retained
such
Ceremonies
as
needed
explication
,
than
to
explain
the
meaning
of
them
,
which
may
not
give
satisfaction
to
all
men
of
the
lawfulness
of
their
use
?
This
were
something
to
the
purpose
indeed
,
were
there
any
thing
doubtful
in
their
signification
:
but
it
is
not
the
obscureness
of
these
Ceremonies
,
but
the
perverseness
of
men
who
endeavour
to
find
out
some
superstition
in
them
;
which
makes
such
Declarations
of
the
Church
more
charitable
still
,
as
being
a
condescension
not
to
the
ignorance
,
but
to
the
frowardness
of
her
Children
.
Though
to
worship
the
Cross
be
Idolatry
,
to
use
it
as
a
Charm
and
Spell
savour
of
Superstition
,
yet
to
use
it
as
a
venerable
Badge
of
our
Christian
Profession
,
is
neither
;
and
no
man
can
reasonably
suspect
that
it
is
used
otherwise
in
Baptism
.
To
kneel
at
the
Sacrament
is
a
decent
posture
of
receiving
,
and
can
never
be
suspected
as
an
act
of
Worship
to
the
Bread
,
in
those
who
believe
that
after
consecration
it
is
Bread
still
,
and
not
the
natural
Body
of
Christ
:
for
to
worship
Bread
,
which
we
believe
to
be
nothing
but
Bread
,
would
be
a
more
absurd
Idolatry
than
the
Papists
are
guilty
of
,
who
believe
it
not
to
be
Bread
,
but
the
Body
of
Christ
.
This
reason
the
Church
assigns
for
it
,
in
the
second
Common-Prayer-Book
of
Edward
the
Sixth
:
Although
no
Order
can
be
so
perfectly
devised
,
but
it
may
by
some
,
either
for
their
ignorance
and
infirmity
,
or
else
for
malice
and
obstinacy
,
be
misconstrued
,
depraved
,
and
interpreted
in
a
wrong
part
;
yet
because
brotherly
charity
willeth
,
that
so
much
as
conveniently
may
be
,
offences
should
be
taken
away
,
therefore
we
,
willing
to
do
the
same
,
declare
that
in
kneeling
at
the
Sacrament
no
adoration
of
the
Elements
is
intended
.
Who
can
tell
why
this
whole
Preface
in
our
present
Common-Prayer-Book
is
left
out
,
is
only
a
spightful
insinuation
of
I
know
not
what
;
since
the
same
Declaration
is
as
large
and
full
in
our
Common-Prayer-Book
,
as
words
can
make
it
.
But
he
proceeds
:
and
Why
that
Charity
which
willeth
,
that
as
much
as
conveniently
may
be
,
offences
should
be
taken
away
,
should
not
will
also
the
taking
away
or
the
abatement
of
unnecessary
Ceremonies
,
or
alteration
of
scrupled
expressions
in
our
Liturgie
?
I
am
not
bound
to
answer
these
trifling
Cavils
as
often
as
he
repeats
them
;
but
I
think
every
man
of
sense
will
see
some
little
difference
between
making
the
Rules
and
Orders
of
the
Church
as
inoffensive
as
may
be
,
and
destroying
all
decent
and
orderly
Constitutions
:
the
first
is
such
a
Charity
as
becomes
Governours
,
the
second
is
nothing
better
than
the
dissolution
of
Government
.
But
of
Scruples
,
more
presently
.
Thus
our
Reconciler
observes
,
that
the
Convocation
held
An.
1640.
speaking
of
the
laudable
custom
of
bowing
with
the
body
,
in
token
of
our
reverence
of
God
,
when
we
come
into
the
place
of
publick
Worship
,
saith
thus
:
In
the
practice
or
admission
of
this
Rite
,
we
desire
the
Rule
of
Charity
,
prescribed
by
the
Apostle
,
may
be
observed
;
which
is
,
That
they
who
use
this
Rite
,
despise
not
them
who
use
it
not
;
and
they
who
use
it
not
,
condemn
not
them
who
use
it
.
Now
,
saith
the
Author
of
the
mischief
of
Impositions
,
I
would
gladly
hear
a
fair
reason
given
why
the
Apostle
should
prescribe
the
Rule
of
Charity
to
be
observed
in
this
one
Rite
or
Ceremony
,
more
than
another
.
And
our
Reconciler
very
modestly
adds
,
The
Apostle
prescribes
a
Rule
,
and
they
will
make
use
of
it
when
and
where
,
and
in
what
cases
they
please
;
and
in
others
,
where
it
is
as
useful
,
lay
it
by
like
one
of
their
vacated
Canons
.
This
is
wonderful
deference
to
Authority
!
But
however
,
this
is
another
instance
of
the
Churches
Charity
and
moderation
,
at
least
in
this
one
Rite
;
and
methinks
it
deserved
a
little
more
civility
,
than
to
be
turned
into
an
Argument
of
Reproach
.
But
cannot
our
Reconciler
guess
at
any
reason
for
this
difference
,
why
she
should
grant
that
liberty
in
this
one
Rite
,
which
she
denies
in
other
cases
?
Why
then
I
'll
tell
him
one
;
Because
it
is
more
capable
of
such
an
indulgence
than
other
Ceremonies
are
:
for
it
is
an
act
of
private
Worship
,
though
performed
in
the
publick
Church
;
and
therefore
different
usages
in
such
matters
do
not
disturb
the
Order
and
Decency
of
publick
Worship
.
When
we
offer
up
our
common
Worship
to
God
,
which
is
the
act
of
the
whole
Congregation
,
it
is
fitting
that
there
should
be
one
Rule
and
Order
observed
:
for
Uniformity
is
necessary
to
the
Decency
of
Worship
,
and
to
the
Unity
of
it
;
but
there
is
no
necessity
that
all
mens
private
Devotions
should
be
alike
.
And
it
is
possible
to
think
of
another
reason
too
;
That
this
bowing
the
body
in
reverence
to
God
,
when
we
enter
into
his
house
,
is
properly
a
Ritual
or
Ceremony
,
that
is
,
an
exteriour
action
or
thing
,
not
meerly
a
circumstance
of
Worship
:
it
is
it self
an
external
Rite
of
Worship
,
not
the
circumstance
of
any
other
act
.
It
may
be
very
decent
to
bow
our
body
in
reverence
to
God
,
when
we
enter
his
house
,
but
it
is
not
a
decent
circumstance
of
religious
Worship
;
and
therefore
there
is
not
the
same
necessity
that
the
Church
should
determine
it
,
as
there
is
that
she
should
determine
the
necessary
circumstances
of
action
,
without
which
the
Worship
of
God
cannot
be
decently
performed
:
and
it
seems
to
me
to
be
an
Argument
of
great
wisdom
in
the
Church
,
that
she
has
not
made
an
uniformity
in
this
Rite
,
as
necessary
as
in
the
other
Ceremonies
of
Religion
,
since
there
is
not
an
equal
necessity
for
it
.
And
I
further
adde
,
that
the
Apostles
Rule
of
Charity
,
not
to
judge
and
censure
one
another
upon
such
different
usages
,
does
not
relate
to
those
Ceremonies
which
are
also
the
decent
circumstances
of
religious
actions
,
and
so
are
necessary
to
the
uniformity
of
publick
Worship
,
which
must
not
be
neglected
out
of
a
pretence
of
Charity
;
but
it
may
extend
to
such
Rites
as
these
:
which
shews
the
great
judgment
of
our
Church
in
applying
this
Rule
to
one
case
,
and
not
to
the
other
;
and
argues
great
ignorance
,
as
well
as
impudence
,
in
our
Reconciler
to
censure
it
:
which
I
shall
largely
prove
,
when
I
come
to
answer
his
fourth
Chapter
.
And
because
our
Reconciler
so
often
mentions
not
onely
the
abatement
of
the
Ceremonies
,
but
the
alteration
of
some
scrupled
expressions
in
the
Liturgy
,
without
mentioning
what
those
are
;
I
can
give
no
other
answer
to
it
,
but
to
represent
that
account
which
is
given
us
of
those
late
alterations
which
were
made
in
our
Liturgy
,
as
we
find
it
in
the
Preface
to
the
Common-Prayer-Book
.
Our
general
aim
therefore
in
this
undertaking
,
was
not
to
gratisie
this
or
that
Party
in
any
of
their
unreasonable
demands
,
but
to
do
that
which
to
our
best
understanding
we
conceived
might
most
tend
to
the
preservation
of
peace
and
unity
in
the
Church
,
the
procuring
of
Reverence
,
and
exciting
of
Piety
and
Devotion
in
the
publick
Worship
of
God
,
and
the
cutting
off
occasion
from
them
that
seek
occasion
of
cavil
or
quarrel
against
the
Liturgie
of
our
Church
.
—
Most
of
the
alterations
were
made
—
for
the
more
proper
expressing
of
some
words
or
phrases
of
ancient
usage
,
in
terms
more
suitable
to
the
Language
of
the
present
times
,
and
the
clearer
explanation
of
some
other
words
or
phrases
which
were
either
of
doubtful
signification
,
or
otherwise
liable
to
misconstruction
.
And
what
other
Rule
our
Reconciler
would
have
the
Church
observe
in
altering
scrupled
phrases
,
I
cannot
tell
:
for
if
she
mu●t
alter
,
while
some
people
cease
to
scruple
,
she
must
alter
it
all
,
or
rather
take
it
quite
away
.
3.
But
you
will
say
,
It
is
at
least
a
breach
of
Charity
to
impose
such
Rites
and
Ceremonies
as
are
scrupled
by
great
numbers
of
Christians
,
and
the
imposition
of
which
occasions
a
formidable
Schism
in
the
Church
.
As
for
the
Schisms
and
Divisions
which
are
said
to
be
occasioned
by
the
imposition
of
these
Ceremonies
,
I
shall
consider
that
in
the
next
Chapter
:
My
designe
at
present
leads
me
to
consider
the
Mistakes
and
Scruples
of
Christians
,
and
how
far
Governours
ought
to
have
any
regard
to
them
;
and
for
the
explication
of
this
,
there
are
several
things
to
be
observed
.
1.
I
readily
grant
,
that
the
Church
ought
not
to
command
any
thing
which
is
of
a
doubtful
or
suspicious
nature
:
for
where
the
thing
is
doubtful
,
her
Authority
to
command
is
doubtful
too
.
Or
rather
,
it
is
certain
that
the
Church
has
no
Authority
in
doubtful
matters
:
for
her
Authority
can
be
no
larger
than
her
Commission
;
and
it
is
no
part
of
her
Commission
to
teach
or
command
things
which
are
doubtful
.
Thus
it
may
well
be
doubted
whether
it
be
lawful
to
set
up
Images
in
Churches
,
to
pray
before
a
Crucifix
to
excite
and
quicken
our
Devotions
,
though
we
have
no
intention
to
pay
any
religious
homage
to
them
.
For
the
same
reason
,
the
Church
cannot
by
her
Authority
adopt
doubtful
Propositions
into
Articles
of
Faith
,
and
require
all
Christians
to
believe
them
as
the
necessary
terms
of
Communion
.
To
this
purpose
our
Reconciler
,
at
his
usual
impertinent
rate
of
Citations
,
But
our
Reconciler
thinks
that
it
is
a
sufficient
evidence
that
a
thing
is
doubtful
,
and
that
the
peace
and
unity
of
the
Church
ought
not
to
be
suspended
upon
the
determination
of
it
,
when
there
are
a
great
number
of
men
doubt
of
it
,
and
the
thing
is
disputed
and
controverted
,
and
Arguments
produced
on
both
sides
:
and
if
this
be
so
,
there
is
not
any
Article
of
our
Faith
but
what
is
doubtful
;
it
is
very
doubtful
whether
there
be
a
God
,
and
whether
Christ
were
the
true
Messias
or
an
Importer
;
for
we
know
there
are
a
great
many
Atheists
,
Jews
,
Turks
,
and
Infidels
in
the
world
.
And
if
it
be
an
Argument
against
the
Ceremonies
of
the
Church
of
England
,
that
Dissenters
dispute
against
them
;
if
this
prove
,
That
the
peace
and
unity
of
the
Church
ought
not
to
be
suspended
upon
submission
to
them
,
and
that
the
decision
of
the
Controversie
concerning
them
,
was
not
intended
as
a
necessary
means
for
the
peace
and
unity
of
the
Church
of
God
in
these
Kingdoms
;
farewell
to
all
certainty
in
Religion
.
But
he
proves
this
by
an
Argument
transcribed
from
Dr.
Stillingfleet's
Irenicum
,
a
book
which
certainly
did
such
great
service
at
the
time
when
it
was
written
,
to
draw
men
on
to
a
calm
consideration
of
things
,
and
whose
Reverend
Author
has
done
such
excellent
service
since
to
the
Church
of
England
by
his
incomparable
Writings
both
against
Papists
and
Fanaticks
,
that
whatever
fault
there
may
be
in
it
,
both
the
Book
and
the
Author
have
merited
something
more
than
a
pardon
;
especially
since
that
Book
stands
now
upon
its
own
legs
,
and
can
derive
no
authority
from
that
great
Name
,
he
having
sufficiently
declared
his
dislike
,
and
,
I
think
,
sufficiently
answered
some
principal
parts
of
it
himself
.
And
though
I
cannot
assent
to
every
Proposition
in
the
Irenicum
,
as
I
am
pretty
sure
the
Author
himself
does
not
,
yet
I
can
by
no
means
think
that
it
deserves
all
that
clamour
which
some
men
have
raised
against
it
.
I
am
sure
it
never
can
make
any
man
a
Dissenter
;
and
I
think
it
much
more
desirable
,
and
more
for
the
interest
of
the
Church
,
that
men
should
conform
upon
the
Principles
of
the
Irenicum
,
than
that
they
should
continue
Dissenters
.
I
could
not
forbear
saying
this
once
for
all
,
out
of
that
sincere
honour
I
have
for
that
excellent
person
,
who
has
met
with
very
ill
usage
from
some
men
,
who
either
envy
his
deserved
praises
,
or
hope
to
make
themselves
considerable
by
being
his
Rivals
.
But
let
us
hear
what
the
Argument
is
.
Where
probable
Arguments
are
brought
for
the
maintaining
one
part
of
an
Opinion
as
well
as
another
,
though
the
Arguments
brought
be
not
convincing
for
the
necessary
entertaining
either
part
to
an
unbyassed
understanding
,
yet
the
difference
of
their
Opinions
is
Argument
sufficient
that
the
thing
contended
for
is
not
so
clear
as
both
Parties
would
make
it
to
be
on
their
own
sides
;
and
if
it
be
not
a
thing
of
necessity
to
salvation
,
it
gives
men
ground
to
think
that
the
final
decision
of
the
matter
in
controversie
was
never
intended
as
a
necessary
means
for
the
peace
and
unity
of
the
Church
of
God
.
Now
I
confess
,
I
see
no
reason
why
I
may
not
assent
to
all
this
:
for
if
the
Arguments
be
onely
probable
on
both
sides
,
and
such
as
are
not
convincing
either
way
to
an
unbyassed
judgment
,
it
is
a
signe
the
thing
is
doubtful
,
though
some
men
may
be
very
confident
both
ways
;
and
nothing
that
is
doubtful
can
be
necessary
to
salvation
,
nor
can
the
final
decision
of
it
be
necessary
to
the
peace
of
the
Church
.
But
if
the
Arguments
on
one
hand
to
an
unbyassed
and
disinteressed
judgment
,
be
plain
and
certain
,
and
the
Objections
on
the
other
hand
nothing
but
empty
and
trifling
Cavils
,
which
is
the
true
case
between
the
Church
of
England
and
Dissenters
in
the
dispute
of
Ceremonies
;
if
the
dissent
of
these
men
shall
be
thought
sufficient
to
render
this
matter
uncertain
,
we
shall
be
condemned
to
eternal
and
unavoidable
Scepticism
.
But
our
Reconciler
says
,
Let
any
man
peruse
the
Arguments
of
the
Dissenters
against
Conformity
to
symbolical
Ceremonies
,
and
he
will
find
them
strengthned
by
the
suffrages
of
many
grave
and
learned
Divines
both
of
our
own
and
other
Churches
.
As
for
the
grave
Divines
of
other
Churches
,
let
them
mind
their
own
business
,
for
their
Authority
is
nothing
to
us
;
and
as
for
the
Divines
of
our
own
Church
,
who
strengthen
the
Dissenters
Arguments
against
Ceremonies
,
who
they
are
,
or
how
many
,
or
how
grave
and
learned
they
are
,
I
cannot
tell
.
He
has
indeed
transcribed
several
Sayings
out
of
some
of
our
Divines
,
to
plead
for
the
relaxation
of
such
Impositions
;
but
none
that
I
know
of
,
to
strengthen
the
Dissenters
Arguments
;
which
no
Divine
in
our
Church
can
do
,
who
honestly
conforms
himself
.
Well
,
but
how
does
this
Passage
in
the
Irenicum
countenance
this
reconciling
designe
?
Suppose
there
be
probable
reasons
on
both
sides
,
where
yet
it
is
necessary
to
act
one
way
,
what
must
be
done
in
this
case
?
must
every
man
be
left
to
do
as
he
pleases
?
So
says
the
Reconciler
,
that
this
is
the
onely
way
to
peace
;
but
the
Irenicum
says
the
quite
contrary
;
That
the
way
to
peace
cannot
be
by
leaving
an
absolutely
to
follow
their
own
ways
:
for
that
were
to
build
a
Babel
instead
of
Salem
,
Confusion
instead
of
Peace
.
It
must
be
then
by
convincing
men
,
that
neither
of
those
ways
to
peace
and
order
,
which
they
contend
about
,
is
necessary
by
way
of
divine
command
(
though
some
be
as
a
means
to
an
end
)
but
which
particular
way
or
form
it
must
be
,
is
wholly
left
to
the
prudence
of
those
in
whose
power
and
trust
it
is
to
see
the
peace
of
the
Church
be
secured
on
lasting
foundations
.
Which
is
a
peremptory
determination
against
our
Reconciler
,
who
very
rarely
quotes
any
.
Author
,
without
wresting
his
words
to
another
sence
,
than
what
was
intended
.
If
every
thing
were
doubtful
,
of
which
some
men
doubt
,
and
nothing
must
be
determined
which
is
thus
doubtful
,
it
were
impossible
that
there
should
be
any
external
form
and
constitution
of
a
Church
,
or
any
external
Worship
.
If
it
be
a
good
Argument
that
a
thing
is
doubtful
,
because
some
men
doubt
of
it
,
methinks
it
is
as
good
an
Argument
that
that
is
not
doubtful
,
which
no
body
doubts
of
;
and
thus
symbolical
Ceremonies
,
as
our
Reconciler
calls
them
,
are
past
all
doubt
:
for
no
Christian
ever
had
any
doubt
about
them
for
above
fifteen
hundred
years
;
which
is
time
enough
in
this
way
to
prove
the
certainty
of
any
thing
:
And
though
some
Christians
begin
to
doubt
,
and
to
invent
Arguments
to
countenance
their
doubts
,
after
fifteen
hundred
years
;
yet
this
is
no
reason
for
the
Church
to
doubt
also
.
Well
,
but
if
mens
doubting
be
not
an
Argument
that
the
thing
whereof
they
doubt
is
doubtful
,
how
shall
we
know
what
is
doubtful
,
and
what
not
?
I
answer
:
Where
there
is
no
positive
evidence
,
and
the
probabilities
or
difficulties
are
great
on
both
sides
,
there
is
sufficient
reason
for
doubting
;
and
in
such
cases
I
think
the
Church
has
not
authority
to
determine
either
way
,
when
the
doubt
is
about
the
lawfulness
or
unlawfulness
,
the
truth
or
falshood
of
things
:
for
the
authority
of
the
Church
cannot
alter
the
nature
nor
the
evidence
of
things
;
and
therefore
ought
not
to
determine
that
to
be
lawful
,
which
it
is
equally
probable
may
be
unlawful
;
nor
that
to
be
true
,
which
has
equal
proofs
of
its
being
false
.
But
this
cannot
concern
the
controversie
about
the
lawful
use
of
some
Ceremonies
in
religious
Worship
,
for
which
we
have
as
plain
and
positive
evidence
,
as
we
can
desire
for
a
thing
of
this
nature
,
as
I
have
already
shewn
:
and
therefore
any
mens
doubting
of
this
,
makes
it
no
more
doubtful
,
than
their
doubts
about
any
plain
and
necessary
Article
of
Faith
,
renders
that
also
doubtful
and
suspicious
.
2.
Though
the
Church
must
not
command
any
thing
which
is
of
a
doubtful
nature
,
yet
the
doubts
and
scruples
or
mistakes
of
Christians
ought
to
have
no
influence
upon
acts
of
Government
.
There
cannot
be
a
more
unreasonable
and
senseless
Imposition
upon
Governours
than
this
,
which
makes
all
Government
the
most
arbitrary
,
and
precarious
,
and
useless
thing
in
the
world
.
If
this
Rule
were
allowed
,
what
work
would
it
make
in
Kingdoms
and
Families
,
when
Princes
,
Parents
,
and
Masters
,
must
command
nothing
which
their
Subjects
,
Children
,
or
Servants
scruple
to
do
!
That
which
makes
Government
necessary
is
,
that
the
generality
of
mankind
do
not
know
how
to
govern
themselves
;
but
this
Principle
makes
all
men
their
own
Governours
,
and
makes
it
unlawful
for
any
Authority
to
impose
any
thing
upon
their
Subjects
which
they
have
not
a
mind
to
:
for
it
is
an
easie
matter
to
scruple
,
or
to
pretend
to
scruple
,
whatever
we
have
no
mind
to
do
:
and
yet
if
we
will
believe
our
Reconciler
,
here
is
no
distinction
to
be
made
between
men
who
are
really
weak
and
scrupulous
,
and
those
who
pretend
to
it
:
are
for
a
May-pole
,
may
have
a
May-pole
,
as
our
Reconciler
very
reverently
expresses
it
.
If
he
can
say
any
thing
to
these
points
,
I
confess
,
it
will
be
to
his
purpose
;
and
therefore
I
would
desire
him
to
consider
of
it
,
now
he
knows
what
he
is
to
prove
.
But
though
his
History
of
those
alterations
which
the
Church
in
several
Ages
has
made
in
the
Rituals
and
Ceremonies
of
Religion
,
would
not
serve
his
main
designe
,
yet
it
highly
gratified
his
pride
and
insolence
to
trample
upon
a
great
man
,
whom
he
thought
he
had
taken
at
some
advantage
.
The
Reverend
Dean
of
St.
Pauls
assigns
some
reasons
why
the
Church
of
England
still
retains
the
use
of
some
Ceremonies
.
out
of
a
due
reverence
to
Antiquity
.
They
would
hereby
convince
the
Papists
they
did
put
a
difference
between
the
gross
and
intolerable
Superstitions
of
Popery
,
and
the
innocent
Rites
and
Practices
which
were
observed
in
the
Church
before
.
is
very
like
Hypocrisie
,
to
pretend
to
retain
three
Ceremonies
of
humane
institution
,
out
of
respect
to
their
supposed
antiquity
,
whilst
we
reject
as
many
,
which
were
unquestionably
of
a
divine
original
,
and
therefore
sure
of
an
antiquity
which
more
deserveth
to
be
reverenced
.
Truly
if
our
Church
has
parted
with
any
thing
of
a
divine
original
,
I
think
she
has
reformed
too
far
:
but
will
our
Reconciler
say
,
that
every
thing
that
was
an
Apostolical
Practice
,
is
of
divine
original
?
Bishop
Taylor
,
to
whom
he
so
often
appeals
,
would
have
taught
him
otherwise
,
as
I
have
already
observed
;
who
says
,
that
the
Apostles
in
ordering
religious
Assemblies
,
and
in
prescribing
such
Rules
of
Worship
as
they
did
not
immediately
receive
from
Christ
,
acted
but
as
ordinary
Ministers
of
the
Church
;
and
what
they
prescribed
,
obliged
no
longer
than
the
reason
and
expediency
of
the
things
;
and
the
Governours
of
the
Church
in
after-Ages
had
as
full
and
ample
Authority
as
the
Apostles
themselves
in
such
matters
.
But
does
the
Dean
say
,
that
these
Ceremonies
were
retained
onely
for
their
antiquity
?
then
indeed
the
Reconciler's
Objection
had
been
strong
,
that
other
Ceremonies
which
are
as
ancient
as
they
,
should
have
been
retained
also
.
But
is
it
not
a
just
reverence
to
Antiquity
,
that
when
our
Church
had
for
other
reasons
determined
what
number
of
Ceremonies
to
retain
,
and
for
what
ends
and
purposes
,
she
chuses
to
use
such
Ceremonies
as
were
anciently
used
in
the
Christian
Church
,
rather
than
to
invent
any
new
ones
?
for
it
had
been
an
affront
to
the
ancient
Church
,
to
have
rejected
those
Ceremonies
which
had
been
made
venerable
by
ancient
use
,
when
they
would
equally
or
better
serve
those
ends
we
designe
,
than
any
new
ones
.
This
is
the
very
account
our
Church
gives
of
it
.
Having
given
the
reason
why
she
retained
some
Ceremonies
still
(
as
I
have
already
observed
)
she
answers
that
Objection
why
she
has
retained
some
old
Ceremonies
.
If
they
think
much
that
any
of
the
old
remain
,
and
would
rather
have
all
devised
new
;
then
such
men
granting
some
Ceremonies
convenient
to
be
had
,
surely
where
the
old
may
be
well
used
,
there
they
cannot
reasonably
reprove
the
old
onely
for
their
age
,
without
bewraying
of
their
own
folly
.
For
in
such
a
case
they
ought
rather
to
have
reverence
to
them
for
their
antiquity
,
if
they
will
declare
themselves
to
be
more
studious
of
Unity
and
Concord
than
of
Innovations
and
new
Fangleness
,
which
(
as
much
as
may
be
with
true
setting
forth
of
Christ's
Religion
)
is
always
to
be
eschewed
.
Let
our
Reconciler
consider
whether
this
be
Hypocrisie
,
or
true
and
sober
reasoning
.
2.
The
Dean's
second
reason
is
,
To
manifest
the
justice
and
equity
of
the
Reformation
,
by
letting
their
Enemies
see
that
they
did
not
break
Communion
with
them
for
meer
indifferent
things
.
Or
as
our
Reconciler
adds
,
That
they
left
the
Church
of
Rome
no
farther
than
she
left
the
ancient
Church
.
Which
the
Dean
does
not
say
under
that
Head
,
nor
any
thing
like
it
.
But
yet
here
he
takes
advantage
,
and
says
,
It
is
manifest
,
that
we
have
left
off
praying
for
departed
Saints
,
the
Vnction
of
the
sick
,
the
mixing
water
with
the
Sacramental
Wine
,
&c.
with
many
other
things
which
were
retained
in
the
ancient
Church
,
and
in
the
Liturgie
of
Edward
the
Sixth
(
he
should
have
said
the
first
Liturgy
.
)
and
which
are
things
indifferent
retained
in
the
Roman
Church
.
But
is
our
Reconciler
in
good
earnest
?
I
fear
,
the
next
Book
we
shall
have
from
him
,
will
be
the
Roman
Catholick
Reconciler
.
Are
all
these
things
,
as
used
in
the
Roman
Church
,
indifferent
?
Is
praying
for
the
dead
,
as
it
is
joyned
with
the
Doctrine
of
Purgatory
and
Merit
,
in
the
Church
of
Rome
,
a
thing
indifferent
?
Is
the
Sacrament
of
Extream
Unction
an
indifferent
thing
?
Are
their
Grossings
and
Exorcisms
,
and
such-like
Ceremonies
,
abused
by
the
Church
of
Rome
to
the
absurdest
Superstitions
,
indifferent
things
?
Our
Reformers
at
first
,
in
veneration
to
the
Primitive
Church
,
in
which
some
of
these
Ceremonies
were
used
,
did
retain
the
use
of
them
in
the
first
Liturgy
of
Edward
the
Sixth
;
but
upon
more
mature
deliberation
,
finding
how
impossible
it
was
to
restore
them
to
their
primitive
use
,
and
to
purge
them
from
the
superstitious
abuses
of
the
Church
of
Rome
,
to
which
their
people
were
still
addicted
,
laid
them
all
aside
:
and
for
this
they
are
reproached
by
our
Reconciler
.
Some
men
would
have
been
called
Papists
in
Masquerade
for
half
so
much
as
this
.
But
what
is
this
to
the
Dean's
reason
,
That
we
do
not
break
Communion
with
them
for
meer
indifferent
things
?
For
certainly
to
retain
three
indifferent
Ceremonies
,
though
we
should
reject
five
hundred
more
equally
indifferent
,
is
a
sufficient
proof
that
we
do
not
quarrel
nor
break
Communion
for
indifferent
things
,
considered
as
indifferent
;
which
is
all
that
the
Dean
meant
by
it
.
But
he
has
a
fling
at
some
others
besides
the
Dean
,
though
whom
he
means
,
I
cannot
well
tell
:
but
he
says
,
Some
of
our
Church
senselesly
pretend
we
cannot
change
these
Ceremonies
,
because
they
have
been
once
received
and
owned
by
the
Church
.
I
suppose
he
means
the
Catholick
Church
;
and
though
I
think
it
is
too
much
to
say
,
we
cannot
change
what
has
been
once
received
,
(
for
the
Church
of
this
Age
has
as
much
Authority
as
the
Church
of
former
Ages
had
)
yet
,
I
think
,
what
has
been
received
by
the
Catholick
Church
,
ought
not
,
but
upon
very
great
reasons
,
to
be
rejected
by
any
particular
Church
.
But
now
had
our
Reconciler
been
honest
,
he
might
have
made
a
great
many
useful
Remarks
upon
this
History
of
ancient
Ceremonies
,
for
the
conviction
of
Dissenters
.
He
might
have
observed
,
that
even
in
the
Apostles
days
there
were
several
Ceremonies
used
of
Apostolical
institution
,
which
yet
had
not
a
divine
but
humane
Authority
;
and
therefore
were
afterwards
disused
or
altered
by
the
Church
:
That
in
all
Ages
of
the
Christian
Church
,
there
have
been
greater
numbers
of
Ceremonies
used
,
and
those
much
more
liable
to
exception
than
are
now
retained
in
the
Church
of
England
:
That
the
Church
has
always
challenged
and
exercised
this
Authority
in
the
Externals
of
Religion
;
and
therefore
there
has
not
been
any
Age
of
the
Church
since
the
Apostles
,
with
which
our
Dissenters
could
have
communicated
upon
their
Principles
.
This
had
been
done
like
an
honest
man
,
and
a
true
Reconciler
;
but
it
is
wonderful
to
me
,
that
he
who
can
find
so
many
good
words
for
the
Church
of
Rome
,
can
find
none
for
the
Church
of
England
.
3.
It
may
so
happen
,
that
some
things
must
be
determined
by
publick
Authority
,
which
are
matter
of
doubt
and
scruple
to
some
professed
Christians
.
When
I
say
,
Authority
must
determine
such
things
,
I
mean
,
if
they
will
do
their
duty
,
and
take
care
of
the
publick
Decency
and
Uniformity
of
Worship
,
without
which
there
can
be
no
Decency
.
This
is
evident
in
such
an
Age
as
this
,
wherein
some
men
scruple
every
thing
which
relates
to
publick
Worship
,
but
what
they
like
and
fancy
themselves
.
To
be
uncovered
at
Prayers
,
is
as
considerable
a
scruple
to
some
Quakers
,
as
to
kneel
at
the
Sacrament
is
to
other
Dissenters
.
This
,
it
seems
,
was
a
Dispute
in
the
Church
of
Corinth
in
St.
Paul's
days
,
but
the
Apostle
made
no
scruple
of
determining
that
question
,
notwithstanding
that
;
Dr.
Falkner
gave
another
instance
of
this
in
the
Dispute
about
leavened
or
unleavened
Bread
in
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
;
where
he
says
,
The
one
sort
is
necessary
to
be
determined
before
the
administration
,
or
otherwise
the
Ordinance
it self
must
be
omitted
.
Here
our
Reconciler
is
resolved
to
try
his
strength
,
because
the
Argument
,
as
managed
by
that
otherwise-ingenious
man
,
containeth
great
mistakes
;
which
being
rectified
,
will
set
men
right
in
the
decision
of
the
Controversie
.
Here
then
,
if
ever
,
we
may
expect
that
our
Reconciler
will
say
something
to
the
purpose
,
because
the
decision
of
the
Controversie
depends
on
it
.
1.
Then
,
he
allows
there
may
be
such
cases
where
in
genere
something
is
necessary
to
be
determined
.
I
see
we
shall
have
fine
work
of
it
,
when
he
begins
with
tricks
and
fallacies
.
The
Doctor
speaks
of
the
determination
of
a
particular
circumstance
,
whether
the
Sacramental
Bread
shall
be
leavened
or
unleavened
;
and
he
talks
of
determining
some
cases
in
genere
,
that
is
,
that
it
shall
be
Bread
:
for
I
know
not
else
what
he
means
by
his
in
genere
.
The
Question
is
,
Whether
any
particular
thing
which
is
scrupled
by
some
persons
,
may
or
ought
to
be
determined
;
if
it
may
,
let
him
say
so
plainly
,
and
make
the
best
he
can
of
it
.
Well
,
he
grants
,
that
what
is
necessary
to
be
determined
,
must
be
determined
;
but
adds
,
that
the
Dissenters
do
universally
deny
that
it
is
necessary
to
determine
any
of
these
scrupled
Ceremonies
;
and
they
have
perfect
demonstration
for
the
truth
of
that
denial
:
for
,
necessatium
est
,
quod
non
potest
aliter
se
habere
;
that
onely
is
necessary
to
be
done
,
which
cannot
be
left
undone
.
I
have
seldom
met
with
more
trifling
and
sophistry
in
so
few
words
:
For
,
1.
Dr.
Falkner
speaks
of
a
necessity
of
determining
some
things
,
which
have
no
antecedent
necessity
in
their
own
natures
,
such
as
the
use
of
leavened
or
unleavened
Bread
in
the
Sacrament
;
and
our
Reconciler
grants
the
Magistrate
a
power
to
determine
those
things
which
are
necessary
in
their
own
natures
,
though
that
be
nonsence
:
for
what
is
necessary
in
its
own
nature
,
so
necessary
,
that
it
cannot
be
left
undone
,
determines
it self
,
without
the
authority
of
the
Magistrate
;
the
Magistrate
may
command
such
things
,
but
they
are
determined
to
his
hand
.
Nothing
can
be
determined
either
way
by
any
Authority
,
but
that
which
is
indifferent
and
undetermined
in
its
own
nature
:
and
I
think
it
a
contradiction
,
that
any
thing
should
be
indifferent
in
its
own
nature
,
and
so
determinable
by
humane
Authority
,
which
has
either
such
a
moral
or
physical
necessity
,
that
it
cannot
be
otherwise
.
2.
Dr.
Falkner
proves
,
that
there
may
be
a
necessity
of
determining
some
particular
manner
of
doing
a
thing
,
before
the
action
can
be
done
;
because
though
no
particular
mode
of
doing
it
may
be
necessary
,
yet
it
cannot
be
done
without
some
particular
mode
of
doing
it
.
He
that
will
administer
the
Sacrament
,
must
administer
it
either
in
leavened
or
unleaved
Bread
:
this
is
physically
necessary
,
that
it
should
be
done
in
one
or
t'other
;
and
this
physical
necessity
infers
a
moral
necessity
of
determining
which
way
we
will
do
it
,
before
we
can
do
it
:
for
we
cannot
at
the
same
time
,
and
in
the
same
individual
act
,
do
it
both
ways
;
and
therefore
we
must
resolve
upon
one
way
of
doing
it
,
or
we
cannot
do
it
at
all
.
To
disprove
this
,
which
is
as
certain
as
any
demonstration
in
Euclide
,
our
Reconciler
says
,
that
nothing
must
be
determined
but
what
is
necessary
in
its
own
nature
to
the
doing
or
well
doing
of
any
action
:
As
if
so
be
I
could
travel
into
the
Country
,
without
determining
whether
I
will
walk
,
or
ride
,
or
what
way
I
will
go
,
because
no
one
of
these
is
in
its
own
nature
so
necessary
,
that
I
cannot
travel
without
it
:
for
I
may
chuse
which
I
will
,
but
yet
I
must
chuse
some
way
or
other
,
or
I
must
stay
at
home
.
Now
should
you
ask
a
man
who
is
taking
a
journey
,
which
way
he
will
go
,
by
land
or
by
water
,
on
foot
or
horseback
,
or
by
Coach
;
and
he
should
tell
you
,
it
is
not
necessary
to
his
journey
to
determine
either
,
for
they
are
all
equally
indifferent
;
would
you
not
think
the
man
mad
?
for
though
all
are
indifferent
,
yet
some
one
is
necessary
to
his
journey
;
and
if
he
will
not
determine
which
way
he
will
go
,
he
can
never
go
.
This
is
the
case
here
.
Dr.
Falkner
says
,
Before
we
can
receive
the
Lords
Supper
,
it
must
be
determined
whether
we
will
receive
it
in
leavened
or
unleavened
Bread
.
No
,
says
the
Reconciler
,
any
determination
by
the
Magistrate
is
here
unnecessary
,
because
either
leavened
or
unleavened
Bread
may
be
received
.
Right
!
and
therefore
there
is
no
necessity
of
an
universal
Law
and
uniform
practice
all
the
world
over
about
this
matter
;
but
still
whoever
administers
,
or
whoever
receives
the
Sacrament
,
must
do
it
in
leavened
or
unleavened
Bread
.
Suppose
then
in
the
same
Church
and
Congregation
there
should
be
a
dispute
about
this
,
as
there
was
between
the
Greek
and
Latin
Church
;
and
some
should
scruple
to
administer
or
receive
in
leavened
,
others
in
unleavened
Bread
,
what
must
be
done
in
this
case
?
must
the
Church
determine
this
matter
,
or
not
?
or
must
there
in
every
Congregation
be
two
Ministers
,
and
two
Sacraments
,
one
of
the
leavened
,
the
other
of
the
unleavened
Communion
?
I
know
not
what
our
Reconciler
will
say
to
this
;
but
I
am
sure
either
this
matter
must
be
determined
,
notwithstanding
the
scruples
and
differing
Opinions
about
it
,
or
there
must
be
a
Schismatical
disorder
and
confusion
in
the
same
Church
,
in
the
very
act
of
Christian
Communion
.
But
how
little
regard
the
Apostles
themselves
(
whom
I
suppose
our
Reconciler
will
grant
to
be
a
good
President
for
Church-Governours
)
had
to
the
mistakes
and
scruples
of
Christians
,
when
there
was
a
just
reason
for
making
any
Decrees
and
Canons
,
is
evident
from
the
practice
of
that
first
celebrated
Council
of
Ierusalem
.
The
Jews
did
mightily
urge
the
necessity
of
circumcising
the
converted
Gentiles
,
and
made
it
a
great
scruple
of
Conscience
so
much
as
to
eat
or
drink
with
them
,
much
less
to
own
them
of
the
same
Church
and
Communion
,
without
Circumcision
.
a
Burden
(
for
so
the
Council
calls
it
)
upon
the
Gentile
Christians
,
without
any
regard
to
any
scruples
they
might
have
about
it
;
though
,
as
Dr.
Falkner
shews
,
there
was
a
fair
colour
and
pretence
for
many
.
are
far
from
solid
Arguments
,
yet
to
an
indifferent
person
(
for
he
did
not
dream
of
the
Protestant
Reconciler
)
may
possibly
seem
as
plausible
as
many
exceptions
used
by
some
men
in
other
cases
:
that
is
,
by
the
Dissenters
,
in
the
Dispute
of
Ceremonies
.
But
the
force
of
the
Argument
(
which
our
Reconciler
conceals
,
because
he
could
not
answer
it
)
is
this
:
That
notwithstanding
such
plausible
exceptions
and
scruples
,
That
Apostolical
Sanction
was
both
lawful
and
honourable
,
yea
though
it
concerned
things
indifferent
,
and
was
established
(
as
many
think
)
by
that
Ecclesiastical
Authority
which
they
committed
to
their
Successors
in
the
Church
.
As
for
what
the
Reconciler
urges
,
that
this
Decree
was
onely
about
necessary
things
,
it
has
been
sufficiently
answered
already
:
for
the
Decency
of
publick
Worship
is
a
necessary
thing
,
and
I
think
a
little
more
necessary
than
abstaining
from
Bloud
,
which
is
part
of
that
Decree
.
And
whereas
he
pretends
that
the
abating
our
Ceremonies
,
is
necessary
upon
the
same
reason
which
made
that
Apostolical
Decree
necessary
,
viz.
in
order
to
avoid
scandal
and
offence
,
I
shall
largely
shew
how
different
these
cases
are
,
in
answer
to
his
fourth
Chapter
.
I
observe
farther
,
that
our
Saviour
himself
,
who
certainly
knew
as
well
as
our
Reconciler
,
what
indulgence
was
fit
to
be
used
to
mens
scruples
and
mistakes
,
and
in
what
cases
Charity
did
oblige
to
such
an
indulgence
,
yet
was
so
far
from
complying
with
the
errours
and
mistakes
of
the
Pharisees
,
that
he
seems
to
have
done
many
things
on
purpose
to
oppose
their
superstitious
conceits
.
This
Argument
was
urged
by
Dr.
Falkner
,
and
proposed
as
an
Objection
by
the
Reconciler
,
It
is
truly
observed
by
Ursin
,
to
adde
confirmation
to
erroneous
Opinions
in
the
minds
of
the
weak
about
indifferent
things
,
is
a
giving
offence
,
or
being
guilty
of
an
active
scandal
.
Vpon
this
account
,
though
our
Saviour
knew
that
his
healing
,
and
commanding
the
man
who
was
healed
,
to
take
up
his
bed
on
the
Sabbath-day
,
his
eating
with
Publicans
and
Sinners
,
and
his
Disciples
eating
with
unwashen
hands
,
were
things
in
the
highest
manner
offensive
to
some
of
the
Iews
;
he
practised
and
allowed
these
things
,
in
opposition
to
the
Scribes
and
Pharisees
,
who
in
their
censures
of
him
,
proceeded
upon
erroneous
and
corrupt
Doctrines
vented
by
them
for
divine
Dictates
.
Our
Reconciler
seems
conscious
to
himself
,
that
this
was
an
untoward
Argument
,
as
it
was
stated
by
the
Doctor
;
and
therefore
in
his
Margin
he
refexs
his
Reader
to
the
place
where
these
words
are
found
,
which
I
have
now
cited
;
but
yet
he
durst
not
trust
his
Readers
with
them
,
but
puts
the
Objection
into
his
own
words
,
which
he
thought
he
could
better
deal
with
.
And
that
every
one
may
see
how
unlike
they
are
to
Dr.
Falkner's
Argument
,
I
shall
transcribe
them
also
,
which
are
these
:
Our
Saviour
knew
that
his
healing
on
the
Sabbath-day
gave
great
offence
unto
the
Pharisees
,
and
also
ministred
unto
them
an
occasion
to
traduce
his
mission
,
and
to
perswade
the
people
that
he
was
not
of
God
,
because
he
did
not
keep
the
Sabbath
,
although
he
could
as
well
have
done
it
on
the
following
day
:
and
therefore
his
Embassadours
may
still
persist
in
the
imposing
of
our
Ceremonies
,
though
others
are
offended
at
them
.
Where
we
see
he
durst
instance
onely
in
his
healing
on
the
Sabbath-day
,
which
he
thought
he
could
say
something
to
,
but
slips
over
those
other
instances
which
the
Doctor
gave
▪
and
conceals
the
force
of
the
Doctor
's
Argument
,
which
consists
in
this
,
That
our
Saviour
did
not
think
fit
by
his
compliance
with
men
in
their
errours
and
mistakes
,
to
confirm
them
in
such
superstitious
conceits
.
But
let
us
hear
what
our
Reconciler
answers
to
it
.
I.
He
says
,
touching
the
act
it self
,
our
Saviour
declares
affirmatively
,
that
there
was
a
moral
goodness
in
it
;
that
it
was
to
do
well
,
to
do
good
,
to
save
life
.
But
what
is
this
to
the
purpose
?
Was
there
any
moral
goodness
too
in
commanding
the
man
whom
he
had
cured
,
to
take
up
his
Bed
and
walk
on
the
Sabbath-day
?
which
we
know
gave
equal
offence
to
the
Jews
,
who
told
the
man
that
was
cured
,
It
is
the
Sabbath-day
,
it
is
not
lawful
for
thee
to
carry
thy
bed
.
Was
there
any
moral
goodness
in
his
Disciples
eating
with
unwashen
hands
?
which
gave
as
great
offence
as
any
thing
else
,
and
yet
was
publickly
justified
by
our
Saviour
.
Was
there
any
moral
goodness
in
Christ's
eating
with
Publicans
and
Sinners
?
Could
not
he
have
instructed
them
in
the
Will
of
God
,
without
such
a
familiar
conversation
with
them
,
as
he
knew
gave
great
offence
to
the
Pharisees
?
Was
there
any
moral
goodness
in
healing
on
the
Sabbath-day
,
when
there
was
no
necessity
for
doing
it
just
on
that
day
?
for
our
Saviour
might
have
healed
them
at
any
other
time
as
well
.
Yes
,
says
our
Reconciler
,
our
Saviour
adds
,
That
the
neglect
of
doing
this
on
the
Sabbath
,
was
to
do
evil
,
and
destroy
life
.
But
where
does
our
Saviour
say
this
?
He
proposes
this
Question
indeed
to
them
,
Is
it
lawful
on
the
Sabbath-day
to
do
good
,
or
to
do
evil
?
to
save
life
,
or
to
destroy
it
?
And
from
hence
our
Reconciler
infers
,
that
not
to
heal
on
the
Sabbath-day
,
had
been
to
destroy
life
;
an
inference
worthy
of
his
great
and
profound
judgment
!
for
I
would
ask
him
,
Whether
our
Saviour
could
be
charged
with
destroying
those
mens
lives
whom
he
did
not
heal
,
whether
on
the
Sabbath-day
or
on
any
other
day
?
Whether
he
were
under
a
necessity
of
healing
all
that
were
sick
?
If
he
were
not
,
then
he
might
have
chosen
his
times
of
healing
,
as
well
as
the
persons
whom
he
would
heal
,
without
being
guilty
of
destroying
any
mans
life
,
and
so
might
have
forborn
healing
on
the
Sabbath-day
.
Nay
,
Whether
our
Saviour
could
be
charged
with
destroying
life
,
by
neglecting
to
heal
a
withered
hand
on
the
Sabbath-day
,
which
did
not
endanger
life
,
and
the
cure
of
which
might
have
been
deferred
till
the
next
day
,
without
any
hazard
?
And
therefore
St.
Matthew
represents
the
force
of
our
Saviour's
Argument
onely
to
prove
,
that
it
is
lawful
to
do
well
on
the
Sabbath-day
.
Is
it
lawful
to
heal
on
the
Sabbath-day
,
that
he
said
unto
them
,
What
man
shall
there
be
among
you
,
that
shall
have
one
sheep
,
and
if
it
fall
into
a
pit
on
the
Sabbath-day
,
will
be
not
lay
hold
on
it
and
lift
it
out
?
How
much
then
is
a
man
better
than
a
sheep
?
wherefore
it
is
lawful
to
do
well
on
the
Sabbath-day
.
For
if
men
may
save
the
life
of
a
sheep
on
the
Sabbath-day
,
there
is
such
a
vast
disproportion
between
a
man
and
a
sheep
,
that
we
may
lawfully
do
any
kind
office
for
a
man
,
though
it
do
not
extend
to
rescue
him
from
sudden
death
.
To
deliver
a
man
from
any
bodily
infirmity
,
though
it
be
not
mortal
,
nor
absolutely
necessary
to
be
done
at
that
time
,
is
more
pleasing
to
God
,
than
to
save
the
life
of
a
sheep
;
and
therefore
if
one
be
lawful
on
the
Sabbath-day
,
we
need
not
doubt
but
the
other
is
.
The
answer
St.
Luke
makes
our
Saviour
to
return
,
is
exactly
to
the
same
sence
,
though
in
other
words
:
Is
it
lawful
on
the
Sabbath-day
to
do
good
,
or
to
do
evil
?
A
strange
kind
of
Question
,
according
to
the
English
sound
of
the
words
:
for
certainly
it
is
never
lawful
to
do
evil
,
on
no
day
of
the
week
;
but
this
is
a
Hebraism
,
and
signifies
this
in
proper
English
:
Is
it
better
on
the
Sabbath-day
to
do
good
,
or
to
neglect
doing
good
?
Which
is
comparatively
evil
,
because
though
it
may
have
no
positive
wickedness
in
it
,
yet
is
a
less
good
.
Now
●ertainly
,
the
better
the
day
is
,
the
more
does
it
become
us
to
do
the
best
things
on
it
.
And
when
he
adds
,
to
save
life
or
to
destroy
it
,
it
plainly
refers
to
that
instance
St.
Matthew
gives
of
saving
the
life
of
a
sheep
which
falls
into
a
pit
on
the
Sabbath-day
;
which
proves
the
least
real
kindness
done
to
men
on
the
Sabbath-day
to
be
lawful
,
because
any
kindness
to
a
man
,
is
more
than
to
save
the
life
of
a
Beast
.
So
that
all
that
our
Saviour
pleads
in
this
case
,
is
onely
the
lawfulness
of
doing
it
on
the
Sabbath-day
;
and
though
he
knew
that
the
Jews
were
offended
at
it
,
yet
he
matters
not
that
offence
,
which
was
owing
to
their
own
superstitious
mistakes
:
and
therefore
the
Church
may
justifie
her self
in
imposing
lawful
things
,
though
some
men
by
their
superstitious
mistakes
are
offended
at
it
.
And
yet
we
may
joyn
issue
with
our
Reconciler
upon
this
very
point
of
moral
goodness
:
for
the
Decency
of
Worship
is
morally
good
,
and
therefore
not
to
be
neglected
,
whoever
scruple
a
conformity
to
the
Rules
of
Decency
and
Order
.
II.
He
answers
,
The
end
or
excellent
designs
our
Saviour
had
,
made
it
not
onely
lawful
,
but
expedient
and
necessary
.
So
that
in
some
cases
,
it
seems
,
there
may
be
wise
reasons
for
doing
that
,
which
we
know
some
men
will
take
offence
at
.
Now
if
it
appears
that
the
principal
reason
our
Saviour
had
,
was
to
rebuke
and
affront
the
superstition
of
these
men
,
then
it
is
a
just
reason
for
Church-Governours
to
continue
such
Impositions
as
some
men
ignorant●y
and
superstitiously
scruple
,
though
they
might
be
changed
and
altered
without
any
injury
to
Religion
,
because
they
ought
not
to
countenance
men
in
any
false
or
superstitious
opinions
about
Religion
.
Let
us
then
consider
the
Reasons
our
Reconciler
assigns
for
this
.
1.
His
first
reason
,
he
says
,
is
Bishop
Taylor
's
:
That
Iesus
might
draw
off
and
separate
Christianity
from
the
Yoke
of
Ceremonies
,
by
abolishing
and
taking
off
the
strictest
Mosaical
Rites
,
he
chose
to
do
many
of
his
Miracles
upon
the
Sabbath
,
that
he
might
do
the
work
of
Abrogation
and
Institution
both
at
once
,
and
teach
the
people
that
the
Son
of
man
is
Lord
of
the
Sabbath
.
Whether
this
be
the
Bishops
reason
,
I
cannot
tell
;
for
he
has
not
directed
us
where
to
find
it
,
and
I
dare
not
take
his
word
for
it
.
But
whose
Argument
soever
it
is
,
there
is
certainly
a
great
mistake
in
it
:
for
our
Saviour
did
not
intend
in
this
,
to
take
off
the
strictest
Mosaical
Rites
;
for
this
Sabbatick
rest
,
which
would
not
allow
the
doing
the
most
charitable
actions
,
was
no
Mosaical
Rite
,
but
Pharisaical
Superstition
.
Our
Saviour
justifies
himself
,
that
he
did
nothing
but
what
by
the
Law
of
Moses
was
lawful
to
be
done
on
the
Sabbath-day
;
and
therefore
he
did
nothing
in
all
this
towards
abrogating
the
Law
of
the
Sabbath
,
but
onely
to
correct
the
superstitious
observation
of
it
;
that
is
,
publickly
to
shame
the
Superstition
of
the
Pharisees
,
though
he
knew
they
would
be
greatly
offended
at
it
.
2.
And
this
is
the
second
reason
he
himself
assigns
,
That
Christ
is
supposed
to
have
taken
this
occasion
to
deliver
the
poor
people
from
those
superstitious
and
heavy
burdens
which
the
Pharisees
had
laid
upon
them
in
reference
to
that
day
.
And
this
is
certainly
the
true
reason
;
and
why
should
not
the
Governours
of
the
Church
then
impose
the
use
of
indifferent
things
for
the
Decency
of
Worship
,
to
deliver
poor
people
from
those
Superstitions
and
heavy
Burdens
which
our
modern
Pharisees
have
laid
on
them
in
reference
to
religious
Worship
?
For
to
say
that
we
must
use
no
Ceremonies
of
humane
appointment
in
religious
Worship
,
is
as
gross
Superstition
,
and
as
unsupportable
a
Burden
,
as
to
forbid
the
doing
of
the
best
actions
on
the
Sabbath
;
and
is
as
contrary
to
the
direction
of
the
Gospel
,
as
that
was
to
the
Law
:
and
the
offence
men
superstitiously
take
at
such
things
,
ought
to
be
despised
and
scorned
,
as
we
learn
from
the
Example
of
Christ
himself
.
3.
He
adds
,
This
Miracle
was
still
performed
in
the
Synagogue
,
and
so
before
a
multitude
of
people
,
who
by
it
were
confirmed
in
the
truth
of
our
Lords
Mission
,
and
it
was
done
when
he
had
taught
the
people
,
and
so
was
done
in
the
confirmation
of
his
Doctrine
.
Now
as
to
matter
of
fact
,
this
is
false
:
for
our
Saviour
on
the
Sabbath-day
cured
the
diseased
man
who
lay
at
the
Pool
of
Bethesda
,
which
was
neither
in
the
Synagogue
,
nor
before
a
multitude
of
people
,
nor
when
he
had
taught
the
people
,
5
Ioh.
8.
for
no
body
knew
of
this
cure
,
till
they
saw
the
man
who
was
cured
carrying
his
Bed
;
and
he
himself
did
not
know
who
it
was
that
had
cured
him
.
Here
Christ
had
done
a
cure
privately
,
and
without
offence
:
for
it
had
not
been
known
,
had
not
Christ
commanded
him
to
take
up
his
Bed
and
carry
it
away
with
him
;
which
he
did
in
open
defiance
to
the
Superstition
of
the
Pharisees
,
and
could
have
no
other
reason
of
doing
it
.
Had
these
Miracles
been
wrought
onely
in
confirmation
of
his
Mission
,
would
not
another
day
have
served
as
well
for
that
purpose
?
He
taught
the
people
on
other
days
also
,
and
wrought
many
Miracles
;
and
never
wanted
a
multitude
of
people
to
follow
him
,
when
they
knew
where
he
was
.
Well
,
but
it
shewed
them
the
blindness
of
their
Guides
.
This
is
a
very
good
reason
▪
and
for
the
same
reason
the
Governours
of
the
Church
ought
in
charity
to
the
people
,
to
shew
them
the
blindness
of
their
Guides
▪
and
therefore
not
to
comply
with
them
in
their
superstitious
scruples
.
III.
But
the
men
who
were
offended
at
it
,
were
onely
Hypocrites
,
whose
hearts
were
hardened
against
the
truth
.
What
,
were
they
all
Hypocrites
?
was
there
not
one
honest
man
among
them
?
Some
Hypocrites
there
were
then
,
and
so
there
are
still
;
Hypocrites
in
another
sence
than
these
men
were
Hypocrites
.
For
the
Jews
did
generally
believe
the
unlawfulness
of
any
kind
of
work
on
the
Sabbath-day
,
and
therefore
were
really
scandalized
and
offended
;
but
we
have
a
company
of
Hypocrites
among
us
,
who
do
not
really
scruple
what
they
pretend
to
do
,
but
onely
make
a
pretence
of
scruples
an
occasion
to
abuse
the
People
,
to
stir
up
Schisms
in
the
Church
,
and
Factions
in
the
State
;
men
who
can
conform
when
they
please
,
and
be
offended
and
scandalized
when
they
please
.
But
our
Lord
did
all
that
could
be
reasonable
to
prevent
their
scandal
.
No
,
he
did
not
abstain
from
working
Miracles
on
the
Sabbath-day
,
which
he
might
have
done
if
he
had
pleased
;
but
he
was
so
far
from
avoiding
giving
offence
to
them
,
that
he
did
it
on
purpose
because
they
were
offended
at
it
,
and
to
deliver
men
from
such
Superstitions
as
made
them
take
offence
.
But
he
first
satisfies
them
from
their
own
practice
on
a
less
occasion
,
and
from
the
nature
of
the
action
;
and
that
with
so
much
evidence
and
conviction
,
that
they
were
ashamed
,
and
could
not
answer
him
one
word
.
And
has
our
Church
been
wanting
in
this
,
to
give
satisfaction
to
Dissenters
?
How
many
unanswerable
Books
have
been
written
in
justification
of
the
Constitutions
and
Worship
of
our
Church
?
And
that
our
Dissenters
are
not
ashamed
,
but
will
talk
on
,
when
they
have
not
one
wise
word
to
say
,
is
onely
an
Argument
that
they
have
less
wit
,
and
more
impudence
,
than
the
Pharisees
had
.
Our
Church
indeed
cannot
work
Miracles
,
as
Christ
did
,
to
convince
them
;
though
where
plain
and
convincing
Reasons
will
not
do
,
I
doubt
Miracles
will
not
do
neither
:
for
though
the
Pharisees
were
silenced
by
Christ
,
yet
they
were
neither
convinc'd
by
his
Reasons
nor
his
Miracles
.
Thus
I
have
considered
what
obligation
Charity
to
the
Souls
of
men
lays
upon
the
Governours
of
the
Church
to
abate
those
Ceremonies
,
which
some
men
scruple
and
take
offence
at
.
But
I
must
here
briefly
consider
one
Principle
more
of
our
Reconcilers
,
which
he
no-where
pretends
to
prove
,
but
takes
for
granted
;
That
the
Charity
of
Governours
requires
the
abatement
of
every
thing
which
is
not
absolutely
necessary
in
Religion
,
if
it
prove
an
occasion
of
scruple
and
offence
.
For
why
must
the
Church
be
tyed
up
to
what
is
necessary
?
Her
Power
and
Authority
extends
to
things
which
are
useful
and
expedient
,
though
not
absolutely
necessary
;
and
therefore
she
may
exercise
this
Power
according
to
the
measures
of
Prudence
and
Charity
,
notwithstanding
the
unreasonable
&
superstitious
scruples
of
men
,
which
ought
to
lay
no
restraint
upon
the
prudent
Exercise
of
Government
,
as
,
I
think
,
I
have
already
sufficiently
proved
;
and
yet
our
Reconciler
thinks
it
a
sufficient
reason
why
the
Church
should
alter
any
scrupled
Ceremonies
,
how
decent
or
expedient
soever
they
are
,
if
we
cannot
prove
them
to
be
absolutely
necessary
.
Thus
I
have
considered
the
main
Principles
of
his
Book
,
and
shall
not
think
my self
any
further
concerned
to
take
notice
of
them
,
as
often
as
I
meet
with
them
.
If
these
Principles
which
I
have
now
laid
down
,
hold
good
,
his
Book
is
answered
,
and
the
Governours
of
the
Church
may
exercise
their
just
Authority
;
and
he
that
is
offended
,
let
him
be
offended
.
And
yet
for
the
more
ample
satisfaction
of
all
men
,
what
a
trifler
our
Reconciler
is
,
I
shall
particularly
examine
his
Arguments
from
Scripture
,
and
shew
how
impertinent
they
are
to
our
present
Dispute
.
CHAP.
III.
Concerning
a
more
particular
Answer
to
our
Reconciler's
Objections
against
the
imposition
of
indifferent
things
,
when
they
are
an
occasion
of
Discords
,
Divisians
,
and
Schisms
.
THough
what
I
have
already
discours'd
b●
sufficient
to
satisfie
every
impartial
Reader
,
that
all
our
Reconciler's
Arguments
are
meer
Fallacies
,
as
proceeding
upon
false
and
mistaken
Principles
;
yet
for
the
more
abundant
satisfaction
of
all
who
are
willing
to
be
informed
,
I
shall
proceed
to
a
more
particular
examination
of
his
Reasons
,
why
Church-Governours
ought
to
alter
or
abate
such
scrupled
Ceremonies
.
For
if
Conformists
do
not
conceive
it
better
at
least
that
we
should
run
the
hazard
of
all
these
dreadful
evils
,
than
that
we
should
consent
to
lay
aside
the
imposition
of
a
few
indifferent
Ceremonies
,
or
to
the
altering
of
a
few
scrupled
expressions
in
our
Liturgie
;
then
must
they
yield
up
these
few
Ceremonies
,
and
alter
these
expressions
,
to
prevent
all
the
aforesaid
evils
.
1.
I
answer
:
Does
our
Reconciler
then
think
that
every
thing
that
is
the
occasion
of
Discords
and
Divisions
,
must
be
removed
?
Is
the
cause
of
Divisions
in
the
nature
of
things
,
or
in
the
minds
of
men
?
And
is
it
not
most
proper
to
apply
the
remedy
to
the
disease
?
to
instruct
people
that
they
ought
not
to
quarrel
about
such
matters
?
that
they
ought
to
pay
such
deference
to
their
Superiours
,
as
chearfully
to
obey
them
in
all
things
which
God
has
not
expresly
forbid
?
Till
this
be
done
,
the
Church
may
a●ter
her
Constitutions
every
year
,
and
be
as
far
off
from
Peace
as
now
:
for
while
men
are
ignorant
,
scrupulous
,
and
quarrelsome
,
it
is
impossible
for
the
Governours
of
Church
and
State
,
by
the
most
wise
and
prudent
Constitutions
,
to
prevent
Divisions
.
2.
Is
not
the
contempt
of
Ecclesiastical
Authority
,
and
the
rude
and
unmannerly
performance
of
religious
Worship
,
as
great
a
mischief
as
Divisions
?
and
yet
it
is
impossible
to
indulge
every
scrupulous
person
,
without
destroying
the
Authority
of
the
Church
,
and
the
Decency
of
Worship
,
as
I
have
already
proved
.
Now
I
must
confess
bonâ
fide
to
our
Reconciler
,
that
I
think
all
our
Divisions
about
Ceremonies
,
a
less
scandal
to
the
Christian
Religion
,
than
this
would
be
:
for
it
is
better
to
have
a
well
constituted
Church
with
Division
▪
than
to
have
none
without
it
.
3.
Will
our
parting
with
some
few
Ceremonies
,
cure
these
Divisions
which
he
so
much
complains
of
?
This
our
Reconciler
cannot
undertake
for
;
and
it
is
demonstrable
it
will
not
.
Is
this
the
onely
Controversie
,
that
Presbyterians
,
Independents
,
Quakers
,
and
other
Sectaries
,
have
with
the
Church
of
England
?
Has
our
Reconciler
never
read
Mr.
Baxter's
Pleas
for
Peace
,
and
those
other
venomous
Pamphlets
of
late
date
?
When
the
Church
of
England
was
pull'd
down
,
and
these
Ceremonies
and
Episcopacy
it self
removed
out
of
the
way
,
did
it
cure
Divisions
,
or
increase
them
?
When
the
Reverend
Dean
of
St.
Pauls
made
some
Proposals
for
the
ease
of
scrupulous
persons
,
with
reference
to
these
Ceremonies
,
what
thanks
had
he
for
it
?
How
many
bitter
Invectives
were
written
against
him
?
And
can
we
flatter
our selves
then
,
that
the
removal
of
these
Ceremonies
would
cure
our
Divisions
?
And
if
it
will
not
,
why
does
he
urge
the
evil
and
mischief
of
Divisions
,
to
perswade
the
Church
to
part
with
these
Ceremonies
?
Whatever
other
reasons
there
may
be
to
part
with
these
Ceremonies
,
the
cure
of
Divisions
can
be
no
reason
,
when
we
certainly
know
before-hand
that
this
will
not
cure
them
;
unless
he
thinks
the
Church
bound
to
act
upon
such
reasons
as
he
himself
and
every
body
else
knows
to
be
no
reason
:
for
nothing
can
be
a
reason
for
doing
a
thing
,
which
cannot
be
obtained
by
doing
it
.
But
because
our
Reconciler
attempts
to
say
something
to
this
in
his
tenth
Chapter
,
I
shall
follow
him
thither
.
And
,
1.
he
takes
it
for
granted
,
that
he
has
already
proved
it
the
duty
of
Superiours
to
condescend
in
matters
of
this
nature
,
rather
than
to
debar
men
from
Communion
with
the
Church
of
Christ
for
things
unnecessary
,
and
which
they
nowhere
are
commanded
to
impose
;
and
if
so
,
let
us
do
our
duty
,
and
commit
the
event
to
God
.
Now
I
answer
,
1.
I
can
by
no
means
grant
that
he
has
proved
this
;
and
have
in
part
already
,
and
doubt
not
to
make
it
appear
before
I
have
done
,
that
he
has
not
proved
it
.
But
2.
Suppose
he
had
proved
that
it
is
the
duty
of
Superiours
to
condescend
in
such
matters
,
when
they
can
do
any
good
by
their
condescension
;
has
he
proved
also
that
it
is
their
duty
to
condescend
,
when
they
know
they
can
do
no
good
by
it
?
When
these
Divisions
will
not
be
cured
by
such
condescension
?
which
is
the
present
case
.
The
gaining
of
some
very
few
Proselytes
would
not
countervail
the
mischief
of
altering
publick
Constitutions
,
though
we
should
suppose
it
reasonable
to
condescend
to
such
alterations
,
when
we
can
propose
any
great
and
publick
good
by
doing
it
.
II.
Our
Reconciler
answers
:
Suppose
that
we
by
yielding
in
these
matters
should
not
reduce
one
of
the
Tribe
of
our
dissenting
Brethren
,
yet
should
we
take
off
their
most
plausible
pretences
,
and
leave
them
nothing
which
could
be
rationally
offered
as
a
ground
of
Separation
,
or
accusation
of
our
proceedings
against
them
.
I
doubt
not
but
our
Dissenters
despise
this
Reconciler
in
their
hearts
,
for
thinking
that
they
have
no
plausible
pretences
,
nor
rational
grounds
of
Separation
,
but
the
Dispute
about
Ceremonies
:
What
pretences
then
have
the
Dissenters
in
Scotland
,
where
none
of
these
things
are
imposed
?
And
are
they
more
quiet
and
peaceable
,
or
less
clamorous
in
their
Complaints
,
than
our
Dissenters
in
England
?
For
whose
sake
shall
the
Church
make
this
Experiment
,
with
the
loss
of
their
own
Orders
and
Constitutions
?
for
the
sake
of
Dissenters
?
And
what
charity
is
it
to
them
,
to
discover
their
obstinacy
and
hypocrisie
,
and
render
them
more
inexcusable
to
God
and
men
?
Is
it
to
satisfie
our selves
that
the
Dissenters
are
a
sort
of
peevish
and
obstinate
Schismaticks
,
who
will
make
Divisions
without
any
just
pretence
or
reason
for
it
?
We
know
this
already
;
we
know
they
have
no
rational
grounds
for
their
Separation
,
though
these
Ceremonies
be
not
removed
.
Or
do
we
think
to
stop
their
mouths
,
and
escape
their
reproaches
and
censures
?
As
if
any
man
could
stop
the
mouth
of
a
Schismatick
,
or
make
him
blush
!
Those
who
are
resolved
to
continue
Schismaticks
,
will
always
find
something
to
say
for
it
;
and
let
them
talk
on
,
the
true
Sons
of
the
Church
will
defend
her
Constitutions
with
more
reason
,
than
Dissenters
reproach
them
.
III.
However
,
he
says
,
This
will
intirely
stop
the
mouths
of
the
Layety
;
and
if
they
be
gained
,
their
Preachers
must
follow
.
But
who
told
him
this
?
I
am
sure
Mr.
Baxter
often
complains
that
their
Layety
is
so
headstrong
and
stubborn
,
that
they
cannot
govern
them
:
and
in
all
my
observation
,
I
find
that
they
are
as
fond
of
Schism
,
as
zealous
against
Liturgies
and
Bishops
:
as
obstinately
addicted
to
the
peculiar
Opinions
and
Practices
of
their
Party
,
as
their
Preachers
are
;
though
I
am
of
our
Reconciler's
mind
,
that
their
Preachers
will
sooner
follow
their
People
to
Church
,
than
the
People
their
Preachers
.
But
with
what
face
can
our
Reconciler
say
,
That
these
Ceremonies
chiefly
debar
the
Layety
from
full
Communion
with
us
,
when
every
one
knows
the
contrary
?
They
can
communicate
with
us
,
notwithstanding
these
Ceremonies
,
when
they
please
,
and
when
they
can
serve
any
interest
by
it
;
and
their
Preachers
can
give
them
leave
to
do
so
:
and
is
it
not
an
admirable
reason
for
altering
the
establish'd
Constitutions
of
a
Church
,
to
gratifie
such
humoursome
Schismaticks
who
can
conform
when
they
please
?
IV.
He
adds
,
They
who
at
first
dissented
from
the
Constitution
of
our
Church
,
declared
they
did
it
purely
upon
the
account
of
these
things
,
i.
e.
the
Ceremonies
still
used
among
us
.
This
now
is
a
mistake
in
History
:
for
the
first
dislike
that
was
taken
against
our
Church
,
was
for
the
square
Cap
and
Tippet
,
and
some
Episcopal
habit●
,
which
are
not
talked
of
in
our
days
,
and
some
of
which
were
used
in
the
Universities
,
without
scruple
,
in
the
late
blessed
times
of
Reformation
.
But
the
use
of
these
Ceremonies
was
never
scrupled
till
Queen
Elizabeth's
days
,
which
was
the
fruit
of
the
former
Heats
at
Francford
during
the
Marian
Persecution
:
Well
,
but
suppose
what
he
says
to
be
true
,
what
reason
is
this
for
altering
our
Ceremonies
at
this
day
?
Will
our
Separatists
conform
now
,
if
these
Ceremonies
are
taken
away
?
That
he
dares
not
say
:
but
we
shall
gain
this
by
it
,
That
it
will
appear
that
they
are
not
the
genuine
Off-spring
of
the
old
dissenting
Protestants
.
As
if
any
man
,
but
a
Reconciler
,
were
to
learn
that
now
,
when
it
has
been
so
often
proved
upon
them
,
and
they
themselves
scorn
and
huff
at
the
Argument
,
and
will
not
have
the
old
Puritans
made
a
President
for
them
.
V.
In
the
Treaty
at
the
Savoy
,
the
abatement
of
the
Ceremonies
,
and
the
alteration
of
some
disputable
passages
in
the
Liturgie
,
was
all
that
was
contended
for
:
That
is
,
he
means
,
the
Dispute
went
no
farther
;
but
if
they
had
gained
these
points
,
we
should
then
have
heard
more
of
them
.
I
am
sure
whoever
reads
their
Petition
for
Peace
,
will
find
all
the
Principles
of
Mr.
Baxter's
late
Pleas
for
Peace
;
that
so
I
confess
I
cannot
think
him
so
very
inconsistent
with
himself
,
as
some
men
do
.
But
did
they
plead
onely
for
the
alteration
of
some
disputable
passages
in
the
Liturgy
,
when
Mr.
Baxter
himself
drew
up
a
new
Liturgy
?
It
seems
they
would
first
have
reformed
a
Liturgy
for
us
,
and
then
have
had
liberty
to
have
used
a
better
themselves
,
and
to
have
been
at
their
liberty
too
,
whether
they
would
have
used
it
or
not
.
What
if
Mr.
Baxter
and
his
Brethren
imposed
upon
their
Prince
with
a
pretended
zeal
for
Peace
and
Unity
,
(
which
they
pretend
still
as
much
as
any
men
,
as
the
greatest
Incendiaries
in
Church
and
State
commonly
do
)
and
with
an
equivocal
use
of
the
name
Episcopacy
?
when
we
all
know
what
Bishops
they
mean
,
not
Diocesan
,
but
a
new
Baxterian
invention
of
Parochial
Bishops
.
Though
these
pretences
at
first
were
plausible
,
yet
the
King
and
the
Parliament
soon
discovered
what
they
would
be
at
;
and
it
is
modestly
done
of
our
Reconciler
to
alleadge
the
Kings
Declaration
,
when
the
King
has
since
that
,
more
authentickly
declared
his
will
and
his
judgment
of
these
matters
by
Act
of
Parliament
.
But
he
further
adds
:
Moreover
,
we
are
informed
by
Dr.
Burnet
and
Mr.
Baxter
,
in
the
Life
of
the
Lord
Chief
Iustice
Hales
,
That
Dr.
Bates
,
Dr.
Manton
,
and
Mr.
Baxter
,
conferring
with
the
Bishop
of
Chester
and
Dr.
Burton
,
at
the
invitation
of
the
Lord
Keeper
Bridgman
,
came
to
an
agreement
,
drawn
up
in
the
form
of
an
Act
by
my
Lord
Chief
Iustice
,
to
every
word
of
which
they
consented
;
whereupon
Mr.
Baxter
queries
,
Whether
after
such
agreement
,
it
be
ingenuity
to
say
,
We
know
not
what
they
would
have
?
I
would
give
all
the
Money
in
my
Pocket
to
see
this
Act
,
to
every
word
of
which
all
these
persons
could
consent
:
But
till
we
know
what
it
is
,
we
may
with
ingenuity
enough
say
,
That
we
know
not
what
they
would
have
;
and
I
am
still
apt
to
believe
,
that
they
themselves
don
't
know
neither
.
But
what
if
these
three
men
did
consent
to
such
an
Act
,
were
they
constituted
the
Representatives
of
the
whole
Body
of
Nonconformists
?
Could
they
undertake
that
the
rest
of
their
Brethren
should
consent
too
?
Or
must
the
Church
be
bound
to
alter
her
Constitutions
at
the
instigation
of
some
few
busie
undertaking
Dissenters
?
But
since
this
story
is
so
often
alleadged
,
I
will
freely
tell
what
I
know
of
it
from
Dr.
Burton's
own
mouth
,
a
little
before
his
death
.
Having
met
with
this
story
in
some
of
Mr.
Baxter's
Writings
,
(
for
he
hath
told
it
more
than
once
)
and
going
to
visit
Dr.
Burton
at
his
house
at
Bar●es
,
and
finding
him
alone
,
among
other
discourse
,
I
told
him
how
often
Mr.
Baxter
used
his
name
in
such
a
story
;
and
I
thought
it
concerned
him
to
give
some
account
of
it
,
that
it
might
not
be
represented
to
his
disadvantage
.
I
ask'd
him
whether
he
could
remember
what
the
terms
of
accommodation
were
,
or
whether
he
had
any
Papers
about
it
.
He
told
me
,
he
did
not
remember
particularly
what
the
terms
were
,
but
he
believed
he
had
his
Papers
still
,
though
he
could
not
at
present
tell
where
to
find
them
;
but
would
look
for
them
,
and
shew
'em
me
,
if
he
could
find
them
.
I
desired
him
in
the
mean
time
to
tell
me
what
he
remembred
about
the
management
of
that
Affair
;
and
he
gave
me
this
relation
of
it
:
That
when
he
was
Chaplain
to
my
Lord
Keeper
Bridgman
,
my
Lord
was
very
zealous
to
bring
the
Presbyterian
Dissenters
into
the
Church
,
and
thought
it
a
thing
very
seasible
;
and
in
order
to
that
,
did
procure
a
meeting
between
the
Bishop
of
Chester
and
Mr.
Baxter
,
and
some
others
,
and
commanded
him
to
attend
them
;
which
,
as
being
his
Chaplain
,
he
could
not
refuse
.
But
besides
this
,
my
Lord
drew
up
some
Proposals
of
a
limited
Indulgence
for
the
Independants
,
who
,
as
he
easily
foresaw
,
could
not
be
comprehended
in
any
National
Establishment
▪
and
sent
for
Dr.
Owen
and
some
others
of
that
Party
,
to
discourse
them
about
it
.
They
thanked
his
Lordship
for
his
kindness
to
them
,
and
desired
some
time
to
confer
with
the
rest
of
their
Brethren
,
and
to
consider
of
the
Proposals
:
And
after
some
few
days
,
they
returned
to
my
Lord
again
,
and
renewed
their
thanks
to
his
Lordship
,
and
gladly
accepted
of
the
terms
,
and
did
solemnly
declare
,
That
if
these
terms
might
be
granted
them
,
they
would
acquiesce
in
it
,
and
never
give
the
least
disturbance
to
the
Government
.
All
this
while
the
Conference
with
Mr.
Baxter
and
his
Brethren
went
on
,
and
in
short
they
could
come
to
no
agreement
;
insomuch
that
,
he
said
,
my
Lord
told
him
in
the
greatest
passion
that
ever
he
saw
him
in
,
These
men
(
meaning
the
Independants
)
from
whom
I
expected
the
least
compliance
,
thank-fully
accept
the
terms
proposed
;
but
the
others
(
Presbyterians
,
Mr.
Baxter
and
his
Brethren
)
whom
I
believed
most
ready
to
promote
such
a
peaceable
designe
,
will
never
agree
in
any
thing
;
and
I
will
never
have
more
to
do
with
them
.
And
thus
that
Conference
wherein
Dr.
Burton
was
concerned
,
ended
without
any
effect
.
Whether
any
thing
was
done
towards
an
Accommodation
at
other
times
,
or
by
other
hands
,
he
knew
not
;
but
at
that
time
when
he
was
concerned
,
which
Mr.
Baxter
makes
the
time
of
forming
this
Act
,
there
was
nothing
agreed
on
.
I
press'd
him
earnestly
to
search
for
his
Papers
,
and
to
make
this
Story
publick
,
for
the
vindication
of
the
Memory
of
the
deceased
Bishop
,
and
his
own
Reputation
;
but
I
never
saw
him
again
,
till
I
found
him
upon
his
Death-bed
,
which
was
about
a
fortnight
after
I
had
this
discourse
with
him
.
And
now
let
our
Reconciler
make
the
best
he
can
of
this
story
.
2.
Another
thing
whereby
it
appears
how
ineffectual
this
Condescension
he
pleads
for
would
be
to
cure
our
Divisions
,
is
this
:
That
should
we
grant
these
things
for
the
promotion
of
our
Peace
and
Vnity
,
Dissenters
would
onely
be
encouraged
by
these
Concessions
to
ask
more
;
and
we
should
never
know
where
their
demands
would
end
,
till
they
had
robbed
us
of
the
whole
Church-government
.
And
does
not
the
experience
of
the
late
Times
manifestly
confirm
this
beyond
all
dispute
?
And
is
it
reasonable
to
yield
any
thing
,
which
is
fit
to
be
retained
in
the
Worship
of
God
,
to
those
men
who
we
know
before-hand
will
be
satisfied
with
nothing
but
the
utter
ruine
of
the
Church
of
England
?
But
yet
our
Reconciler
thinks
he
can
perswade
men
out
of
their
senses
.
For
,
1.
Says
he
,
Is
not
the
power
in
your
own
hands
to
grant
or
refuse
,
as
you
shall
see
expedient
to
the
great
ends
of
your
whole
Ministry
,
the
glory
of
God
,
the
peace
of
the
Church
,
and
the
salvation
of
Souls
?
Yes
,
thanks
be
to
God
,
yet
it
is
;
and
the
Church
has
granted
what
she
thinks
expedient
:
which
should
satisfie
our
Reconciler
,
did
he
not
think
himself
wiser
than
the
Church
.
For
if
he
will
own
the
power
to
be
in
the
Church
,
and
that
she
must
stop
somewhere
,
whatever
Divisions
it
occasions
,
she
must
●udge
when
it
is
fit
to
stop
;
and
every
wise
man
will
think
it
fit
to
stop
,
when
she
has
cast
every
thing
out
of
her
Worship
which
is
a
just
cause
of
scandal
and
offence
;
and
if
she
goes
further
to
satisfie
unreasonable
and
clamorous
demands
,
she
can
never
have
a
reason
to
stop
,
till
she
has
satisfied
all
Clamours
.
2.
Yes
,
says
our
Reconciler
,
she
may
remove
things
indifferent
and
unnecessary
;
which
is
all
at
present
desired
.
No
,
say
I
,
she
cannot
part
with
all
things
which
are
in
their
own
nature
indifferent
:
for
some
such
things
are
necessary
to
the
Order
and
Decency
of
Worship
,
which
must
not
be
parted
with
;
and
the
Church
never
owned
the
contrary
.
She
says
indeed
,
that
her
particular
Ceremonies
are
indifferent
and
alterable
,
that
we
may
exchange
one
decent
Ceremony
for
another
when
there
is
reason
for
it
;
but
the
Church
ought
to
alter
no
Ceremony
without
reason
,
nor
part
with
all
indifferent
Ceremonies
for
the
external
Decency
of
Worship
for
any
reason
.
And
now
we
are
beholden
to
him
,
that
,
3.
He
grants
,
with
some
reconciling
salvo's
,
that
we
must
not
part
with
our
Church-government
,
under
the
pretence
of
parting
with
indifferent
things
.
But
if
we
must
not
part
with
that
,
we
may
as
well
keep
all
the
rest
;
for
our
Divisions
will
be
the
same
.
No
party
ever
separated
from
the
Church
for
the
sake
of
Ceremonies
,
who
did
not
quarrel
with
the
Order
and
Authority
of
Bishops
.
The
rest
of
his
Arguments
in
that
Chapter
do
not
concern
this
business
;
but
whatever
he
would
prove
by
them
,
there
are
two
general
Answers
will
serve
for
them
all
.
1.
That
indifferent
things
,
which
serve
the
ends
of
Order
&
Decency
,
are
not
such
unnecessary
trifles
as
to
be
parted
with
for
no
reason
;
which
I
think
I
have
sufficiently
proved
above
.
And
2.
T●at
parting
with
them
will
not
heal
our
Divisions
;
and
therefore
,
at
least
upon
that
account
,
there
is
no
reason
to
part
with
them
.
What
I
have
now
discours'd
about
Divisions
and
Discords
,
1.
Suppose
the
imposition
of
these
Ceremonies
be
neither
the
cause
of
the
Schism
,
nor
the
removal
of
them
the
cure
of
it
,
what
then
?
Why
must
the
Church
part
with
these
Ceremonies
,
which
are
of
good
use
in
Religion
,
to
no
purpose
?
And
yet
this
is
the
truth
of
the
case
,
as
appears
from
what
I
have
already
discours'd
.
The
several
Sects
of
Religion
,
were
Schismaticks
to
each
other
,
when
there
were
no
Ceremonies
to
trouble
them
;
and
would
be
so
again
,
if
the
Church
of
England
were
once
more
laid
in
the
dust
.
No
man
separates
from
the
Church
of
England
,
who
has
not
espoused
some
Principles
of
Faith
or
Government
(
besides
the
Controversie
about
Ceremonies
)
contrary
to
the
Faith
and
Government
of
the
Church
:
and
will
the
removal
of
Ceremonies
make
them
Orthodox
in
all
other
points
?
or
are
they
of
such
squeamish
Consciences
,
that
they
can
submit
to
an
Antichristian
Hierarchy
,
and
an
Antichristian
Liturgy
,
but
not
to
Ceremonies
?
2.
The
Argument
of
Schism
is
the
very
worst
Argument
our
Reconciler
could
have
used
,
as
being
directly
contrary
to
the
end
and
designe
of
it
.
All
the
Authority
the
Church
has
,
depends
on
the
danger
of
Schism
,
and
the
necessity
of
Christian
Communion
.
The
onely
punishment
she
can
inflict
on
refractory
and
disobedient
Members
,
is
to
cast
them
out
of
the
Church
;
and
that
is
a
very
terrible
punishment
too
,
if
there
be
no
ordinary
means
of
salvation
out
of
the
Communion
of
the
Church
:
and
therefore
the
danger
of
Schism
is
a
very
good
Argument
to
perswade
Dissenters
to
consider
well
what
they
do
,
and
not
to
engage
themselves
in
a
wilful
and
unnecessary
Schism
.
But
it
is
a
pretty
odde
way
,
to
perswade
the
Governours
of
the
Church
out
of
the
exercise
of
their
just
Authority
,
for
fear
some
men
should
turn
Schismaticks
,
and
be
damned
for
it
.
The
reason
why
the
Gospel
has
threatned
such
severe
punishments
against
Schism
,
is
to
make
the
Authority
of
the
Church
sacred
and
venerable
,
that
no
man
should
dare
to
divide
the
Communion
of
the
Church
,
or
to
separate
from
their
Bishops
and
Pastors
,
without
great
and
necessary
reason
;
and
our
Reconciler
would
fright
the
Church
out
of
the
exercise
of
her
just
Authority
,
for
fear
men
should
prove
Schismaticks
,
and
be
damned
for
it
.
Christ
has
made
Schism
a
damning
sin
,
to
give
Authority
to
the
Church
;
and
our
Reconciler
would
perswade
the
Church
not
to
exercise
her
Authority
,
for
fear
men
should
be
damned
for
their
Schism
.
Now
whether
our
Saviour
,
who
thought
it
better
that
Schismaticks
should
be
damned
,
than
that
there
should
be
no
Authority
in
the
Church
;
or
our
Reconciler
,
who
thinks
it
better
that
there
should
be
no
Authority
in
the
Church
,
than
that
Schismaticks
should
be
damned
,
are
persons
of
the
greatest
Charity
,
I
leave
others
to
judge
.
Indeed
the
odium
of
this
whole
business
,
which
is
so
tragically
exaggerated
by
the
Reconciler
,
must
at
last
fall
upon
our
Saviour
himself
,
either
for
instituting
such
an
Authority
in
his
Church
,
or
for
confirming
this
Authority
by
such
a
severe
Sanction
as
eternal
damnation
.
If
Christ
will
at
the
last
day
condemn
those
who
separate
from
the
Church
for
some
external
Rites
and
Ceremonies
(
as
our
Reconciler's
Argument
supposes
he
will
)
then
it
is
a
signe
that
Christ
approves
of
what
the
Church
does
,
in
taking
care
of
the
Decency
of
Worship
;
and
that
he
thinks
it
very
just
that
such
Schismaticks
should
be
damned
:
and
then
let
our
Reconciler
,
if
he
think
fit
,
charge
the
Saviour
of
the
World
with
want
of
Charity
to
the
Souls
of
men
.
The
Church
damns
no
man
,
but
does
what
she
believes
to
be
her
duty
;
and
leaves
Schismaticks
to
the
judgment
of
Christ
:
if
he
damns
them
at
the
last
day
,
let
our
Reconciler
plead
their
Cause
then
before
the
proper
Tribunal
;
and
if
Christ
can
justifie
himself
in
pronouncing
the
Sentence
,
I
suppose
he
will
justifie
his
Church
too
in
the
exercise
of
her
Authority
.
This
is
certain
,
that
if
the
imposition
of
these
Ceremonies
be
a
just
cause
of
Separation
,
our
Dissenters
are
not
Schismaticks
,
and
therefore
in
no
danger
of
damnation
upon
that
score
:
and
if
it
be
not
a
just
cause
of
Separation
;
then
the
Church
does
not
exceed
her
Authority
in
it
;
and
therefore
is
not
to
be
blamed
,
notwithstanding
that
danger
of
Schism
which
men
wilfully
run
themselves
into
,
no
more
than
a
Prince
is
to
be
blamed
for
making
good
Laws
,
because
some
men
will
break
them
,
and
be
hanged
for
it
.
3.
He
perswades
the
Governours
of
the
Church
,
out
of
Charity
to
the
Souls
of
men
,
not
to
tempt
them
to
Schism
by
their
Impositions
:
whereas
there
is
no
way
to
prevent
Schism
,
but
by
maintaining
and
asserting
their
own
Authority
.
When
there
is
no
Authority
in
the
Church
,
there
will
be
as
many
Schisms
in
it
,
as
there
will
be
Factions
in
the
State
,
without
some
●upreme
Power
to
whom
all
must
obey
:
And
therefore
out
of
Charity
to
the
Souls
of
men
,
and
to
prevent
their
Schism
,
Church-Governours
are
bound
to
exercise
their
Authority
,
and
not
to
give
way
to
ignorant
and
groundless
scruples
.
There
is
nothing
occasions
more
Schisms
,
than
the
different
Rites
and
Modes
of
Worship
,
and
therefore
if
they
would
prevent
Schism
,
they
ought
to
exercise
their
utmost
Authority
in
maintaining
the
Decency
and
Uniformity
of
Worship
;
which
will
prevent
more
Schisms
than
it
can
make
.
It
will
preserve
unity
among
those
who
have
any
reverence
for
the
Authority
of
the
Church
,
or
any
sense
of
the
danger
of
Schism
;
and
those
who
have
not
,
will
be
Schismaticks
notwithstanding
.
The
onely
way
I
know
of
to
prevent
Schism
,
is
by
wise
Instructions
,
and
by
a
strict
Discipline
;
the
one
to
cure
their
ignorance
and
their
scruples
,
the
other
to
curb
their
wantonness
and
petulancy
:
but
for
Governours
to
suffer
their
Authority
to
be
disputed
,
and
to
give
way
to
the
frowardness
,
fullenness
,
or
ignorance
of
men
,
to
alter
the
Laws
and
Constitutions
as
often
as
any
man
can
find
any
thing
to
say
against
them
,
would
breed
eternal
confusion
both
in
Church
and
State
.
Government
is
the
onely
Cement
and
Bond
of
Unity
;
and
when
Governours
give
the
Reins
out
of
their
hands
,
every
young
Phaëton
will
think
himself
fit
to
drive
the
Chariot
of
the
Sun
;
and
no
man
will
be
governed
,
when
there
is
none
to
govern
:
and
what
Order
&
Unity
there
can
be
in
the
Church
without
Government
,
or
what
Government
where
those
who
are
to
be
governed
must
give
Laws
to
their
Governours
,
I
would
desire
our
Reconciler
at
his
leisure
to
tell
me
.
What
follows
in
this
Chapter
,
has
already
been
considered
in
my
first
Chapter
;
and
thither
I
refer
my
Reader
.
CHAP.
IV.
An
Answer
to
the
Reconciler's
Arguments
from
the
Words
,
the
Doctrine
,
the
Deportment
of
Christ
,
whilst
he
was
here
on
Earth
,
contained
in
his
third
Chapter
.
THere
are
two
main
Principles
on
which
all
our
Reconciler's
Arguments
are
founded
:
1.
That
these
disputed
Ceremonies
are
wholly
useless
and
unnecessary
things
.
2.
That
the
imposition
of
them
is
the
cause
of
our
Divisions
and
Schisms
,
which
would
be
cured
by
the
removal
of
them
;
which
therefore
is
so
great
a
charity
to
the
Souls
of
men
,
that
Church-Governours
ought
to
consent
to
,
and
promote
such
an
alteration
.
Now
all
this
being
false
,
as
I
have
already
proved
,
his
other
Arguments
must
fall
with
it
:
but
yet
to
avoid
all
Cavils
,
I
shall
particularly
consider
the
force
of
what
he
urges
.
And
,
First
,
He
begins
with
the
Doctrine
and
Deportment
of
our
Saviour
;
the
stiff
Imposers
of
unnecessary
things
.
I.
That
our
Lord
doth
frequently
produce
that
saying
of
the
Prophet
Hosea
,
I
will
have
mercy
and
not
sacrifice
,
to
justifie
himself
and
his
Disciples
,
when
for
the
good
of
their
own
bodies
,
or
the
souls
of
others
,
they
did
what
was
forbidden
by
the
Law
of
Moses
,
or
by
the
Canons
and
Traditions
of
the
Scribes
●nd
Pharisees
,
who
sate
in
Moses
Chair
.
This
is
what
every
body
will
grant
;
and
therefore
he
needed
not
have
troubled
himself
to
prove
it
.
And
his
inference
from
hence
,
is
this
:
That
Precepts
which
contain
onely
Rituals
,
are
to
give
place
to
those
which
do
concern
the
welfare
of
mens
bodies
,
and
much
more
to
those
which
do
respect
the
welfare
of
our
Brother's
soul
;
so
that
when
both
cannot
together
be
observed
,
we
must
neglect
or
violate
the
former
,
to
observe
the
latter
.
From
whence
he
concludes
,
that
therefore
we
must
part
with
those
Ceremonies
,
which
being
made
Conditions
of
Communion
,
do
accidentally
afford
occasion
to
such
great
and
fatal
evils
to
the
Souls
of
men
.
Now
does
not
every
body
see
that
there
is
more
in
the
conclusion
,
than
there
is
in
the
premises
?
For
,
1.
Does
our
Saviour
here
speak
of
abrogating
the
Laws
of
Sacrifice
for
the
sake
of
Mercy
?
How
does
he
then
hence
conclude
any
thing
about
repealing
the
Laws
of
Ceremonies
and
Rituals
?
which
neither
the
Prophet
nor
our
Saviour
ever
thought
on
,
when
they
said
these
words
.
Though
God
prefers
Mercy
before
Sacrifice
,
yet
he
gave
Laws
about
Sacrifices
and
Ceremonies
,
and
continued
those
Laws
after
these
words
were
spoken
;
and
so
may
the
Church
do
also
,
for
any
thing
that
is
here
said
to
the
contrary
.
For
,
2.
Our
Saviour
neither
speaks
here
of
making
nor
replealing
Laws
about
Sacrifices
or
Rituals
,
but
onely
prefers
Mercy
before
Sacrifice
,
when
there
happens
a
competition
between
them
:
he
supposes
that
both
may
be
done
,
and
that
both
ought
to
be
done
,
but
if
both
cannot
be
done
at
the
same
time
,
Mercy
must
take
place
of
Sacrifice
:
And
this
Mercy
our
Church
allows
,
as
much
as
any
man
can
desire
.
She
is
not
so
severe
to
exact
kneeling
at
the
Sacrament
,
or
at
Prayers
,
or
standing
at
the
Creed
,
if
men
have
any
such
infirmity
on
them
that
they
cannot
do
it
without
great
inconvenience
;
she
does
not
exact
Godfathers
or
Godmothers
,
or
the
signe
of
the
Cross
,
nor
bringing
the
Child
to
Church
when
it
is
sick
and
in
danger
of
death
;
she
does
not
impose
fasting
on
weak
and
crasie
persons
,
nor
think
her
Laws
so
sacred
that
no
punctillo
must
be
neglected
,
when
it
is
done
without
offence
and
scandal
;
she
will
not
blame
any
for
staying
from
Church
,
or
going
out
in
the
midst
of
Prayers
,
to
quench
a
fire
,
or
to
help
a
sick
person
.
And
this
answers
to
our
Saviour's
cases
,
wherein
he
prefers
Mercy
before
Sacrifice
:
But
how
does
this
prove
that
the
Governours
of
the
Church
must
not
exact
obedience
to
wholsom
Constitutions
,
because
some
men
scruple
them
?
Our
Saviour
never
applies
this
saying
to
any
such
case
;
and
I
am
sure
our
Reconciler
has
neither
reason
nor
authority
to
do
it
.
When
our
Reconciler
proves
from
these
words
,
I
will
have
mercy
and
not
sacrifice
,
that
the
Church
must
part
with
her
Ceremonies
for
the
sake
of
those
who
will
separate
from
her
if
she
do
not
,
he
must
either
argue
from
the
Saying
it self
,
or
from
those
cases
to
which
it
is
applied
by
our
Saviour
.
Now
this
Saying
,
as
it
was
meant
by
the
Prophet
Hosea
,
Wherewith
shall
I
come
before
the
Lord
,
and
bow
my self
before
the
high
God
?
shall
I
come
before
him
with
burnt-offerings
,
with
calves
of
a
year
old
?
Will
the
Lord
be
pleased
with
thousands
of
rams
,
or
with
ten
thousand
rivers
of
oyl
?
shall
I
give
my
first-born
for
my
transgression
,
the
fruit
of
my
body
for
the
sin
of
my
soul
?
He
hath
shewed
thee
,
O
man
,
what
is
good
;
and
what
doth
the
Lord
require
of
thee
,
but
to
do
justice
,
and
to
love
mercy
,
and
to
walk
humbly
with
thy
God
?
Now
because
God
prefers
true
and
real
goodness
before
the
externals
of
Religion
,
does
it
hence
follow
that
there
must
be
no
external
Worship
?
or
that
the
Church
must
make
no
Laws
for
the
decent
or
orderly
performance
of
it
?
or
must
repeal
these
Laws
when
any
ignorant
people
refuse
to
submit
to
them
?
Just
as
much
as
that
God
did
not
require
them
to
offer
Sacrifice
,
because
he
preferred
Mercy
before
it
.
Our
Reconciler
obs●rves
two
Cases
to
which
our
Saviour
applies
this
saying
:
1.
To
justifie
his
Disciples
,
who
pulled
the
ears
of
Corn
as
they
walked
through
the
fields
,
I
will
have
mercy
and
not
sacrifice
.
That
God
,
who
prefers
acts
of
Kindness
and
Mercy
before
Sacrifice
,
when
they
come
in
competition
with
each
other
,
is
not
such
a
rigorous
exacter
of
obedience
to
any
positive
Institutions
,
as
to
allow
no
Indulgence
to
necessity
it self
:
and
it
becomes
Church-Governours
to
imitate
the
goodness
of
God
in
this
;
and
our
Church
does
so
,
as
I
have
already
observed
:
but
how
this
proves
that
the
Church
must
make
no
Laws
about
Ceremonies
,
or
repeal
them
,
if
men
won't
obey
them
,
I
do
not
understand
.
The
next
instance
is
our
Saviour's
justifying
himself
against
the
accusations
of
the
Pharisees
for
his
eating
and
drinking
with
Publicans
and
Sinners
;
Well
,
but
this
is
a
general
Rule
,
which
may
be
applied
to
more
cases
than
one
or
two
.
Right
!
But
if
we
will
argue
from
our
Saviour's
authority
and
application
,
we
must
apply
it
onely
to
such
cases
as
are
parallel
to
those
cases
to
which
our
Saviour
applies
it
;
otherwise
we
must
not
pretend
the
authority
of
our
Saviour
,
but
the
reason
of
the
thing
:
and
let
him
set
aside
our
Saviour's
authority
,
and
we
shall
deal
well
enough
with
his
Reason
.
All
that
can
be
made
of
this
Rule
,
is
this
:
That
where
there
happens
any
such
case
,
that
there
is
a
temporary
competition
between
two
Duties
,
which
are
both
acknowledged
to
be
our
duty
,
there
the
greatest
and
most
necessary
duty
must
take
place
;
and
particularly
,
that
all
Rituals
must
give
place
to
Mercy
.
So
that
to
make
this
a
parallel
case
,
our
Reconciler
must
grant
that
it
is
the
duty
of
Church-Governours
to
prescribe
Rules
for
the
external
Decency
and
solemnity
of
Worship
.
what
is
the
other
Duty
then
to
which
this
must
give
way
?
To
the
care
of
mens
Souls
,
says
our
Reconciler
.
No
,
say
I
,
there
is
no
inconsistency
between
the
care
of
mens
Souls
,
and
the
care
of
publick
Worship
,
which
is
the
best
way
of
taking
care
of
mens
Souls
;
and
therefore
there
can
never
be
a
competition
between
these
two
.
O
but
some
men
are
ignorant
,
and
scrupulous
,
and
wilful
;
and
if
you
prescribe
any
Rules
of
Worship
,
they
will
dissent
from
them
,
and
turn
Schismaticks
,
and
be
damned
:
and
thus
accidentally
it
affords
occasion
to
these
great
and
fatal
evils
.
Let
him
prove
then
,
if
he
can
,
from
these
words
of
our
Saviour
,
that
the
Governours
of
the
Church
must
never
do
their
duty
,
for
fear
those
men
should
be
damned
who
will
not
do
theirs
.
Such
cases
as
these
,
if
they
be
truly
pitiable
,
must
be
left
to
the
mercy
of
God
;
but
the
Church
can
take
no
cognizance
of
them
,
especially
when
this
cannot
be
done
without
destroying
the
publick
Decency
and
Solemnities
of
Worship
,
and
renouncing
her
own
just
Authority
,
the
maintaining
of
which
is
more
for
the
general
good
of
Souls
,
than
her
compliance
with
some
scrupulous
persons
would
be
.
I
shall
onely
farther
observe
his
great
civility
to
the
church
and
Kingdom
of
which
he
is
a
Member
.
For
his
third
Observation
from
these
words
is
,
That
they
were
used
by
the
Prophet
upon
the
occasion
of
the
strictness
of
the
Israelites
in
the
observance
and
the
requiring
these
Rituals
,
whilst
charity
and
mercy
to
their
Brother
was
vanished
from
their
hearts
,
there
being
no
truth
,
no
mercy
,
nor
knowledge
of
God
in
the
land
;
but
killing
,
committing
adultery
,
stealing
,
lying
,
and
swearing
falsly
,
&c.
Now
certainly
it
was
no
fault
in
the
Jews
,
at
that
time
,
to
be
zealous
for
the
external
Worship
instituted
by
the
Law
of
Moses
,
(
though
our
Reconciler
seems
to
insinuate
that
it
was
;
for
he
matters
not
how
he
reproaches
the
Institutions
of
God
himself
,
so
he
can
but
reflect
some
odium
on
the
Rites
and
Ceremonies
of
the
Church
:
)
yet
they
betrayed
their
Hypocrisie
,
by
their
Zeal
for
the
Externals
of
Religion
,
while
they
neglected
the
weightier
matters
of
the
Law
.
And
left
any
man
should
be
so
dull
as
not
to
understand
the
meaning
of
this
Observation
,
he
thetorically
introduces
it
with
a
God
forbid
!
Now
God
forbid
that
I
should
say
,
that
it
is
thus
in
England
:
but
he
is
pleased
to
put
men
in
mind
of
it
,
if
they
please
to
think
so
.
This
is
true
Fanatick
Cant
and
Charity
.
There
must
be
no
Rules
prescribed
for
the
Worship
of
God
,
the
Church
must
not
take
care
to
reclaim
or
restrain
Schismaticks
,
because
our
Reconciler
thinks
the
State
does
not
take
sufficient
care
to
punish
other
Vices
.
Certainly
there
never
was
any
Age
of
the
Church
wherein
the
publick
Ministers
of
Religion
took
more
care
to
decry
this
Pharisaical
Hypocrisie
of
an
external
Religion
,
and
to
teach
men
that
nothing
will
recommend
them
to
God
without
the
practice
of
an
universal
Righteousness
,
than
at
this
day
;
who
will
not
flatter
the
greatest
men
in
their
Vices
,
nor
think
any
man
a
Saint
,
because
he
expresses
a
great
Zeal
for
the
Church
,
when
his
life
and
actions
proclaim
him
to
be
a
Devil
.
We
leave
this
,
good
Reconciler
,
to
your
beloved
tender-conscienced
Dissenters
,
who
can
strain
at
a
Gnat
,
and
swallow
a
Camel
;
who
cannot
see
a
Surplice
without
horror
,
but
can
dispence
with
Lying
and
Perjury
,
with
Slanders
and
Revilings
,
and
speaking
evil
of
Dignities
;
with
Treasons
,
and
Murders
of
Princes
;
and
●ug
the
most
profligate
Villains
in
their
bo●om
,
and
palliate
and
excuse
all
their
Vices
,
●f
they
will
but
espouse
their
Interest
and
Quarrel
.
These
are
the
men
who
have
weakned
the
Churches
Authority
,
and
exposed
her
Censur●s
to
contempt
,
and
then
reproach
her
for
not
using
her
Authority
to
correct
the
Vices
of
the
Age.
The
Debauchees
of
our
days
learn
to
despise
the
Censures
of
the
Church
,
by
the
Example
of
Dissenters
;
and
when
they
cannot
shelter
their
Vices
in
our
Communion
,
they
take
Sanctuary
in
a
Conventicle
.
That
he
would
not
impose
such
a
burden
as
fasting
on
them
,
because
they
were
infirm
and
weak
,
and
therefore
might
be
prejudiced
by
it
;
that
like
old
Bottles
filled
with
new
Wine
,
they
might
be
apt
to
burst
,
that
is
,
by
these
severities
imposed
on
them
,
they
might
be
discouraged
,
and
fall
from
him
,
and
so
might
perish
.
I
confess
,
I
have
often
been
troubled
what
to
make
of
this
place
;
not
that
I
ever
suspected
such
inferences
from
it
,
as
our
Reconciler
has
discovered
;
but
these
words
being
generally
expounded
by
ancient
and
modern
Writers
,
of
Christ's
indulgence
to
the
weakness
of
his
Disciples
,
I
could
never
understand
what
this
weakness
should
be
,
which
made
them
less
able
to
fast
than
the
Disciples
of
Iohn
,
or
of
the
Pharisees
.
It
could
not
be
weakness
of
body
;
for
they
were
men
of
mean
fortunes
,
who
had
been
used
to
more
hardship
than
most
of
the
Pharisees
:
and
what
weakness
of
mind
could
they
labour
under
,
which
should
make
fasting
so
grievous
a
burden
?
They
were
Jews
,
who
were
to
observe
the
publick
Fasts
of
their
Law
,
and
therefore
fasting
was
no
new
thing
to
them
:
and
why
should
they
be
compared
to
old
Cloth
and
old
Bottles
,
and
fasting
to
new
Cloth
and
new
Wine
?
These
are
difficulties
which
I
cannot
answer
,
and
shall
be
thankful
to
our
Reconciler
if
he
can
.
And
therefore
I
am
apt
to
suspect
it
is
all
a
mistake
,
from
a
misapplication
of
those
comparisons
which
our
Saviour
brought
to
illustrate
that
Answer
which
he
had
given
to
the
Question
of
Iohn's
Disciples
.
They
ask'd
him
,
Why
do
we
and
the
Pharisees
fast
often
,
but
thy
Disciples
fast
not
?
And
Iesus
said
unto
them
,
Can
the
children
of
the
bride-chamber
mourn
,
as
long
as
the
bridegroom
is
with
them
?
but
the
days
will
come
when
the
bridegroom
shall
be
taken
from
them
,
and
then
shall
they
fast
.
Christ
is
the
Bridegroom
,
the
Church
his
Spouse
,
the
Apostles
the
Children
of
the
Bride-chamber
,
who
immediately
attended
his
Person
in
his
greatest
privacies
and
retirements
.
The
appearance
of
Christ
on
Earth
was
a
time
of
as
great
joy
to
all
that
knew
him
,
as
the
presence
of
the
Bridegroom
;
and
as
it
would
be
very
indecent
and
improper
for
those
who
attend
the
Bridegroom
,
to
be
sorrowful
and
pensive
,
so
would
it
be
for
his
Disciples
to
mourn
and
fast
(
which
is
an
expression
of
mourning
and
sorrow
)
while
he
was
present
.
All
this
refers
not
to
the
weakness
of
his
Disciples
,
but
the
unfitness
of
the
season
to
fast
.
Now
the
Question
is
,
Whether
in
what
follows
,
our
Saviour
onely
illustrates
this
Answer
,
or
gives
a
new
one
.
And
I
confess
,
it
seems
most
probable
to
me
,
that
our
Saviour
onely
confirms
and
illustrates
the
same
answer
;
which
he
does
by
two
comparisons
,
the
first
to
shew
the
indecency
of
the
thing
,
the
second
the
impossibility
of
it
.
The
first
is
this
:
No
man
putteth
a
piece
of
new
cloth
unto
an
old
garment
:
for
that
which
is
put
in
to
fill
it
up
,
taketh
from
the
garment
,
and
the
rent
is
made
worse
.
At
Weddings
and
Festival
Entertainments
,
they
used
to
put
on
new
Cloths
;
at
fasting
,
to
wear
any
old
●attered
Garments
.
Now
,
says
our
Saviour
,
mourning
and
fasting
in
the
presence
of
the
Bridegroom
,
which
is
a
time
of
joy
,
is
as
indecent
,
as
it
would
be
to
patch
up
a
Garment
of
wedding
and
fasting
Cloth
,
of
new
and
old
.
For
the
new
Cloth
is
so
far
from
adding
to
the
beauty
of
the
old
Garment
,
that
the
rent
is
made
worse
,
more
notorious
and
visible
,
and
exposed
to
the
view
and
scorn
of
all
men
;
and
so
indecent
would
it
be
for
the
Children
of
the
Bride-chamber
to
fast
,
as
for
men
to
go
to
a
Wedding
in
such
a
patcht
Garment
.
The
second
comparison
shews
the
impossibility
of
the
thing
,
that
they
should
fast
while
the
Bridegroom
is
with
them
.
To
fast
without
mourning
,
is
an
hypocritical
Fast
;
it
is
better
not
to
fast
at
all
,
than
thus
to
mock
God
;
and
yet
it
is
impossible
they
should
mourn
whose
minds
are
transported
with
such
new
and
fermenting
joys
at
the
presence
of
the
Bridegroom
.
Neither
do
men
put
new
wine
into
old
bottles
,
else
the
bottles
break
,
and
the
wine
rumeth
out
,
and
the
bottles
perish
:
but
they
put
new
wine
into
new
bottles
,
and
both
are
preserved
.
Wine
is
proper
at
Festival
Entertainments
,
and
very
aptly
signifies
the
joy
and
exultancy
of
the
mind
:
For
Wine
maketh
the
heart
glad
;
and
new
Wine
signifies
some
new
and
present
transports
of
joy
,
whi●h
boil
and
ferment
in
the
breast
,
as
new
Wine
does
upon
the
Lees
;
and
therefore
aptly
signifies
such
a
joy
as
is
in
the
presence
of
the
Bridegroom
.
Old
Bottles
may
signifie
a
mournful
sorrowful
mind
,
which
is
as
weak
and
dejected
with
grief
,
as
men
usually
are
with
age
.
Now
as
new
Wine
,
when
it
ferments
,
will
burst
old
Bottles
that
are
weak
and
crasie
,
so
such
transports
of
joy
as
are
occasioned
by
the
presence
of
the
Bridegroom
,
will
dispel
all
sorrow
from
our
minds
,
and
run
out
in
all
expressions
of
inward
satisfaction
,
and
therefore
will
spoil
our
mourning
and
fasting
.
This
is
the
account
why
the
Disciples
could
not
fast
while
Christ
was
with
them
,
but
when
he
should
be
taken
from
them
,
then
they
should
fast
.
If
this
be
the
true
interpretation
of
the
place
,
as
the
very
aptness
of
the
application
perswades
me
it
is
,
then
our
Reconciler
is
at
a
loss
:
for
here
is
not
one
word
of
indulging
the
weakness
of
his
Disciples
;
and
it
seems
very
strange
to
me
,
that
any
man
should
think
that
by
old
Bottles
our
Saviour
should
represent
the
weakness
of
his
Disciples
,
and
forbear
putting
new
Wine
into
them
,
imposing
the
severe
discipline
of
fasting
upon
them
,
for
fear
of
breaking
these
old
Bottles
;
when
no
man
yet
ever
refused
to
put
new
Wine
into
old
Bottles
,
for
fear
of
breaking
the
Bottle
,
but
for
fear
of
losing
the
Wine
:
which
makes
the
application
very
absurd
.
But
yet
let
us
suppose
that
our
Saviour
,
out
of
condescention
to
the
weakness
of
his
Disciples
,
did
not
impose
fasting
on
them
,
what
follows
hence
?
Why
it
plainly
follows
,
that
the
Governours
of
the
Church
must
not
impose
any
Rites
and
Ceremonies
of
Worship
,
things
much
inferiour
to
this
duty
of
fasting
,
upon
Dissenters
,
when
they
do
tend
to
the
ruine
and
disadvantage
of
so
many
Souls
as
are
made
Schismaticks
upon
this
account
.
Let
us
then
briefly
consider
what
likeness
or
affinity
there
is
between
these
two
cases
.
1.
The
Fasts
of
which
the
Dispute
is
here
,
are
private
and
voluntary
Fasts
,
such
as
men
imposed
upon
themselves
,
or
observed
in
imitation
of
their
Sect
and
Party
,
or
in
obedience
to
the
directions
of
their
several
Masters
:
Christ
imposed
no
such
Fasts
upon
his
Disciples
;
therefore
the
Governours
of
the
Church
must
not
prescribe
the
Rites
and
Ceremonies
of
publick
Worship
,
though
in
such
matters
Christ
conformed
himself
,
and
taught
his
Disciples
to
conform
to
the
Rules
and
Orders
of
their
Synagogues
,
which
were
all
as
much
of
humane
institution
as
our
Ceremonies
are
;
which
is
an
admirable
way
of
arguing
.
The
observing
or
not
observing
private
and
voluntary
Fasts
,
though
it
might
offend
some
superstitious
Pharisees
,
was
no
affront
to
publick
Authority
,
nor
made
any
alteration
or
confusion
in
publick
Worship
;
and
therefore
was
not
of
that
consequence
,
whatever
our
Reconciler
thinks
,
as
dissenting
from
publick
Constitutions
.
This
Christ
never
indulged
his
Disciples
in
,
nor
has
the
Church
any
reason
to
do
it
.
2.
This
Indulgence
was
but
temporary
,
during
our
Saviour's
abode
with
them
on
Earth
;
but
he
tells
them
,
when
he
should
be
taken
from
them
,
then
they
should
fast
.
And
the
ancient
Writers
look
upon
this
saying
to
be
a
kind
of
Institution
of
the
Quadrigesimal
Fast
,
and
will
our
Reconciler
argue
●rom
a
short
Indulgence
for
a
year
or
two
,
granted
to
the
Disciples
by
Christ
,
to
prove
a
perpetual
Indulgence
to
the
end
of
the
World
,
to
be
granted
to
Dissenters
?
For
if
his
Arguments
are
good
,
they
will
last
for
ever
.
Christ
did
not
intend
that
his
Disciples
should
be
always
Children
,
nor
has
he
imposed
upon
his
Church
to
indulge
such
childish
weakness
and
fancies
for
ever
.
3.
Fasting
was
a
very
severe
duty
,
very
afflictive
both
to
mind
and
body
;
and
therefore
there
might
be
some
reason
for
our
Saviour
to
forbear
commanding
it
for
some
time
:
But
what
severity
is
there
in
the
Ceremonies
of
our
Church
?
What
mighty
trouble
is
it
to
kneel
at
the
Sacrament
?
What
offence
is
a
white
Linnen
garment
to
the
eye
?
What
disturbance
does
the
signe
of
the
Cross
,
made
with
the
gentle
motion
of
the
finger
,
cause
?
But
though
these
Ceremonies
are
not
grievous
in
themselves
,
yet
they
are
burdensom
to
the
Conscience
.
Let
him
shew
then
that
our
Saviour
had
any
regard
in
this
to
a
doubtful
or
scrupulous
Conscience
,
and
I
will
grant
it
a
good
proof
.
How
could
any
Jew
scruple
the
lawfulness
of
fasting
,
which
was
so
often
commanded
and
recommended
in
their
Law
?
I
am
sure
all
the
ancient
Writers
take
notice
onely
of
the
severity
of
the
Duty
,
not
of
its
burdensomness
to
the
Conscience
,
as
the
reason
of
our
Saviour's
Indulgence
.
Christ
gave
them
a
Rule
,
that
when
they
should
convert
the
World
,
they
also
should
condescend
and
behave
themselves
towards
them
with
the
greatest
meekness
.
Whether
Christ
intended
this
or
not
,
in
what
he
now
said
,
to
be
sure
it
is
a
good
Rule
,
and
that
which
the
Apostles
carefully
observed
;
they
indulged
the
believing
Jews
in
the
observation
of
the
Mosaical
Law
,
and
bore
with
many
weaknesses
and
infirmities
both
in
Jews
and
Gentiles
:
But
did
this
meekness
extend
to
suffer
every
man
to
worship
God
as
he
pleased
?
Did
they
prescribe
no
Rules
,
or
Orders
,
or
Ceremonies
of
Worship
?
Or
did
they
prescribe
such
Rules
,
without
exacting
obedience
to
them
?
Did
they
suffer
any
Christians
to
dispute
their
Authority
in
such
cases
?
And
was
it
thought
an
act
of
meekness
and
gentleness
to
do
so
?
It
is
strange
then
that
it
should
never
be
thought
so
in
after-Ages
,
wherein
the
Church
exercised
an
absolute
and
uncontroulable
Power
in
all
such
matters
,
and
no
Christian
ever
pretended
to
dispute
their
Authority
.
But
the
Prophet
Isaiah
describes
our
Saviour
as
one
who
will
not
break
the
bruised
reed
,
nor
quench
the
smoaking
flax
,
and
who
will
gather
his
lambs
with
his
arm
,
and
carry
them
in
his
bosom
,
and
shall
gently
lead
those
that
are
with
young
.
Well
,
we
readily
grant
that
our
Saviour
was
the
most
kind
and
gentle
Master
that
ever
was
;
but
does
this
signifie
that
he
would
give
no
Laws
about
Worship
?
Or
that
if
any
person
scrupled
these
Laws
,
he
would
not
insist
upon
it
,
but
give
them
their
liberty
to
worship
God
as
they
pleased
?
If
Christ
was
a
kind
and
merciful
Lord
without
this
,
his
Ministers
also
may
exercise
great
lenity
and
gentleness
,
without
prostituting
their
Authority
,
or
the
Worship
of
God
,
to
the
ignorance
,
or
giddiness
,
or
frowardness
of
Professors
.
Christ
gave
very
easie
and
gentle
Laws
,
instructed
his
Hearers
with
great
mildness
and
calmness
,
bore
their
dulness
and
infidelity
,
their
indignities
and
affronts
,
with
admirable
patience
;
convers'd
even
with
Publicans
and
Sinners
,
to
gain
them
to
repentance
;
encouraged
the
least
beginnings
,
and
cherish'd
the
first
and
weak
Essays
of
Faith
:
but
if
they
would
be
his
Disciples
,
he
expected
they
should
submit
to
his
Authority
and
Laws
,
and
still
expects
that
they
should
submit
to
that
Authority
he
has
plac'd
in
his
Church
.
And
if
Church-Governours
use
this
mildness
and
gentleness
in
their
Laws
,
and
in
their
behaviour
;
though
they
assert
their
own
Authority
,
and
exact
obedience
to
their
Laws
,
they
need
not
fear
the
censure
of
the
Shepherds
of
Israel
,
which
our
Reconciler
so
charitably
threatens
them
with
.
The
diseased
have
you
not
strengthned
,
neither
have
you
healed
that
which
was
sick
,
neither
have
you
bound
up
that
which
was
broken
,
neither
have
you
brought
again
that
which
was
driven
away
,
neither
have
you
sought
that
which
was
lost
.
That
Christ
took
compassion
on
the
Iews
,
as
Sheep
without
a
Shepherd
;
that
he
went
about
preaching
himself
;
that
he
sent
his
Disciples
to
preach
;
that
he
commands
his
Disciples
to
pray
,
that
God
would
send
forth
more
Labourers
into
his
Harvest
:
The
Query
then
is
,
Whether
they
do
conform
to
this
Example
,
or
the
matter
of
this
Prayer
,
who
do
exclude
so
many
Servants
of
the
Lord
from
labouring
in
his
Harvest
for
a
thing
indifferent
.
Truly
I
think
they
may
,
though
they
excluded
the
Reconciler
into
the
bargain
:
for
,
thanks
be
to
God
,
it
is
not
now
with
us
,
asit
was
in
our
Saviour's
days
,
at
the
first
preaching
of
the
Gospel
.
God
has
now
sent
out
numerous
Labourers
into
his
Vineyard
,
men
of
Learning
,
Piety
,
and
Diligence
;
more
indeed
than
there
is
entertainment
or
employment
for
.
And
the
Christian
Church
,
notwithstanding
this
Prayer
of
our
Saviour
,
never
scrupled
casting
Schismatical
Presbyters
out
of
Christ's
Vineyard
.
But
has
our
Reconciler
the
face
to
say
that
they
are
shut
out
meerly
for
indifferent
things
,
when
they
themselves
give
another
account
of
it
?
Renouncing
of
the
Covenant
kept
them
out
a
great
while
;
Reordination
,
Episcopal
Government
,
a
National
Church
,
Liturgies
,
&c.
and
are
all
these
indifferent
things
?
But
the
dissenting
Preachers
are
not
so
much
beholding
to
him
,
but
the
present
Clergy
are
as
little
,
to
whom
he
has
by
very
broad
signs
and
intimations
applied
Theophylact's
observation
upon
the
Text
:
That
our
Lord
complained
the
Labourers
were
but
few
,
because
the
Scribes
and
Pharisees
,
the
present
Labourers
,
not
onely
did
not
profit
,
but
did
hurt
the
people
,
whereas
it
is
the
property
of
a
good
Pastor
to
be
merciful-towards
them
.
He
knew
very
well
this
Objection
o●
the
paucity
of
Labourers
,
could
not
well
be
applied
to
us
,
who
have
such
a
numerous
Clergy
;
and
therefore
to
make
room
for
Dissenters
,
he
fairly
insinuates
,
that
the
present
Ministers
do
no
good
,
but
hurt
.
Such
an
impudent
Calumny
as
needs
no
confutation
!
and
let
others
consider
what
censure
it
deserves
.
IV.
His
next
Argument
is
taken
from
our
Saviour's
command
,
little
ones
,
he
understands
those
who
are
weak
in
the
Faith
,
or
not
well
instructed
in
their
Duty
,
or
mistaken
in
it
,
though
very
obstinate
and
peremptory
in
their
mistake
:
for
so
he
must
mean
,
if
he
will
apply
it
to
the
case
of
Dissenters
.
And
by
scandalizing
,
offending
,
or
despising
them
,
he
understands
doing
any
action
which
occasions
their
ruine
.
And
thus
he
t●inks
Church-Governours
fall
under
this
Woe
,
which
is
denounced
against
those
who
offend
these
little
ones
,
when
they
impose
such
Ceremonies
which
they
cannot
and
will
not
submit
to
;
which
occasions
the
Schism
,
and
consequently
the
damnation
of
their
weak
Brother
.
No
man
can
possibly
want
Arguments
,
who
has
such
an
admirable
faculty
,
not
at
finding
,
but
making
them
:
for
nothing
can
be
more
remote
from
our
Saviour's
intention
in
these
words
,
than
such
an
inference
as
this
.
For
,
1.
It
is
evident
,
that
by
little
ones
our
Saviour
understands
those
who
are
meek
,
and
humble
,
and
modest
;
who
are
as
void
of
pride
,
and
passion
,
and
earthly
ambitions
,
as
a
little
Child
;
as
is
evident
both
from
the
occasion
of
this
discourse
,
which
was
to
correct
the
ambition
of
his
Disciples
,
and
from
the
example
of
a
little
Child
,
which
he
proposes
to
them
for
their
imitation
.
Thus
St.
Chrysostom
and
St.
Ierom
expound
the
words
,
though
the
latter
observes
also
,
that
those
who
are
scandalized
,
are
upon
that
account
also
little
ones
:
for
great
and
strong
Christians
will
not
receive
scandal
.
That
is
,
though
they
be
humble
and
modest
,
&c.
yet
these
Graces
and
Vertues
are
not
so
well
rooted
and
confirmed
in
them
,
but
that
the
ill
usage
they
meet
with
from
the
world
,
may
turn
them
out
of
their
byass
,
and
occasion
their
fall
.
But
what
is
this
to
our
Dissenters
,
who
are
neither
in
one
sence
nor
other
,
little
ones
;
who
neither
have
the
modesty
,
humility
,
and
peaceableness
of
Children
,
nor
their
soft
and
ductile
nature
▪
but
are
stiff
,
and
inflexible
,
and
obstinate
in
their
conceits
,
that
they
will
neither
hearken
to
Reason
,
nor
yield
to
Conviction
?
[
*
](A59907-e13610-b)
*
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
(
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
)
Chrys.
in
locum
,
&
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
2.
To
scandalize
or
offend
these
little
ones
,
St.
Chrysostom
tells
us
,
is
to
dishonour
,
to
reproach
,
to
vilifie
them
,
to
despise
them
,
as
it
is
expressed
v.
10.
which
,
as
he
observes
,
is
a
great
temptation
and
scandal
to
men
of
weak
minds
.
Our
Reconciler
observes
,
that
St.
Ierom
says
,
We
are
said
to
scandalize
,
when
by
our
actions
we
give
occasion
to
their
ruine
.
I
find
no
such
saying
in
St.
Ierom
upon
the
place
;
but
however
,
the
saying
is
a
very
good
one
,
if
we
apply
it
right
,
to
actions
of
contempt
and
scorn
,
of
which
both
St.
Ierom
and
St.
Chrysostom
speak
;
which
are
apt
to
spoil
this
good
temper
of
mind
,
when
men
see
themselves
onely
scorned
and
derided
for
it
,
and
exposed
to
all
sorts
of
violence
and
injury
.
This
is
the
usual
reward
of
great
modesty
and
humility
in
this
World
;
and
therefore
our
Saviour
secures
these
little
ones
from
contemp●
,
by
denouncing
severe
woes
against
those
who
offer
it
.
But
what
is
all
this
to
the
Church
,
which
offers
no
contempt
to
the
meanest
Christian
,
much
less
to
men
of
humble
,
and
modest
,
and
peaceable
tempers
?
She
is
as
much
concerned
for
the
salvation
of
the
Poor
as
of
the
Rich
▪
and
despises
no
man
who
has
a
soul
to
be
saved
,
and
will
submit
to
wise
instructions
.
Must
the
Church
be
charged
with
scandalizing
little
ones
,
because
she
will
not
renounce
her
own
Authority
,
nor
suffer
these
little
ones
to
give
Laws
to
her
?
Certainly
our
Saviour
never
intended
any
such
thing
,
when
in
this
very
Chapter
,
and
upon
this
very
occasion
,
he
asserts
the
Authority
of
the
Church
even
in
the
point
of
scandal
,
and
commands
us
not
to
converse
with
those
men
,
who
will
not
hearken
to
her
Counsels
and
Reproofs
.
If
thy
brother
shall
trespass
against
thee
,
go
and
tell
him
his
fault
between
thee
and
him
alone
;
if
he
shall
hear
thee
,
th●u
hast
gained
thy
brother
.
But
if
he
will
not
hear
thee
,
then
take
with
thee
one
or
two
more
,
that
in
the
mouth
of
one
or
two
witnesses
every
word
may
be
established
.
And
if
he
shall
neglect
to
hear
them
,
tell
it
to
the
Church
;
but
if
he
neglect
to
hear
the
Church
,
let
him
be
unto
thee
as
an
heathen
man
and
a
publican
.
Verily
,
I
say
unto
you
,
Whatsoever
ye
shall
bind
on
earth
,
shall
be
bound
in
heaven
;
and
whatsoever
ye
shall
loose
on
earth
,
shall
be
loosed
in
heaven
.
But
of
the
case
of
scandal
or
giving
offence
,
our
Reconciler
has
given
us
occasion
to
discourse
more
in
another
place
.
V.
His
next
Argument
is
as
wise
as
the
rest
.
He
tells
us
,
Our
Lord
denounceth
woe
against
the
Scribes
and
Pharisees
,
because
they
shut
up
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
against
men
.
But
he
should
have
added
the
whole
verse
:
for
ye
neither
go
in
your selves
,
neither
suffer
ye
them
that
are
entring
to
go
in
.
St.
Ierom
expounds
this
two
ways
.
1.
They
shut
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
against
men
,
by
hindring
their
belief
in
Christ
,
in
whom
they
would
neither
believe
themselves
,
nor
suffer
others
to
believe
,
who
were
prepared
and
disposed
for
it
:
which
is
certainly
the
true
exposition
of
the
words
.
But
then
he
adds
,
2.
That
these
Teachers
and
Rabbies
may
be
said
to
shut
up
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
,
who
scandalize
their
Disciples
with
their
wicked
lives
,
that
is
,
who
tempt
them
to
sin
by
their
example
.
But
what
is
this
to
the
Dispute
about
Ceremonies
?
Does
the
imposition
of
Ceremonies
,
in
its
own
nature
,
shut
men
out
of
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
?
Can
none
be
saved
then
,
who
obey
the
Laws
of
the
Church
about
Rituals
and
Ceremonies
,
as
no
man
could
enter
into
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
,
who
followed
the
directions
of
the
Scribes
and
Pharisees
?
Christ
condemns
the
Pharisees
for
using
their
utmost
endeavour
to
hinder
men
from
embracing
the
Christian
Faith
,
and
entring
into
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
:
Our
Reconciler
draws
up
the
same
charge
against
the
Church
,
because
some
men
take
unjust
offence
against
the
Order
and
Decency
of
her
Worship
,
and
will
not
enter
,
though
she
uses
all
manner
of
Entreaties
,
and
Arguments
,
and
wise
Arts
,
to
perswade
them
to
enter
.
This
is
just
as
if
we
should
charge
that
good
Father
who
received
his
prodigal
Son
with
all
expressions
of
joy
,
and
made
a
great
entertainment
for
his
return
,
with
shutting
his
eldest
Son
out
of
his
house
,
because
he
foolishly
and
wickedly
took
offence
at
his
Fathers
kindne●s
to
his
Brother
,
and
would
not
enter
;
though
his
Father
himself
went
out
to
perswade
him
,
and
invite
him
in
,
and
to
satisfie
him
of
the
fitness
and
decency
of
what
he
had
done
.
I
doubt
this
does
more
properly
belong
to
those
Pharisaical
Preachers
who
are
satisfied
in
the
lawfulness
of
what
is
required
,
(
as
St.
Ierom
supposes
some
of
these
Pharisees
were
convinc'd
that
Jesus
was
the
Messias
)
;
but
to
gratifie
their
own
obstinacy
,
pride
,
and
revenge
,
will
neither
do
what
they
know
they
may
lawfully
do
themselves
,
nor
suffer
others
to
do
it
.
St.
Chrysostom
expounds
the
words
much
to
the
same
purpose
;
and
therefore
no
wonder
if
(
as
our
Reconciler
observes
)
he
tells
us
,
That
these
men
are
called
Pests
,
and
are
diametrically
opposed
to
Teachers
,
their
work
being
to
destroy
.
For
if
the
Teachers
business
be
to
save
what
is
lost
,
to
lose
or
cause
to
perish
what
might
be
saved
,
is
the
work
of
the
destroyer
:
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
that
which
otherwise
would
be
saved
;
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
those
who
were
entring
,
that
is
,
as
he
expounds
it
,
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
those
who
were
prepared
and
disposed
to
enter
.
Now
,
I
think
,
our
Church
never
shut
any
out
of
her
Communion
,
who
were
prepared
and
disposed
to
enter
.
But
our
Reconciler
observes
,
that
in
the
same
Chapter
our
Saviour
condemns
the
Scribes
and
Pharisees
for
binding
heavy
burdens
upon
mens
shoulders
,
which
they
would
not
move
with
one
of
their
fingers
.
The
Scribes
and
Pharisees
sit
in
Moses
seat
;
all
therefore
that
they
bid
you
observe
,
that
observe
and
do
.
And
therefore
our
Saviour
could
not
charge
them
,
that
by
these
heavy
burdens
they
frighted
men
from
their
Communion
,
and
made
Schisms
in
the
Church
;
and
therefore
it
is
very
impertinently
alleadged
by
our
Reconciler
.
These
heavy
burdens
did
not
concern
the
Rites
and
Ceremonies
of
publick
Worship
,
which
our
Saviour
never
blamed
them
for
,
but
conformed
to
them
himself
when
he
worshipped
in
their
Synagogues
.
But
they
were
some
strict
and
rigorous
Expositions
of
their
Law
,
without
making
such
allowances
in
cases
of
necessity
and
mercy
,
as
God
intended
;
as
when
they
quarrelled
with
the
Disciples
for
pulling
the
ears
of
Corn
and
eating
them
as
they
walked
through
the
fields
on
the
Sabbath-day
,
being
hungry
;
or
some
arbitrary
impositions
which
made
a
great
shew
and
appearance
of
Sanctity
,
but
were
very
troublesome
to
be
observed
.
And
when
our
Reconciler
can
shew
any
such
heavy
burdens
imposed
by
the
Church
of
England
,
we
will
think
of
some
other
Answer
.
But
did
our
Saviour
condemn
the
Pharisees
meerly
for
binding
these
heavy
burdens
,
and
laying
them
upon
mens
shoulders
?
Not
that
neither
.
The
crime
our
Saviour
charges
them
with
,
was
gross
Hypocrisie
;
that
while
they
were
so
strict
and
severe
in
their
impositions
upon
other
men
,
they
were
very
easie
and
gentle
to
themselves
:
They
laid
heavy
burdens
on
others
,
but
they
themselves
will
not
move
them
with
one
of
their
fingers
.
Our
Reconciler
observes
;
That
St.
Chrysostom
well
notes
,
that
our
Lord
saith
not
that
they
cannot
,
but
they
will
not
move
them
.
Whereby
he
would
have
his
Readers
to
understand
,
that
by
moving
them
,
our
Saviour
meant
removing
them
;
that
they
laid
on
heavy
burdens
,
but
would
not
take
them
off
again
when
they
lawfully
might
;
as
he
expresly
says
,
●hat
not
dispensing
with
these
Traditions
upon
such
great
occasions
,
was
the
sin
of
the
Scribes
and
Pharisees
.
Which
is
the
fault
he
charges
our
Church
with
,
that
she
will
not
part
with
her
Ceremonies
for
the
sake
of
Dissenters
:
Whereas
St.
Ierom
and
St.
Chrysostom
,
and
all
good
Expositors
,
understand
no
more
by
it
,
than
that
they
would
not
practise
the
least
part
of
these
things
themselves
:
They
were
very
severe
in
their
injunctions
to
others
,
but
excused
themselves
from
such
severities
;
Which
,
saith
S.
Chrysostom
,
is
quite
contrary
to
what
becomes
a
good
Governour
,
who
will
be
very
rigorous
and
severe
in
judging
and
censuring
his
own
actions
,
but
a
very
kind
and
favourable
judge
of
those
who
are
under
his
care
.
And
therefore
our
Saviour
urges
this
as
a
proof
of
what
he
before
charged
them
with
;
But
do
not
ye
after
their
works
,
for
they
say
and
do
not
.
That
Dissenters
,
though
not
of
our
Communion
,
should
not
be
forbid
to
preach
for
the
promotion
of
Christ's
Kingdom
;
did
not
hold
Communion
with
them
.
And
thus
he
has
fairly
altered
the
state
of
the
Question
,
and
unwarily
betrayed
the
secret
thoughts
of
his
heart
.
His
open
and
avowed
designe
all
this
while
has
been
,
to
plead
for
the
removal
of
our
Ceremonies
,
that
Dissenters
might
joyn
in
Communion
with
us
,
and
avoid
the
guilt
of
Schism
,
which
is
a
damning
sin
;
but
now
it
seems
it
would
do
as
well
,
if
not
much
better
,
if
Dissenters
had
but
their
liberty
to
preach
in
Conventicles
for
the
promotion
of
Christ's
Kingdom
.
But
is
the
Kingdom
of
Christ
then
promoted
by
Schism
?
Will
Schism
damn
men
,
(
as
he
asserts
,
and
makes
the
principal
foundation
of
all
his
Arguments
)
and
will
the
damnation
of
so
many
men
as
are
seduced
into
Schism
,
enlarge
Christ's
Kingdom
?
Must
the
Church
part
with
her
Ceremonies
,
for
fear
the
occasion
mens
running
into
Schism
,
and
being
damned
for
it
?
And
yet
may
she
suffer
Schismaticks
to
preach
,
and
allure
men
into
a
Schism
?
I
beg
our
Reconciler
to
think
again
of
this
,
and
reconcile
himself
to
himself
.
But
how
does
it
appear
that
this
man
who
cast
out
Devils
in
Christ's
Name
,
did
preach
the
Gospel
too
?
There
is
no
such
thing
said
in
the
Text
;
and
if
it
be
true
what
our
Reconciler
affirms
,
that
he
was
not
Christ's
Disciple
,
he
could
not
do
it
.
If
he
believed
in
Christ
,
he
was
Christ's
Disciple
;
if
he
did
not
,
he
could
not
preach
the
Gospel
:
and
I
think
there
is
some
difference
between
preaching
and
working
Miracles
.
When
our
Dissenters
can
work
Miracles
,
I
will
never
oppose
their
preaching
.
But
how
does
it
appear
that
this
man
who
cast
out
Devils
in
Christ's
Name
,
was
no
Disciple
?
Had
Christ
no
Disciples
but
those
who
followed
him
where-ever
he
went
?
Our
Saviour
seems
to
prove
that
he
was
a
Disciple
,
or
in
a
very
good
disposition
to
be
one
,
in
that
saying
,
He
that
is
not
against
us
,
is
on
our
part
.
And
if
he
were
not
a
Disciple
,
his
very
working
Miracles
in
Christ's
Name
,
was
a
very
likely
way
to
make
him
and
others
also
the
Disciples
of
Christ
;
and
therefore
might
be
permitted
by
our
Lord
for
that
very
reason
:
Forbid
him
not
,
for
there
is
no
man
which
shall
do
a
miracle
in
my
name
,
that
can
lightly
speak
evil
of
me
.
But
was
not
our
Reconciler
asleep
,
when
he
tells
us
,
that
this
man
did
not
hold
Communion
with
the
Disciples
?
What
Communion
then
was
he
of
?
Was
he
not
a
Jew
,
and
a
Member
of
the
Jewish
Church
?
And
was
he
not
then
in
Communion
with
Christ
and
his
Apostles
?
For
did
not
Christ
,
all
the
time
he
was
on
Earth
,
live
in
Communion
with
the
Jewish
Church
?
Did
he
set
up
any
distinct
Church
and
Communion
of
his
own
?
But
I
perceive
our
Reconciler
is
of
Mr.
Baxter's
mind
,
that
Church-Communion
is
a
presential
Communion
:
And
because
he
did
not
always
follow
Christ
,
and
give
his
personal
attendance
on
him
,
therefore
he
could
not
hold
Communion
with
him
.
And
now
let
our
Reconciler
try
again
how
from
this
Example
he
can
prove
that
Schismaticks
must
be
suffered
to
preach
for
the
promotion
of
Christ's
Kingdom
.
VII
.
And
yet
it
is
wonderful
to
observe
how
he
turns
the
Tables
in
his
next
Argument
,
and
proves
,
from
Christ's
being
the
good
Shepherd
,
who
lays
down
his
life
for
his
Sheep
,
that
the
Governours
of
the
Church
should
part
with
their
indifferent
things
,
to
preserve
the
Sheep
from
such
Thieves
,
that
is
,
Schismatical
Preachers
,
those
who
,
if
his
last
Argument
be
good
,
ought
not
to
be
forbid
to
preach
,
though
they
do
not
profess
Communion
with
us
.
But
I
must
tell
him
,
That
for
the
Church
to
destroy
her
Constitution
,
to
pull
down
all
her
Hedges
and
Fences
,
is
the
way
to
let
in
these
Thieves
,
as
he
calls
them
,
not
to
keep
them
out
.
VIII
.
His
last
Argument
is
of
the
same
nature
:
That
because
Christ
prays
for
the
unity
of
the
Church
,
therefore
to
procure
this
unity
and
concord
,
we
must
part
with
all
unnecessary
things
,
which
do
not
in
the
least
advance
his
Kingdom
.
And
truly
I
think
so
too
:
but
if
the
external
Decency
of
Worship
is
not
so
unnecessary
a
thing
,
nor
easily
to
be
parted
with
;
if
parting
with
these
Ceremonies
will
not
heal
our
Schisms
and
Divisions
,
of
which
I
have
discours'd
largely
already
,
there
needs
no
other
Answer
to
be
returned
to
this
Argument
.
He
concludes
this
Chapter
with
retorting
some
of
these
Arguments
upon
the
Dissenters
.
I
have
answered
for
the
Church
,
let
the
Dissenters
now
try
how
they
can
answer
for
themselves
;
for
he
very
truly
observes
,
that
they
fall
with
more
weight
upon
them
.
To
prefer
some
arbitrary
Platforms
of
Worship
and
Discipline
which
God
has
nowhere
instituted
or
commanded
,
before
the
substantial
Duties
of
Peace
and
Unity
,
and
Obedience
to
Government
,
looks
more
like
an
offence
against
that
Law
,
I
will
have
mercy
and
not
sacrifice
,
than
what
he
charges
upon
the
Church
;
and
to
forbid
the
observation
of
the
decent
Rites
and
Ceremonies
of
Worship
as
unlawful
and
superstitious
,
is
a
much
more
intolerable
yoke
and
burden
than
the
imposition
of
them
.
But
I
shall
leave
the
Dissenters
and
our
Reconcile●
to
adjust
this
matter
among
themselves
.
CHAP.
V.
Containing
an
Answer
to
our
Reconciler's
Arguments
drawn
from
the
14th
and
15th
Chapters
to
the
Romans
.
THough
our
Reconciler
makes
a
great
flourish
with
a
multitude
of
Arguments
,
as
usually
those
men
do
,
who
cannot
find
one
good
one
;
yet
he
seems
to
put
the
greatest
confidence
in
those
Arguments
which
are
drawn
from
that
condescension
and
mutual
forbearance
,
which
St.
Paul
requires
the
Jewish
and
Gentile
Converts
(
who
differed
about
the
observation
of
the
Mosaical
Law
)
to
exercise
towards
each
other
.
And
this
I
confess
,
were
a
very
good
Argument
,
if
it
were
a
parallel
Case
.
But
I
suppose
our
Reconciler
will
grant
,
that
there
are
some
cases
,
wherein
it
is
very
reasonable
to
exercise
such
forbearance
;
and
yet
there
may
be
other
cases
,
wherein
it
is
not
prudent
and
reasonable
to
allow
the
same
Indulgence
:
and
therefore
it
does
not
follow
,
that
because
St.
Paul
required
the
Jewish
and
Gentile
Christians
to
forbear
each
other
in
their
Disputes
about
the
Mosaical
Law
,
therefore
the
Governours
of
the
Church
must
forbear
Dissenters
,
and
not
prescribe
the
decent
Rites
and
Ceremonies
of
Worship
,
nor
exact
Conformity
to
them
;
unless
it
appear
that
these
two
cases
are
the
same
,
or
so
like
to
each
other
,
that
we
may
fairly
argue
from
one
to
the
other
.
That
these
cases
are
not
alike
,
and
that
the
Apostle's
Arguments
for
mutual
forbearance
are
not
applicable
to
the
case
of
our
Dissenters
,
I
doubt
not
but
I
shall
make
so
plain
,
as
to
satisfie
all
impartial
Readers
.
And
this
,
I
hope
,
may
pass
for
an
Answer
to
his
fourth
Chapter
.
I.
Then
I
observe
,
that
St.
Paul
in
the
14th
Chapter
to
the
Romans
,
onely
exhorts
the
Jewish
and
Gentile
Christians
to
mutual
forbearance
in
such
cases
which
had
been
already
decreed
and
determined
by
the
highest
Authority
in
the
Church
.
There
is
a
great
Dispute
between
our
Reconciler
and
Dr.
Womack
,
now
the
Reverend
Bishop
of
St.
Davids
,
to
whom
this
Epistle
was
directed
,
Whether
onely
to
the
private
Christians
at
Rome
,
or
to
Church-Governours
also
,
and
consequently
whether
it
be
the
duty
onely
of
private
Christians
,
or
of
Church-Governours
also
,
to
exercise
this
forbearance
towards
Dissenters
.
The
Bishop
supposes
,
that
there
was
no
Presbytery
setled
at
Rome
at
this
time
,
and
offers
several
Arguments
to
prove
it
.
Our
Reconciler
attempts
to
answer
these
Arguments
,
and
to
prove
the
contrary
,
that
the
Church
of
Rome
,
whose
Faith
was
spoken
of
throughout
the
World
,
could
not
be
without
a
setled
Ministry
at
that
time
.
I
am
not
willing
to
interpose
in
this
Dispute
:
for
though
it
would
be
of
great
moment
to
answer
all
our
Reconciler's
Arguments
from
this
Chapter
,
were
it
certain
that
St.
Paul
did
not
designe
these
directions
for
Church-Governours
,
but
onely
for
private
Christians
,
as
an
Expedient
to
preserve
Peace
and
Unity
till
these
Disputes
should
be
determined
by
a
just
Authority
;
yet
whatever
fair
probabilities
there
may
be
of
this
,
I
doubt
there
is
not
evidence
enough
for
it
to
convince
a
Reconciler
,
or
an
obstinate
Dissenter
.
And
indeed
,
upon
the
principle
which
I
have
now
laid
down
,
there
is
no
need
of
this
:
for
whether
these
Exhortations
to
forbear
one
another
,
and
to
receive
one
another
,
and
not
to
judge
,
condemn
,
or
despise
one
another
,
concern
private
Christians
,
or
Church-Governours
,
or
equally
both
,
yet
since
this
forbearance
extends
onely
to
such
cases
as
were
determined
by
Ecclesiastical
Authority
to
be
the
proper
matter
for
the
exercise
of
this
Christian
charity
and
forbearance
,
every
one
sees
how
impertinently
it
is
alleadged
by
our
Reconciler
to
prove
that
the
Governours
of
the
Church
must
not
impose
any
indifferent
Customs
and
Usages
which
are
scrupled
by
our
Dissenters
.
For
what
consequence
is
there
in
this
?
that
because
private
Christians
or
Church-Governours
must
allow
the
free
exercise
of
that
liberty
to
each
other
,
which
the
Church
has
decreed
that
they
should
allow
to
each
other
,
therefore
the
Church
it self
must
not
impose
the
observance
of
any
indifferent
Ceremonies
on
Dissenters
,
or
must
alter
or
abate
them
in
compliance
with
their
Scruples
.
This
is
the
plain
case
here
.
The
Council
at
Ierusalem
had
decreed
,
that
the
Gentiles
who
received
the
Faith
of
Christ
,
In
such
cases
wherein
the
Church
allows
a
latitude
,
and
permits
different
apprehensions
and
practices
,
certainly
it
becomes
all
Christians
not
to
judge
or
censure
,
offend
or
scandalize
each
other
;
which
is
the
onely
case
the
Apostle
mentions
.
But
will
any
man
in
his
wits
,
hence
infer
that
the
Church
must
make
no
Laws
,
nor
prescribe
any
Rules
of
Worship
which
are
scrupled
by
private
Christians
;
and
that
if
she
do
,
she
sins
against
these
Laws
of
Charity
and
Forbearance
,
which
the
Apostle
exhorts
the
Romans
to
observe
?
The
Governours
of
the
Church
may
exercise
the
same
authority
which
the
Apostles
did
in
the
Council
at
Ierusalem
;
they
may
determine
what
upon
mature
deliberation
and
advice
they
judge
fit
or
necessary
to
be
determined
,
whatever
scruples
some
Christians
have
entertained
about
it
;
and
when
they
have
done
so
,
it
becomes
Christian
Bishop●
and
Ministers
,
as
the
Apostle
here
does
,
to
perswade
private
Christians
to
obey
such
Constitutions
,
for
the
preservation
of
the
Peace
and
Unity
of
the
Church
;
not
to
turn
Reconcilers
▪
and
to
plead
the
Cause
of
Dissenters
against
Church-Authority
,
which
St.
Paul
never
did
.
And
it
becomes
private
Christians
to
submit
to
such
Determinations
;
and
those
who
do
not
,
are
guilty
of
the
scandal
and
offence
,
if
there
be
any
,
not
those
who
do
.
The
Gentile
Converts
were
guilty
of
scandal
,
if
they
despised
the
Jews
for
observing
the
Law
of
Moses
,
which
the
Council
had
still
permitted
them
to
observe
;
the
Jews
were
guilty
of
scandalizing
the
Gentiles
,
if
they
judged
and
censured
them
,
and
denied
Communion
to
them
for
not
observing
the
Law
of
Moses
,
because
the
Council
had
delivered
the
Gentiles
from
any
such
necessity
:
but
no
man
can
be
guilty
of
any
criminal
scandal
by
obeying
the
lawful
Constitutions
of
the
Church
,
whoever
is
scandalized
at
it
,
but
scandal
always
lies
on
the
side
of
disobedience
.
The
Christian
Jew
gave
no
offence
by
observing
the
Law
of
Moses
,
nor
the
Christian
Gentile
by
not
observing
it
,
because
they
both
herein
had
the
authority
of
the
Apostolical
Decree
to
justifie
them
;
and
therefore
St.
Paul
does
not
exhort
the
Jews
not
to
observe
the
Law
of
Moses
,
nor
the
Gentiles
to
observe
it
,
to
avoid
scandal
,
(
which
had
been
somewhat
like
our
Reconciler's
Address
to
the
Church
not
to
impose
,
and
to
the
Dissenters
to
obey
such
Impositions
to
avoid
Schism
;
)
but
he
exhorts
them
both
to
grant
that
liberty
to
each
other
which
the
Church
had
granted
,
and
not
to
judge
,
and
censure
,
and
despise
,
and
separate
from
each
other
for
the
use
of
this
liberty
,
which
in
both
of
them
would
be
an
express
violation
of
the
Apostolical
Decree
.
Governours
indeed
may
be
guilty
of
uncharitableness
in
the
exercise
of
a
just
Authority
,
(
as
I
have
already
discours'd
,
The
Apostle
indeed
,
as
the
Reconciler
observes
,
did
plainly
assert
,
That
the
things
scrupled
by
the
weak
,
were
pure
and
lawful
in
themselves
;
that
he
knew
and
was
perswaded
by
the
Lord
Iesus
,
that
there
was
nothing
unclean
of
it self
:
which
is
the
very
determination
of
the
Council
at
Ierusalem
;
and
yet
he
requires
the
believing
Gentiles
to
exercise
great
charity
in
the
use
of
their
liberty
;
which
is
a
plain
instance
of
the
exercise
of
a
private
charity
in
such
cases
,
where
publick
Authority
can
make
no
such
determination
in
favour
of
the
scrupulous
.
The
Council
at
Ierusalem
,
and
St.
Paul
in
this
Epistle
,
determine
against
the
scruples
of
the
Jews
,
and
assert
the
liberty
of
the
Gentiles
;
and
they
could
not
do
otherwise
;
and
yet
St.
Paul
requires
private
Christians
to
use
this
liberty
without
offence
,
and
to
exercise
such
charity
to
their
Jewish
Brethren
,
as
the
Church
it self
did
not
,
and
could
not
exercise
.
Womack
,
As
if
Church-Governours
were
not
as
much
concerned
in
the
reasons
laid
down
,
as
were
the
common
People
;
that
is
,
that
they
were
not
obliged
to
receive
the
weak
in
Faith
,
and
being
strong
,
to
bear
the
infirmities
of
the
weak
;
that
they
might
judge
another
mans
servant
,
that
they
might
put
a
stumbling-block
or
an
occasion
to
fall
in
their
Brothers
way
;
that
they
might
walk
uncharitably
,
might
grieve
,
and
even
destroy
him
with
their
meat
for
whom
Christ
died
;
that
they
might
let
their
good
be
evil
spoken
of
,
and
might
for
meat
destroy
the
work
of
God
;
and
that
though
it
is
good
for
private
persons
not
to
eat
flesh
,
nor
drink
wine
,
nor
to
do
any
thing
whereby
their
Brother
stumbleth
,
or
is
made
weak
,
or
is
offended
,
yet
may
Church-Governours
impose
such
things
,
although
God
has
declared
that
their
power
is
only
for
edification
,
and
not
for
destruction
.
For
this
is
the
plain
case
,
all
these
Arguments
St.
Paul
uses
to
perswade
private
Christians
to
mutual
forbearance
and
charity
in
the
exercise
of
their
Christian
liberty
;
and
yet
both
the
Council
at
Ierusalem
,
and
St.
Paul
in
this
Chapter
,
do
positively
determine
,
that
the
Gentile
Christians
should
have
this
liberty
,
though
St.
Paul
perswades
them
to
great
charity
in
the
exercise
of
it
.
So
that
the
case
of
private
Christians
and
publick
Governours
is
so
very
different
,
that
charity
may
exact
that
from
private
Christians
to
avoid
scandal
and
offence
,
which
no
charity
can
justifie
in
Governours
:
the
Gentile
Converts
were
to
deny
themselves
in
the
use
of
their
liberty
,
to
avoid
giving
offence
to
the
Jewish
●hristians
;
but
a
whole
Council
of
Apostles
did
not
think
fit
to
deny
this
liberty
to
the
Gentiles
,
which
might
prove
an
offence
and
scandal
to
the
Jews
.
For
the
believing
Gentiles
might
restrain
the
use
of
their
liberty
without
injuring
their
Christian
liberty
;
for
no
man
is
bound
to
use
all
the
liberty
he
has
,
and
therefore
may
suspend
the
use
of
it
when
it
will
serve
the
ends
of
charity
:
but
the
Apostles
could
not
deny
the
use
of
this
liberty
to
the
gentile
Converts
,
without
destroying
their
Christian
liberty
.
And
therefore
our
Reconciler
is
mightily
out
in
his
Argument
,
That
Church-Governours
in
their
publick
capacity
are
bound
to
all
those
acts
of
forbearance
and
charitable
condescension
,
which
private
Christians
are
bound
to
;
when
in
this
very
instance
from
which
he
argues
,
it
appears
to
be
quite
otherwise
:
the
Church
determines
for
the
liberty
of
the
Gentiles
to
eat
all
sorts
of
meats
without
any
regard
to
the
Mosaical
distinction
between
clean
and
unclean
,
notwithstanding
that
offence
it
gave
to
the
believing
Jew
;
and
yet
St.
Paul
perswades
the
believing
Gentile
not
to
use
this
liberty
to
the
scandal
and
offence
of
their
weak
Brethren
.
In
a
word
:
This
fourteenth
Chapter
to
the
Romans
consists
of
two
distinct
parts
,
though
not
so
commonly
observed
,
which
has
occasioned
very
confused
apprehensions
about
it
.
1.
That
which
equally
concerns
both
Jews
and
Gentiles
,
viz.
not
to
judge
,
despise
,
or
censure
each
other
,
nor
to
break
Christian
Communion
,
upon
account
of
their
different
apprehensions
about
the
Mosaical
Law
:
that
one
believed
he
might
indifferently
eat
of
all
sorts
of
meat
,
and
another
eat
herbs
;
one
preferred
one
day
before
another
,
another
thought
all
days
alike
.
Now
all
the
indulgence
to
one
another
which
the
Apostle
exacts
in
this
case
,
is
onely
to
grant
each
other
that
liberty
which
the
Apostolical
Synod
had
granted
them
,
that
the
Jews
might
still
observe
the
Law
of
Moses
,
and
that
the
Gentiles
might
enjoy
their
liberty
not
to
observe
it
;
and
therefore
the
Apostle
uses
much
such
Arguments
to
perswade
them
to
this
,
as
were
before
used
by
the
Council
when
they
made
their
Decree
;
of
which
,
more
presently
:
and
this
part
reaches
to
the
13th
verse
.
But
how
our
Reconciler
hence
infers
that
Church-Governours
must
not
make
any
Determinations
about
things
which
are
scrupled
,
because
the
Apostle
exhorts
them
to
obey
such
Determinations
,
and
not
to
judge
and
censure
one
another
for
such
matters
which
the
Church
had
determined
they
might
both
lawfully
do
▪
I
cannot
imagine
.
2.
The
second
part
peculiarly
refers
to
the
believing
Gentiles
,
to
perswade
them
to
exercise
great
charity
,
and
as
much
as
might
be
,
to
avoid
all
scandal
and
offence
in
the
use
of
their
Christian
liberty
.
That
because
their
Jewish
Brethren
were
so
weak
as
to
take
offence
at
their
liberty
,
therefore
they
should
forbear
the
use
of
it
,
when
it
was
likely
to
give
offence
.
And
to
this
purpose
he
urges
several
Arguments
from
charity
to
the
end
of
the
Chapter
,
and
in
the
beginning
of
the
15th
Chapter
.
But
this
you
have
already
heard
,
peculiarly
relates
to
the
duty
of
private
Christians
in
the
private
exercise
of
their
Christian
liberty
,
and
can
by
no
means
be
applied
to
the
Governours
of
the
Church
,
as
exercising
acts
of
Government
in
making
publick
Decrees
and
Constitutions
:
for
as
I
have
already
shewn
,
the
Church
could
not
deny
that
liberty
to
the
Gentiles
,
nor
make
any
Decree
in
favour
of
such
Jewish
scruples
,
but
onely
exhorted
the
Gentiles
to
exercise
this
liberty
charitably
,
and
without
offence
.
This
one
thing
well
considered
,
is
a
sufficient
Answer
to
our
Reconciler's
fourth
Chapter
,
since
it
makes
it
very
plain
,
that
there
is
nothing
in
the
14th
of
the
Romans
to
restrain
the
exercise
of
Ecclesiastical
Authority
,
whatever
scruples
men
have
entertained
about
it
.
II.
Another
very
material
difference
is
,
that
the
subject
of
the
Dispute
between
the
Church
and
Dissenters
,
is
of
a
quite
different
nature
from
that
Dispute
which
was
between
the
Jewish
and
Gentile
Christians
,
about
which
the
Apostle
gave
those
directions
about
mutual
forbearance
,
and
a
charitable
condescension
to
each
other
.
The
Dispute
between
the
Church
and
Dissenters
,
is
about
indifferent
things
;
between
the
Jews
and
Gentiles
,
about
the
observation
of
the
Law
of
Moses
:
Now
these
two
are
so
vastly
different
,
that
there
may
be
very
wise
reasons
for
allowing
some
indulgence
in
one
case
,
but
not
in
the
other
.
By
indifferent
things
,
I
mean
such
things
as
are
neither
morally
good
nor
evil
,
nor
are
either
commanded
nor
forbidden
by
any
positive
Law
of
God
.
Now
if
our
Reconciler
can
shew
any
Dispute
about
such
things
in
Scripture
,
or
any
one
Precept
or
Exhortation
either
to
Governours
or
private
Christians
about
forbearance
,
or
the
exercise
of
charity
in
such
matters
,
I
will
yield
him
the
Cause
.
He
has
not
produced
one
yet
;
for
the
Dispute
between
Jew
and
Gentile
was
of
another
nature
.
That
this
Discourse
is
generally
thought
to
have
relation
to
the
Iewish
Converts
,
who
thought
it
was
unlawful
to
eat
of
meats
forbidden
by
the
Law
of
Moses
,
and
that
it
was
their
duty
to
observe
the
Iewish
Festivals
;
and
says
,
That
his
Discourse
will
be
more
firm
,
if
the
Apostle
speaks
concerning
the
observance
of
the
Law
of
Moses
,
or
of
the
meats
and
days
prescribed
by
it
.
And
in
this
sence
I
desire
to
take
it
,
and
believe
this
is
the
true
sence
of
the
words
;
but
it
may
be
,
when
he
sees
,
that
this
interpretation
of
the
place
will
overthrow
his
whole
Hypothesis
,
he
will
be
willing
to
retreat
;
and
therefore
I
shall
briefly
examine
what
he
alleadges
to
prove
the
Apostle
did
not
refer
to
the
observation
of
the
Law
of
Moses
in
this
place
,
but
that
he
rather
speaks
of
meats
offered
to
Idols
,
and
the
observing
days
of
Fasting
.
His
Arguments
are
these
:
Because
the
weak
Brethren
did
not
abstain
from
Swines-flesh
onely
,
and
other
meats
forbidden
by
the
Law
of
Moses
,
but
they
abstained
from
all
kinds
of
flesh
.
Whence
saith
the
Commentator
on
the
Romans
in
St.
Jerom
's
Works
,
It
may
be
proved
that
the
Apostle
speaketh
not
of
the
Iews
,
as
some
conceive
;
non
enim
carnes
secundum
legem
,
sed
sola
olera
manducabant
.
Because
the
weak
persons
mentioned
here
,
onely
did
eat
herbs
,
abstaining
from
all
flesh
,
and
not
from
that
alone
,
which
was
forbidden
by
the
Law
of
Moses
.
But
if
we
will
take
the
opinion
of
this
Commentator
,
we
must
understand
also
,
one
who
is
weak
in
body
,
who
has
an
ill
stomach
,
or
ill
digestion
,
and
therefore
eats
herbs
,
because
he
cannot
eat
flesh
,
through
sickness
or
old
age
:
Infirmus
aetate
,
aut
corporis
vigore
:
which
are
the
words
immediately
before
;
and
then
how
this
will
reach
the
case
of
Ecclesiastical
Ceremonies
,
I
cannot
tell
.
As
for
his
reason
,
that
these
weak
persons
eat
onely
herbs
,
it
is
not
evident
from
the
Text.
Herbs
may
be
taken
synecdochically
for
all
sorts
of
meats
allowed
by
the
Law
,
no
sort
of
herbs
being
forbidden
;
or
it
may
signifie
,
that
rather
than
eat
any
meats
forbidden
by
their
Law
,
they
chose
to
live
on
herbs
;
which
might
be
often
the
case
of
those
Jews
who
lived
among
Heathens
,
as
the
Jews
at
Rome
,
who
are
primarily
concerned
in
this
Epistle
,
did
.
And
St.
Chrysostom
,
who
positively
asserts
that
this
concerns
meats
forbidden
by
the
Law
of
Moses
,
assignes
another
reason
for
their
eating
herbs
.
But
there
can
be
no
doubt
about
this
,
if
we
consider
what
the
Apostle
saith
,
v.
14.
For
I
know
,
and
am
perswaded
by
the
Lord
Iesus
,
that
there
is
nothing
unclean
of
it self
;
but
to
him
that
esteemeth
any
thing
unclean
,
to
him
it
is
unclean
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
common
,
the
word
peculiarly
used
to
signifie
the
distinction
of
clean
and
unclean
meats
among
the
Jews
;
and
there
was
no
other
Law
that
ever
made
such
a
distinction
.
For
though
the
Pythagoreans
did
forbid
eating
of
flesh
,
yet
that
was
an
inconsiderable
Sect
of
Philosophers
,
which
could
not
occasion
such
a
general
Dispute
as
this
was
;
and
they
did
not
forbid
flesh
upon
this
distinction
of
clean
and
unclean
meats
,
which
was
peculiar
to
the
Mosaical
Law
,
but
for
reasons
peculiar
to
their
Philosophy
,
which
were
so
vain
and
superstitious
,
that
we
cannot
imagine
the
Apostle
would
grant
any
indulgence
to
such
fancies
.
2.
His
next
reason
is
,
Because
the
Apostle
doth
in
the
Epistles
to
the
Galatians
and
Colossions
speak
severely
against
their
observation
of
the
Iewish
Festivals
,
and
therefore
here
would
not
speak
of
them
as
things
indifferent
;
concerning
which
,
it
was
onely
needful
that
the
observers
or
not
observers
of
them
,
should
be
well
assured
in
their
own
minds
,
and
be
permitted
to
continue
in
their
practice
,
as
St.
Ambrose
saith
,
the
Apostle
here
asserts
;
nor
is
it
like
,
that
in
such
things
he
would
permit
them
to
abound
in
their
own
sence
.
Which
last
assertion
directly
overthrows
his
whole
Hypothesis
:
for
it
seems
the
Apostle
might
have
required
of
them
to
renounce
the
Law
of
Moses
,
and
the
observation
of
it
,
whatever
scruples
they
pretended
;
and
then
how
does
it
become
so
necessary
a
duty
in
Church-Governours
,
to
renounce
their
own
Authority
to
gratifie
and
humour
every
scrupulous
Conscience
?
for
if
ever
there
were
reason
to
be
favourable
to
scruples
,
it
was
in
the
case
of
the
believing
Jews
,
whose
scruples
were
occasioned
by
a
Divine
Law
,
which
they
were
not
yet
convinc'd
was
abrogated
and
out
of
date
:
And
if
,
as
he
says
,
it
was
not
likely
the
Apostle
should
suffer
them
to
abound
in
their
own
sence
in
such
things
,
there
is
much
less
reason
to
expect
this
from
Church-Governours
in
other
matters
,
where
no
such
Authority
can
be
pretended
to
justifie
their
scruples
.
But
of
the
different
behaviour
of
the
Apostle
to
the
Romans
and
Galatians
,
I
shall
give
such
an
account
in
what
follows
,
as
will
not
be
much
to
our
Reconciler's
purpose
.
3.
Because
the
Apostle
confineth
his
discourse
to
meats
,
not
speaking
of
the
whole
observance
of
the
Law
of
Moses
,
he
doth
not
therefore
say
that
Christ
had
now
abolished
that
Law
,
or
that
it
was
not
made
unto
,
and
so
could
not
oblige
the
Gentile
World
,
or
any
thing
which
seemeth
proper
to
oppose
unto
those
judaizing
Christians
,
but
onely
saith
that
meats
did
not
commend
to
God
,
and
such-like
things
;
which
are
all
proper
to
be
spoken
unto
those
who
,
understanding
of
their
liberty
,
freely
indulged
themselves
in
eating
of
the
Idol-Sacrifice
.
Now
this
is
a
notable
Argument
,
if
it
be
well
considered
.
The
Apostle
confines
his
discourse
to
meats
(
and
days
)
not
speaking
of
the
whole
observance
of
the
Law
of
Moses
.
Because
his
whole
Epistle
treats
upon
this
Argument
,
and
he
does
not
repeat
all
that
he
said
in
the
foregoing
Chapters
about
Circumcision
and
Sacrifices
,
Washings
and
Purifications
,
and
the
abrogation
of
the
Mosaical
Law
,
in
this
14th
Chapter
;
therefore
these
meats
and
drinks
and
days
,
must
not
refer
to
Mosaical
observances
.
The
whole
Epistle
concerns
the
Dispute
between
Jews
and
Gentiles
;
and
if
he
can
find
any
other
meats
and
days
which
the
Jews
thought
themselves
bound
to
observe
,
and
the
Gentiles
thought
themselves
freed
from
by
Christ
,
he
will
say
something
more
to
the
purpose
.
And
whereas
he
argues
,
that
the
Apostle
does
not
urge
such
Arguments
as
are
proper
to
prove
the
abrogation
of
the
Law
of
Moses
,
it
is
evident
that
this
was
not
his
business
in
this
Chapter
;
but
he
proves
what
he
intended
to
prove
,
how
reasonable
mutual
forbearance
is
in
these
matters
;
which
supposes
the
abrogation
of
the
Law
already
proved
(
as
indeed
he
had
sufficiently
proved
it
before
)
:
for
there
is
no
place
for
forbearance
against
a
positive
Law
.
4.
His
last
reason
is
as
good
as
any
of
the
former
:
Because
had
the
Apostle
spoken
to
the
strong
Iewish
Christian
,
and
declared
his
freedom
from
the
observation
of
the
whole
Iewish
Law
,
he
would
have
contradicted
the
Churches
of
Jerusalem
,
and
his
own
practice
there
:
for
they
were
zealous
for
the
observation
of
it
,
and
did
esteem
it
their
duty
so
to
be
;
and
did
not
judge
him
a
strong
,
but
a
disorderly
Christian
,
who
being
a
Iew
,
observed
not
their
Laws
and
Customs
.
Now
if
this
proves
any
thing
,
it
proves
that
St.
Paul
never
did
,
and
indeed
ought
not
to
dispute
against
the
freedom
of
the
Jewish
Converts
from
the
observation
of
the
Law
;
and
then
we
shall
want
a
new
Commentator
upon
most
of
his
Epistles
,
to
deliver
him
from
that
scandal
which
all
Exposi●ors
hitherto
have
cast
on
him
,
that
he
has
in
many
places
industriously
proved
that
neither
Jew
nor
Gentile
were
under
the
obligation
of
the
Mosaical
Law
.
But
it
is
evident
in
this
very
place
,
that
those
whom
our
Reconciler
calls
the
strong
Iewish
Christian
,
St.
Paul
calls
the
weak
in
the
Faith
,
who
did
not
understand
his
true
Christian
liberty
;
and
writing
neither
to
strong
Jewish
,
nor
to
strong
Gentile
Christians
,
but
to
the
Church
of
Rome
,
which
consisted
of
both
,
in
compliance
with
the
Apostolical
Decree
in
the
first
Council
at
Ierusalem
.
He
imposes
no
necessity
on
the
Jews
to
renounce
the
observation
of
the
Law
,
nor
on
the
Gentiles
to
observe
it
:
and
lest
such
different
manners
and
customs
might
occasion
Schisms
and
Divisions
among
them
,
he
exhorts
them
to
mutual
forbearance
;
not
to
judge
,
nor
censure
,
nor
reproach
each
other
upon
this
account
.
And
this
the
Apostle
might
do
,
without
incurring
the
censure
of
the
Christians
at
Ierusalem
,
or
contradicting
his
own
practice
.
For
he
was
charged
at
Ierusalem
not
with
teaching
the
abrogation
of
the
Law
with
respect
to
Jews
as
well
as
Gentiles
,
which
was
a
thing
so
notorious
,
that
he
neither
could
nor
would
dissemble
it
;
but
with
forbidding
the
Jewish
Christians
to
observe
the
Law
,
which
indeed
was
directly
contrary
to
the
Apostolical
Decree
,
which
delivered
the
Gentiles
from
that
necessity
,
but
indulged
the
Jews
in
it
.
Thus
Iames
the
Bishop
of
Ierusalem
tells
him
,
that
the
Jews
,
who
were
then
in
great
numbers
at
Ierusalem
,
and
were
zealous
for
the
Law
,
were
informed
of
him
,
that
he
taught
all
the
Iews
which
are
among
the
Gentiles
,
that
they
ought
to
forsake
Moses
,
saying
,
that
they
ought
not
to
circumcise
their
children
,
neither
to
walk
after
the
customs
.
Now
it
is
one
thing
to
say
that
they
are
under
no
necessity
of
doing
this
,
and
another
to
say
they
are
under
a
neces●ity
of
not
doing
it
;
the
first
was
the
Apostles
constant
Doctrine
,
the
second
was
contrary
both
to
his
own
practice
,
and
to
that
liberty
he
every-where
indulged
the
Jews
,
as
well
as
in
this
Chapter
under
debate
.
Having
thus
cleared
the
way
,
and
proved
that
St.
Paul
does
here
discourse
about
the
observation
of
the
Jewish
Law
,
and
that
neither
believing
Jews
nor
Gentiles
ought
to
judge
,
censure
,
or
condemn
each
other
for
observing
or
not
observing
such
customs
;
I
come
now
to
shew
what
a
vast
difference
there
is
between
this
case
,
and
those
indifferent
Ceremonies
and
Circumstances
of
Worship
which
are
enjoyned
by
our
Church
,
and
that
we
cannot
argue
from
one
to
the
other
.
And
methinks
every
ordinary
Reader
cannot
but
be
sensible
of
the
difference
at
the
first
hearing
.
For
the
Dispute
here
is
not
about
indifferent
things
,
but
about
the
obligation
of
the
Law
of
Moses
.
The
Proposition
our
Reconciler
undertakes
to
prove
,
is
,
That
indifferent
things
which
may
be
changed
and
altered
without
sin
,
or
violation
of
Gods
Law
,
ought
not
to
be
imposed
by
Superiours
as
Conditions
of
Communion
.
And
this
he
proves
from
St.
Paul's
Indulgence
to
the
Jews
in
the
observation
of
the
Mosaical
Law
.
Now
what
relation
is
there
between
the
Law
of
Moses
,
and
the
indifferent
Circumstances
or
Ceremonies
of
Worship
?
Did
St.
Paul
allow
the
Jews
this
liberty
of
observing
the
Law
of
Moses
upon
this
reason
,
that
it
was
indifferent
for
them
to
observe
,
or
not
to
observe
the
Law
?
If
he
did
not
,
then
this
Example
is
impertinently
alleadged
,
as
not
relating
to
this
present
Dispute
about
imposing
or
not
imposing
indifferent
things
.
If
he
did
,
then
the
observation
of
the
Law
is
indifferent
still
:
for
that
which
is
once
indifferent
,
must
continue
so
,
without
some
new
Law
to
alter
its
nature
;
and
I
know
of
none
in
this
case
.
If
St.
Paul
thought
the
observation
of
the
Law
so
indifferent
,
why
does
he
dispute
so
earnestly
against
it
in
this
whole
Epistle
?
Why
did
he
contend
so
earnestly
even
with
St.
Peter
himself
,
in
behalf
of
the
Gentiles
,
to
maintain
their
liberty
from
the
Jewish
Yoke
?
for
if
it
were
indifferent
to
the
Jew
,
it
was
so
to
the
Gentile
:
and
according
to
our
Reconciler's
way
,
it
did
not
become
such
great
Apostles
to
contend
about
indifferent
things
either
one
way
or
other
.
Why
did
St.
Paul
so
severely
chide
the
Galatians
,
who
chiefly
consisted
of
Gentile
Converts
,
for
their
warping
to
the
observation
of
the
Law
?
and
so
passionately
exhorts
them
to
stand
fast
in
the
liberty
wherewith
Christ
had
made
them
free
,
and
not
to
be
intangled
again
with
the
yoke
of
bondage
?
But
you
will
say
,
Were
not
these
things
indi●ferent
?
Does
not
the
Apostle
expresly
say
,
I
know
,
and
am
perswaded
by
the
Lord
Iesus
Christ
,
that
there
is
nothing
unclean
of
it self
?
Was
not
the
Law
abrogated
which
made
the
di●ference
between
clean
and
unclean
meats
?
And
were
they
not
at
liberty
then
to
eat
or
not
to
eat
?
Yes
,
no
doubt
of
it
,
as
we
are
at
this
day
.
But
it
is
one
thing
to
eat
or
not
to
eat
,
as
an
instance
of
natural
liberty
,
in
which
Religion
is
not
concerned
;
and
another
thing
to
eat
or
not
to
eat
out
of
regard
to
the
Law
of
Moses
;
which
was
the
Dispute
between
the
Jew
and
Gentile
,
and
which
is
the
case
wherein
St.
Paul
exhorts
them
to
the
exercise
of
mutual
charity
and
forbearance
.
Now
let
our
Reconciler
speak
his
conscience
freely
,
whether
there
be
any
thing
alike
in
these
two
cases
,
or
whether
there
be
the
same
reason
to
indulge
a
Dissenter
in
his
scruples
about
indifferent
things
,
which
never
were
commanded
nor
forbidden
by
any
divine
Law
,
as
there
was
at
that
time
to
indulge
the
Jews
in
the
observation
of
the
Law
of
Moses
,
which
they
knew
was
given
by
God
,
and
had
been
in
all
Ages
till
that
day
religiously
observed
by
them
from
the
time
it
was
first
given
,
and
which
they
thought
did
●till
as
much
oblige
them
as
ever
.
The
Dispute
is
not
about
the
lawful
use
of
indifferent
things
,
but
about
the
obligation
of
a
divine
Law
:
and
though
it
was
very
reasonable
to
indulge
the
Jews
for
a
time
in
observing
the
Law
,
till
it
should
be
repealed
in
such
an
evident
manner
as
to
leave
no
reasonable
scruple
about
it
;
yet
it
can
never
be
reasonable
to
indulge
men
in
their
scruples
about
indifferent
things
,
because
there
never
was
,
nor
never
will
be
any
such
reason
for
these
scruples
as
ought
to
be
indulged
.
But
our
Reconciler
,
in
answer
to
what
Dr.
Falkner
had
urged
,
That
the
Apostle
in
this
Chapter
(
14
Rom.
)
is
not
treating
about
,
and
therefore
not
against
the
Rules
of
Order
in
the
service
of
God
,
meaning
by
that
expression
the
imposed
Ceremonies
,
adds
,
That
still
the
sequel
is
firm
:
for
the
Apostle
may
dispute
upon
another
subject
,
and
yet
lay
down
such
Principles
,
and
use
such
Arguments
as
equally
confute
the
pressing
or
imposing
of
those
Ceremonies
,
as
the
Conditions
of
Communion
,
when
such
an
imposition
will
silence
many
able
Ministers
,
and
involve
many
Myriads
in
the
guilt
of
Schism
and
Separation
from
the
Church
.
Now
to
this
I
answer
,
1.
This
may
be
sometimes
true
;
but
then
the
subjects
must
be
near
of
kin
,
and
there
must
be
something
contained
in
the
Argument
which
indifferently
relates
to
all
other
cases
which
are
of
a
like
nature
.
2.
But
yet
whatever
the
Argument
be
,
it
depends
wholly
upon
a
parity
of
Reason
,
and
cannot
challenge
the
same
authority
in
any
other
case
,
as
it
hath
in
that
to
which
it
is
immediately
applied
.
The
Arguments
the
Apostle
uses
to
perswade
Jews
and
Gentiles
not
to
judge
and
censure
each
other
upon
account
of
observing
or
not
observing
the
Law
of
Moses
,
are
St.
Paul's
Arguments
,
as
applied
to
that
case
,
but
are
onely
our
Reconciler's
Arguments
,
as
applied
to
the
Ceremonies
of
the
Church
of
England
,
and
have
no
more
authority
than
he
has
;
nor
any
greater
strength
than
his
reasoning
gives
them
.
And
therefore
he
imposes
upon
his
Readers
,
when
he
pretends
to
dispute
against
the
Impositions
of
our
Church
from
the
authority
of
St.
Paul
,
and
confesses
at
the
same
time
,
that
St.
Paul
does
not
say
one
word
about
the
matter
.
He
ought
plainly
to
declare
,
that
there
is
nothing
in
Scripture
which
expresly
condemns
the
Impositions
of
our
Church
;
but
there
are
some
Arguments
used
by
Christ
and
his
Apostles
upon
other
occasions
,
which
he
thinks
by
a
parity
of
Reason
condemns
these
Impositions
.
But
to
pretend
Scripture
against
us
,
when
he
cannot
produce
any
one
Scripture
which
primarily
relates
to
the
imposition
of
indifferent
things
,
is
to
set
up
his
own
Reasonings
for
Scripture
,
though
they
are
generally
such
as
few
men
will
allow
to
be
sen●e
.
Our
Saviour's
and
St.
Paul's
Arguments
are
Scripture
,
when
applied
to
those
cases
to
which
they
apply
them
;
but
when
they
are
applied
to
other
purposes
,
though
the
words
are
Scripture
still
,
yet
this
new
application
of
them
is
not
:
and
I
would
desire
my
Readers
to
observe
this
,
that
though
our
Reconciler
has
alleadged
numerous
places
of
Scripture
,
yet
he
has
not
one
Scripture-proof
against
the
Church
of
England
;
the
words
are
Scripture
,
but
applied
by
him
to
other
purposes
than
the
Scripture
intended
.
3.
But
yet
parity
of
Reason
,
where
it
is
plain
and
evident
,
is
a
very
good
Argument
;
and
therefore
here
I
will
joyn
issue
with
him
,
and
make
it
appear
that
the
Apostles
Arguments
in
the
14th
of
the
Romans
,
whereby
he
perswades
them
to
mutual
charity
and
forbearance
in
reference
to
the
Rites
and
Ceremonies
of
the
Mosaical
Law
,
cannot
by
any
parity
of
Reason
be
applied
to
the
Ceremonies
of
the
Church
of
England
.
Now
I
observed
before
,
that
there
are
two
distinct
parts
in
this
Chapter
,
and
Arguments
proper
to
each
;
and
though
our
Reconciler
confounds
them
,
I
shall
consider
them
distinctly
.
First
,
The
first
part
perswades
them
not
to
judge
,
or
censure
,
or
break
Communion
with
each
other
,
for
the
sake
of
such
different
customs
.
Him
that
is
weak
in
the
faith
receive
;
but
not
to
doubtful
disputations
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
without
judging
of
each
others
differing
opinions
and
perswasions
of
things
.
For
one
believeth
he
may
eat
all
things
,
another
who
is
weak
eateth
herbs
.
This
is
the
matter
about
which
they
differed
.
The
Gentile
Converts
believed
that
they
were
free
from
the
Law
of
Moses
,
which
made
a
difference
between
clean
and
unclean
meats
,
and
therefore
might
eat
any
thing
;
the
Jew
,
who
was
weak
in
the
Faith
,
and
was
not
yet
perswaded
of
his
freedom
from
the
Mosaical
Law
,
abstained
from
all
forbidden
meats
,
and
fed
on
herbs
.
Let
not
him
that
eateth
,
despise
him
that
eateth
not
.
Let
not
the
Gentile
despise
the
Jew
,
as
ignorant
of
the
Mystery
of
the
Gospel
,
and
that
liberty
which
is
purchased
by
Christ
,
and
let
not
him
that
eateth
not
,
judge
him
that
eateth
;
let
not
the
Jew
condemn
and
reject
the
Gentiles
as
profane
and
unclean
persons
,
with
whom
they
ought
not
to
converse
,
much
less
to
receive
them
into
their
Communion
,
because
they
do
not
observe
the
Law
of
Moses
.
So
that
the
Apostle's
designe
in
these
words
is
to
prevent
that
Schism
which
was
likely
to
be
occasioned
between
the
Jewish
and
Gentile
Converts
upon
account
of
the
Law
of
Moses
;
he
does
not
say
,
that
either
Jews
should
yield
to
Gentiles
,
or
Gentiles
to
Jews
,
but
each
of
them
retaining
their
own
liberty
in
these
matters
,
they
should
still
own
each
other
as
Christian
Brethren
,
and
live
in
Christian
Communion
together
;
which
shews
how
remote
this
case
is
from
the
Dispute
between
the
Church
and
Dissenters
:
for
Jews
and
Gentiles
,
notwithstanding
their
Disputes
about
the
obligation
of
the
Law
of
Moses
,
might
joyn
together
in
all
the
acts
of
Christian
Worship
;
whereas
the
Dispute
between
the
Church
and
Dissenters
is
about
the
very
acts
of
Worship
;
and
therefore
while
this
difference
lasts
,
they
cannot
joyn
in
one
Communion
:
of
which
,
more
anon
.
Which
is
a
plain
proof
that
nothing
of
all
this
relates
to
our
present
case
.
But
before
I
consider
the
Apostles
reasons
for
this
,
I
must
a
little
more
particularly
examine
what
he
means
by
receiving
the
weak
:
for
though
our
Reconciler
and
I
agree
that
this
signifies
to
receive
to
Communion
,
yet
I
find
we
differ
very
much
about
that
,
what
is
meant
by
receiving
to
Communion
;
By
receiving
one
another
,
I
understand
owning
each
other
as
Members
of
the
same
Body
,
i.
e.
of
the
same
Christian
Communion
,
a
necessary
consequence
or
duty
of
which
,
is
actually
to
communicate
with
each
other
in
all
acts
of
Christian
Worship
;
or
as
Dr.
Falkner
expresses
it
in
other
words
,
Libertas
Ecclesiastica
.
P.
437.
That
they
ought
to
be
owned
and
judged
as
Christians
,
notwithstanding
these
different
observations
.
—
He
forbiddeth
the
weaker
Iews
to
condemn
the
other
Iews
or
Gentiles
,
as
if
they
were
not
possess'd
with
the
fear
of
God
,
because
they
observed
not
the
Law
of
Moses
:
and
prohibiteth
those
others
from
despising
or
disowning
these
weaker
Iews
as
not
having
embraced
Christ
(
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
v.
3.
signifying
here
,
so
to
despise
,
as
withal
to
reject
and
disclaim
;
as
Mark
9.12
.
Acts.
4.11
.
1
Cor.
1.28
.
)
because
they
observed
the
Rites
of
Iudaism
.
And
therefore
he
adds
,
That
if
by
a
parity
of
Reason
we
will
apply
this
to
any
other
case
,
it
must
be
to
condemn
them
who
press
their
own
practices
or
judgments
in
things
unnecessary
,
as
being
the
essential
and
necessary
points
of
Religion
and
Christianity
;
and
thereupon
do
undertake
to
censure
all
those
who
differ
from
them
in
such
lesser
things
,
as
having
no
true
Religion
,
or
inward
relation
to
,
or
communion
with
Iesus
Christ
,
though
they
live
never
so
conscientiously
,
and
act
according
to
the
best
apprehensions
they
can
attain
.
What
now
has
our
Reconciler
to
say
to
this
,
why
this
is
not
the
true
sence
of
receiving
them
,
to
own
them
for
Christians
,
as
Members
of
the
Body
of
Christ
,
and
such
as
they
ought
actually
to
communicate
with
?
Why
he
says
,
This
is
tacitly
presumed
in
all
the
Apostle's
Arguments
,
and
without
that
concession
they
are
not
cogent
;
and
of
this
the
miraculous
gifts
of
the
Spirit
,
with
which
both
parties
were
endowed
,
were
a
sufficient
testimony
:
but
he
declares
,
that
they
were
to
be
received
into
communion
,
and
that
because
God
had
received
them
.
He
doth
not
only
forbid
the
strong
to
disown
these
weak
persons
,
as
not
having
embraced
Christ
;
for
they
who
thus
conceived
most
suitably
unto
that
Principle
,
deny
what
the
Apostle
here
asserts
of
these
weak
persons
,
viz.
that
God
had
received
them
,
that
they
were
Christian
Brethren
,
or
that
Christ
died
for
them
,
or
that
they
were
the
work
of
God
;
and
so
all
the
Apostles
Arguments
must
be
to
men
of
such
opinions
,
weak
and
unconcluding
:
but
he
declares
,
that
they
should
joyn
with
them
in
Christian
Fellowship
,
or
should
admit
them
into
Communion
with
them
,
as
God
did
with
him
.
And
having
repeated
over
the
same
thing
again
,
almost
in
the
same
words
,
he
concludes
,
Therefore
the
designe
of
the
Apostle
in
this
Chapter
,
plainly
is
to
condemn
those
persons
who
for
these
things
did
take
upon
them
to
despise
,
judge
,
and
refuse
Communion
with
those
who
differed
thus
in
judgment
and
practice
from
them
.
The
meaning
of
which
is
,
that
both
Jews
and
Gentiles
did
own
each
other
to
be
very
good
Christians
,
and
Members
of
the
same
Church
and
Body
of
Christ
,
notwithstanding
that
one
observed
the
Law
of
Moses
,
and
the
other
did
not
;
but
yet
they
had
taken
a
pique
against
each
other
for
these
different
customs
,
and
would
not
receive
each
other
to
actual
Communion
,
though
there
was
nothing
else
to
hinder
this
actual
Communion
,
but
the
dispute
about
the
observation
of
the
Law
,
which
by
their
own
confession
was
no
hindrance
at
all
,
since
they
did
believe
that
those
who
observed
it
,
and
those
who
did
not
observe
it
,
were
both
of
them
very
good
Christians
.
Which
is
so
ridiculous
a
Comment
upon
the
Text
,
that
I
could
wish
it
had
been
spared
,
for
the
credit
of
Protestant
Reconcilers
.
But
the
onely
way
to
end
this
Dispute
,
is
by
considering
the
plain
matter
of
fact
.
Now
it
is
evident
that
the
Jews
did
look
upon
all
persons
as
unclean
,
who
were
not
circumcised
and
did
not
observe
the
Law
.
For
which
reason
God
instructed
Peter
by
a
Vision
not
to
call
any
man
common
or
unclean
;
Except
ye
be
circumcised
after
the
manner
of
Moses
,
ye
cannot
be
saved
:
which
occasioned
the
determination
of
the
Council
at
Ierusalem
.
Thus
it
is
evident
,
the
Jews
at
Rome
,
to
whom
the
Apostle
wrote
this
Epistle
,
did
believe
also
;
and
therefore
the
designe
of
the
Epistle
,
is
to
prove
justification
by
the
Faith
of
Christ
,
without
the
works
of
the
Mosaical
Law
.
Now
men
of
such
Perswasions
as
these
,
could
not
believe
the
Gentiles
to
be
perfect
Christians
,
because
they
rejected
something
which
they
thought
as
essential
as
any
thing
else
in
Christianity
,
viz.
Circumcision
and
the
observation
of
the
Law
;
and
for
this
reason
they
judged
and
condemned
them
as
no
Members
of
the
Church
,
which
they
could
not
be
,
without
being
incorporated
by
Circumcision
and
observing
the
Law
:
and
therefore
rejected
them
from
their
Communion
.
As
for
the
Gentiles
,
though
we
do
not
read
that
they
ever
rejected
the
Communion
of
the
Jews
,
who
observed
the
Law
,
yet
this
Chapter
would
perswade
us
that
at
this
time
they
were
very
near
it
at
Rome
;
and
therefore
the
Command
to
receive
the
weak
,
seems
to
be
given
to
the
Gentile
believers
,
who
were
most
numerous
and
prevalent
at
Rome
,
to
receive
the
Jewish
Christians
into
their
Communion
,
and
not
to
despise
the
weak
,
not
to
reject
them
out
of
contempt
and
scorn
,
as
a
sort
of
such
imperfect
Christians
as
scarce
deserved
the
name
of
Christians
,
but
were
still
more
the
Disciples
of
Moses
than
of
Christ
.
So
that
the
reason
why
both
Jews
and
Gentiles
were
apt
to
reject
each
other
from
Communion
,
was
,
because
those
who
did
so
,
had
no
opinion
of
each
others
Christianity
:
for
it
is
both
a
contradiction
to
the
account
we
have
of
those
times
,
and
absurd
in
it self
,
that
they
should
believe
one
another
to
be
goodChristians
,
and
yet
refuse
to
joyn
in
Christian
Communion
,
upon
such
Disputes
as
did
neither
hinder
their
Communion
with
each
other
,
nor
prejudice
their
Christianity
;
which
is
as
humoursome
a
Schism
,
as
Dissenters
themselves
are
guilty
of
,
and
such
as
there
is
no
Example
of
in
the
first
Ages
of
the
Church
.
But
says
our
Reconciler
,
Were
the
designes
of
the
Apostle
that
which
Dr.
Falkner
doth
imagine
,
(
that
is
,
that
when
the
Apostle
commands
them
to
receive
the
weak
,
he
means
,
they
should
own
them
for
Christian
Brethren
,
and
as
such
should
receive
them
to
Communion
)
seeing
the
Schismatick
is
by
the
Doctrine
of
the
Church
,
without
that
Catholick
Church
in
which
alone
Salvation
can
be
had
:
Since
therefore
we
do
censure
him
as
one
who
hath
no
inward
relation
to
,
or
communion
with
Iesus
Christ
,
and
therefore
no
relation
to
his
Body
;
since
we
do
think
him
worthy
of
exclusion
from
Communion
with
the
Church
,
it
seems
not
easie
to
conceive
how
we
shall
escape
the
condemnation
of
the
Apostles
Discourse
,
were
the
designe
of
it
that
onely
which
he
doth
imagine
.
As
if
it
were
the
same
thing
to
deny
Communion
to
any
persons
,
as
wanting
something
essential
to
Christianity
,
and
so
having
no
right
to
Church-Communion
;
and
to
●hut
those
men
out
of
our
Communion
who
are
disorderly
in
it
,
or
separate
themselves
from
it
:
as
if
it
were
the
same
thing
to
deny
Communion
to
those
who
are
not
or
are
judged
not
to
be
Christians
,
and
to
cast
disorderly
and
irregular
Christians
,
who
will
not
submit
to
the
Rules
and
Government
of
the
Church
,
out
of
our
Communion
.
The
first
makes
the
Dispute
upon
which
we
part
,
to
be
essential
to
Christianity
,
as
the
Doctor
well
observed
;
the
second
proceeds
onely
upon
this
Principle
,
that
those
who
will
live
in
the
Communion
of
any
particular
Church
,
must
be
subject
to
the
Rules
and
Orders
of
Worship
and
Discipline
establish'd
in
it
.
Which
may
instruct
our
Reconciler
in
the
difference
between
the
Jews
and
Gentiles
not
receiving
one
another
upon
the
Dispute
of
the
Mosaical
Law
,
and
the
Churches
rejecting
those
from
her
Communion
,
And
as
for
the
Reason
he
assigns
,
why
the
Apostle
cannot
by
receiving
mean
,
that
they
should
own
each
other
as
Christian
Brethren
,
because
the
Arguments
he
uses
to
perswade
them
to
receive
one
another
,
do
suppose
that
they
did
own
each
other
as
Christians
,
is
plainly
false
:
for
the
Apostle
perswades
them
to
receive
each
other
,
and
to
own
one
another
for
Christian
Brethren
,
because
God
had
received
them
,
because
he
owned
them
for
Christians
;
and
therefore
if
God
received
the
weak
Jew
with
all
his
weakness
,
and
the
irregular
Gentiles
(
as
they
judged
them
)
with
all
their
irregularities
,
certainly
both
Jews
and
Gentiles
ought
to
receive
each
other
.
But
this
will
better
appear
by
considering
the
Apostles
Arguments
,
and
shewing
how
peculiar
they
were
to
that
case
,
and
that
they
cannot
be
applied
to
the
case
of
Dissenters
.
Now
there
are
two
or
three
Arguments
which
St.
Paul
uses
to
this
purpose
,
to
perswade
them
to
receive
one
another
,
though
our
Reconciler
has
made
a
great
many
of
them
,
by
applying
all
the
Arguments
in
this
Chapter
,
which
concern
Christian
forbearance
and
condescension
,
and
the
avoiding
scandal
,
to
this
purpose
.
1.
His
first
Argument
is
,
That
God
has
received
them
;
Barnabas
and
Paul
,
who
declared
what
wonders
God
had
wrought
among
the
Gentiles
by
them
.
And
the
same
Argument
served
for
the
circumcised
Jews
,
who
still
observed
the
Law
,
that
God
had
owned
them
also
,
by
bestowing
his
holy
Spirit
in
a
visible
manner
on
them
.
Now
if
either
Circumcision
or
Uncircumcision
had
signified
any
thing
in
this
matter
,
God
would
not
have
indifferently
bestowed
his
Spirit
upon
believing
,
but
circumcised
Jews
,
and
uncircumcised
Gentiles
.
By
sending
his
Spirit
on
Jewish
and
Gentile
Converts
in
such
a
visible
manner
,
God
did
evidently
declare
that
both
circumcised
Jews
,
and
the
uncircumcised
Gentiles
,
who
believed
in
Christ
,
should
be
received
into
the
Communion
of
Christs
Church
;
which
is
here
called
Gods
receiving
them
.
For
the
gift
of
the
Spirit
belonged
onely
to
the
Disciples
of
Christ
,
and
therefore
God
did
in
a
visible
manner
own
all
those
for
the
Disciples
of
Christ
,
on
whom
he
bestowed
such
visible
Gifts
.
But
how
does
this
concern
our
Dissenters
?
Yes
,
says
our
Reconciler
,
it
rationally
follows
,
that
none
should
be
excluded
from
Communion
with
us
,
who
will
not
by
our
God
and
Saviour
be
excluded
from
Communion
with
them
.
But
he
should
have
said
,
whom
God
has
in
such
a
visible
and
miraculous
manner
received
into
Communion
.
And
if
our
Reconciler
can
prove
that
God
has
determined
this
Controversie
about
Ceremonies
in
as
visible
a
manner
as
he
did
the
Dispute
about
Circumcision
,
he
will
say
something
to
the
purpose
.
But
this
is
all
a
mistake
,
from
the
beginning
to
the
end
.
For
I
know
no
way
of
judging
whether
any
man
be
in
communion
with
Christ
,
but
by
his
communion
with
the
Church
.
There
is
no
visible
communion
with
God
and
Christ
,
but
by
a
visible
communion
with
the
Church
;
and
as
for
any
communion
with
Christ
which
is
invisible
,
certainly
the
Governours
of
the
Church
,
who
can
see
onely
what
is
visible
,
are
not
concerned
about
it
:
and
it
is
this
visible
Church-membership
and
Church
communion
of
which
the
Apostle
speaks
.
He
proves
that
God
had
received
both
Jews
and
Gentiles
into
the
visible
communion
of
his
Church
by
the
visible
gifts
of
his
holy
Spirit
;
and
therefore
that
they
ought
not
to
deny
external
and
visible
communion
to
each
other
,
since
God
had
received
them
both
not
meerly
into
an
invisible
communion
with
himself
,
but
into
the
visible
communion
of
the
Church
;
which
gave
them
a
right
to
all
acts
of
Church-communion
.
And
from
hence
our
Reconciler
proves
,
that
the
Church
must
alter
her
Constitutions
to
receive
those
Dissenters
into
the
Church
who
are
not
in
the
Church
,
and
will
not
communicate
with
her
,
because
God
has
received
them
:
but
how
does
it
appear
that
God
has
received
them
into
the
communion
of
the
Church
,
who
shut
themselves
out
of
it
?
Yes
,
says
the
Reconciler
,
the
plain
result
of
this
first
Argument
is
this
,
That
either
we
without
breach
of
charity
may
judge
of
all
Dissenters
,
that
they
are
not
received
into
communion
by
God
,
and
that
they
are
no
living
Members
of
Christ's
Body
,
but
a
pack
of
damned
Hypocrites
,
worthy
to
be
excluded
from
the
Church
of
God
,
and
to
be
under
a
severe
Anathema
;
or
if
we
cannot
charitably
judge
so
hardly
of
them
,
that
we
ought
to
receive
them
into
communion
with
us
,
notwithstanding
their
different
conceptions
and
practice
about
lesser
matters
.
But
what
have
we
to
do
with
the
judgment
of
charity
in
this
case
?
for
the
Apostle
speaks
not
of
a
judgment
of
charity
,
but
of
a
visible
proof
and
demonstration
of
Gods
receiving
them
,
from
the
visible
signs
and
effects
of
it
,
viz.
the
miraculous
effusions
of
the
holy
Spirit
.
What
have
we
to
do
to
pass
any
judgment
at
all
concerning
those
mens
internal
communion
with
God
and
Christ
,
who
forsake
the
external
and
visible
communion
of
the
Church
?
since
the
Apostle
speaks
here
of
Gods
receiving
them
into
visible
Church-communion
.
Must
the
Church
alter
the
most
prudent
and
wholsome
Constitutions
for
the
sake
of
every
one
,
whom
she
does
not
believe
a
damned
Hypocrite
?
May
we
not
hope
charitably
,
that
God
will
be
merciful
to
the
prejudices
and
mistakes
of
some
well-meaning
men
,
without
destroying
all
Order
in
the
Church
,
and
all
the
Decency
of
Worship
,
to
let
such
men
into
our
Communion
?
When
God
shall
as
visibly
declare
that
he
receives
all
those
into
the
communion
of
the
Church
,
who
dissent
from
the
Constitutions
of
it
,
and
will
not
conform
to
its
Worship
,
Discipline
,
or
Government
,
as
he
did
,
that
he
had
received
both
Jews
and
Gentiles
into
the
visible
communion
of
the
Church
,
then
the
Reconciler's
Argument
may
be
worth
considering
;
but
till
then
,
it
is
nothing
to
the
purpose
.
And
I
cannot
but
observe
what
dreadful
apprehensions
our
Reconciler
has
of
the
evil
and
guilt
of
Schism
,
who
believes
that
such
Schismaticks
as
wilfully
separate
from
the
communion
of
the
Church
,
may
still
be
in
communion
with
God
and
Christ
.
This
his
present
Argument
necessarily
supposes
:
for
otherwise
it
does
no
way
appear
that
God
has
received
them
;
and
then
it
does
not
follow
,
that
the
Church
must
receive
them
:
and
yet
certainly
Schism
cannot
be
so
damning
a
sin
,
as
at
other
times
he
pretends
it
is
,
if
such
Schismaticks
are
still
in
communion
with
God
and
Christ
.
So
that
great
part
of
his
Book
is
nothing
but
putting
tricks
upon
the
Church
.
And
when
he
declaims
mostt
ragically
about
involving
so
many
precious
Souls
in
the
guilt
of
a
damning
Schism
,
and
destroying
those
with
our
Ceremonies
for
whom
Christ
died
,
he
secretly
laughs
in
his
sleeve
at
those
silly
people
who
are
so
credulous
as
to
believe
it
:
for
he
believes
no
such
matter
himself
,
but
thinks
it
want
of
charity
to
believe
that
Schismaticks
are
not
in
communion
with
God
,
nor
living
Members
of
Christs
Body
.
So
that
whatever
strength
those
may
conceive
to
be
in
his
Book
,
who
believe
Schism
to
be
a
damning
sin
,
it
is
plain
,
he
cannot
think
there
is
any
strength
in
it
himself
:
for
upon
this
supposition
,
that
a
man
may
be
saved
as
well
in
a
Schism
,
as
in
Church-communion
,
(
as
certainly
all
those
shall
,
who
are
in
communion
with
God
and
Christ
)
it
is
not
worth
disputing
about
these
matters
.
The
Church
may
keep
her
Constitutions
,
and
Schismaticks
may
divide
and
subdivide
into
infinite
Factions
,
and
no
great
hurt
done
;
but
that
it
makes
Protestant
Reconcilers
of
no
use
.
It
had
been
a
much
more
honourable
undertaking
in
him
,
to
have
convinc'd
the
Church
of
her
mistake
about
the
damning
nature
of
Schism
,
and
to
have
satisfied
Dissenters
that
they
might
continue
in
their
Schism
without
any
danger
,
than
to
scare
them
both
with
panick
fears
,
and
to
pelt
them
with
such
Arguments
as
are
not
worth
half
a
farthing
,
if
this
Argument
be
worth
any
thing
:
for
if
God
and
Christ
have
received
such
Schismaticks
into
communion
,
I
know
no
reason
they
have
to
be
concerned
about
the
communion
of
the
Church
.
2.
The
next
Argument
the
Apostle
uses
,
or
rather
a
continuation
of
the
former
Argument
,
is
contained
in
the
fourth
verse
.
Who
are
thou
that
judgest
another
mans
servant
?
to
his
own
master
he
standeth
or
falleth
;
yea
he
shall
be
holden
up
:
for
God
is
able
to
make
him
stand
.
To
the
same
purpose
,
v.
10
,
12.
But
why
dost
thou
judge
thy
brother
?
(
that
is
,
whom
God
hath
made
thy
Brother
,
and
declared
him
to
be
so
by
visible
effects
,
though
thou
refusest
to
own
him
for
such
)
or
why
dost
thou
set
at
nought
thy
brother
?
for
we
shall
all
stand
before
the
judgment-seat
of
Chris
.
—
So
then
every
one
of
us
shall
give
account
of
himself
to
God
.
This
Argument
our
Reconciler
thought
fit
to
pass
over
:
for
though
it
was
very
much
to
the
Apostles
purpose
,
it
was
nothing
to
his
.
For
what
is
the
meaning
of
judging
another
mans
servant
?
Are
not
private
Christians
subject
to
the
Authority
of
the
Church
,
and
liable
to
be
judged
and
censured
by
their
Governours
?
No
doubt
of
it
,
if
Christ
have
establish'd
any
Government
in
his
Church
.
And
yet
it
seems
this
was
such
a
matter
,
as
no
man
had
any
authority
to
judge
in
,
but
was
reserved
wholly
to
the
judgment
of
God
.
For
the
plain
case
was
this
:
God
had
publickly
declared
his
Will
,
by
the
visible
effusion
of
the
holy
Spirit
both
on
Jews
and
Gentiles
,
that
he
indulged
the
believing
Jews
at
that
time
in
the
observation
of
the
Law
of
Moses
,
but
would
not
impose
that
Yoke
on
the
believing
Gentiles
.
Now
when
God
had
so
visibly
determined
this
Controversie
,
neither
private
Christians
,
nor
Church-Governours
had
authority
to
determine
it
otherwise
,
or
to
judge
,
or
censure
,
or
deny
communion
to
each
other
upon
that
account
;
for
God
may
accept
Jews
and
Gentiles
upon
what
terms
he
pleases
:
and
to
judge
and
reject
the
Jews
for
observing
the
Law
of
Moses
,
when
God
is
pleased
to
indulge
them
in
it
;
or
to
judge
and
reject
the
Gentiles
for
not
observing
the
Law
,
when
God
has
so
manifestly
declared
that
he
receives
them
without
it
,
is
as
if
we
should
judge
another
mans
Servant
for
doing
or
not
doing
what
his
own
Master
either
allows
or
permits
.
In
such
cases
as
these
,
as
St.
Iames
speaks
,
He
that
speaketh
evil
of
his
brother
,
and
judgeth
his
brother
,
speaketh
evil
of
the
Law
,
and
judgeth
the
Law
;
but
if
thou
judge
the
Law
,
thou
art
not
a
doer
of
the
Law
,
but
a
judge
.
There
is
one
Law-giver
,
who
is
able
to
save
and
to
destroy
;
who
art
thou
that
judgest
another
?
That
is
,
when
we
judge
and
condemn
our
Brother
for
doing
or
not
doing
such
things
which
God
has
by
a
positive
Law
,
or
some
other
publick
declaration
of
his
Will
,
allowed
them
to
do
or
to
omit
,
we
are
not
doers
of
the
Law
,
that
is
,
do
not
behave
our selves
as
those
who
are
to
receive
Laws
,
and
to
obey
them
;
but
as
judges
,
as
those
who
have
authority
to
make
Laws
,
or
to
censure
and
controul
them
.
So
that
this
Argument
against
judging
another
mans
Servant
,
relates
onely
to
such
matters
which
God
has
determined
by
his
own
authority
;
and
therefore
cannot
concern
the
case
of
our
Dissenters
,
unless
our
Reconciler
can
prove
that
God
has
plainly
determined
that
the
Church
shall
not
prescribe
the
Rules
of
Order
and
Decency
in
publick
Worship
.
What
God
has
left
to
the
authority
of
the
Church
in
such
cases
,
the
Church
may
judge
,
and
censure
,
and
reject
the
disobedient
,
because
private
Christians
in
all
such
cases
are
subject
to
Church-authority
,
and
the
Church
does
not
exceed
her
authority
in
judging
them
.
And
this
is
the
Dispute
between
the
Church
and
Dissenters
,
Whether
they
should
obey
the
Authority
of
the
Church
in
such
matters
which
God
has
not
determined
by
his
own
Authority
:
whereas
the
Dispute
between
Jews
and
Gentiles
was
actually
determined
by
God
,
that
the
Jews
should
be
indulged
in
the
observation
of
the
Law
,
but
that
it
should
not
be
imposed
upon
the
Gentiles
;
and
therefore
when
they
judged
and
censured
one
another
upon
this
account
,
they
exceeded
their
authority
,
they
judged
over
Gods
judgment
,
and
judged
another
mans
Servant
;
which
the
Church
cannot
be
charged
with
,
when
she
judges
and
censures
her
own
refractory
and
dissenting
Members
for
their
disobedience
in
such
things
as
are
subject
to
her
authority
.
3.
The
Apostle
perswades
both
Jews
and
Gentiles
to
receive
one
another
to
Christian
communion
,
because
though
they
differed
in
their
practice
,
yet
both
of
them
acted
out
of
reverence
to
the
divine
Authority
.
The
Jew
knew
that
the
Law
of
Moses
was
given
by
God
,
and
could
not
be
satisfied
that
it
was
repealed
,
and
therefore
still
observed
the
Law
in
reverence
to
the
Authority
which
first
gave
it
.
The
converted
Gentiles
knew
that
the
Law
was
never
given
to
them
,
and
were
assured
by
the
same
persons
,
upon
whose
authority
they
embraced
the
Gospel
,
that
they
were
not
under
the
obligation
of
the
Law
,
and
therefore
they
thankfully
accept
that
liberty
which
Christ
had
purchased
for
them
:
And
therefore
since
both
of
them
at
that
time
could
truly
plead
a
divine
authority
for
what
they
did
,
and
not
meerly
some
unaccountable
humour
and
prejudice
,
they
ought
not
to
judge
and
censure
one
another
for
such
different
practices
.
One
man
esteemeth
one
day
above
another
,
another
esteemeth
every
day
alike
;
let
every
man
be
fully
perswaded
in
his
own
mind
.
He
that
regardeth
a
day
,
regardeth
it
to
the
Lord
;
and
he
that
regardeth
not
a
day
,
to
the
Lord
he
doth
not
regard
it
.
He
that
eateth
,
eateth
to
the
Lord
,
for
he
giveth
God
thanks
;
(
which
would
be
a
profane
and
impudent
mockery
of
God
,
did
he
not
believe
that
God
had
given
him
liberty
to
eat
indifferently
of
any
thing
)
and
he
that
eateth
not
,
to
the
Lord
he
eateth
not
,
and
giveth
God
thanks
.
Our
Reconciler
represents
the
Apostles
Argument
thus
:
These
persons
,
saith
the
Apostle
,
ought
to
be
received
into
communion
,
although
they
differ
in
practice
and
in
judgment
about
these
matters
,
because
it
was
from
conscience
towards
God
,
and
a
desire
to
do
what
was
most
pleasing
to
him
,
that
some
did
eat
,
and
others
not
,
that
some
did
regard
a
day
,
and
others
not
—
If
charity
therefore
will
teach
us
to
conclude
of
such
as
do
observe
,
or
do
refuse
observance
of
the
Constitutions
of
our
Church
in
these
inferiour
matters
,
that
as
they
outwardly
profess
,
so
do
they
really
observe
or
not
observe
them
out
of
conscience
towards
God
,
which
they
who
cannot
know
mens
Consciences
but
by
their
own
professions
,
cannot
well
deny
;
then
must
they
both
by
the
Apostles
Rule
receive
each
other
to
communion
,
and
not
reject
each
other
on
the
accounts
of
differences
in
judgment
,
or
in
practice
,
in
these
lesser
matters
.
Let
us
then
consider
what
the
consequence
of
this
Doctrine
would
be
,
if
it
were
true
,
viz.
that
the
Consciences
of
men
are
under
no
Government
;
and
when
we
consider
what
is
usually
meant
by
Conscience
,
viz.
mens
private
Opinions
and
Judgments
of
things
,
the
plain
English
of
it
is
,
that
every
man
must
do
as
he
list
:
and
thus
all
the
Authority
of
Government
is
over-ruled
by
the
more
soveraign
Authority
of
Conscience
.
This
is
so
extreamly
absurd
,
that
it
is
wonderful
to
me
that
men
of
common
understanding
should
not
blush
to
own
it
.
For
1.
It
is
plain
,
that
God
will
judge
the
Consciences
of
men
,
and
condemn
them
too
,
if
they
be
erroneous
and
wicked
.
The
Jews
crucified
our
Saviour
and
persecuted
his
Apostles
out
of
zeal
for
God
,
as
St.
Paul
witnesses
;
but
God
destroyed
their
City
,
Temple
,
and
Nation
for
it
.
I
suppose
our
Reconciler
will
not
charge
all
the
Heathen
Idolaters
,
even
after
the
Empire
was
turned
Christian
,
with
being
a
pack
of
damned
Hypocrites
.
Many
of
them
no
doubt
very
sincerely
followed
their
Consciences
,
and
yet
were
damned
not
for
Hypocrites
,
but
for
conscientious
Idolaters
.
All
the
Laws
of
God
oblige
the
Consciences
of
men
,
whatever
their
particular
Perswasions
may
be
;
and
if
mens
Consciences
will
not
comply
with
the
Laws
of
God
,
the
Law
will
judge
and
condemn
them
;
and
yet
it
seems
as
hard
a
thing
,
that
God
should
condemn
men
who
act
out
of
conscience
,
and
a
desire
to
do
what
is
most
pleasing
to
him
,
as
that
Earthly
Governours
should
condemn
and
punish
them
.
No
,
you
'll
say
,
God
is
the
sole
Lord
and
Judge
of
Conscience
,
and
he
alone
has
authority
to
give
Laws
to
the
Consciences
of
men
,
which
no
humane
power
can
;
but
all
this
is
senseless
Cant
:
for
what
is
it
to
be
the
Lord
of
Conscience
?
and
to
give
Laws
to
Conscience
?
Does
it
signifie
any
more
than
a
Soveraign
Authority
to
command
,
under
the
guilt
of
sin
,
if
we
disobey
?
And
have
not
all
Governours
then
,
who
have
received
authority
from
God
to
command
,
the
government
of
mens
Consciences
too
,
as
far
as
their
authority
reaches
?
But
this
is
not
the
Question
,
Who
has
authority
to
give
Laws
to
Conscience
:
for
whoever
has
authority
to
make
Laws
,
has
authority
to
make
Laws
for
Conscience
,
unless
they
have
authority
to
make
Laws
without
obliging
any
body
to
obey
them
:
But
the
Question
is
,
Whether
after
Laws
are
made
either
by
God
or
men
,
every
man
may
equitably
challenge
a
liberty
to
follow
the
guidance
of
his
own
Conscience
,
though
his
Conscience
mistake
its
rule
.
Now
it
is
plain
,
that
God
does
not
grant
this
liberty
:
for
he
punishes
such
erroneous
Consciences
,
and
will
eternally
damn
those
who
do
wicked
actions
out
of
a
mistaken
Zeal
for
his
glory
;
and
yet
if
there
were
any
reason
or
equity
in
the
case
,
it
would
more
oblige
God
than
any
Earthly
Governours
,
because
such
misguided
Zealots
are
supposed
to
intend
Gods
glory
in
what
they
do
:
And
if
God
will
not
indulge
such
men
in
the
breach
of
his
Laws
,
though
they
intend
to
please
him
by
it
,
what
reason
have
Earthly
Governours
to
do
it
,
who
receive
their
authority
from
God
,
and
cannot
imitate
a
better
Example
in
the
exercise
of
it
than
God
himself
?
2.
Civil
Magistrates
ought
to
take
no
notice
at
all
of
mens
Consciences
in
making
or
executing
Laws
for
the
good
government
of
the
Nation
.
If
the
Saints
should
think
it
their
priviledge
and
prerogative
to
rob
and
plunder
and
murder
the
ungodly
,
if
they
should
think
themselves
bound
in
conscience
to
pull
down
earthly
Princes
to
set
up
King
Jesus
on
his
Throne
,
should
Magistrates
be
afraid
of
hanging
such
Villains
as
these
,
as
commit
such
horrid
Outrages
from
a
Principle
of
Conscience
?
Nay
,
if
men
refuse
to
give
security
to
the
Government
,
or
a
legal
testimony
in
any
civil
cause
,
out
of
a
scruple
about
the
lawfulness
of
Oaths
,
is
the
Government
to
take
notice
,
or
to
make
any
allowance
for
this
?
If
God
does
not
,
Magistrates
have
less
reason
to
do
it
,
because
God
knows
what
mens
Consciences
are
,
which
Magistrates
can
never
know
:
Hypocrites
may
pretend
conscience
as
well
as
the
sincere
;
and
Government
could
never
be
secure
,
if
Justice
must
be
administred
not
by
known
and
standing
Laws
,
but
in
compliance
with
every
mans
Conscience
,
which
is
,
or
may
be
,
no
body
knows
what
.
3.
The
onely
doubt
then
is
about
the
Governours
of
the
Church
,
whether
they
in
making
Laws
,
and
in
the
exercise
of
Discipline
,
ought
not
to
have
great
regard
to
the
Consciences
of
men
.
Now
I
would
fain
know
a
reason
why
they
are
more
bound
than
either
God
or
civil
Magistrates
,
to
suffer
men
to
do
what
they
please
,
according
to
their
various
and
different
pretensions
of
Conscience
?
If
there
be
any
equity
in
it
,
that
every
man
should
enjoy
the
liberty
of
his
own
Conscience
,
it
holds
in
other
matters
,
as
well
as
these
.
I
suppose
our
Reconciler
will
not
say
,
that
the
Governours
of
the
Church
are
bound
to
suffer
every
man
to
be
of
what
Religion
he
pleases
,
to
believe
what
he
will
,
to
deny
the
Divinity
and
Satisfaction
of
our
Saviour
,
to
worship
an
Image
,
or
the
Host
,
or
the
Virgin
Mary
,
&c.
and
therefore
the
most
considerable
things
in
Religion
are
not
left
at
liberty
;
and
yet
of
the
greater
moment
any
thing
is
,
the
greater
imposition
it
is
upon
Conscience
.
I
had
rather
submit
to
twenty
Ceremonies
,
than
to
be
required
to
subscribe
to
one
new
Article
of
Faith
.
But
our
Reconciler
pretends
onely
to
this
Indulgence
in
inferiour
matters
.
Let
us
then
consider
his
reason
for
that
:
for
certainly
the
less
the
things
are
,
the
less
need
there
is
,
and
the
less
reason
to
humour
mens
Consciences
about
them
.
The
onely
reason
he
assigns
for
it
,
is
this
:
That
those
who
do
observe
,
or
do
refuse
observance
of
the
Constitutions
of
our
Church
in
these
inferiour
matters
,
do
really
observe
them
,
or
not
observe
them
,
out
of
Conscience
towards
God
.
And
if
this
be
a
good
reason
why
every
man
should
be
left
to
the
government
of
his
own
Conscience
,
it
is
good
in
all
other
cases
,
as
well
as
in
such
inferiour
matters
:
for
why
should
we
impose
upon
men
in
any
thing
which
they
observe
or
not
observe
in
conscience
towards
God
?
But
you
'll
say
,
this
is
St.
Paul's
Argument
,
not
the
Reconciler's
.
No
,
say
I
,
it
is
the
Reconciler's
Argument
,
not
St.
Paul's
.
But
does
not
St.
Paul
say
,
He
that
regardeth
a
day
,
regardeth
it
to
the
Lord
;
and
he
that
regardeth
not
a
day
,
to
the
Lord
he
doth
not
regard
it
.
He
that
eateth
,
eateth
to
the
Lord
,
for
he
giveth
God
thanks
;
and
he
that
eateth
not
,
to
the
Lord
he
eateth
not
,
and
giveth
God
thanks
.
Yes
,
I
grant
that
these
are
St.
Paul's
words
:
And
does
not
this
signifie
that
they
who
did
eat
,
and
they
who
did
not
eat
,
acted
out
of
conscience
towards
God
?
Yes
,
I
grant
that
too
.
The
converted
Gentiles
did
eat
indifferently
of
all
sorts
of
meats
,
and
thanked
God
for
that
liberty
he
had
granted
them
;
the
converted
Jews
abstained
from
all
meats
forbidden
by
their
Law
,
and
thanked
God
for
their
Law
,
which
preserved
them
from
all
legal
pollutions
:
but
this
is
peculiar
to
this
case
,
and
cannot
be
applied
to
our
Dissenters
,
that
they
refuse
to
observe
our
Ceremonies
out
of
conscience
towards
God
.
God
had
given
a
positive
Law
to
the
Jews
by
the
hands
of
Moses
,
which
enjoyned
the
observation
of
new
Moons
and
Sabbaths
,
and
other
Festivals
,
and
made
a
distinction
between
clean
and
unclean
meats
;
and
though
this
Law
was
now
out
of
date
,
yet
it
was
not
repealed
in
as
publick
a
manner
as
it
was
given
,
and
God
had
no
way
declared
that
they
should
observe
this
Law
no
longer
;
and
therefore
those
Jews
who
embraced
the
Faith
of
Christ
,
durst
not
renounce
the
Law
of
Moses
out
of
reverence
to
the
Authority
of
God
who
gave
it
:
and
therefore
these
believing
Jews
might
well
be
said
to
observe
days
,
and
not
to
eat
to
the
Lord
,
that
is
,
out
of
reverence
to
the
authority
of
God
who
gave
that
Law
.
The
believing
Gentiles
were
never
under
the
obligation
of
the
Law
of
Moses
,
and
therefore
were
more
easily
instructed
in
their
Christian
liberty
,
which
God
declared
by
sending
his
holy
Spirit
on
them
in
their
uncircumcision
,
and
by
the
Decrees
of
the
Apostolical
Synod
at
Ierusalem
,
and
they
were
very
well
assured
by
these
divine
Testimonies
,
that
God
had
delivered
them
from
the
Jewish
observation
of
days
and
meats
,
and
therefore
they
did
eat
,
and
they
did
not
observe
days
to
the
Lord
,
out
of
reverence
to
the
divine
authority
which
had
delivered
them
from
the
Mosaical
Law
.
But
where
there
is
no
positive
Law
,
nor
any
publick
Declaration
of
Gods
Will
,
whatever
our
particular
Perswasions
and
Opinions
may
be
,
we
do
not
act
out
of
conscience
towards
God
.
For
no
man
can
be
said
to
do
any
thing
to
the
Lord
,
or
out
of
conscience
towards
God
,
in
such
cases
wherein
God
has
not
interposed
his
authority
.
And
therefore
unless
our
Reconciler
can
shew
any
positive
Law
either
against
Ecclesiastical
Ceremonies
in
general
,
or
against
the
Cross
in
Baptism
,
the
Surplice
,
or
Kneeling
at
the
Sacrament
in
particular
,
how
much
soever
his
beloved
Dissenters
pretend
to
Conscience
,
it
is
absurd
to
say
that
they
do
not
observe
these
things
out
of
conscience
towards
God
;
nor
do
Conformists
observe
them
out
of
conscience
towards
God
,
any
otherwise
than
as
they
obey
that
Authority
which
God
hath
set
in
his
Church
:
For
there
can
be
no
other
foundation
for
Conscience
,
but
either
the
express
Laws
of
God
,
or
obedience
to
that
Authority
which
God
hath
set
over
us
.
But
you
'll
say
,
may
not
that
man
also
be
said
to
act
out
of
conscience
toward
God
,
who
does
,
or
forbears
doing
any
thing
out
of
a
perswasion
that
God
has
commanded
or
forbid
it
,
though
he
should
be
mistaken
in
it
,
and
he
can
produce
no
Law
of
God
to
that
purpose
?
While
men
designe
to
please
God
in
what
they
do
,
surely
they
may
be
said
to
act
out
of
conscience
towards
God
.
I
answer
,
I
will
not
contend
about
words
and
phrases
with
any
man
,
but
let
them
call
things
by
what
names
they
please
.
All
that
I
say
is
this
,
That
St.
Paul
does
not
use
it
in
this
sence
;
nor
is
any
man
in
Scripture
said
to
do
any
thing
to
the
Lord
,
who
cannot
produce
a
plain
Law
for
what
he
does
.
Other
men
may
intend
Gods
glory
in
what
they
do
,
but
they
may
miss
of
their
aim
,
when
they
have
no
Rule
,
and
incur
the
divine
displeasure
instead
of
pleasing
God
;
and
neither
God
nor
men
can
grant
any
Indulgence
to
such
a
Conscience
as
this
.
But
when
both
contending
Parties
can
produce
a
divine
authority
for
doing
or
not
doing
the
same
thing
(
which
never
did
,
and
never
can
happen
,
but
in
this
case
concerning
the
obligation
of
the
Law
of
Moses
)
there
is
great
reason
for
them
to
receive
one
another
,
because
they
both
act
out
of
reverence
to
the
divine
Authority
.
In
a
word
,
two
contrary
Parties
(
as
the
Jews
and
Gentiles
were
in
this
Controversie
)
can
never
both
of
them
be
said
to
do
what
they
do
to
the
Lord
,
but
onely
in
such
cases
where
there
is
a
divine
positive
Law
,
or
a
divine
Indulgence
,
permission
,
or
liberty
on
both
sides
;
which
was
the
case
between
the
Jews
and
Gentiles
,
but
has
no
parallel
,
that
I
know
of
.
Our
Dissenters
indeed
pretend
the
authority
of
Scripture
to
justifie
their
non-observance
of
Ecclesiastical
Rites
and
Ceremonies
;
and
so
did
the
Jews
for
putting
our
Saviour
to
death
,
so
do
all
Hereticks
and
Schismaticks
,
and
even
Rebels
themselves
:
and
if
the
Government
must
take
notice
of
every
foolish
Reasoner
,
who
pretends
Scripture
,
it
is
in
as
ill
a
case
,
as
if
every
unscriptural
Dream
and
Fancy
must
pass
for
an
Oracle
.
This
will
make
no
difference
before
God
,
whether
men
pervert
the
Scripture
to
their
own
destruction
,
or
follow
the
wild
Enthusiasms
of
their
own
brains
;
and
I
see
no
reason
that
Governours
have
to
make
a
difference
neither
.
By
these
Arguments
St.
Paul
perswades
the
believing
Jews
and
Gentiles
at
Rome
,
notwithstanding
their
Disputes
about
the
observation
of
the
Law
of
Moses
,
to
maintain
Christian
communion
with
each
other
;
and
they
are
very
proper
to
this
purpose
,
but
can
by
no
parity
of
Reason
be
applied
to
the
case
of
our
Dissenters
;
as
I
hope
abundantly
appears
from
what
I
have
already
discours'd
.
Secondly
,
The
Apostle
by
these
Arguments
having
perswaded
them
to
receive
one
another
to
Christian
communion
,
proceeds
to
perswade
the
Gentile
Converts
,
or
those
strong
Jewish
Christians
who
understood
their
Christian
liberty
,
not
to
give
any
needless
offence
and
scandal
to
the
weak
,
by
an
uncharitable
use
of
their
liberty
,
These
two
,
to
receive
into
communion
,
and
not
to
give
offence
and
scandal
,
are
of
a
very
different
consideration
,
though
our
Reconciler
makes
no
distinction
between
them
;
and
therefore
I
shall
briefly
state
this
matter
also
,
and
shew
how
remote
it
is
from
the
case
to
which
our
Reconciler
applies
it
.
The
scandal
which
he
supposes
the
Church
gives
to
the
Dissenters
,
is
this
:
That
by
enjoyning
the
use
of
some
indifferent
Ceremonies
in
Religion
which
are
scrupled
by
them
,
or
condemned
as
unlawful
,
she
tempts
them
to
separate
from
her
Communion
,
and
rather
to
involve
themselves
in
the
guilt
of
Schism
,
than
to
submit
to
such
unscriptural
Impositions
.
Let
us
then
consider
what
that
Scandal
is
of
which
St.
Paul
speaks
,
and
by
what
Arguments
he
disswades
them
from
it
,
and
how
●ar
it
is
applicable
to
our
case
.
1.
Then
I
shall
consider
what
this
Scandal
was
.
2.
By
what
Arguments
he
disswades
them
from
giving
Offence
and
Scandal
.
First
,
What
this
Scandal
was
.
Now
the
persons
who
were
scandalized
,
were
the
weak
;
that
which
gave
this
scandal
to
them
,
was
,
as
they
apprehended
,
an
open
contempt
and
violation
of
the
Law
of
God
,
in
eating
such
meats
as
were
on
all
hands
agreed
to
be
forbidden
by
the
Law
;
the
danger
of
this
scandal
was
,
lest
it
should
tempt
them
to
renounce
Christianity
.
Let
us
then
compare
this
with
the
case
of
our
Dissenters
.
1.
The
weak
Jew
was
scandalized
and
offended
.
So
far
you
'll
say
the
Parallel
holds
good
:
for
whatever
the
Dissenters
think
of
themselves
,
I
suppose
the
Church
looks
upon
them
as
a
sort
of
weak
Christians
;
and
it
is
not
what
they
think
,
but
what
they
are
,
which
is
to
be
considered
in
this
case
:
for
these
Jews
did
not
think
themselves
weak
,
no
more
than
our
Dissenters
do
;
and
yet
the
Apostle
declares
them
to
be
weak
,
and
requires
the
strong
to
treat
them
as
weak
Brethren
.
So
far
I
agree
;
but
then
we
must
consider
what
this
weakness
was
:
for
all
weakness
is
not
alike
,
nor
equally
the
object
of
our
charity
.
Some
men
are
weak
,
because
they
are
ignorant
,
and
because
they
will
not
be
instructed
;
others
are
weak
out
of
prejudice
,
and
some
vicious
inclinations
;
some
weakness
is
to
be
chastised
and
corrected
,
not
indulged
:
and
therefore
because
St.
Paul
requires
them
not
to
offend
the
weak
Jew
,
it
does
not
follow
,
that
the
Church
must
use
the
same
Indulgence
to
the
weak
Dissenters
,
unless
their
weakness
be
alike
pityable
.
Now
the
weakness
of
the
Jew
consisted
in
this
,
that
though
they
had
embraced
the
Faith
of
Christ
,
yet
they
were
not
convinced
that
the
Law
of
Moses
was
out
of
date
;
and
therefore
durst
not
do
any
thing
which
was
forbidden
by
that
Law
,
nor
omit
doing
what
the
Law
commanded
,
nor
could
they
endure
to
see
others
do
so
:
so
that
their
weakness
consisted
in
a
profound
reverence
for
an
express
positive
Law
,
which
all
men
ag●eed
was
given
by
God
,
but
which
was
not
yet
repealed
in
so
visible
a
manner
as
to
sati●fie
the
believing
Jews
that
it
was
repealed
.
Now
this
was
a
very
favourable
case
,
so
favourable
,
that
God
himself
still
indulged
the
Jews
in
the
observation
of
their
Law
;
and
therefore
there
was
great
reason
why
the
strong
Christian
should
avoid
giving
offence
to
the
weak
by
the
use
of
his
Christian
liberty
.
But
now
this
is
such
a
case
as
never
was
before
,
and
never
can
be
again
.
Our
Dissenters
may
be
weak
,
but
not
weak
as
the
believing
Jews
were
,
out
of
reverence
to
an
express
positive
Law
,
because
there
is
no
such
Law
which
ever
did
forbid
the
use
of
those
Ceremonies
which
they
condemn
;
and
certainly
there
cannot
be
the
same
pretence
to
indulge
those
who
foolishly
reason
themselves
into
mistakes
and
scruples
,
as
there
was
to
indulge
those
who
could
produce
a
plain
positive
Law
to
justifie
their
dissent
.
The
case
is
so
vastly
different
,
that
I
doubt
not
but
St.
Paul
,
who
pleaded
for
such
Charity
and
Indulgence
to
the
Jews
,
would
himself
have
censured
our
Dissenters
.
For
both
the
Governours
of
the
Church
,
and
private
Christians
,
are
in
an
ill
state
,
if
they
are
bound
to
humour
those
mistakes
and
scruples
which
are
owing
to
mens
ignorance
,
folly
,
interest
,
prejudice
,
or
unteachable
and
refractory
dispositions
.
2.
These
weak
Jews
took
offence
at
the
open
violation
of
an
express
Law
of
God
.
For
the
Gentile
Christians
did
not
observe
the
Law
of
Moses
,
but
acted
in
direct
opposition
to
it
.
Now
this
was
a
just
matter
of
offence
to
the
Jew
,
while
he
retained
such
a
great
veneration
for
the
Law
of
Moses
,
which
at
least
he
had
some
fair
appearance
of
reason
to
do
.
It
is
true
,
the
strong
Christian
in
eating
those
things
which
were
forbidden
by
the
Law
of
Moses
,
did
nothing
but
what
was
lawful
for
him
to
do
;
but
it
does
not
hence
follow
,
as
our
Reconciler
infers
,
that
the
scandal
the
weak
Christian
took
at
the
freedom
of
the
strong
,
who
used
his
Christian
liberty
in
eating
these
things
,
was
scandalum
acceptum
non
datum
,
scandal
received
but
not
given
,
the
action
being
such
as
the
weak
Christian
could
not
justly
be
offended
at
:
For
the
weak
Christian
had
as
much
reason
to
be
offended
at
this
,
as
he
had
to
believe
that
the
Law
of
Moses
was
still
in
force
;
and
this
was
the
true
reason
of
his
offence
.
No
man
can
be
justly
charged
with
giving
offence
or
scandal
,
who
does
not
break
some
divine
Law
.
This
was
the
offence
the
Jews
took
,
that
the
Gentiles
did
not
observe
the
Law
of
Moses
,
and
is
the
chief
,
if
not
the
onely
case
wherein
men
may
be
culpably
charged
with
giving
offence
,
without
sinning
against
any
Law
.
The
Gentiles
did
break
the
Law
of
Moses
indeed
,
but
that
Law
was
now
out
of
date
,
and
they
knew
that
it
was
so
,
and
therefore
were
very
innocent
in
what
they
did
;
but
the
Jews
did
not
believe
that
the
Law
was
repealed
,
and
therefore
they
were
offended
at
the
contempt
of
that
Law
;
&
their
offence
was
so
reasonable
,
that
it
made
it
a
great
fault
and
breach
of
charity
to
offer
this
offence
to
them
:
but
what
is
this
to
our
Dissenters
?
What
Law
condemns
the
Ceremonies
of
the
Church
of
England
?
Our
Reconciler
,
I
suppose
,
will
not
pretend
that
there
is
any
such
Law
,
or
that
there
ever
was
any
such
Law
;
and
therefore
we
offer
no
offence
and
scandal
to
them
:
for
we
break
no
Law
of
God
,
which
either
is
now
,
or
ever
was
in
force
against
our
Ceremonies
.
This
one
Observation
,
that
there
is
no
scandal
given
,
where
there
is
no
divine
Law
broken
,
would
clear
up
that
perplext
Doctrine
of
Scandal
,
(
as
it
is
stated
by
most
men
)
and
make
it
intelligible
to
every
ordinary
understanding
;
and
yet
this
criminal
giving
of
offence
,
is
never
applied
in
Scripture
to
any
thing
but
the
breach
of
a
divine
Law
.
I
meet
with
but
two
notions
of
giving
offence
in
Scripture
:
the
first
is
,
to
offend
by
contempt
and
ill
usage
,
or
persecution
;
in
which
sence
our
Saviour
warns
us
against
offending
any
of
those
little
ones
which
believe
in
him
,
To
abstain
from
meats
offered
to
Idols
.
This
Law
some
expounded
not
onely
to
forbid
them
to
eat
in
the
Idols
Temple
,
and
to
feast
upon
the
Sacrifice
which
was
there
offered
to
the
Idol
,
which
was
indeed
an
act
of
Idolatrous
Worship
;
but
to
forbid
the
eating
of
any
meat
which
had
once
been
offered
to
an
Idol
,
though
it
were
carried
from
the
Temple
and
sold
in
the
Shambles
,
and
eat
in
private
houses
at
a
friendly
entertainment
,
without
any
relation
to
the
Idol
.
St.
Paul
indeed
determines
this
Controversie
,
that
this
Law
to
abstain
from
meats
offered
to
Idols
,
did
onely
forbid
them
to
eat
in
an
Idols
Temple
,
and
to
feast
on
their
Idolatrous
Sacrifices
;
but
if
they
went
to
buy
meat
in
the
Shambles
,
or
to
eat
at
any
private
house
,
they
were
not
concerned
to
enquire
whether
that
meat
had
been
offered
to
an
Idol
or
not
;
but
yet
they
ought
in
charity
to
have
regard
to
the
scruples
of
others
,
who
supposed
this
prohibition
to
extend
to
eating
any
meat
that
had
been
offered
to
an
Idol
,
where-ever
they
eat
it
,
as
well
as
eating
at
an
Idols
Temple
;
and
there
being
an
express
Law
,
and
a
reasonable
Scruple
in
the
case
,
they
were
obliged
in
charity
to
their
weak
Brethren
,
to
abstain
from
all
such
suspicious
meats
.
Now
indeed
it
is
an
act
of
charity
not
to
offend
nor
scandalize
our
Brethren
by
giving
them
the
least
reasonable
suspicion
of
our
violation
of
any
plain
and
express
Law
of
God
,
when
the
Law
is
not
imaginary
,
but
visible
:
for
these
cases
have
some
equity
in
them
,
are
but
few
,
and
can
rarely
happen
;
and
therefore
are
no
great
and
burdensome
restraint
on
our
natural
or
Christian
liberty
,
much
less
have
any
ill
influence
on
publick
Government
;
but
if
we
extend
this
Doctrine
of
Scandal
to
all
other
kind
of
scruples
,
it
becomes
both
ridiculous
and
intolerable
.
For
then
every
humoursome
and
ignorant
and
conceited
Christian
,
who
can
make
Laws
by
consequences
,
and
can
extract
such
Laws
out
of
Scripture
as
the
Christian
Church
for
many
Ages
never
heard
of
,
shall
prescribe
to
me
what
I
shall
eat
and
drink
,
what
Clothes
I
shall
wear
,
what
Company
I
shall
keep
,
what
Laws
of
Church
or
State
I
shall
observe
;
nay
,
shall
give
Laws
to
the
Church
,
and
repeal
Laws
,
and
impose
their
own
Dreams
and
Fancies
upon
their
Superiours
;
which
is
the
very
designe
our
Reconciler
pursues
throughout
his
Book
,
to
perswade
the
Governours
of
the
Church
,
that
it
is
unlawful
for
them
to
prescribe
any
Laws
or
Rules
of
Worship
which
are
scrupled
by
our
Dissenters
,
though
without
any
reason
,
or
without
any
Law
:
and
truly
could
he
perswade
them
to
this
,
I
should
as
much
admire
their
prudence
,
as
I
do
his
charity
.
3.
Let
us
now
consider
what
danger
the
Apostle
designed
to
prevent
in
this
;
what
hurt
their
weak
Brother
was
like
to
suffer
by
it
.
by
laying
a
stumbling-block
or
occasion
to
fall
in
our
brothers
way
;
by
destroying
him
with
our
meat
for
whom
Christ
died
;
by
his
stumbling
and
being
offended
,
and
made
weak
:
Which
signifies
,
that
these
believing
Jews
were
in
danger
of
taking
such
offence
at
this
liberty
which
the
believing
Gentiles
so
uncharitably
used
,
as
to
renounce
the
Faith
of
Christ
,
and
fall
back
again
into
Judaism
;
and
there
was
manifest
reason
for
this
fear
:
for
since
they
retained
such
a
mighty
veneration
for
the
Law
of
Moses
,
which
they
knew
was
given
by
God
,
it
was
a
great
temptation
to
them
to
suspect
that
Christ
was
not
the
true
Messias
,
but
an
Impostor
,
when
they
saw
his
Disciples
so
notoriously
break
this
Law
,
and
themselves
derided
and
scorned
for
observing
of
it
.
And
therefore
the
Synod
at
Ierusalem
did
not
determine
against
the
observation
of
the
Mosaical
Law
by
believing
Jews
,
but
excused
the
Gentiles
from
it
,
who
were
never
under
the
obligation
of
that
Law
for
it
had
been
an
invincible
prejudice
to
the
Jews
,
had
the
Apostles
in
express
terms
declared
the
abrogation
of
the
Law
,
which
the
Jews
believed
to
be
eternal
;
but
it
was
a
more
plausible
pretence
,
that
the
Law
,
which
was
originally
given
onely
to
the
Jews
,
should
not
oblige
the
believing
Gentiles
.
But
yet
had
the
believing
Gentiles
not
onely
refused
to
obey
the
Law
themselves
,
but
scorned
and
despised
the
Jews
for
doing
it
,
and
used
their
Christian
liberty
in
an
open
contempt
and
defiance
of
them
and
their
Law
,
this
would
have
been
very
apt
to
have
alienated
their
minds
from
the
Christian
religion
;
which
the
Apostle
therefore
calls
laying
a
stumbling-block
or
occasion
to
fall
in
our
brothers
way
,
and
destroying
him
with
our
meat
(
by
tempting
him
to
infidelity
and
Apostacy
)
for
whom
Christ
died
.
Thus
St.
Chrysostom
expresly
tells
us
,
that
St.
Paul
was
afraid
,
Chrys.
in
Locum
.
lest
this
contemptuous
usage
of
the
believing
Jews
should
tempt
them
to
renounce
the
Faith
of
Christ
.
But
what
is
this
to
the
case
of
our
Dissenters
?
are
they
tempted
to
renounce
the
Christian
Religion
by
the
Ceremonies
of
the
Church
of
England
?
It
is
so
far
from
this
,
that
they
learn
to
despise
their
Teachers
,
and
to
think
themselves
a
more
perfect
and
excellent
sort
of
Christians
.
But
you
'll
say
,
it
makes
them
Schismaticks
,
and
Schism
is
as
dangerous
to
mens
Souls
as
Infidelity
;
and
therefore
the
same
charity
which
obliges
us
to
prevent
the
one
,
obliges
us
also
with
equal
care
to
prevent
the
other
.
Now
though
I
think
every
good
Christian
will
and
ought
to
do
what
he
reasonably
can
to
prevent
a
Schism
;
yet
the
difference
between
the
case
of
Schism
and
Infidelity
in
point
of
scandal
,
is
very
great
.
While
men
are
weak
and
unsetled
in
the
Faith
,
and
apt
to
take
offence
,
and
apostatize
from
Christ
,
they
ought
to
be
treated
with
all
manner
of
tenderness
and
condescension
,
because
they
are
not
yet
capable
of
being
governed
;
they
must
be
humoured
for
a
while
as
Children
are
,
who
must
be
managed
by
Art
,
not
by
Rules
of
Discipline
;
but
when
men
are
well
rooted
and
confirmed
in
the
Christian
Faith
,
they
are
no
longer
to
be
humoured
but
governed
;
they
must
be
taught
to
submit
to
that
Authority
which
Christ
has
placed
in
his
Church
,
and
to
obey
,
not
to
dispute
the
commands
of
their
Superiours
,
when
there
is
no
plain
positive
Law
of
God
against
them
.
This
is
the
onely
way
to
preserve
the
Peace
and
Unity
of
the
Christian
Church
;
and
if
men
will
take
offence
at
the
exercise
of
a
just
Authority
,
and
turn
Schismaticks
,
it
is
at
their
own
peril
.
And
this
indeed
I
take
to
be
the
true
notion
of
the
weak
in
the
Faith
,
whom
the
Apostle
in
this
Chapter
commands
the
strong
Christians
to
treat
with
so
much
tenderness
,
without
giving
them
the
least
offence
;
those
who
are
not
well
confirmed
in
the
truth
of
the
Christian
Religion
,
and
therefore
are
apt
to
take
offence
at
every
thing
,
and
to
renounce
the
Faith
:
And
so
his
stumbling
,
and
being
offended
,
and
made
weak
,
signifies
his
being
shaken
and
unsetled
in
the
Faith
.
Every
one
who
is
an
ignorant
and
uninstructed
,
is
not
therefore
a
weak
Christian
;
his
Understanding
may
be
weak
,
but
his
Faith
may
be
strong
;
that
is
,
he
may
very
firmly
and
stedfastly
believe
the
truth
of
the
Christian
Religion
,
though
he
do
not
so
well
understand
the
particular
Doctrines
of
it
.
But
these
two
sorts
of
weak
persons
are
to
be
used
very
differently
;
you
must
have
a
care
of
offending
those
who
are
weak
in
Faith
,
but
you
must
instruct
and
govern
those
who
are
weak
in
Understanding
,
or
else
you
prostitute
the
Authority
of
the
Church
,
and
the
truth
of
Christianity
,
and
the
just
liberties
of
Christians
,
to
every
ignorant
,
and
yet
it
may
be
conceited
obstinate
and
censorious
Professor
:
which
is
a
plain
demonstration
that
those
directions
the
Apostle
gives
in
this
Chapter
,
not
to
offend
those
who
are
weak
in
the
Faith
,
cannot
concern
our
Dissenters
;
who
though
they
are
weak
enough
,
as
that
signifies
ignorant
,
yet
are
not
weak
in
the
Faith
,
as
that
signifies
those
who
are
not
thoroughly
perswaded
of
Christianity
,
or
not
well
confirmed
in
that
belief
;
and
therefore
are
not
to
be
humoured
like
Children
,
but
trained
up
to
greater
attainments
by
wise
Instructions
,
and
a
prudent
Discipline
.
Secondly
,
Having
seen
what
this
Scandal
and
Offence
was
,
let
us
now
consider
by
what
Arguments
the
Apostle
perswades
those
who
were
strong
,
not
to
offend
the
weak
.
Now
our
Reconciler
has
turned
almost
every
word
into
an
Argument
.
One
Argument
is
,
That
it
is
our
duty
not
to
judge
,
or
lay
a
stumbling-block
before
our
Brother
:
That
it
is
contrary
to
charity
,
and
evil
in
it self
:
That
it
caused
Christianity
to
be
blasph●med
:
That
it
is
contrary
to
the
concerns
of
Peace
,
and
the
edification
of
the
Church
,
&c.
Now
I
have
no
dispute
with
our
Reconciler
about
this
,
that
it
is
a
very
ill
thing
,
and
very
contrary
to
the
duty
of
a
Christian
to
give
any
just
offence
or
scandal
to
a
weak
Brother
:
if
we
were
as
well
agreed
what
it
is
to
give
offence
,
as
that
giving
this
offence
is
a
very
evil
thing
,
the
Dispute
were
at
an
end
:
And
yet
by
this
artifice
he
imposes
upon
his
Readers
,
is
very
copious
and
rhetorical
in
his
Harangue
on
this
Argument
,
and
transcribes
several
passages
out
of
St.
Chrysostom
,
and
some
other
ancient
Writers
,
to
shew
the
great
evil
and
manifold
aggravations
of
scandal
,
which
every
one
would
grant
him
to
be
very
good
,
when
rightly
applied
;
but
we
deny
that
the
Church
of
England
is
guilty
of
giving
offende
to
the
Dissenters
in
that
sence
in
which
St.
Paul
and
other
ancient
Writers
meant
it
:
and
if
our
Reconciler
had
pleased
,
he
might
have
found
enough
in
St.
Paul's
Arguments
to
have
convinced
him
that
the
Apostle
spoke
of
a
case
very
different
from
ours
;
which
because
he
has
been
pleased
to
overlook
,
I
shall
be
so
charitable
as
to
mind
him
of
it
.
Now
I
take
the
sum
of
the
Apostles
Argument
to
be
this
:
That
the
reason
why
they
were
not
to
offend
the
Jews
by
an
uncharitable
use
of
their
Christian
liberty
in
eating
such
meats
as
were
forbidden
by
the
Law
,
is
because
their
eating
or
not
eating
such
meats
in
it self
considered
,
is
of
no
concernment
in
the
Christian
Religion
,
and
therefore
is
the
proper
Sphere
for
the
exercise
of
charity
.
For
when
we
discourse
of
offence
and
scandal
,
the
first
and
most
natural
inquiry
is
,
of
what
moment
and
consequence
the
thing
is
in
which
we
are
required
to
exercise
our
charity
:
for
there
are
many
things
which
we
must
not
do
,
nor
leave
undone
out
of
charity
to
any
man
,
whatever
offence
be
taken
at
it
;
but
if
it
be
of
that
nature
as
to
admit
of
a
charitable
condescension
and
compliance
,
then
all
the
other
Arguments
against
scandal
and
giving
offence
are
very
seasonably
and
properly
urged
.
And
this
is
the
case
here
,
as
will
appear
from
considering
the
series
of
the
Apostles
Arguments
.
In
the
13th
verse
he
perswades
them
not
to
put
a
stumbling-block
and
occasion
to
fall
in
their
Brothers
way
.
And
to
inforce
this
Exhortation
,
he
adds
in
the
14th
verse
,
I
know
and
am
perswaded
by
the
Lord
Iesus
,
that
there
is
nothing
unclean
of
it self
;
but
to
him
that
esteemeth
any
thing
unclean
,
to
him
it
is
unclean
:
That
is
,
all
distinction
of
meats
is
perfectly
taken
away
by
the
Gospel
of
our
Saviour
;
and
therefore
if
we
be
well
instructed
in
the
nature
of
our
Christian
liberty
,
we
may
eat
or
not
eat
,
just
as
we
please
;
and
therefore
there
is
nothing
in
the
nature
of
the
thing
to
hinder
the
exercise
of
our
charity
,
because
it
is
wholly
at
our
own
choice
whether
we
will
eat
or
not
eat
:
And
this
makes
it
a
great
breach
of
charity
to
eat
with
offence
,
to
destroy
our
Brother
with
our
meat
,
for
whom
Christ
died
,
15
,
16
v.
Which
may
justly
cause
our
Christian
liberty
,
which
is
a
very
good
and
valuable
thing
in
it
to
be
censured
and
condemned
on
all
hands
,
when
it
is
used
so
uncharitably
to
the
destruction
of
our
Brother
;
and
therefore
let
not
your
good
be
evil
spoken
of
,
v.
16.
And
as
there
is
nothing
in
the
nature
of
the
thing
to
hinder
our
charity
,
it
being
equally
lawful
to
eat
or
not
to
eat
,
and
perfectly
at
our
own
choice
which
we
will
do
;
so
neither
is
Religion
concerned
one
way
or
other
in
it
.
The
Christian
Religion
indeed
is
concerned
in
the
dispute
about
the
lawfulnessof
eating
or
not
eating
such
things
as
were
forbid
by
the
Law
of
Moses
,
because
this
is
a
point
of
Christian
liberty
;
and
the
Apostle
does
not
perswade
the
Gentile
Converts
to
renounce
this
liberty
,
which
the
Gospel
allows
them
:
but
bare
eating
or
not
eating
,
without
respect
to
our
opinions
about
it
,
is
of
no
consequence
in
Religion
;
we
are
neither
the
better
Christians
,
if
we
do
eat
,
nor
the
worse
Christians
,
if
we
do
not
.
For
the
Kingdom
of
God
is
not
meat
and
drink
.
The
Gospel
of
our
Saviour
prescribes
no
Laws
about
the
quality
of
our
diet
;
and
therefore
it
is
no
part
of
the
Christian
Religion
to
eat
or
to
forbear
.
The
liberty
of
eating
indifferently
of
all
things
is
allowed
by
the
Gospel
,
but
the
act
of
eating
is
neither
commanded
nor
forbid
;
and
therefore
is
no
duty
of
Religion
.
But
though
the
Gospel
do
not
give
us
any
direct
and
positive
command
about
eating
or
not
eating
,
yet
there
are
some
duties
which
are
essential
to
the
Gospel
,
wherein
the
life
and
spirit
of
Christianity
consists
;
which
in
some
cases
may
be
a
collateral
restraint
upon
the
exercise
of
our
liberty
:
for
the
Kingdom
of
God
is
righteousness
,
and
peace
,
and
joy
in
the
Holy
Ghost
.
And
therefore
it
is
an
essential
duty
of
Christianity
,
to
deal
kindly
and
compassionately
with
our
fellow-Christians
,
to
promote
the
Peace
and
Unity
of
the
Church
,
and
that
Spiritual
Joy
and
Delight
which
Christian
Brethren
ought
to
take
in
each
other
in
the
Communion
of
the
same
Church
,
and
the
joynt
Worship
of
their
common
Father
and
Saviour
.
These
are
the
things
which
are
most
pleasing
to
our
great
Master
,
and
have
so
much
natural
goodness
,
as
recommends
them
to
the
approba●ion
of
all
men
:
for
he
that
in
these
things
serveth
Christ
,
is
acceptable
to
God
,
and
approved
of
men
:
and
therefore
in
the
use
of
our
Christian
liberty
we
must
be
sure
to
have
this
Rule
always
in
our
eye
,
To
follow
after
the
things
which
make
for
peace
,
and
things
wherewith
one
may
edifie
another
.
And
therefore
though
the
Gospel
has
taken
away
all
distinctions
of
meats
,
and
given
us
free
leave
to
eat
of
every
thing
,
yet
since
it
is
not
matter
of
duty
in
all
times
and
in
all
places
and
companies
,
to
eat
such
meats
as
were
formerly
forbidden
by
the
Law
;
and
since
we
know
that
to
do
so
,
gives
great
offence
and
scandal
to
the
weak
Jews
,
without
serving
any
end
at
all
in
Religion
,
and
therefore
is
directly
contrary
to
those
essential
Duties
of
Love
and
Charity
,
Unity
and
Peace
,
and
mutual
Edification
,
let
us
not
so
much
insist
on
our
Christian
liberty
in
the
use
of
meats
,
as
to
destroy
the
work
of
God
:
for
though
no
meats
are
now
unclean
,
but
all
things
(
all
kind
of
diet
)
is
now
pure
and
lawful
,
yet
it
is
a
very
evil
thing
for
any
man
by
his
eating
such
meat
as
his
weak
Brother
thinks
unclean
,
to
give
offence
and
scandal
to
him
.
It
is
good
(
much
better
)
neither
to
eat
flesh
,
nor
drink
wine
,
nor
any
thing
(
of
the
like
nature
)
whereby
thy
brother
stumbleth
,
or
is
offended
,
or
is
made
weak
,
discouraged
in
his
Christian
course
,
and
tempted
to
apostatize
from
the
Faith
of
Christ
.
But
besides
this
,
as
it
is
purely
in
our
choice
to
eat
or
not
to
eat
,
there
being
no
Law
to
require
either
,
and
neither
eating
nor
not
eating
is
in
it self
considered
of
any
concernment
to
Religion
;
so
it
is
no
injury
at
all
to
thy
Christian
liberty
to
forbear
eating
in
compliance
with
the
weakness
of
thy
Brother
.
Hast
thou
Faith
?
Dost
thou
believe
thou
mayst
eat
indifferently
of
all
meats
?
Believe
so
still
,
and
use
this
liberty
privately
,
when
it
may
be
done
without
offence
;
but
thou
art
under
no
necessity
of
publishing
this
belief
,
nor
of
acting
according
to
it
in
all
companies
;
but
have
this
faith
to
thy self
before
God
:
This
Faith
makes
it
lawful
for
thee
to
eat
,
but
then
thou
must
take
great
care
that
thou
dost
not
do
a
lawful
thing
in
such
a
manner
,
as
to
make
it
become
sin
to
thee
;
that
is
,
thou
must
not
eat
(
how
lawful
soever
it
be
in
it self
)
with
the
scandal
and
offence
of
thy
weak
Brother
,
which
makes
it
very
unlawful
.
Happy
is
he
that
condemneth
not
himself
in
that
thing
which
he
alloweth
;
who
does
not
do
a
good
action
in
so
ill
a
manner
,
as
to
bring
condemnation
upon
himself
.
But
then
as
thy
believing
it
lawful
for
thee
to
eat
does
not
make
it
necessary
to
eat
,
nor
lawful
in
all
circumstances
,
when
it
is
done
with
offence
and
scandal
;
so
much
less
does
thy
believing
it
lawful
to
eat
,
make
it
lawful
for
thy
weak
Brother
to
eat
:
for
if
the
Jewish
Christian
,
who
doubteth
(
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
who
stills
makes
a
distinction
between
meats
,
and
believes
it
unlawful
to
eat
such
meats
as
are
forbidden
by
the
Law
of
Moses
)
if
he
notwithstanding
this
eat
such
forbidden
meats
,
he
is
damned
,
self-condemned
by
his
own
Conscience
for
doing
that
which
he
believes
to
be
unlawful
:
for
whatever
is
not
of
faith
,
(
done
with
a
full
perswasion
of
the
lawfulness
of
it
)
is
sin
:
and
therefore
thou
oughtest
not
to
judge
,
and
cen●ure
,
and
reproach
thy
weak
Brother
in
such
cases
,
but
to
bear
with
him
,
and
to
avoid
giving
him
any
scandal
or
offence
.
This
I
take
to
be
the
true
sence
of
St.
Paul's
reasoning
in
this
place
,
to
perswade
the
Gentile
Christians
not
to
give
offence
to
the
Jewish
Converts
by
eating
meats
forbidden
by
the
Law
;
and
it
seems
to
me
to
contain
the
plainest
and
easiest
determination
of
the
case
of
Scandal
:
which
I
shall
therefore
briefly
review
,
and
inquire
how
applicable
it
is
to
the
case
of
indifferent
things
in
the
Worship
of
God
,
to
which
our
Reconciler
applies
it
.
1.
First
then
I
observe
,
that
the
Apostles
discourse
in
this
place
can
be
extended
no
farther
than
to
forbid
offering
scandal
and
offence
in
the
exercise
of
every
mans
private
liberty
.
The
Gentile
Christians
,
who
knew
that
they
were
not
under
the
obligation
of
the
Mosaical
Law
,
which
made
a
distinction
between
clean
and
unclean
meats
,
were
perfectly
at
liberty
whether
they
would
eat
or
not
eat
such
meats
as
were
forbid
by
that
Law
:
and
this
was
an
instance
of
their
own
private
liberty
,
wherein
no
body
was
directly
concerned
but
themselves
,
neither
any
other
particular
man
(
excepting
the
case
of
scandal
)
nor
the
publick
state
of
the
Church
.
For
what
is
it
to
any
man
,
what
is
it
to
the
Church
,
whether
I
eat
such
meat
or
not
,
when
I
may
lawfully
do
either
?
And
therefore
this
is
a
proper
Sphere
for
the
exercise
of
a
private
Charity
:
for
Charity
(
of
what
nature
soever
it
be
)
can
be
exercised
onely
in
such
matters
as
are
perfectly
in
our
power
;
and
therefore
no
private
Christian
can
lawfully
extend
his
charity
any
farther
than
his
own
private
liberty
extends
:
whatever
others
are
concerned
in
as
well
as
himself
,
especially
whatever
the
Church
of
God
,
and
the
publick
state
of
Religion
is
concerned
in
,
is
the
object
neither
of
private
liberty
,
nor
of
private
charity
.
And
yet
the
Apostle
here
exhorts
them
to
nothing
but
what
was
in
the
power
of
every
private
Christian.
And
whether
we
say
that
this
Exhortation
concerns
onely
particular
Christians
or
Church-Governours
also
,
yet
it
is
evident
it
concerns
onely
the
exercise
of
their
own
private
liberty
.
Now
if
any
such
case
should
happen
again
(
which
I
think
cannot
possibly
be
)
that
in
the
use
of
our
private
liberty
in
our
Diet
,
or
Clothes
,
or
way
of
living
,
we
should
give
such
offence
to
weak
Christians
,
as
should
make
them
suspect
the
truth
of
Christianity
,
and
endanger
their
final
Apostacy
,
this
14th
Chap.
to
the
Romans
would
be
an
admirable
Text
to
preach
on
to
correct
such
uncharitable
abuses
of
our
liberty
;
but
what
is
this
to
the
use
of
decent
but
indifferent
Rites
and
Ceremonies
in
the
Worship
of
God
?
for
the
decent
Rites
of
Worship
concern
the
publick
exercise
of
Religion
,
not
every
Christians
private
liberty
:
every
instance
of
our
private
liberty
may
indeed
in
some
sence
be
called
an
indifferent
thing
,
as
that
signifies
what
we
may
do
,
or
may
not
do
,
as
we
please
;
but
it
is
not
indifferent
,
as
the
decent
Rites
of
Worship
are
indifferent
:
for
the
Decency
of
Worship
is
the
matter
of
an
express
positive
Law
,
and
the
particular
Rites
of
Worship
the
Object
of
Ecclesiastical
Prudence
and
Authority
.
And
what
a
vast
difference
this
makes
in
the
case
of
Scandal
,
will
appear
from
my
second
Observation
on
St.
Paul's
discourse
;
which
is
this
:
2.
That
this
compliance
and
condescension
to
a
weak
Brother
must
be
in
such
matters
wherein
Religion
and
Religious
Worship
is
not
concerned
.
For
by
this
Argument
St.
Paul
perswades
them
to
this
forbearance
,
because
Christian
Religion
is
not
at
all
concerned
in
it
.
The
Kingdom
of
God
is
not
meat
nor
drink
.
Their
eating
or
not
eating
,
in
it self
considered
,
was
no
act
,
nor
so
much
as
a
circumstance
in
Religion
;
and
it
did
not
become
the
charity
and
goodness
of
the
Christian
temper
to
give
such
great
scandal
to
a
weak
Brother
,
for
things
in
which
Religion
is
not
at
all
concerned
.
Those
who
expound
meat
and
drink
in
this
place
to
signifie
all
the
Externals
of
Religious
Worship
,
especially
all
such
Rites
and
Circumstances
as
have
not
a
divine
institution
and
command
(
as
our
Reconciler
plainly
does
)
do
mightily
mistake
the
Apostles
meaning
,
The
Kingdom
of
God
is
not
meat
and
drink
,
it
plainly
signifies
that
the
Christian
Religion
does
not
consist
in
eating
or
not
eating
such
or
such
meats
;
that
no
man
is
the
better
Christian
for
eating
Swines
flesh
or
other
prohibited
meats
,
nor
the
worse
Christian
meerly
for
not
eating
them
.
No
man
questions
whether
the
Kingdom
of
God
signifies
the
Christian
Religion
,
or
the
state
of
the
Christian
Church
;
and
therefore
when
he
says
,
that
meat
and
drink
is
not
the
Kingdom
of
God
,
he
must
mean
,
not
that
it
is
not
the
whole
of
Religion
(
which
no
man
ever
dreamt
of
)
but
that
it
is
no
part
of
it
,
no
act
of
Religious
Worship
;
as
I
think
I
need
not
prove
to
the
Reconciler
himself
,
that
though
the
Gospel
gives
us
leave
to
eat
Swines
flesh
,
yet
it
is
no
act
of
Religion
to
do
it
.
And
therefore
the
Externals
of
Religion
,
the
decent
Rites
and
Ceremonies
of
Worship
(
how
mean
and
indifferent
soever
they
may
be
thought
)
cannot
be
comprehended
under
those
general
terms
of
meats
and
drinks
,
because
this
meat
and
drink
was
no
act
nor
part
nor
circumstance
of
Religious
Worship
,
nor
any
thing
relating
to
it
;
but
the
decent
circumstances
of
Religious
Worship
are
necessary
to
publick
Worship
.
Now
when
the
Apostle
exhorts
them
to
exercise
forbearance
and
condescension
to
a
weak
Brother
in
such
matters
by
this
very
Argument
,
because
Religion
is
not
concerned
in
it
,
our
Reconciler
will
be
a
very
wonderful
man
,
if
he
can
prove
that
we
must
exercise
the
same
indulgence
in
such
matters
as
do
concern
Religious
Worship
:
if
he
can
prove
that
the
Governours
of
the
Church
must
indulge
private
Christians
in
the
different
Rites
and
Modes
of
Religious
Worship
,
because
private
Christians
must
indulge
each
other
in
such
different
practices
,
as
do
not
at
all
relate
to
Religion
,
I
am
resolved
never
to
dispute
more
with
him
:
for
I
doubt
not
but
he
is
at
the
same
rate
able
to
make
good
the
greatest
Paradoxes
in
Religion
or
Philosophy
.
There
is
very
great
reason
for
Christians
not
to
quarrel
with
each
other
,
nor
to
divide
the
Unity
,
or
disturb
the
Peace
of
the
Church
for
such
Disputes
as
do
not
properly
belong
to
Religion
:
for
where
it
is
purely
matter
of
our
own
liberty
,
there
is
room
for
the
exercise
of
Charity
and
mutual
Forbearance
.
And
this
is
the
Apostles
Argument
,
that
the
Kingdom
of
God
is
not
meat
and
drink
.
But
where
Religion
and
the
Worship
of
God
is
concerned
,
it
is
of
another
nature
:
for
it
is
not
in
our
power
to
do
what
we
please
in
such
matters
,
nor
to
allow
others
the
liber●y
of
doing
what
they
please
;
and
therefore
this
is
not
the
Object
of
Indulgence
and
Forbearance
,
nor
is
there
any
one
word
in
all
the
Scripture
to
countenance
any
such
liberty
,
which
would
effectually
undermine
all
Order
,
Decency
,
and
Uniformity
of
publick
Worship
.
And
therefore
when
the
Apostle
adds
,
that
the
Kingdom
of
God
is
righteousness
,
and
peace
,
and
joy
in
the
Holy
Ghost
,
this
does
not
signifie
neither
,
that
this
is
the
whole
of
Religion
,
or
the
onely
thing
that
we
are
to
be
concerned
about
,
as
the
Reconciler
understands
it
:
for
the
external
and
visible
Worship
of
God
is
as
essential
a
part
of
Religion
as
these
;
but
these
are
plain
and
acknowledged
Duties
of
Religion
,
and
we
ought
not
to
violate
a
plain
and
necessary
Duty
,
for
the
sake
of
that
which
is
no
Duty
at
all
:
Which
is
the
sum
of
the
Apostle's
Argument
,
as
I
observed
before
.
The
necessary
consequence
of
which
is
,
that
in
all
such
cases
wherein
not
Religion
,
but
our
own
liberty
is
concerned
,
the
great
Rule
we
are
to
observe
is
to
promote
the
Peace
of
the
Church
,
and
the
mutual
Edification
of
each
other
;
to
follow
after
the
things
which
make
for
peace
,
and
things
wherewith
one
may
edifie
another
.
Now
this
is
a
plain
Rule
which
all
men
at
first
hearing
will
acknowledge
to
be
reasonable
,
not
to
violate
the
plain
Duties
of
Religion
in
contending
about
such
liberties
,
the
use
and
exercise
of
which
are
of
no
account
in
Religion
;
not
to
scandalize
a
weak
Brother
,
nor
destroy
the
Peace
of
the
Church
,
and
the
mutual
edification
of
Christians
in
love
,
by
eating
such
meats
as
we
may
indeed
in
other
cases
lawfully
eat
,
but
the
eating
of
which
is
at
no
time
,
and
in
no
case
,
in
it self
considered
,
an
act
of
Worship
,
or
acceptable
to
God
.
But
if
we
understand
these
words
in
our
Reconciler's
way
,
that
the
Externals
of
Religion
are
of
no
account
,
and
therefore
must
be
sacrificed
to
the
dearer
interests
of
Peace
,
and
Charity
,
and
mutual
Edification
,
I
confess
the
Argument
is
plain
enough
;
but
it
is
neither
to
the
Apostle's
purpose
,
nor
is
it
true
.
And
yet
this
is
the
fundamental
Principle
of
all
Reconcilers
,
and
of
those
men
who
affect
the
name
and
character
of
Moderation
,
that
the
Externals
of
Religion
are
little
worth
,
and
of
small
account
with
God
:
But
the
great
business
which
Christians
ought
to
mind
,
is
Love
and
Charity
,
and
the
practice
of
those
moral
Vertues
wherein
they
place
the
life
and
substance
of
Religion
;
and
therefore
it
does
not
become
them
to
quarrel
about
the
external
Modes
of
Worship
,
but
an
indulgence
in
such
matters
becomes
the
good
and
benign
temper
of
the
Gospel
.
Now
how
these
men
come
to
know
that
God
is
so
indifferent
about
his
own
Worship
,
I
cannot
guess
;
nor
how
the
Worship
of
God
comes
to
be
a
less
essential
part
of
Religion
,
than
justice
and
charity
to
men
.
I
am
sure
under
the
Law
God
appeared
very
jealous
of
his
Honour
and
Worship
;
and
though
he
rejected
all
the
Worship
of
bad
men
,
and
despised
those
external
acts
of
Worship
which
were
separated
from
Justice
and
Charity
,
yet
this
was
no
Argument
that
he
undervalued
his
own
Worship
,
because
he
was
not
pleased
with
an
empty
shew
and
appearance
of
it
.
As
for
his
preferring
Mercy
before
Sacrifice
,
I
have
given
some
account
of
it
already
,
and
may
do
more
in
what
follows
;
but
certainly
Religion
is
properly
the
Worship
of
God
,
and
therefore
that
is
the
greatest
thing
in
it
.
And
publick
Worship
,
which
is
the
most
visible
Honour
of
God
,
consists
in
external
and
visible
Signs
;
and
therefore
the
Order
,
Decency
,
and
Solemnity
of
Worship
is
so
essential
to
the
notion
of
publick
Worship
,
that
there
can
be
no
Worship
without
it
:
for
to
worship
God
visibly
without
publick
and
visible
signs
of
Honour
,
is
a
contradiction
;
and
therefore
it
does
not
seem
to
me
to
be
so
indifferent
a
thing
,
after
what
manner
God
is
worshipped
;
and
therefore
not
to
be
left
indifferently
to
every
mans
humour
,
upon
every
slight
pretence
of
Charity
and
Moderation
.
However
,
it
is
plain
that
the
Apostle
does
not
speak
one
word
of
this
here
,
which
had
been
nothing
to
his
purpose
,
and
I
cannot
find
any
thing
to
this
purpose
in
all
the
Scripture
.
3.
This
Apostolical
Exhortation
to
avoid
scandal
,
concerns
onely
such
cases
wherein
we
are
not
bound
to
make
a
publick
profession
of
our
Faith
,
nor
to
do
that
in
publick
in
the
view
of
all
men
,
which
we
believe
we
may
very
lawfully
&
innocently
do
.
Hast
thou
faith
?
have
it
to
thy self
before
God
;
that
is
,
keep
thy
Faith
to
thy self
,
and
enjoy
thy
liberty
privately
,
when
thou
may'st
do
it
without
offence
.
Now
I
suppose
our
Reconciler
will
not
think
this
a
good
Rule
in
all
cases
,
to
dissemble
our
Faith
,
and
to
keep
our
Religion
to
our selves
;
which
would
effectually
undermine
the
publick
profession
and
practice
of
Religion
in
the
World
.
For
if
this
were
once
granted
,
men
would
find
a
great
many
other
as
good
reasons
to
keep
their
Faith
to
themselves
,
as
avoiding
scandal
.
Indeed
this
Rule
can
hold
onely
in
matters
of
a
private
nature
,
such
as
I
before
observed
this
case
to
be
:
for
matters
of
a
publick
nature
require
a
publick
profession
and
practice
.
For
let
us
consider
wherein
the
force
of
this
Argument
consists
to
perswade
the
Gentile
Christians
to
exercise
this
forbearance
towards
their
weak
Jewish
Brethren
,
not
to
offend
or
scandalize
them
with
their
meat
.
Hast
thou
faith
?
have
it
to
thy self
before
God
;
which
includes
these
two
Arguments
:
1.
That
they
are
under
no
obligation
to
a
publick
profession
or
exercise
of
their
Christian
liberty
in
these
matters
.
2.
That
though
it
be
some
restraint
,
yet
it
is
no
injury
to
their
liberty
,
not
to
do
those
things
publickly
which
give
such
offence
.
For
their
liberty
in
such
matters
is
maintained
as
well
by
a
private
as
by
a
publick
exercise
of
it
.
For
if
they
may
do
it
at
any
time
,
their
liberty
is
secure
,
though
the
exercise
of
it
may
be
sometimes
restrained
.
But
now
if
we
apply
this
to
the
Rites
and
Ceremonies
of
publick
Worship
,
what
sence
is
there
in
this
Argument
?
for
publick
Worship
must
be
publickly
profess'd
,
and
publickly
practised
,
or
else
it
is
not
publick
;
and
therefore
there
is
no
place
here
to
avoid
publick
scandal
by
keeping
our
Faith
to
our selves
:
for
then
we
must
not
worship
God
publickly
,
as
we
think
we
may
,
and
that
we
ought
to
worship
him
for
fear
of
giving
offence
.
So
that
this
does
not
onely
restrain
,
but
it
destroys
the
Authority
of
Governours
,
and
the
Liberty
and
Obedience
of
private
Christians
:
for
what
relates
to
publick
Worship
,
cannot
be
done
at
all
,
if
it
must
not
be
done
publickly
;
and
that
is
no
Authority
and
no
Liberty
,
which
cannot
be
exercised
without
sin
,
that
is
,
without
a
criminal
offence
and
scandal
.
As
for
what
our
Reconciler
frequently
urges
,
and
I
have
already
observed
and
answered
,
that
it
is
not
desired
that
the
Church
should
renounce
her
Authority
and
Worship
,
but
onely
give
liberty
to
Dissenters
to
worship
God
in
their
own
way
;
this
plainly
shews
how
vastly
different
the
case
of
the
Jews
and
of
our
Dissenters
is
,
and
how
little
they
are
concerned
in
that
forbearance
of
which
the
Apostle
speaks
.
The
Jews
were
offended
not
at
the
restraint
of
their
own
liberty
,
for
they
were
indulged
in
the
observation
of
the
Law
of
Moses
,
but
at
that
liberty
which
the
Gentile
believers
used
in
breaking
of
the
Law
of
Moses
;
our
Dissenters
it
seems
are
scandalized
not
so
much
at
what
we
do
,
as
because
they
cannot
do
what
they
would
.
The
Apostle
exhorts
private
Christians
not
to
do
such
things
publickly
as
offended
their
weak
Brethren
;
This
great
Reconciling
Apostle
exhorts
or
rather
commands
the
Church
to
suffer
Dissenters
to
worship
God
according
to
their
own
way
,
and
to
do
what
is
right
in
their
own
eyes
,
and
this
would
remove
the
scandal
.
Now
these
two
do
so
widely
differ
,
that
the
one
is
true
and
proper
scandal
,
and
the
other
is
not
.
To
offend
a
weak
Brother
by
an
uncharitable
use
of
our
liberty
,
by
doing
such
things
as
prove
a
stumbling-block
and
occasion
of
falling
to
him
,
is
scandal
in
the
Apostle's
notion
of
the
word
,
and
the
onely
scandal
of
which
he
treats
in
this
14th
Chapter
to
the
Romans
:
but
thus
it
seems
we
do
not
scandalize
the
Dissenters
,
who
are
not
concerned
,
not
offended
in
the
Apostle's
sence
,
at
what
we
do
,
so
they
might
enjoy
their
own
liberty
;
and
therefore
neither
the
Church
nor
Dissenters
are
concerned
in
what
the
Apostle
discourses
about
Scandal
in
this
Chapter
.
And
as
for
that
offence
and
scandal
they
take
at
the
exercise
of
Discipline
and
Government
,
which
restrains
their
wild
and
fanatick
pretences
to
liberty
,
it
is
no
other
offence
than
what
all
Criminals
take
at
Laws
and
publick
Government
;
which
is
so
far
from
being
such
a
scandal
as
the
Governours
of
the
Church
ought
to
avoid
,
that
there
is
not
a
greater
scandal
to
Religion
than
the
neglect
of
it
.
But
I
shall
think
nothing
impossible
,
if
our
Reconciler
can
prove
out
of
this
Chapter
,
that
the
Governours
of
the
Church
should
prescribe
no
Rules
of
Worship
,
nor
lay
any
Restraint
upon
the
giddy
and
enthusiastick
fancies
of
men
,
for
fear
of
giving
offence
to
them
.
4.
The
last
Argument
the
Apostle
uses
to
represent
the
reasonableness
of
this
forbearance
is
this
,
that
though
the
Gentile
Christians
without
sin
,
or
without
any
injury
to
their
own
liberty
,
might
comply
with
their
weak
Jewish
Brethren
,
yet
these
Jewish
Christians
who
believed
it
unlawful
to
eat
any
meats
forbidden
by
the
Law
of
Moses
,
could
not
comply
with
the
believing
Gentiles
without
sinning
against
their
own
Consciences
,
which
brings
judgment
and
condemnation
upon
them
.
And
he
that
doubteth
(
which
does
not
signifie
what
we
commonly
call
a
scrupulous
Conscience
,
for
that
was
not
the
case
of
the
Jews
,
who
did
not
doubt
,
but
certainly
believe
that
it
was
unlawful
for
them
to
eat
such
meats
;
but
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
as
I
observed
before
,
signifies
him
who
makes
a
distinction
between
meats
,
and
so
believes
it
unlawful
to
eat
any
meats
which
were
forbidden
by
the
Law
of
Moses
:
he
who
thus
doubteth
)
is
damned
if
he
eat
,
because
he
eateth
not
of
faith
:
for
whatever
is
not
of
faith
,
is
sin
.
Now
here
our
Reconciler
thinks
he
has
us
fast
:
1.
For
first
,
this
is
not
a
good
Argument
in
all
cases
,
to
grant
such
an
indulgence
and
forbearance
,
that
men
act
according
to
their
Consciences
,
as
I
have
already
proved
at
large
:
for
this
would
subvert
all
Order
and
Government
in
Church
and
State
,
and
supersede
the
Authority
and
Obligation
of
all
other
Laws
,
but
every
mans
private
judgment
and
opinion
of
things
.
2.
Let
us
then
consider
in
what
cases
this
Argument
is
good
;
for
certainly
it
is
good
in
the
case
to
which
the
Apostle
applies
it
.
Now
I
know
of
but
one
general
case
to
which
this
Argument
can
be
reasonably
applied
,
and
that
is
,
where
every
mans
own
Conscience
is
his
onely
Rule
,
not
where
Conscience
it self
has
a
Rule
.
The
Laws
of
God
,
and
the
Laws
of
our
Superiours
,
when
they
do
not
contradict
the
Laws
of
God
,
are
the
Rule
of
Conscience
,
that
Rule
whereby
all
men
ought
to
act
;
and
it
is
a
senseless
thing
to
say
,
that
when
men
are
under
the
government
of
Laws
,
they
must
have
liberty
to
act
according
to
their
own
Consciences
,
that
is
,
according
to
their
own
judgment
and
opinions
of
things
;
which
is
to
say
,
that
though
men
are
under
Laws
,
yet
they
must
be
governed
by
none
;
that
Magistrates
may
make
Laws
,
but
they
must
not
execute
them
,
but
must
suffer
every
man
,
when
his
Conscience
serves
him
,
to
break
both
the
Laws
of
God
,
and
of
the
Church
or
Kingdom
wherein
he
lives
.
But
where
we
are
under
no
obligation
of
divine
or
humane
Laws
,
in
such
cases
every
mans
own
Conscience
is
his
onely
Rule
;
and
in
these
cases
it
is
fit
to
leave
every
man
to
the
direction
and
government
of
his
own
mind
,
because
they
concern
onely
every
mans
private
liberty
,
and
have
no
influence
at
all
upon
the
Publick
:
And
if
in
such
cases
any
man
should
fancy
himself
to
be
under
the
obligation
of
a
divine
Law
,
when
indeed
he
is
not
,
it
would
be
barbarously
uncharitable
by
Censures
and
Reproaches
,
and
such
kind
of
rude
and
ungentile
Arts
,
to
force
him
to
a
compliance
contrary
to
the
sense
and
judgment
of
his
own
mind
:
for
when
there
is
no
other
Rule
of
our
Actions
,
every
mans
Conscience
is
his
onely
Rule
;
and
if
he
does
that
which
he
believes
to
be
forbidden
by
the
Law
of
God
,
though
indeed
it
is
not
,
yet
he
sins
in
it
;
and
if
we
force
him
to
such
a
compliance
,
we
are
very
uncharitable
in
it
,
and
are
guilty
of
offending
a
weak
Brother
.
This
was
the
very
case
of
which
the
Apostle
speaks
.
The
Law
which
made
a
distinction
between
clean
and
unclean
meats
,
was
now
out
of
date
,
and
did
no
longer
oblige
them
,
and
therefore
it
was
lawful
both
for
Jews
and
Gentiles
to
eat
what
meat
they
pleased
;
but
the
Jews
still
thought
that
Law
to
be
in
force
,
and
therefore
though
the
Law
did
not
oblige
them
to
abstain
from
such
meats
,
yet
their
own
Consciences
(
which
is
always
a
Law
when
there
is
no
other
)
did
still
oblige
them
to
abstain
;
and
therefore
it
was
very
uncharitable
in
the
Gentile
Christians
to
judge
,
and
censure
,
and
reproach
them
for
this
:
for
though
they
who
understood
their
liberty
,
might
use
it
,
yet
a
believing
Jew
could
not
do
this
without
sin
.
And
there
may
be
a
great
many
cases
in
●ome
degree
parallel
to
this
:
As
,
suppose
a
man
scruples
the
use
of
Lots
,
and
consequently
all
Games
which
depend
upon
Lots
;
or
thinks
it
unlawful
to
drink
a
Health
,
or
to
see
a
Play
;
or
apprehends
himself
obliged
to
a
stricter
observation
of
the
Lords
day
,
than
the
Christian
Church
has
in
former
Ages
thought
necessary
:
though
we
should
suppose
that
there
were
no
Law
of
God
about
these
matters
,
yet
this
mans
Conscience
is
a
Law
to
him
;
and
whiles
he
thinks
any
of
these
things
unlawful
,
they
are
unlawful
to
him
;
and
it
would
be
very
uncharitable
by
any
Arts
to
force
him
to
do
such
things
as
are
contrary
to
the
dictates
of
his
own
Conscience
.
This
is
onely
a
restraint
of
their
own
private
liberty
,
and
therefore
they
ought
to
be
indulged
in
it
,
especially
while
they
are
so
modest
as
not
to
censure
those
who
use
their
innocent
liberty
innocently
.
In
such
cases
as
these
,
there
is
no
other
Rule
to
guide
us
,
but
what
the
Apostle
gives
,
Let
every
man
be
fully
perswaded
in
his
own
mind
;
And
that
this
is
the
true
sence
of
the
Apostle's
Argument
appears
in
this
,
that
he
urges
the
danger
a
weak
Brother
is
in
of
sin
,
if
he
should
be
perswaded
or
forc'd
to
act
contrary
to
the
judgment
of
his
own
mind
,
which
supposes
that
he
is
in
no
danger
of
sin
,
if
he
follow
his
own
judgment
:
for
if
there
were
an
equal
danger
of
sin
both
ways
,
this
Argument
has
no
force
at
all
to
prove
the
reasonableness
of
such
an
indulgence
and
forbearance
.
For
if
this
weak
Brother
will
be
guilty
of
as
great
a
sin
by
following
his
judgment
if
we
do
forbear
him
,
as
he
will
by
acting
contrary
to
his
own
judgment
if
we
do
not
,
the
danger
being
equal
on
both
sides
,
can
be
no
reason
to
determine
us
either
way
:
and
therefore
this
must
be
confined
to
such
cases
wherein
there
is
no
danger
of
sinning
,
but
onely
in
acting
contrary
to
our
own
judgment
and
perswasions
,
that
is
,
onely
to
such
cases
where
there
is
no
other
Law
to
govern
us
but
onely
our
own
private
Consciences
.
And
therefore
this
danger
of
scandal
cannot
affect
Governours
who
have
authority
to
command
,
nor
extend
to
such
cases
which
are
determined
by
divine
or
humane
Laws
;
and
therefore
not
to
the
Rites
and
Ceremonies
of
publick
Worship
:
for
whatever
our
own
Perswasions
are
,
if
we
break
the
Laws
of
God
,
or
the
just
Laws
of
men
,
by
following
a
misguided
and
erroneous
Conscience
,
we
sin
in
it
.
And
the
same
thing
appears
from
this
consideration
,
that
the
Apostle
perswades
them
to
exercise
this
forbearance
out
of
charity
to
their
weak
Brother
;
but
what
charity
is
it
to
suffer
our
Brother
to
sin
in
following
a
misguided
Conscience
?
If
our
Brother
sin
as
much
in
following
a
misguided
Conscience
,
as
in
acting
contrary
to
his
Conscience
,
he
is
as
uncharitable
a
man
who
patiently
suffers
his
Brother
to
sin
in
following
his
Conscience
,
as
he
who
compels
him
to
sin
by
acting
contrary
to
his
Conscience
,
or
rather
by
not
suffering
him
to
act
according
to
his
Conscience
.
Nay
,
since
external
force
and
restraint
may
,
and
very
often
does
make
men
consider
better
of
things
,
and
help
to
rectifie
their
mistates
,
it
is
a
greater
act
of
charity
to
give
check
to
men
,
than
to
suffer
them
to
go
quietly
on
in
sin
.
And
here
I
shall
take
occasion
to
speak
my
mind
very
freely
and
plainly
about
that
perplext
Dispute
of
liberty
of
Conscience
.
It
seems
very
contrary
to
the
nature
of
Religion
to
be
matter
of
force
:
for
Religion
is
a
voluntary
Worship
and
Service
of
God
;
and
no
man
is
religious
,
who
is
religious
against
his
will
;
and
therefore
no
man
ought
to
be
compelled
to
profess
himself
of
any
Religion
:
which
was
plainly
the
sence
of
the
Primitive
Christians
when
they
suffered
under
Heathen
Persecutions
,
as
is
to
be
seen
in
most
of
their
Apologies
.
And
yet
on
the
other
hand
,
it
is
monstrously
unreasonable
,
that
there
should
be
no
restraint
laid
upon
the
wild
fancies
of
men
,
that
every
one
who
pleases
may
have
liberty
to
corrupt
Religion
with
Enthusiastick
Conceits
,
and
new-fangled
Heresies
,
and
to
divide
the
Church
with
infinite
Schisms
and
Factions
.
The
Patrons
of
Liberty
and
Indulgence
declaim
largely
on
the
first
of
these
heads
;
those
who
are
for
preserving
Order
and
Government
in
the
Church
,
on
the
second
:
and
if
I
may
speak
my
mind
freely
,
I
think
they
are
both
in
the
right
,
and
have
divided
the
truth
between
them
.
No
man
ought
to
be
forc'd
to
be
of
any
Religion
,
whether
Turk
,
or
Jew
,
or
Christian
;
though
Idolatry
was
punishable
by
the
Law
,
and
that
with
very
good
reason
:
for
though
men
may
not
be
forc'd
to
worship
God
,
yet
they
may
and
ought
to
be
forc'd
not
to
worship
the
Devil
,
nor
to
blaspheme
or
do
any
publick
dishonour
to
the
true
God
.
And
this
was
all
the
restraint
that
Christian
Emperours
laid
upon
the
Pagan
Idolaters
;
they
demolished
their
Temples
,
and
forbad
the
publick
exercise
of
their
Idolatrous
Worship
.
But
though
no
man
must
be
compelled
to
be
a
Christian
,
yet
if
they
voluntarily
profess
themselves
Christians
,
they
become
subject
to
the
Authority
and
Government
of
the
Christian
Church
.
The
Bishops
and
Pastors
of
the
Church
have
authority
from
Christ
,
and
are
bound
by
vertue
of
their
Office
to
preserve
the
Purity
of
the
Faith
,
and
the
Decency
and
Uniformity
of
Christian
Worship
,
and
if
any
Member
of
the
Church
either
corrupt
the
Faith
or
Worship
of
it
,
or
prove
refractory
and
disobedient
to
Ecclesiastical
Authority
,
they
ought
to
be
censured
and
cast
out
of
the
Communion
of
the
Church
;
which
is
as
reasonable
,
as
it
is
to
thrust
a
Member
out
of
any
Society
,
who
will
not
be
subject
to
the
Orders
and
Constitutions
of
it
.
This
distinction
St.
Paul
himself
makes
between
judging
those
who
are
without
,
and
those
who
were
within
the
Church
.
They
had
no
authority
to
force
men
to
be
Christians
,
but
they
had
authority
over
professed
Christians
,
to
judge
and
censure
them
as
their
actions
deserved
;
and
this
is
properly
Ecclesiastical
Authority
to
condemn
Heresies
and
Schism
,
and
to
cast
Hereticks
and
Schismaticks
,
and
all
disorderly
Christians
,
out
of
the
Communion
of
the
Church
:
and
no
governed
Society
can
subsist
without
so
much
authority
as
this
comes
to
.
As
for
temporal
restraints
and
punishments
,
they
belong
to
the
Civil
Magistrate
;
and
if
we
will
allow
that
Christian
Princes
ought
to
take
any
care
of
the
Christian
Church
,
we
must
grant
them
so
much
authority
as
is
necessary
to
suppress
Heresie
and
Schism
,
and
to
punish
those
who
are
disobedient
to
the
Censures
and
Authority
of
the
Church
.
How
far
this
may
extend
,
is
another
Question
:
I
think
all
Protestants
with
great
reason
reject
sanguinary
Laws
in
this
case
;
but
whoever
grants
any
authority
in
these
matters
to
Christian
Princes
,
must
grant
what
may
reasonably
be
thought
sufficient
to
attain
the
end
.
Thus
I
have
,
as
plainly
as
I
could
,
given
an
account
of
the
Apostle's
discourse
in
this
Chapter
about
Scandal
and
Offence
,
and
proved
that
it
cannot
be
applied
to
the
case
of
indifferent
things
in
the
Worship
of
God
by
any
parity
of
reason
.
I
grant
St.
Chrysostom
and
some
other
ancient
Writers
,
do
accommodate
this
Doctrine
of
Scandal
to
other
cases
,
some
of
which
passages
our
Reconciler
has
transcribed
from
them
;
that
if
we
must
not
scandalize
our
weak
Brother
by
using
our
innocent
liberty
,
much
less
by
our
wicked
examples
,
by
doing
things
evil
in
themselves
,
which
aggravates
the
guilt
of
the
offence
.
And
I
grant
,
such
accommodations
as
these
are
very
allowable
in
popular
Harangues
:
but
I
hope
our
Reconciler
does
not
take
them
for
Arguments
;
and
yet
if
he
did
,
he
could
no
more
apply
them
to
the
case
of
the
Church
and
Dissenters
,
than
he
can
the
case
of
which
St.
Paul
speaks
.
But
because
this
Discourse
has
been
somewhat
long
,
(
though
as
plain
and
methodical
as
I
could
contrive
it
)
I
shall
reduce
some
of
the
most
material
things
in
it
into
a
narrower
compass
,
and
compare
the
Apostle's
Arguments
with
the
Reasonings
of
our
Reconciler
;
which
will
enable
every
ordinary
Reader
to
judge
how
unlike
they
are
.
The
Case
of
the
believing
Iews
,
14
Rom.
THe
Dispute
between
the
believing
Jews
&
Gentiles
was
concerning
the
observation
of
the
Law
of
Moses
,
not
about
things
acknowledged
to
be
indifferent
.
The
weakness
of
the
Jews
,
which
occasioned
their
scruples
,
was
the
effect
of
a
great
reverence
for
an
express
Law
which
was
universally
acknowledged
to
be
given
by
God
,
but
was
not
at
that
time
as
visibly
repealed
as
it
was
given
.
The
offence
the
Jews
took
against
the
Gentiles
,
was
at
the
breach
of
a
divine
Law
,
which
they
still
believed
to
be
in
force
,
and
so
had
as
much
reason
to
be
offended
,
as
they
had
to
believe
the
obligation
of
their
Law
,
which
was
so
much
as
to
render
forbearance
reasonable
.
That
weakness
which
pleaded
for
the
indulgence
of
the
Jews
,
was
their
weakness
in
the
Faith
,
that
they
were
not
well
confirm'd
in
the
truth
of
Christianity
,
and
therefore
ought
to
be
tenderly
used
and
indulged
,
as
being
neither
capable
at
present
of
better
instruction
,
nor
severer
government
.
For
the
danger
which
the
believing
Jews
were
in
,
and
which
St.
Paul
endeavoured
to
prevent
,
was
,
lest
they
should
reject
Christianity
,
if
Christianity
rejected
the
Law
of
Moses
,
which
they
certainly
knew
to
be
given
by
God
:
and
therefore
it
was
reasonable
to
expect
a
while
till
they
were
confirmed
in
the
Faith
,
before
they
gave
them
any
disturbance
about
such
matters
as
would
endanger
their
Apostacy
,
while
they
more
firmly
believed
the
obligation
of
the
Law
of
Moses
,
than
they
did
the
Faith
of
Christ
.
And
indeed
God
himself
had
by
visible
signs
instructed
both
believing
Jews
and
Gentiles
,
not
to
judge
and
censure
each
other
,
nor
to
break
Christian
Communion
upon
the●e
Disputes
,
because
he
had
received
the
believing
Jews
and
Gentiles
into
the
visible
Communion
of
the
same
one
Catholick
Church
,
by
the
visible
effusion
of
the
Holy
Spirit
on
them
both
,
though
one
observed
the
Law
of
Moses
,
and
the
other
did
not
;
and
therefore
it
became
both
Jews
and
Gentiles
to
receive
one
another
as
Christian
Brethren
,
and
to
worship
God
together
in
the
Communion
of
the
same
holy
Offices
.
And
whoever
after
this
visible
determination
made
by
God
himself
,
undertake
to
judge
,
and
censure
,
and
deprive
each
other
of
Communion
for
such
matters
,
usurp
an
Authority
to
judge
over
Gods
judgment
,
to
reject
those
whom
God
receives
;
which
is
like
judging
another
mans
servant
,
over
whom
we
have
no
authority
:
for
we
have
no
authority
to
judge
one
another
in
such
cases
which
God
allows
,
who
is
the
supreme
Lord
and
Judge
of
us
all
.
Besides
this
,
both
Jews
and
Gentiles
in
observing
and
not
observing
the
Law
of
Moses
,
did
it
to
the
Lord
,
acted
out
of
reverence
to
the
divine
Authority
.
The
Jews
observed
the
Law
,
because
God
gave
them
this
Law
by
Moses
,
and
had
not
so
visibly
repealed
it
,
as
to
remove
all
just
scruples
about
it
.
The
Gentiles
never
were
under
the
Law
of
Moses
,
and
God
had
received
them
into
his
Church
without
imposing
that
burden
on
them
;
and
therefore
they
did
not
observe
the
Law
,
out
of
reverence
and
thankfulness
to
God
for
that
liberty
he
had
granted
them
.
And
therefore
Jews
and
Gentiles
had
reason
to
receive
each
other
,
since
it
was
not
Humour
,
Peevishness
,
or
Faction
,
which
made
them
differ
,
but
a
regard
to
God
,
and
a
reverence
for
his
Authority
,
which
they
both
pretended
,
and
which
at
that
time
they
both
had
.
And
therefore
St.
Paul
exhorts
the
believing
Gentiles
not
to
use
their
Christian
liberty
to
the
scandal
and
offence
of
their
weak
Brethren
.
For
this
was
such
a
case
wherein
they
might
be
very
kind
to
their
weak
Brethren
if
they
pleased
,
it
being
onely
a
restraint
of
their
own
private
liberty
,
wherein
no
body
was
concerned
but
themselves
:
for
though
the
Gospel
had
taken
away
the
distinction
of
clean
and
unclean
meats
,
and
made
it
lawful
to
eat
indifferently
of
every
thing
,
yet
it
had
not
made
it
our
duty
to
eat
such
things
as
the
Law
had
forbidden
,
but
we
might
abstain
if
we
pleased
;
and
therefore
this
was
a
proper
Sphere
for
the
exercise
of
a
private
charity
,
not
to
destroy
him
with
our
meat
for
whom
Christ
died
.
Especially
considering
that
the
Christian
Religion
is
not
at
all
concerned
in
our
eating
or
not
eating
:
for
the
Kingdom
of
God
is
not
meat
and
drink
;
and
therefore
they
ought
not
to
transgress
the
Laws
of
righteousness
and
peace
,
and
joy
in
the
Holy
Ghost
;
of
Brotherly
love
and
charity
,
and
the
peace
and
unity
of
the
Christian
Church
,
which
are
great
and
essential
Duties
of
Religion
,
for
the
sake
of
eating
or
not
eating
such
meats
,
which
in
it self
considered
,
is
no
act
of
Religion
at
all
.
Especially
the
case
being
such
,
that
men
may
keep
their
Faith
to
themselves
,
and
enjoy
the
private
exercise
of
their
liberty
without
offence
.
Whereas
the
believing
Jew
,
who
believes
it
unlawful
to
eat
meats
forbidden
by
the
Law
,
could
not
comply
with
the
Gentile
Christians
without
sin
,
because
it
is
against
the
judgment
and
perswasion
of
his
own
mind
;
which
makes
it
very
reasonable
,
as
well
as
charitable
,
to
leave
men
to
the
direction
of
their
own
minds
in
the
use
of
their
own
liberty
,
where
they
are
under
the
government
and
restraint
of
no
other
Law
,
neither
of
God
nor
men
:
for
in
this
case
,
if
they
follow
the
direction
of
their
own
minds
,
they
do
no
injury
to
any
body
but
themselves
in
an
unnecessary
restraint
of
their
own
liberty
,
but
neither
offend
God
by
it
,
nor
hurt
men
;
but
if
they
act
contrary
to
what
they
believe
to
be
their
Duty
,
in
compliance
with
others
,
they
sin
in
it
:
for
every
mans
private
Conscience
is
his
onely
Rule
,
where
there
is
no
other
Law
to
govern
him
.
The
Case
of
the
Dissenters
.
THe
Dispute
between
Dissenters
and
the
Church
of
England
,
is
concerning
the
use
of
indifferent
Rites
and
Ceremonies
in
Religious
Worship
.
The
scruples
of
Dissenters
are
not
grounded
on
any
express
Law
,
acknowledged
by
all
Parties
to
be
a
divine
Law
,
but
are
occasioned
by
their
ignorance
,
and
perverting
of
the
holy
Scriptures
,
and
obstinacy
against
better
instruction
.
The
Dissenters
cannot
produce
any
plain
positive
Law
,
which
is
o●
ever
was
in
force
against
the
Ceremonies
of
our
Church
;
and
so
have
no
reasonable
pretence
to
be
offended
.
The
weakness
of
Dissenters
is
not
a
weakness
in
the
Faith
(
for
they
firmly
believe
the
Christian
Religion
)
but
at
best
a
weakness
of
understanding
,
which
is
not
to
be
indulged
,
but
to
be
rectified
by
wise
Instructions
,
and
prudent
Restraints
;
unless
we
think
that
every
ignorant
Christian
must
give
Laws
to
the
Church
,
and
impose
his
own
ignorant
and
childish
prejudices
.
Whatever
offence
the
Dissenters
take
at
our
Ceremonies
,
it
is
not
pretended
that
the
imposition
of
them
tempts
them
to
renounce
Christianity
,
but
onely
is
an
occasion
of
their
Schism
,
and
makes
them
forsake
the
Church
for
a
Conventicle
.
But
this
is
no
reason
at
all
in
it self
for
any
indulgence
and
forbearance
,
(
to
be
sure
is
vastly
different
from
the
case
of
the
Jews
)
for
by
the
same
rea●on
there
must
be
no
Authority
and
Government
in
the
Church
,
or
no
exercise
of
it
,
lest
those
who
will
not
obey
,
should
turn
Schismaticks
.
But
now
besides
that
it
is
absolutely
impossible
for
those
to
receive
one
another
to
Communion
without
mutual
offence
and
scandal
,
who
observe
such
different
Rites
and
Modes
of
Worship
,
(
of
which
more
anon
)
God
has
never
by
any
such
visible
signs
declared
that
Dissenters
should
be
received
to
Communion
,
notwithstanding
their
disobedience
to
the
Authority
,
and
non-conformity
to
the
Worship
of
the
Church
.
For
as
for
our
Reconciler's
invisible
communion
with
God
,
which
he
grants
to
his
beloved
Dissenters
who
refuse
the
Communion
of
the
Church
,
St.
Paul
never
thought
of
it
,
and
no
body
can
tell
how
our
Reconciler
should
know
it
;
especially
if
Schism
,
as
he
asserts
,
be
a
damning
sin
:
for
no
man
in
a
state
of
damnation
(
which
it
seems
is
the
case
of
Schismaticks
)
can
be
in
Communion
with
God
.
But
when
the
Church
judges
,
and
censures
,
and
excommunicates
those
who
refuse
to
conform
to
her
Worship
,
she
does
nothing
but
what
she
has
authority
to
do
:
for
all
private
Christians
are
subject
to
the
Authority
of
the
Church
in
such
matters
as
God
has
not
determined
by
his
own
Authority
.
But
though
our
Dissenters
pretend
Conscience
as
the
reason
of
their
non-conformity
,
yet
these
pretences
are
vain
,
and
not
to
be
allowed
of
,
because
there
is
no
plain
positive
Law
of
God
against
it
,
and
neither
Governours
nor
private
Christians
are
concerned
to
take
notice
of
,
or
to
make
any
allowance
for
every
mans
private
Fancies
and
Opinions
;
especially
in
matters
of
publick
Worship
,
which
would
bring
eternal
confusions
and
di●orders
into
the
Church
.
There
is
a
great
difference
between
mens
doing
any
thing
to
the
Lord
,
and
following
their
own
Consciences
,
or
private
Opinions
;
the
first
requires
a
plain
and
express
Law
for
our
Rule
,
which
will
justifie
or
excuse
what
we
do
both
to
God
and
men
;
but
mens
private
Consciences
,
if
they
misguide
them
,
may
deserve
our
pity
,
but
cannot
challenge
our
indulgence
.
Our
Reconciler
exhorts
the
Governours
of
the
Church
not
to
exercise
their
Authority
in
prescribing
the
Rules
of
Order
and
Decency
for
publick
Worship
,
for
fear
of
offending
Dissenters
.
But
the
Dispute
between
the
Church
and
Dissenters
,
is
of
a
different
consideration
;
it
does
not
concern
the
exercise
of
a
private
liberty
,
wherein
all
Christians
ought
to
be
very
prudent
and
charitable
;
but
the
exercise
of
publick
Government
,
and
the
publick
administration
of
Religious
Offices
,
which
must
be
governed
by
other
measures
than
a
private
charity
.
It
is
not
in
the
power
of
private
Christians
to
dispense
in
such
matters
as
these
,
nor
absolutely
in
the
power
of
Church-Governours
,
who
are
obliged
to
take
care
of
the
Order
and
Decency
of
publick
Worship
,
whoever
takes
offence
at
it
.
And
therefore
this
cannot
relate
to
indulgence
and
forbearance
in
the
external
Rites
and
Ceremonies
of
Religion
,
wherein
Religion
is
nearly
concerned
:
for
though
they
be
not
Acts
,
yet
they
are
the
Circumstances
of
Worship
,
wherein
the
external
Decency
of
Worship
consists
,
which
is
as
necessary
as
external
Worship
is
.
And
therefore
cannot
refer
to
the
publick
Ceremonies
of
Religion
;
which
if
they
be
practised
at
all
,
must
be
practised
publickly
,
because
they
concern
the
publick
acts
of
Worship
.
There
is
no
avoiding
offence
in
this
case
by
dissembling
our
Faith
,
or
by
a
private
exercise
of
our
liberty
,
but
Governours
must
part
with
their
authority
,
and
private
Christians
with
their
liberty
in
such
matters
,
which
the
Apostle
nowhere
requires
any
man
to
do
,
no
not
to
avoid
offence
.
Now
though
our
Dissenters
pretend
that
it
is
against
their
Consciences
to
conform
to
the
Ceremonies
of
the
Church
,
and
our
Reconciler
pleads
this
in
their
behalf
as
a
sufficient
reason
why
they
ought
to
be
indulged
;
yet
this
is
not
a
good
Argument
in
the
case
of
Dissenters
,
though
it
was
in
the
case
of
the
Jews
,
because
their
mistakes
do
not
meerly
concern
the
exercise
of
their
private
liberty
,
but
publick
Worship
;
which
is
not
left
to
the
conduct
of
every
mans
private
Conscience
,
but
to
the
direction
and
government
of
the
Laws
of
God
and
men
.
And
though
it
be
reasonable
to
leave
men
to
the
government
of
their
own
Consciences
,
where
there
is
no
other
Law
,
yet
there
is
no
reason
for
it
where
there
is
:
for
if
they
sin
in
acting
contrary
to
their
Consciences
,
(
which
no
man
can
force
them
to
do
)
so
they
sin
also
in
following
an
erroneous
Conscience
;
which
Governours
ought
to
hinder
if
they
can
.
This
I
take
to
be
a
sufficient
Answer
to
all
our
Reconciler's
Arguments
from
that
condescension
and
forbearance
which
St.
Paul
exhorts
the
believing
Jews
and
Gentiles
to
exercise
towards
each
other
,
because
the
case
is
vastly
different
from
the
case
of
our
Dissenters
.
The
Dispute
between
the
Jew
and
Gentile
was
not
concerning
the
use
of
indifferent
Rites
and
Ceremonies
in
the
Worship
of
God
,
but
about
the
observation
of
the
Law
of
Moses
;
and
those
Arguments
which
the
Apostle
uses
,
and
which
were
very
proper
Arguments
in
that
case
,
can
by
no
parity
of
reason
be
applied
to
the
Dispute
about
indifferent
things
.
But
there
are
several
other
considerations
,
which
I
have
already
hinted
at
,
which
plainly
shew
how
vastly
different
the
case
of
the
Jews
was
from
that
of
our
Dissenters
.
For
,
3.
Another
material
difference
between
that
Indulgence
St.
Paul
granted
to
believing
Jews
,
with
respect
to
the
Law
of
Moses
,
and
that
liberty
our
Reconciler
exacts
from
the
Church
for
Dissenters
,
is
this
:
that
the
first
had
no
influence
upon
Christian
Worship
,
it
neither
destroyed
the
uniformity
of
Worship
,
nor
divided
the
Communion
of
the
Church
;
but
the
second
must
do
one
,
or
t'other
,
or
both
;
which
is
such
a
liberty
or
forbearance
as
St.
Paul
never
did
,
and
never
would
allow
.
The
believing
Jews
thought
themselves
still
obliged
to
observe
that
difference
of
clean
and
unclean
meats
,
which
was
prescribed
by
the
Law
,
and
to
celebrate
the
Jewish
Festivals
;
and
this
liberty
might
be
granted
them
,
without
dividing
the
Communion
of
the
Christian
Church
,
or
disturbing
Christian
Worship
:
for
whatever
private
rules
of
Diet
they
observed
,
believing
Jews
and
Gentiles
might
all
worship
God
together
according
to
the
common
Principles
of
Christianity
:
and
therefore
the
Apostle
exhorts
the
Romans
to
receive
those
who
were
weak
in
the
Faith
;
This
account
the
Learned
Dr.
Stillingfleet
gave
of
this
matter
:
This
being
matter
of
Diet
,
and
relating
to
their
own
Families
,
the
Apostle
advises
them
not
to
censure
or
judge
one
another
;
but
notwithstanding
this
difference
,
to
joyn
together
as
Christians
in
the
Duties
common
to
them
all
.
For
the
Kingdom
of
God
doth
not
lie
in
meats
and
drinks
.
Let
every
one
order
his
Family
as
he
thinks
fit
;
but
that
requires
innocency
;
and
a
care
not
to
give
disturbance
to
the
Peace
of
the
Church
for
these
matters
:
which
he
calls
Peace
and
Ioy
in
the
Holy
Ghost
,
which
is
provoked
and
grieved
by
the
Dissentions
of
Christians
.
And
he
,
saith
he
,
that
in
these
things
serveth
Christ
,
is
acceptable
to
God
,
and
approved
of
men
.
Let
us
therefore
follow
after
the
things
that
make
for
peace
,
and
things
wherewith
we
may
edifie
one
another
.
In
such
cases
then
the
Apostle
allows
of
no
separation
from
the
publick
Communion
of
Christians
.
As
if
the
business
here
discours'd
of
,
were
onely
matter
of
Diet
relating
to
their
own
Families
;
and
the
command
of
the
Apostle
,
Him
that
is
weak
in
Faith
receive
,
did
onely
signifie
,
Let
him
dine
with
you
.
This
,
with
submission
to
that
Learned
Person
,
I
judge
a
most
unlikely
thing
:
for
what
great
cause
of
scandal
could
their
private
Dinners
give
to
a
weak
Brother
,
unless
they
search'd
into
their
Kitchins
,
or
had
a
Bill
of
Fare
sent
in
from
every
Christian
Family
?
This
is
such
leud
trifling
with
a
Great
man
,
and
in
a
serious
Cause
,
as
I
leave
to
the
censure
of
every
sober
Christian.
For
did
not
the
Laws
concerning
clean
and
unclean
meats
,
respect
their
ordinary
Diet
in
their
own
Families
?
Was
it
not
sufficiently
known
,
without
a
Bill
of
Fare
,
that
the
Jews
did
observe
these
Laws
?
Did
not
this
occasion
great
Heats
and
Animosities
,
Judgings
and
Censurings
of
one
another
?
Did
not
some
,
both
Jews
and
Gentiles
,
separate
from
each
other
upon
these
accounts
,
and
disturb
the
Peace
,
and
divide
the
Communion
of
the
Church
?
Does
not
the
Dean
expound
receiving
the
weak
,
by
joyning
together
as
Christians
in
the
Duties
common
to
them
all
?
Cannot
we
expound
meats
,
of
their
ordinary
Diet
in
their
private
Families
,
without
expounding
Receive
him
that
is
weak
▪
by
Let
him
dine
with
you
?
And
yet
whereas
he
says
,
What
great
cause
of
scandal
could
their
private
Dinners
give
to
a
weak
Brother
,
unless
they
search'd
into
their
Kitchins
,
or
had
a
Bill
of
Fare
sent
〈◊〉
from
every
Christian
Family
?
I
readily
grant
they
could
give
none
:
Nor
does
the
Apost●e
command
the
Gentile
Christians
to
abstain
from
such
meats
in
their
private
Families
,
when
no
body
was
pre●ent
who
took
offence
at
it
,
but
onely
not
to
use
this
liberty
publickly
,
nor
in
their
private
Families
neither
,
if
any
believing
Jew
happened
to
be
present
who
was
offended
at
it
.
Well
,
but
our
Reconciler
thinks
it
most
probable
,
that
the
Apostle
speaks
of
eating
in
the
Idol-Temples
.
But
our
Author
proceeds
:
The
Apostle
does
not
onely
speak
of
meats
,
but
also
of
observing
days
,
v.
6.
Now
that
was
not
a
matter
of
Diet
,
but
of
publick
Worship
taught
in
the
fourth
Commandment
.
And
so
the
Dean
acknowledges
.
For
some
Christians
went
then
on
Iewish
Holy
days
to
the
Synagogues
,
others
did
not
;
but
for
such
things
they
ought
not
to
divide
from
each
others
Communion
in
the
common
Acts
of
Christian
Worship
.
Their
going
to
the
Synagogues
on
Jewish
Holy
days
,
did
not
hinder
their
Communion
in
Christian
Worship
;
and
therefore
they
ought
not
to
break
Communion
on
such
accounts
.
But
now
these
Controversies
about
Religious
Ceremonies
,
do
wholly
concern
Christian
Worship
;
it
is
not
what
Clothes
men
shall
ordinarily
wear
,
what
Diet
they
shall
use
,
or
how
they
shall
behave
themselves
in
other
matters
of
a
like
nature
,
wherein
a
great
latitude
and
variety
may
be
allowed
without
any
breach
of
Christian
Charity
and
Communion
;
but
how
we
shall
worship
God
in
the
publick
Assemblies
of
Christians
;
whether
the
Minister
who
officiates
shall
wear
a
white
Linnen
Garment
;
whether
the
Child
that
is
baptized
shall
be
signed
with
the
sign
of
the
Cross
;
whether
Christians
who
communicate
at
the
Lords
Table
,
shall
receive
the
consecrated
Bread
and
Wine
,
kneeling
,
sitting
,
or
standing
.
Now
I
would
fain
know
of
our
Reconciler
,
how
it
appears
that
these
two
are
parallel
cases
,
or
by
what
Logick
he
can
fairly
argue
from
one
to
the
other
,
That
because
the
Apostle
grants
a
liberty
and
indulgence
to
the
Jews
in
such
things
as
do
not
concern
Christian
Worship
,
therefore
the
same
liberty
must
be
granted
in
the
Acts
of
Worship
it self
;
though
it
must
either
destroy
the
Uniformity
of
Worship
,
or
divide
the
Unity
of
the
Church
:
especially
considering
that
he
has
not
produced
(
and
I
am
sure
cannot
)
any
one
instance
of
such
indulgence
granted
to
private
Christians
to
dissent
from
the
publick
Rules
of
Worship
,
and
Constitutions
of
the
Church
;
and
if
he
cannot
shew
any
thing
of
this
nature
,
all
his
other
Scripture-proofs
are
nothing
to
our
Case
.
And
that
these
cases
are
so
different
that
we
cannot
argue
from
one
to
the
other
,
I
shall
prove
by
these
following
Considerations
.
First
,
I
observe
,
that
the
Apostle
himself
makes
a
plain
distinction
between
an
offence
offered
to
private
and
particular
men
,
and
that
publick
offence
which
is
offered
to
the
Church
,
or
to
the
Body
and
Society
of
Christians
:
Give
none
offence
,
neither
to
the
Iews
,
nor
to
the
Gentiles
,
nor
to
the
Church
of
God
.
Which
shews
that
we
are
to
have
a
different
regard
to
particular
men
in
their
single
or
private
capacity
,
whether
they
be
believing
or
unbelieving
Jews
or
Gentiles
,
and
to
the
Church
or
whole
Community
of
Christians
.
For
this
is
an
eternal
Law
in
all
Societies
,
to
prefer
the
publick
good
before
the
interest
of
any
particular
man
.
And
therefore
though
we
must
have
a
tender
regard
to
the
satisfaction
of
particular
men
,
and
have
a
great
care
lest
we
offend
a
weak
Brother
in
such
matters
as
are
of
a
private
nature
and
use
,
yet
in
all
things
of
a
publick
nature
,
i.
e.
in
all
things
which
concern
Christian
Communion
,
we
are
to
have
a
greater
care
of
offending
the
Church
than
particular
Christians
,
though
their
numbers
may
be
great
.
And
therefore
we
cannot
argue
,
that
because
we
must
grant
all
reasonable
indulgence
to
weak
Brethren
in
such
matters
as
do
not
concern
Church-communion
,
which
is
the
case
of
the
Apostles
indulgence
to
the
Jews
;
therefore
the
publick
Constitutions
of
the
Church
,
and
Rules
of
Worship
,
must
be
made
to
comply
with
the
private
Fancies
and
Humours
of
men
,
and
submit
to
unreasonable
Scruples
.
Our
Reconciler
owns
this
consequence
as
to
Dissenters
:
Seeing
the
refusal
of
submission
to
these
things
gives
great
offence
unto
the
Church
of
God
,
it
equally
concerneth
the
Dissenters
,
upon
these
motives
,
to
submit
unto
them
;
and
it
concerns
them
both
to
be
as
the
Apostle
,
careful
to
please
all
men
in
all
things
,
not
seeking
their
own
profit
,
but
the
profit
of
many
,
that
they
may
be
saved
.
But
why
could
not
our
Reconciler
observe
that
this
Rule
equally
concerns
Governours
,
as
it
does
Dissenters
,
not
to
offend
the
Church
of
God
,
when
he
so
earnestly
disputes
that
Church-Governours
are
as
much
concerned
in
all
these
Rules
of
charity
,
forbearance
,
avoiding
offence
and
scandal
,
as
private
Christians
;
and
St.
Paul
urges
this
Exhortation
from
his
own
Example
,
even
as
I
please
all
men
in
all
things
?
Now
if
Church-Governours
must
not
offend
the
Church
,
they
can
grant
a
liberty
and
indulgence
to
the
private
scruples
and
fancies
of
men
onely
in
such
things
as
do
not
concern
the
publick
communion
of
Christians
.
The
Rules
of
Worship
,
and
the
Methods
of
Government
and
Discipline
,
must
be
fixt
and
determined
according
to
the
general
directions
of
the
Gospel
,
and
with
regard
to
the
publick
edification
of
the
Church
,
not
to
the
pleasing
and
humouring
some
weak
and
scrupulous
Christians
:
for
it
is
a
just
offence
and
scandal
to
the
Church
,
to
make
some
mens
private
Fancies
and
groundless
Scruples
,
the
Rule
and
Measure
of
Christian
Worship
.
Secondly
,
This
will
more
plainly
appear
,
if
we
consider
a
very
material
difference
between
indulging
mens
private
scruples
which
concern
matters
of
private
use
and
observance
,
and
indulging
,
such
scruples
as
affect
the
publick
Worship
of
Christians
;
that
in
the
first
case
Christian
communion
may
be
secured
:
Men
might
worship
God
together
according
to
the
common
Principles
of
Christianity
,
though
believing
Jews
were
allowed
to
abstain
from
all
meats
forbidden
by
the
Law
of
Moses
,
and
believing
Gentiles
indifferently
to
eat
of
all
;
but
when
men
differ
about
the
Rules
of
Christian
Worship
,
one
of
these
three
things
must
happen
:
Either
1.
That
Christians
of
different
Perswasions
in
these
matters
must
divide
communion
,
and
separate
from
each
other
:
Or
,
2.
That
Christian
Worship
must
be
made
to
comply
with
the
groundless
fancies
of
scrupulous
Christians
:
Or
,
3.
That
men
of
differing
opinions
must
be
allowed
to
observe
different
Modes
and
Rites
of
Worship
in
the
same
Christian
Assemblies
;
each
of
which
are
a
great
offence
and
scandal
to
the
Church
of
God
.
1.
That
Christians
of
different
Perswasions
must
divide
communion
,
and
separate
from
each
other
.
This
is
the
usual
effect
of
such
Disputes
about
the
Modes
of
Worship
,
as
our
own
sad
experience
witnesseth
.
But
this
our
Reconciler
will
not
plead
for
,
and
to
be
sure
St.
Paul
never
intended
;
as
you
shall
hear
more
presently
.
2.
Christian
Worship
then
must
be
made
to
comply
with
the
groundless
Fancies
of
scrupulous
Christians
.
That
is
,
there
must
be
no
Rules
given
for
the
Decency
and
Solemnity
of
publick
Worship
,
but
what
the
most
ignorant
and
most
humoursome
Professor
will
readily
submit
to
;
which
is
both
absurd
in
it self
,
and
inconsistent
with
all
Government
,
and
makes
it
impossible
to
secure
the
external
Decency
and
Solemnity
of
Worship
,
which
ought
to
be
the
principal
care
of
Church-Governours
,
as
I
have
already
proved
.
3.
As
for
the
third
,
That
men
of
differing
opinions
might
be
allowed
to
observe
different
Rites
and
Modes
of
Worship
in
the
same
Christian
Assemblies
:
This
is
as
absurd
as
the
other
;
as
sufficiently
appears
from
what
I
have
already
discours'd
.
At
this
rate
the
Governours
of
the
Church
cannot
do
their
duty
in
taking
care
of
the
external
Decency
of
publick
Worship
:
for
who
can
foresee
what
Indecencies
will
be
committed
,
when
every
man
is
left
to
worship
God
as
he
pleases
?
Nay
,
this
very
thing
in
it self
is
extremely
indecent
:
for
what
Order
,
what
Decency
can
there
be
,
where
there
is
no
one
Rule
of
Worship
?
Uniformity
in
worship
is
like
the
proportion
and
symmetry
of
parts
in
the
natural
body
,
wherein
the
external
grace
and
beauty
of
it
consists
.
Though
there
were
no
difference
at
all
as
to
external
reverence
in
the
several
postures
of
receiving
the
Lords
Supper
,
whether
kneeling
,
standing
,
or
sitting
▪
yet
it
would
be
indecent
and
disorderly
in
the
Communicants
who
receive
together
,
not
to
observe
the
same
posture
,
for
some
to
kneel
,
others
to
stand
;
others
to
sit
.
I
am
sure
we
should
think
it
so
at
any
ordinary
and
common
Feast
,
should
some
of
the
Guests
sit
at
the
Table
on
Chairs
,
others
stand
and
eat
by
themselves
in
a
corner
,
others
sit
on
the
ground
,
others
lean
on
Couches
:
though
there
were
nothing
indecent
in
any
of
these
postures
according
to
the
different
Modes
and
Fashions
of
different
Countries
,
yet
such
an
odd
and
humoursome
variety
it self
is
indecent
and
disorderly
at
the
same
Feast
.
And
if
it
be
so
at
a
common
Table
,
I
think
the
indecency
is
much
greater
and
more
unpardonable
at
the
Table
of
our
Lord
,
which
requires
the
most
universal
harmony
and
consent
.
Nay
,
such
a
variety
as
this
,
must
needs
give
mutual
offence
and
scandal
to
each
other
in
the
very
act
of
receiving
,
Now
is
it
possible
for
the
Israelites
to
sacrifice
the
abomination
of
the
AEgyptians
before
their
eyes
,
and
not
give
offence
to
them
?
Is
it
possible
for
men
to
joyn
as
Friends
and
Brethren
in
such
acts
of
Worship
which
they
cannot
agree
to
perform
in
the
same
manner
?
Is
it
possible
for
him
that
sits
at
receiving
the
Lords
Supper
,
and
believes
that
kneeling
is
superstitious
and
Idolatrous
,
not
to
censure
,
or
deride
,
or
despise
him
that
kneels
?
Or
is
it
possible
for
him
who
kneels
,
and
believes
sitting
to
be
a
rude
and
unmannerly
posture
,
not
to
be
grieved
or
offended
at
him
who
sits
?
And
will
you
call
this
worshipping
God
together
,
when
men
cannot
agree
about
it
;
but
one
thinks
his
Brother
idolatrous
or
superstitious
,
and
he
in
requital
thinks
him
rude
or
prophane
?
For
my
part
,
I
think
it
much
better
they
should
be
parted
,
than
spoil
each
othersDevotion
by
such
mutual
antipathies
,
and
reciprocal
censures
.
No
,
you
will
say
,
there
is
no
necessity
of
either
,
that
they
should
judge
and
censure
each
other
,
or
that
they
should
separate
.
St.
Paul
gives
a
better
Rule
in
such
cases
to
bear
with
each
other
,
The
sum
of
this
Argument
is
this
:
That
though
St.
Paul
required
and
exhorted
the
believing
Jews
and
Gentiles
to
bear
with
each
other
in
such
Disputes
as
did
not
concern
the
Christian
Worship
,
it
does
not
hence
follow
,
that
the
Governours
of
the
Church
must
not
prescribe
any
Rules
of
Worship
for
fear
of
offending
any
scrupulous
and
ignorant
Christians
;
or
that
they
are
bound
to
alter
them
,
as
soon
as
they
perceive
any
such
offence
:
which
inevitably
brings
nothing
but
Confusion
and
Disorder
into
the
Christian
Church
.
4.
Another
material
difference
between
the
case
of
the
believing
Jews
and
our
Dissenters
,
is
this
:
That
the
forbearance
the
Apostle
pleads
for
,
was
in
order
to
cement
Jews
and
Gentiles
into
one
body
,
and
to
unite
them
in
one
Christian
communion
,
to
prevent
Schisms
and
Separations
between
them
;
and
therefore
he
commands
them
,
Him
that
is
weak
in
the
faith
receive
,
that
is
,
Nevertheless
,
whereto
we
have
already
attained
,
let
us
walk
by
the
same
rule
,
let
us
mind
the
same
thing
.
Believing
Jews
and
Gentiles
were
both
agreed
as
to
the
truth
of
Christianity
,
and
what
concerned
Christian
Worship
,
though
they
differed
about
some
Mosaical
observances
;
and
therefore
the
Apostle
exhorts
them
,
notwithstanding
their
other
Disputes
,
to
unite
in
Christian
Worship
,
about
which
they
were
all
agreed
.
This
occasioned
that
Dispute
between
St.
Paul
and
St.
Peter
,
which
we
have
an
account
of
in
the
Epistle
to
the
Galatians
.
Now
I
have
already
proved
,
that
the
removal
of
our
Ceremonies
,
and
such
abatements
as
our
Reconciler
pleads
for
,
as
they
are
not
the
occasion
,
so
neither
would
they
be
the
cure
of
our
Schisms
;
to
be
sure
,
Indulgence
in
these
matters
would
neither
prevent
nor
heal
our
Schisms
,
as
that
forbearance
which
the
Apostle
pleads
for
in
this
place
,
infallibly
would
.
Their
Dispute
did
not
concern
matters
of
Christian
Worship
,
and
therefore
if
they
indulged
one
another
in
those
things
wherein
they
differed
,
as
in
eating
or
not
eating
those
meats
which
were
forbidden
by
the
Law
of
Moses
,
they
might
very
well
agree
in
those
things
wherein
they
were
already
agreed
,
as
they
were
in
all
matters
of
Christian
Worship
:
and
therefore
they
might
worship
God
together
in
Christian
Assemblies
,
as
one
Body
,
and
one
Church
;
which
did
effectually
prevent
a
Schism
.
But
while
Dissenters
differ
from
the
Church
about
the
Rites
and
Modes
of
Worship
,
it
is
impossible
they
should
worship
God
together
,
and
to
grant
Indulgence
to
such
different
apprehensions
which
the
Apostle
pleads
for
in
the
case
of
the
Jews
,
would
onely
make
a
legal
Schism
;
and
to
remove
these
scrupled
Ceremonies
,
as
I
have
already
proved
,
would
not
unite
us
in
one
body
;
and
to
countenance
such
Scruples
as
these
by
the
least
Indulgence
,
would
lay
an
eternal
foundation
of
Schisms
:
and
therefore
the
Argument
does
not
hold
from
the
case
of
the
Jews
to
the
case
of
the
Dissenters
,
because
forbearance
in
one
case
would
cure
the
Schism
,
in
t'other
it
will
increase
it
.
5.
This
indulgence
to
the
Jews
in
the
o●servation
of
the
Law
of
Moses
,
was
very
consistent
with
the
Apostolical
authority
in
governing
the
Church
,
and
prescribing
the
Rules
and
Orders
of
Christian
Worship
;
but
an
Indulgence
of
Dissenters
in
the
use
of
indifferent
things
in
Religious
Worship
,
is
not
so
.
Our
Reconciler
proves
from
St.
Paul's
condescension
to
the
Jews
,
that
the
Governours
of
the
Church
must
not
impose
the
use
of
any
indifferent
things
in
the
Worship
of
God
,
or
that
in
charity
to
Dissenters
they
must
alter
such
Rules
and
Canons
when
as
often
as
there
are
any
who
scruple
the
lawfulness
of
them
;
that
is
,
they
must
part
with
their
Authority
(
or
for
ever
suspend
the
exercise
of
it
,
which
is
much
at
one
)
to
govern
Religious
Assemblies
,
and
to
prescribe
the
decent
Rites
of
Worship
,
when
there
are
any
persons
so
ignorant
or
so
humoursome
as
to
dispute
their
Authority
,
or
the
lawfulness
of
what
they
command
.
The
absurdity
of
this
Principle
I
have
already
shewn
at
large
;
Now
this
is
the
plain
case
here
:
The
Dispute
between
Jews
and
Gentiles
,
as
you
have
already
seen
,
did
not
concern
Christian
Worship
,
nor
the
government
of
Christian
Assemblies
,
but
the
exercise
of
mens
private
liberty
;
and
therefore
St.
Paul
might
grant
,
and
might
exhort
to
this
forbearance
,
without
injuring
the
Apostolical
Authority
,
which
onely
concerns
the
government
of
Christian
Assemblies
,
and
prescribing
the
Orders
and
Rules
of
publick
Worship
.
And
indeed
it
is
very
evident
,
that
St.
Paul
would
never
have
indulged
the
scruples
of
Christians
to
the
diminution
of
the
Apostolical
Power
and
Authority
,
which
he
asserted
as
high
as
any
of
the
Apostles
.
He
gave
several
directions
for
the
government
of
Religious
Assemblies
;
for
the
regular
exercise
of
their
Spiritual
Gifts
in
the
Church
of
Corinth
,
for
speaking
with
Tongues
and
prophesying
;
for
their
demeanour
and
deportment
of
themselves
,
that
men
should
pray
and
prophesie
uncovered
,
and
women
covered
▪
that
women
should
not
speak
in
the
Church
;
for
their
celebrating
the
Lords
Supper
and
Love-feasts
;
for
their
holy
kiss
;
besides
his
general
directions
,
that
all
things
should
be
done
decently
and
in
order
:
and
after
these
particular
directions
,
reserves
the
final
ordering
of
things
to
himself
;
The
rest
will
I
set
in
order
when
I
come
.
For
this
cause
left
I
thee
in
Crete
,
that
thou
shouldest
set
in
order
the
things
that
are
wanting
.
Now
if
our
Reconciler
could
shew
that
in
such
matters
as
these
,
which
concerned
.
the
exercise
of
Church-Authority
▪
the
Apostles
allowed
private
Christians
to
dispute
their
commands
,
and
gave
indulgence
to
every
one
to
do
as
they
pleased
,
who
did
not
like
to
do
what
was
commanded
;
it
would
be
somewhat
to
the
purpose
,
and
might
justly
be
thought
a
standing
Rule
for
Church-Governours
:
but
the
Apostles
understood
their
Authority
,
and
the
Primitive
Christians
their
Duty
,
better
than
so
;
none
disputed
their
commands
in
Rules
of
Prudence
and
Decency
,
nor
would
they
suffer
their
commands
to
be
disputed
without
censure
.
St.
Paul
commends
the
Corinthians
upon
this
account
:
I
praise
you
,
brethren
,
that
you
remember
me
in
all
things
,
and
keep
the
ordinances
,
as
I
delivered
them
to
you
.
He
commends
them
for
their
obedience
to
Titus
,
and
gives
the
Thessalonians
this
general
Rule
;
To
know
them
which
labour
among
you
in
the
Lord
,
and
admonish
you
,
and
to
esteem
them
highly
for
their
works
sake
.
And
what
that
means
,
we
learn
from
the
Epistle
to
the
Hebrews
:
Obey
them
that
have
the
rule
over
you
,
and
submit
your selves
,
for
they
watch
for
your
souls
.
And
he
commands
the
Thessalonians
,
If
any
man
obey
not
our
word
by
this
Epistle
,
note
that
man
,
and
have
no
company
with
him
,
that
he
may
be
ashamed
.
Which
shews
a
true
Apostolical
Spirit
and
Power
;
which
we
have
no
reason
to
doubt
,
but
he
exercised
in
other
cases
,
as
well
as
that
which
is
there
mentioned
.
Now
if
this
forbearance
towards
the
believing
Jews
,
which
St.
Paul
pleads
for
,
did
not
entrench
upon
Ecclesiastical
Authority
,
if
it
appears
from
other
places
that
he
did
assert
his
Authority
,
and
require
obedience
and
submission
to
it
,
one
would
wonder
how
the
Reconciler
should
hence
prove
,
that
the
Governours
of
the
Church
should
give
up
their
Authority
to
the
Dissenters
,
or
which
is
all
one
,
not
impose
any
thing
which
through
ignorance
or
scrupulosity
,
or
from
some
worse
cause
,
they
refuse
to
obey
;
which
St.
Paul
never
did
,
where
he
had
authority
to
impose
:
for
as
for
his
becoming
all
things
to
all
men
(
of
which
more
in
the
next
Chapter
)
it
referred
onely
to
the
exercise
of
a
private
liberty
,
not
of
an
Ecclesiastical
Authority
.
6.
I
shall
adde
but
one
thing
more
,
that
this
forbearance
which
St.
Paul
pleads
for
,
was
onely
temporary
.
It
was
a
prudent
Expedient
for
that
time
,
which
was
such
a
critical
period
as
never
happened
before
,
nor
could
ever
ha●pen
again
,
nor
could
continue
long
;
and
therefore
there
was
no
such
inconvenience
in
it
,
but
what
might
be
dispensed
with
out
of
love
and
charity
to
weak
Brethren
.
The
Jews
,
who
at
that
time
believed
in
Christ
,
could
not
presently
be
convinced
that
the
Law
of
Moses
was
abrogated
,
or
out
of
date
;
but
St.
Paul
saw
a
time
a
coming
which
would
effectually
convince
them
of
this
,
when
God
should
suffer
the
Romans
to
destroy
their
City
and
Temple
,
and
put
a
final
end
to
the
Jewish
Worship
;
which
he
seems
to
refer
to
,
when
he
tells
them
,
Let
us
therefore
as
many
as
be
perfect
(
thoroughly
informed
in
the
Christian
Doctrine
)
be
thus
minded
;
and
if
in
any
thing
ye
be
otherwise
minded
,
God
shall
reveal
even
this
unto
you
.
Now
when
we
see
a
fair
prospect
of
the
end
of
such
Disputes
,
and
have
an
Expedient
in
the
mean
time
to
preserve
the
Peace
and
Unity
of
the
Church
,
certainly
Christian
charity
obligeth
all
men
to
mutual
forbearance
.
But
now
the
case
of
the
Dissenters
is
quite
different
from
this
.
They
raise
Scruples
and
Disputes
after
above
fifteen
hundred
years
prescription
against
them
,
and
separate
from
the
Church
of
England
upon
such
Principles
as
condemn
the
best
and
the
purest
Churches
of
former
Ages
;
and
if
their
Scruples
be
indulged
,
it
is
impossible
there
should
ever
be
any
Peace
and
Unity
in
the
Christian
Church
:
for
they
may
entertain
and
multiply
such
Disputes
for
ever
,
with
the
same
reason
that
they
do
now
.
And
therefore
there
is
always
reason
to
suppress
those
Scruples
,
which
c●nnot
be
cured
or
outworn
by
time
;
when
Indulgence
will
not
cure
the
Disease
,
nor
time
remove
it
,
it
must
be
stifled
and
suppressed
by
Ecclesiastical
Authority
.
Whether
our
Reconciler
will
think
this
a
sufficient
Answer
to
his
fourth
Chapter
,
I
cannot
tell
;
I
am
sure
I
do
.
CHAP.
VI.
Containing
an
Answer
to
the
fifth
Chapter
of
the
Protestant
Reconciler
,
or
his
Arguments
taken
from
St.
Paul's
Epistles
to
the
Corinthians
.
HAving
in
the
former
Chapter
so
particularly
answered
our
Reconciler's
Arguments
taken
,
as
he
pretends
,
from
that
condescension
and
forbearance
which
St.
Paul
exhorts
the
believing
Jews
and
Gentiles
to
exercise
towards
each
other
in
that
great
Dispute
about
the
observation
of
the
Law
of
Moses
,
there
seems
little
occasion
to
answer
the
rest
of
his
Arguments
from
Scripture
,
which
every
ordinary
Reader
may
do
from
the
Principles
already
laid
down
.
But
that
our
Reconciler
may
not
complain
that
he
is
not
answered
,
I
am
willing
to
undergo
the
trouble
of
a
needless
Answer
,
if
my
Readers
will
be
pleased
to
pardon
it
.
His
first
Argument
is
from
St.
Paul's
discourse
,
1
Cor.
6.
Where
he
condemneth
the
Corinthians
because
they
went
to
law
before
the
heathens
—
which
was
a
blemish
to
the
Christian
Faith
,
and
ministred
scandal
to
the
heathens
,
and
made
them
apt
to
think
that
Christians
were
covetous
,
contentious
,
and
prone
to
injure
one
another
,
&c.
Since
therefore
our
Contentions
about
these
lesser
matters
do
minister
far
greater
Scandal
to
the
Atheist
,
the
Sceptick
,
&c.
our
Governours
should
rather
suffer
themselves
to
be
restrained
a
little
,
and
even
injured
in
the
exercise
of
their
just
Power
about
things
unnecessary
,
than
by
their
stiffness
to
assert
and
to
exert
it
,
to
continue
to
give
occasion
to
so
great
a
Scandal
to
the
Christian
Faith
.
This
is
an
admirable
Argument
,
if
it
be
well
considered
.
The
Christians
must
not
go
to
law
before
Heathen
Judges
,
therefore
the
Governours
of
the
Church
must
not
prescribe
the
decent
Rites
and
Ceremonies
of
Worship
.
Yes
,
you
will
say
,
the
Argument
is
good
,
because
the
reason
is
the
same
,
to
avoid
Scandal
.
Let
us
then
suppose
this
was
the
reason
,
if
we
will
make
these
two
cases
parallel
,
it
must
be
thus
:
To
go
to
law
with
our
Christian
Brethren
is
scandalous
,
and
therefore
must
be
avoided
;
to
prescribe
the
decent
Rites
and
Ceremonies
of
Religion
is
scandalous
,
and
therefore
Church-Governours
must
not
exercise
this
Authority
.
Will
our
Reconciler
now
stand
to
this
Proposition
?
No
,
that
he
durst
not
affirm
that
the
exercise
of
a
just
Authority
in
these
matters
is
scandalous
,
but
the
contentions
about
such
Rites
and
Ceremonies
are
scandalous
,
and
therefore
Governours
must
not
insist
on
their
Authority
to
prescribe
them
.
But
now
this
way
of
stating
it
does
not
make
the
case
parallel
,
and
therefore
he
cannot
argue
by
any
parity
of
Reason
from
one
to
the
other
.
St.
Paul
exhorts
the
Christians
not
to
go
to
law
before
Heathen
Judges
,
because
it
was
scandalous
to
the
Christian
Profession
to
do
so
;
and
therefore
if
our
Reconciler
will
make
a
parallel
case
,
he
must
instance
onely
in
something
which
is
scandalous
,
and
then
by
a
parity
of
reason
he
may
prove
that
to
be
forbidden
also
:
But
neither
the
Authority
to
prescribe
the
decent
Rites
of
Worship
,
nor
the
prudent
exercise
of
it
,
is
scandalous
;
and
therefore
he
cannot
prove
this
to
be
forbid
by
any
parity
of
Reason
.
But
contentions
indeed
in
the
Christian
Church
,
whatever
be
the
cause
of
them
,
are
very
scandalous
;
and
therefore
all
scandalous
contentions
are
forbid
,
as
all
scandalous
going
to
law
is
.
For
we
must
observe
,
that
though
the
Apostle
in
the
seventh
verse
tells
them
,
There
is
utterly
a
fault
among
you
,
because
ye
go
to
law
one
with
another
,
yet
he
does
not
absolutely
forbid
going
to
law
,
as
that
signifies
using
some
fair
and
lawful
means
of
righting
our selves
,
when
we
suffer
wrong
even
from
our
Christian
Brethren
,
but
onely
as
it
signifies
going
to
law
before
the
Vnbelievers
or
Heathen
Magistrates
:
for
he
requires
and
exhorts
them
to
have
their
Causes
heard
and
tryed
before
the
Saints
,
that
is
,
either
the
Governours
of
the
Church
,
or
any
other
Christians
,
whom
by
joynt
consent
they
shall
make
Judges
and
Arbitrators
among
them
.
But
to
go
to
law
in
those
days
,
did
properly
signifie
to
implead
one
another
before
the
Heathen
Tribunals
,
because
there
were
no
other
Magistrates
at
that
time
,
who
had
any
legal
authority
;
and
this
going
to
law
was
scandalous
.
Thus
by
a
parity
of
Reason
,
it
is
onely
that
contention
which
is
scandalous
,
that
can
be
forbid
;
and
therefore
for
the
Governours
of
the
Church
to
assert
their
own
Authority
in
ordering
the
Externals
of
Religion
,
and
for
private
Christians
to
defend
the
Authority
of
the
Church
,
though
with
some
vehemence
and
earnestness
,
is
not
scandalous
,
for
it
is
what
they
ought
to
do
;
but
to
contend
against
the
Authority
of
the
Church
,
is
a
very
scandalous
contention
,
because
it
is
against
the
Duty
which
private
Christians
owe
to
their
Superiours
:
and
therefore
whatever
Scandal
is
given
by
such
contentions
,
is
wholly
owing
to
the
scandalous
Contenders
,
that
is
,
to
the
Dissenters
,
who
scandalously
oppose
the
Authority
and
Constitutions
of
the
Church
.
And
therefore
our
Reconciler
ought
to
have
reproved
the
Dissenters
,
and
exhorted
them
to
leave
off
their
scandalous
contentions
;
not
to
lay
a
necessity
on
the
Governors
of
the
Church
not
to
exercise
their
Authority
which
these
men
so
scandalously
oppose
;
as
we
find
the
Apostle
in
this
very
place
turns
the
edge
of
his
reproof
against
those
who
did
the
wrong
,
and
gave
occasion
to
these
scandalous
contentions
:
Ye
do
wrong
and
defraud
,
and
that
your
brethren
.
Contentions
either
about
the
Doctrine
,
Discipline
,
or
Worship
of
the
Christian
Church
,
are
very
scandalous
;
but
is
this
a
good
reason
not
to
contend
for
the
Faith
,
not
to
oppose
Heresies
and
Schisms
,
because
these
Disputes
represent
Christianity
as
a
very
uncertain
thing
,
and
give
scandal
and
offence
to
Atheists
and
Infidels
?
then
the
Orthodox
Christians
did
very
ill
to
meet
in
such
frequent
Councils
to
condemn
Arianism
and
other
pestilent
Heresies
.
Where
there
is
a
Scandal
onely
on
one
side
,
and
Contention
is
the
onely
Scandal
,
this
is
a
good
reason
against
such
contentious
Disputes
;
but
when
it
is
more
scandalous
to
suffer
Heresies
in
the
Church
,
to
see
Ecclesiastical
Authority
despised
,
to
permit
any
indecencies
and
disorders
,
different
customs
and
practices
in
Christian
Worship
,
than
it
is
to
contend
for
the
Truth
,
and
for
the
Order
and
Uniformity
of
publick
Worship
,
we
must
not
be
afraid
to
contend
for
these
things
,
the
onely
scandalous
contention
being
to
contend
against
them
.
His
second
Argument
,
the
Apostle
grants
it
is
good
for
a
man
not
to
touch
a
wife
.
The
Apostle
says
,
Not
to
touch
a
woman
:
And
why
our
Reconciler
says
wife
instead
of
woman
,
I
cannot
tell
.
I
am
sure
it
is
a
corruption
of
the
Text
,
and
contrary
to
the
Apostolical
command
,
Let
the
husband
render
unto
the
wife
due
benevolence
,
and
likewise
also
the
wife
unto
the
husband
,
v.
3.
But
to
let
that
pass
,
his
Argument
in
short
is
this
:
The
Apostle
declares
,
that
a
single
life
has
many
advantages
in
it
as
to
the
purposes
of
Religion
,
especially
in
that
afflicted
and
persecuted
state
of
the
Ghuach
,
above
Marriage
;
and
therefore
he
recommends
a
single
life
to
them
:
But
knowing
,
as
our
Saviour
had
before
declared
,
that
every
one
could
not
receive
this
saying
,
he
does
not
impose
it
upon
them
;
and
therefore
the
Governours
of
the
Church
should
not
impose
our
Ceremonies
,
though
it
could
be
proved
that
there
is
like
profit
,
decency
,
or
tendence
to
perform
Gods
service
better
,
as
the
Apostle
says
there
was
under
the
present
circumstances
in
keeping
their
virginity
.
Now
I
would
onely
ask
our
Reconciler
,
whether
the
Apostle
had
any
authority
to
impose
Virginity
on
the
Christians
of
those
days
,
or
to
forbid
them
to
marry
?
If
he
had
not
,
(
as
I
think
our
Reconciler
will
not
say
that
he
had
)
then
his
Argument
runs
thus
:
The
Apostle
would
not
impose
that
upon
the
Christians
which
he
had
no
authority
to
impose
;
therefore
the
Governours
of
the
Church
must
not
impose
that
which
they
have
authority
to
impose
.
Some
things
may
have
great
profit
and
advantage
in
them
,
which
yet
are
instances
of
so
perfect
a
Vertue
,
as
is
above
the
common
attainments
of
Christians
,
and
therefore
not
fit
to
be
made
a
standing
Law
;
they
may
be
proper
matter
for
an
Exhortation
,
but
not
for
a
Command
.
But
what
a
wide
difference
is
there
between
the
instances
of
a
raised
and
perfect
Vertue
,
and
the
decent
Rites
and
Ceremonies
of
Worship
?
It
is
too
severe
an
imposition
to
command
the
one
,
but
there
is
no
difficulty
in
observing
the
other
.
But
the
difference
between
Laws
of
burden
and
Ecclesiastical
Ceremonies
,
Thirdly
,
His
next
head
of
Arguments
for
condescension
to
Dissenters
,
is
taken
from
that
Dispute
about
eating
of
those
meats
which
were
offered
to
Idols
,
1
Cor.
8.
&
10.
Now
there
is
no
need
of
any
other
Answer
to
this
,
1.
Who
these
knowing
Persons
were
who
eat
in
the
Idols
Temples
.
Now
it
is
very
plain
that
the
Apostle
in
this
place
taxes
the
Gnostick
Hereticks
,
who
had
occasioned
that
first
Schism
●n
the
Church
of
Corinth
,
and
taught
the
People
to
despise
St.
Paul
as
very
ignorant
of
the
Mysteries
of
the
Gospel
,
and
what
the
just
extent
of
Christian
liberty
was
.
For
1.
it
is
plain
that
he
here
taxes
a
vain
and
arrogant
pretence
of
knowledge
,
v.
2.
If
any
man
think
that
he
knoweth
any
thing
,
he
knoweth
nothing
yet
,
as
he
ought
to
know
;
If
any
man
see
thee
which
hast
knowledge
(
who
dost
so
much
boast
of
thy
knowledge
)
sit
at
meat
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
in
an
Idols
Temple
.
Now
this
St.
Paul
in
the
tenth
Chapter
absolutely
condemns
,
not
onely
as
sinful
upon
account
of
scandal
,
but
as
sinful
in
it self
,
as
partaking
with
Devils
by
eating
of
their
Sacrifices
.
No
true
Orthodox
Christian
ever
did
this
;
but
the
Gnostick
Hereticks
did
,
partly
out
of
luxury
,
to
partake
in
these
splendid
Entertainments
,
and
to
defile
themselves
with
those
impure
lusts
which
were
part
of
their
Mysteries
,
as
the
Apostle
insinuates
,
ch.
10.6
,
7
,
8.
v.
These
things
are
our
examples
,
to
the
intent
we
should
not
lust
after
evil
things
,
as
they
also
lusted
;
neither
be
ye
idolaters
,
as
were
some
of
them
,
as
it
is
written
,
The
people
sate
down
to
eat
and
drink
,
and
rose
up
to
play
;
neither
let
us
commit
fornication
,
as
some
of
them
committed
:
and
partly
out
of
fear
of
persecution
,
against
which
the
Apostle
warns
and
encourages
the
sincere
Christians
,
v.
13.
There
has
no
temptation
(
no
tryal
by
sufferings
and
persecutions
)
taken
you
,
but
what
is
common
to
men
;
but
God
is
faithful
,
who
will
not
suffer
you
to
be
tempted
above
what
you
are
able
,
but
will
with
the
temptation
also
make
a
way
to
escape
,
that
ye
may
be
able
to
bear
it
.
And
to
justifie
this
practice
of
theirs
in
eating
at
an
Idols
Temple
,
they
pretended
that
an
Idol
is
nothing
in
the
world
;
2.
Let
us
consider
who
these
weak
persons
were
,
who
were
offended
and
scandalized
at
this
liberty
which
the
Gnosticks
took
.
Now
it
is
as
plain
,
that
these
were
a
sort
of
very
imperfect
Christians
,
who
together
with
the
Faith
of
Christ
,
retained
many
of
their
old
Pagan
Superstitions
,
as
the
Jews
did
the
observation
of
the
Mosaical
Law
.
This
appears
from
that
account
St.
Paul
gives
of
them
,
that
they
were
men
who
did
not
understand
that
an
Idol
is
nothing
,
but
look'd
upon
them
at
least
as
some
inferiour
Gods
,
and
frequented
their
Temples
,
and
eat
of
the
meat
offered
to
them
,
under
the
notion
of
Sacrifices
,
and
thereby
did
defile
and
pollute
themselves
with
Idolatrous
Worship
.
Howbeit
there
is
not
in
every
man
that
knowledge
:
for
some
with
conscience
of
the
Idol
to
this
hour
eat
it
as
a
thing
offered
unto
Idols
,
and
their
conscience
being
weak
(
a
sick
,
misinformed
,
corrupt
conscience
)
is
defiled
with
Idolatry
.
And
therefore
the
scandal
which
was
given
to
these
men
,
was
this
;
that
when
they
saw
those
who
pretended
to
such
perfect
knowledge
in
the
Mystery
of
Christianity
,
eat
of
the
Sacrifice
in
the
Idols
Temple
,
this
confirmed
them
in
their
errour
and
Idolatry
,
and
made
them
conclude
that
such
Pagan
Superstitions
as
these
were
reconcilabl●
with
the
Faith
of
Christ
:
For
if
any
man
〈◊〉
thee
,
which
hast
knowledge
,
sit
at
meat
in
an
Idols
Temple
,
shall
not
the
conscience
of
him
that
is
weak
be
emboldened
to
eat
those
things
which
are
offered
to
Idols
,
and
through
thy
knowledge
shall
thy
weak
brother
perish
for
whom
Christ
died
,
by
being
confirmed
in
his
Idolatry
by
thy
Example
?
3.
Now
the
Apostle
disputes
against
this
practice
of
the
Gnosticks
,
of
eating
in
the
Idols
Temple
,
two
several
ways
:
1.
Upon
the
supposition
of
the
lawfulness
of
it
:
2.
By
proving
it
unlawful
.
1.
Upon
the
supposition
of
the
lawfulness
of
it
;
and
this
he
does
in
the
eighth
Chapter
.
He
allows
that
Principle
of
the
Gnosticks
,
That
an
Idol
is
nothing
in
the
world
;
and
supposes
for
argument
sake
,
that
this
would
justifie
those
who
have
this
knowledge
in
eating
at
an
Idols
Temple
,
(
for
that
the
Apostle
himself
was
not
of
this
mind
,
appears
from
the
tenth
Chapter
,
of
which
more
presently
)
:
yet
since
there
were
so
many
professed
Christians
among
them
who
were
still
leavened
with
their
Pagan
Superstitions
,
and
could
not
presently
renounce
that
kind
of
Worship
which
they
had
been
so
long
accustomed
to
,
(
as
some
Copies
read
it
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
inde●d
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
v.
7.
that
some
out
of
custom
to
the
Idol
,
instead
of
with
conscience
of
the
Idol
)
it
was
very
uncharitable
by
doing
the
same
thing
which
they
did
,
though
with
very
different
notions
and
apprehensions
,
to
confirm
them
in
their
Idolatrous
Practices
.
Though
these
knowing
Gnosticks
who
believed
an
Idol
to
be
nothing
,
might
eat
in
the
Idols
Temple
without
being
guilty
of
Idolatry
,
yet
th●y
must
acknowledge
that
those
who
believed
these
Idols
to
be
Gods
,
and
did
eat
that
meat
which
was
offered
to
them
under
the
notion
of
Sacrifices
,
were
guilty
of
Idolatry
,
and
therefore
they
were
guilty
of
a
very
great
sin
;
when
by
doing
the
same
thing
,
though
without
Idolatry
,
they
encouraged
those
to
do
so
too
,
who
were
certainly
guilty
of
Idolatry
in
it
.
And
the
guilt
of
this
is
so
much
the
greater
,
because
though
they
should
suppose
it
lawful
to
eat
at
an
Idols
Temple
,
yet
they
were
under
no
necessity
of
doing
it
;
if
they
did
not
sin
in
it
,
yet
neither
did
they
please
God
meerly
by
eating
such
meats
as
were
offered
to
Idols
:
for
meerly
to
eat
or
not
to
eat
any
kind
of
meats
,
is
not
in
it self
an
acceptable
service
to
God
.
Meat
commendeth
us
not
to
God
:
for
neither
if
we
eat
are
we
the
better
,
neither
if
we
eat
not
are
we
the
worse
.
And
therefore
certainly
we
may
abstain
from
it
without
any
other
injury
than
laying
some
little
restraints
upon
the
exercise
of
our
private
liberty
;
and
this
is
therefore
a
proper
matter
for
the
exercise
of
Christian
charity
,
as
the
Apostle
had
discoursed
in
the
case
of
the
Jews
and
Gentiles
.
And
though
the
Gnosticks
thought
that
eating
in
an
Idols
Temple
was
a
great
argument
of
the
perfection
of
their
knowledge
,
yet
the
Apostle
tells
them
,
that
charity
and
the
care
of
their
Brothers
soul
,
was
to
be
preferred
before
such
a
vain
boast
of
knowledge
:
Take
beed
lest
by
any
means
this
liberty
of
yours
become
a
stumbling-block
to
them
that
are
weak
—
and
through
thy
knowledge
shall
the
weak
brother
perish
,
for
whom
Christ
died
.
For
which
reason
in
the
beginning
he
told
them
,
Knowledge
puffeth
up
,
but
charity
edifieth
.
This
is
the
sum
of
the
Apostle's
reasoning
in
this
eighth
Chapter
,
upon
a
supposition
that
it
were
lawful
to
eat
in
an
Idols
Temple
.
Now
what
affinity
is
there
between
this
case
and
that
of
our
Dissenters
?
Those
who
knew
that
an
Idol
was
nothing
,
and
therefore
that
it
could
not
pollute
the
meat
which
was
offered
in
sacrifice
to
it
,
might
eat
in
an
Idols
Temple
without
Idolatry
;
but
yet
ought
not
to
do
it
,
when
their
Example
,
though
innocent
in
it self
,
would
confirm
others
in
actual
Idolatry
:
therefore
the
Governours
of
the
Church
must
not
prescribe
the
decent
Rites
and
Ceremonies
of
Worship
,
because
Dissenters
will
not
obey
them
,
but
turn
Schismaticks
.
If
our
Reconciler
be
not
ashamed
to
argue
at
this
rate
,
I
am
ashamed
to
confute
him
.
But
it
is
plain
,
he
mistook
the
case
.
For
he
says
,
The
Apostle
grants
that
it
is
lawful
in
it self
for
Christians
to
eat
of
things
offered
to
Idols
,
because
an
Idol
was
nothing
in
the
world
.
But
now
the
Apostle
does
not
grant
this
,
but
onely
at
present
supposes
the
lawfulness
of
it
:
for
in
the
tenth
Chapter
he
professedly
confutes
it
.
He
tells
them
that
to
partake
of
a
Sacrifice
,
signifies
our
communion
with
that
being
to
whom
the
Sacrifice
is
offered
.
Behold
Israel
after
the
flesh
,
are
not
they
which
eat
of
the
sacrifices
partakers
of
the
altar
?
Thus
it
is
in
the
commemorative
Sacrifice
of
the
Lords
Supper
:
The
cup
of
blessing
which
we
bless
,
is
it
not
the
communion
of
the
bloud
of
Christ
?
the
bread
which
we
break
,
is
it
not
the
communion
of
the
body
of
Christ
?
And
thus
to
eat
of
the
Idols
Sacrifice
in
the
Idols
Temple
,
is
communion
with
the
Idol
.
Well
says
the
Gnostick
,
what
communion
can
there
be
with
that
which
is
not
?
or
will
you
say
,
That
an
Idol
is
any
thing
,
or
that
which
is
offered
in
sacrifice
to
Idols
is
any
thing
?
Will
you
say
,
that
there
are
any
such
Gods
as
the
Heathens
worship
?
Or
will
you
say
,
that
that
is
a
Sacrifice
,
or
that
that
meat
is
polluted
which
is
offered
to
nothing
?
No
,
says
the
Apostle
,
I
do
not
say
that
there
are
any
such
Gods
as
the
Heathens
worship
;
for
they
worshipped
dead
men
and
women
,
who
cannot
be
present
at
their
Sacrifices
to
receive
their
Worship
,
or
it
may
be
they
worship
onely
some
fanciful
and
poetick
Names
and
Fictions
:
but
this
I
say
,
that
though
Iupiter
and
Bacchus
,
Minerva
and
Diana
,
and
the
rest
of
the
poetick
Deities
,
are
meer
fictitious
Gods
,
yet
wicked
Spirits
supply
their
places
,
receive
their
Worship
,
and
attend
their
Sacrifices
;
and
therefore
though
these
Heathen
Idolaters
be
not
in
communion
with
those
fictitious
Gods
whom
they
pretend
to
worship
,
yet
they
are
in
communion
with
Devils
,
who
assume
the
names
of
these
Gods
.
But
I
say
,
that
the
things
which
the
Gentiles
sacrifice
,
they
sacrifice
to
Devils
,
and
not
to
God
;
and
I
would
not
that
ye
should
have
fellowship
with
Devils
.
Whether
this
can
be
reconciled
with
the
lawfulness
of
eating
in
an
Idols
Temple
,
because
an
Idol
is
nothing
in
the
world
,
let
our
Author
consider
.
But
he
proceeds
.
He
(
the
Apostle
)
moreover
grants
,
that
they
who
out
of
conscience
did
abstain
from
eating
of
such
things
,
had
a
weak
conscience
,
and
that
their
conscience
was
defiled
by
eating
of
such
things
,
onely
because
they
wanted
knowledge
,
or
were
not
well
perswaded
of
this
truth
,
that
Christians
had
a
liberty
or
power
to
be
partakers
of
these
things
,
v.
7
,
9.
He
therefore
grants
,
that
the
weak
brother
was
mistaken
,
and
that
the
strong
gave
him
no
just
occasion
of
offence
.
Which
is
every
word
false
,
as
appears
from
what
I
have
already
discoursed
.
His
interpretation
of
a
weak
Conscience
,
to
be
such
a
Conscience
as
did
abstain
from
eating
of
such
things
,
is
directly
contrary
to
the
Text
,
which
affirms
that
they
did
eat
:
For
some
with
conscience
of
the
Idol
,
unto
this
hour
eat
it
as
a
thing
offered
unto
an
Idol
,
and
their
conscience
being
weak
is
defiled
.
They
were
such
as
were
encouraged
and
emboldned
by
the
example
of
the
Gnosticks
,
to
eat
those
things
which
were
offered
to
Idols
:
So
that
they
did
not
do
this
with
a
fearful
,
timorous
,
scrupulous
,
doubting
Conscience
,
but
with
a
full
assurance
and
perswasion
of
the
lawfulness
of
it
.
And
therefore
this
weakness
did
not
consist
in
the
tenderness
,
but
in
the
corruption
and
debauchery
of
their
Conscience
,
that
they
believed
they
might
still
sacrifice
to
their
Heathen
Gods
,
and
that
Christianity
did
allow
them
to
do
so
;
in
which
Perswasion
they
were
confirmed
by
the
Example
of
those
professed
Christians
whom
they
saw
sit
at
meat
in
the
Idols
Temple
.
Nor
therefore
were
their
Consciences
defiled
,
as
our
Reconciler
asserts
,
onely
because
they
wanted
knowledge
,
or
were
not
well
perswaded
of
this
truth
,
that
Christians
had
a
liberty
or
power
to
eat
of
these
things
:
for
they
were
too
well
perswaded
not
of
this
truth
,
but
of
this
great
and
fatal
errour
,
that
it
was
lawful
for
Christians
to
sacrifice
to
Idols
,
and
to
eat
of
their
Sacrifices
.
And
thus
their
Consciences
was
defiled
,
not
by
acting
doubtfully
,
but
by
committing
Idolatry
.
So
that
the
weak
Brother
was
mistaken
indeed
,
but
the
mistake
lay
quite
on
the
other
side
;
and
those
Gnostick
Hereticks
whom
our
Reconciler
calls
the
strong
Christians
,
did
give
just
occasion
of
offence
,
not
by
perswading
,
much
less
compelling
the
weak
to
do
what
he
suspected
to
be
unlawful
,
but
by
confirming
him
in
these
Idolatrous
Practices
to
which
he
was
so
strongly
addicted
by
their
Examples
.
And
therefore
when
,
as
he
observes
,
the
Apostle
exhorts
those
Christians
who
had
attained
to
this
knowledge
(
or
rather
who
pretended
to
such
extraordinary
knowledge
,
which
indeed
they
had
not
)
not
to
use
it
so
as
to
give
offence
to
the
weak
Conscience
of
their
Brother
,
who
had
this
knowledge
,
his
meaning
is
not
,
that
they
should
indulge
such
persons
in
their
weakness
and
mistakes
,
but
that
they
should
have
a
care
by
their
examples
of
confirming
them
in
such
mistakes
.
They
must
not
use
their
liberty
,
which
they
supposed
they
had
,
of
eating
in
an
Idols
Temple
,
not
because
some
ignorant
Christians
scrupled
the
lawfulness
of
it
,
but
because
those
imperfect
weak
Christians
who
were
still
addicted
to
the
Worship
of
their
Country
Gods
,
would
be
confirmed
in
their
Idolatrous
Worship
by
seeing
them
eat
of
the
Heathen
Sacrifices
,
which
was
a
known
and
venerable
part
of
the
Pagan
Worship
.
And
how
this
pleads
for
indulgence
to
the
errours
and
mistakes
of
Dissenters
,
I
cannot
guess
,
when
the
onely
scandal
the
Apostle
here
mentions
,
and
exhorts
them
to
avoid
,
is
the
confirming
such
weak
Christians
in
their
errours
and
wicked
practices
;
which
our
Reconciler
,
who
has
contributed
so
much
to
harden
these
men
in
their
Schism
,
should
do
well
to
consider
.
But
let
us
proceed
in
St.
Paul's
discourse
about
eating
those
meats
which
were
offered
in
sacrifice
to
Idols
.
Having
in
the
eighth
Chapter
disputed
against
the
practice
of
eating
in
an
Idols
Temple
,
upon
supposition
of
the
lawfulness
of
it
:
for
how
lawful
soever
it
was
,
it
was
very
uncharitable
,
when
hereby
they
confirmed
their
weak
Brother
in
his
Idolatrous
Worship
.
And
in
the
tenth
Chapter
(
as
I
have
already
shewn
)
having
proved
the
unlawfulness
of
eating
in
an
Idols
Temple
,
notwithstanding
that
pretence
,
that
an
Idol
is
nothing
in
the
world
,
he
comes
to
give
a
more
particular
decision
of
this
Controversie
,
to
prevent
those
scruples
which
otherwise
might
disturb
very
good
Christians
.
For
in
that
Age
and
place
wherein
they
lived
,
without
infinite
care
and
scrupulosity
,
they
could
not
avoid
eating
of
meats
offered
to
Idols
:
for
what
was
not
spent
in
the
Idols
Feast
,
was
sold
in
the
Shambles
,
or
spent
at
their
private
houses
;
and
therefore
they
neither
could
buy
any
meat
in
the
Market
,
nor
eat
at
the
private
house
of
any
Pagan
or
Heathen
Idolater
,
but
they
were
in
danger
of
eating
meats
offered
to
Idols
.
To
salve
this
difficulty
,
the
Apostle
tells
them
,
for
the
earth
is
the
Lords
,
and
the
fulness
thereof
;
that
is
,
all
Creatures
are
Gods
,
who
has
freely
given
them
to
us
for
our
use
,
and
we
may
as
freely
use
them
,
when
they
have
no
relation
to
any
Idolatrous
Worship
,
as
to
be
sure
they
have
not
,
when
they
are
exposed
to
sale
in
the
Shambles
,
or
used
for
private
Entertainments
.
But
yet
if
any
person
present
acquaint
you
that
this
was
offered
in
sacrifice
,
since
the
earth
is
the
Lords
,
and
the
fulness
thereof
:
God
has
made
such
ample
provision
for
us
,
that
we
are
not
confined
to
any
one
dish
,
but
when
it
is
inexpedient
to
eat
of
one
thing
,
we
need
not
be
a
hungry
for
all
that
,
having
such
variety
of
provisions
,
which
there
can
be
no
scruple
about
to
support
and
refresh
us
.
Who
these
were
for
whose
sake
the
Apostle
exhorts
the
Corinthians
to
abstain
from
eating
,
of
meats
offered
to
Idols
,
even
at
a
private
Entertainment
,
which
yet
he
asserts
they
might
lawfully
do
,
is
not
plain
in
the
Text
:
If
any
man
say
unto
you
,
this
is
offered
in
sacrifice
to
Idols
,
eat
not
.
But
whether
this
man
for
whose
sake
they
should
abstain
be
a
Christian
or
an
Infidel
,
is
not
said
.
The
unbeliever
,
at
whose
house
the
Christian
is
supposed
to
eat
,
might
accidentally
take
notice
that
such
meat
had
been
offered
in
sacrifice
to
such
a
God
,
and
in
this
case
the
Christian
might
be
obliged
to
forbear
,
to
shew
his
abhorrence
and
detestation
of
Idols
,
that
he
might
not
do
any
thing
which
seems
never
so
little
to
countenance
Idolatry
.
If
it
were
a
Christian
who
gave
this
information
,
it
might
either
be
one
who
did
really
scruple
the
lawfulness
of
●ating
any
meat
that
was
offered
to
an
Idol
,
though
out
of
the
Idols
Temple
,
and
then
he
who
understood
his
liberty
,
ought
to
forbear
for
his
sake
who
did
not
;
or
it
was
one
of
those
weak
and
imperfect
Christians
whom
the
Apostle
mentioned
in
the
eighth
Chapter
,
who
was
so
far
from
scrupling
the
lawfulness
of
eating
such
meats
at
a
private
house
,
that
he
thought
it
lawful
to
sacrifice
to
these
Heathen
Gods
,
and
to
partake
of
the
Sacrifice
in
the
Idols
Temple
,
and
then
the
sound
Christian
was
to
forbear
for
fear
of
encouraging
such
weak
Christians
in
their
Idolatry
:
for
they
might
apprehend
it
as
lawful
to
sacrifice
to
an
Idol
,
as
to
eat
of
the
Sacrifice
;
and
as
lawful
to
eat
of
the
Sacrifice
in
the
Idols
Temple
,
as
in
a
private
house
.
And
thus
the
use
of
their
innocent
liberty
in
eating
what
is
set
before
them
without
scruple
,
might
confirm
such
men
in
their
Idolatrous
practices
,
and
for
that
reason
they
were
to
forbear
.
And
it
is
probable
enough
that
St.
Paul
might
have
respect
to
all
these
,
from
what
he
adds
,
v.
32.
Give
none
offence
neither
to
the
Iew
nor
to
the
Gentile
,
nor
to
the
Church
of
God
.
Not
to
the
Jew
,
who
had
a
great
abhorrence
of
Idolatry
,
by
doing
any
thing
which
should
make
them
suspect
you
of
the
least
approach
to
Idolatry
,
which
would
confirm
them
in
their
aversion
to
Christianity
;
not
to
the
Gentile
,
by
confirming
them
in
their
Idolatry
;
not
to
the
Church
of
God
,
by
scandalizing
either
weak
or
scrupulous
Christians
,
much
less
by
scandalizing
the
Christian
Profession
,
as
the
Gnosticks
did
by
eating
in
the
Idols
Temple
.
But
how
any
thing
of
all
this
makes
to
our
Reconciler's
purpose
,
I
cannot
see
;
that
which
comes
nearest
the
business
is
,
if
we
suppose
that
the
Apostle
commands
them
to
abstain
for
the
sake
of
those
who
scrupled
the
lawfulness
of
such
meats
:
but
then
this
forbearance
was
only
in
the
exercise
of
their
private
liberty
in
eating
or
not
eating
,
wherein
Religion
is
not
immediately
concerned
:
for
though
it
were
lawful
to
eat
of
such
meats
,
yet
it
was
not
their
duty
to
do
it
;
their
eating
in
it self
considered
,
did
not
please
God
,
though
they
eat
without
scandal
,
much
less
when
their
eating
was
an
offence
to
weak
Christians
.
Meat
commendeth
us
not
to
God
:
for
neither
if
we
eat
,
are
we
the
better
;
neither
if
we
eat
not
,
are
we
the
worse
,
as
he
had
before
told
the
Romans
.
The
Kingdom
of
God
is
not
meat
and
drink
:
and
therefore
in
such
cases
it
became
them
to
exercise
great
charity
in
the
use
of
their
liberty
.
But
how
little
this
makes
to
our
Reconciler's
purpose
,
I
have
already
shewn
at
large
in
the
fifth
Chapter
;
and
our
Reconciler
has
offered
nothing
new
here
to
deserve
a
new
Answer
.
All
that
remains
to
be
considered
in
this
Chapter
,
is
the
Example
of
St.
Paul
himself
;
which
may
be
answered
in
a
very
few
words
.
He
exercised
great
charity
and
forbearance
both
towards
Jews
and
Gentiles
;
and
therefore
being
so
great
an
Apostle
,
ought
to
be
an
Example
of
the
like
forbearance
to
all
succeeding
Bishops
and
Pastors
of
the
Church
.
Now
if
our
Reconciler
can
prove
from
the
Example
of
St.
Paul
,
that
the
Governours
of
the
Church
ought
not
to
prescribe
the
decent
Rites
and
Ceremonies
of
Religion
,
or
ought
to
alter
and
abolish
them
,
in
charity
and
condescension
to
Dissenters
,
I
will
yield
the
Cause
.
Let
us
then
consider
what
St.
Paul's
condescension
was
,
and
I
observe
in
general
that
he
was
an
Example
of
the
same
condescension
and
forbearance
which
he
perswaded
other
private
Christians
to
exercise
;
and
therefore
if
that
charity
and
forbearance
which
he
exhorts
the
Christians
to
exercise
towards
each
other
,
does
not
overthrow
Ecclesiastical
Authority
,
nor
plead
for
the
Indulgence
and
Toleration
of
Dissenters
,
then
St.
Paul's
Example
cannot
do
this
neither
.
This
will
appear
from
considering
particulars
.
Wherefore
if
meat
make
my
brother
to
offend
,
I
will
eat
no
flesh
while
the
world
standeth
,
lest
I
make
my
brother
to
offend
.
In
the
Epistle
to
the
Romans
he
perswades
believing
Jews
and
Gentiles
to
receive
each
other
,
and
not
to
judge
,
and
censure
,
and
scandalize
one
another
about
the
observation
or
non-observation
of
the
Law
of
Moses
;
and
this
condescension
both
●o
Jews
and
Gentiles
,
he
exercised
himself
.
Vnto
the
Iew
I
became
as
a
Iew
,
that
I
might
gain
the
Iews
;
to
them
that
are
under
the
Law
,
as
under
the
Law
,
that
I
might
gain
them
that
are
under
the
Law
;
to
them
that
are
withou●
the
Law
,
as
without
Law
,
that
I
might
gain
them
that
are
without
Law
:
That
is
,
when
he
was
among
the
Jews
,
he
lived
as
a
Jew
,
observed
the
Law
of
Moses
as
they
did
;
when
he
was
among
the
Gentiles
,
who
had
no
regard
to
the
Law
of
Moses
,
he
did
not
observe
it
neither
;
he
complied
with
the
weakness
and
mistakes
both
of
Jews
and
Gentiles
;
he
became
all
things
to
all
men
,
that
he
might
by
all
means
gain
some
;
that
is
,
he
practised
that
condescension
and
forbearance
which
he
taught
others
to
practise
.
And
if
that
did
not
concern
the
case
of
our
Dissenters
,
nor
plead
for
the
like
Indulgence
and
Toleration
for
them
,
(
as
I
have
already
proved
at
large
it
does
not
)
neither
can
the
Apostle's
Example
prove
any
such
thing
.
All
this
condescension
of
the
Apostle
was
not
in
the
exercise
of
his
Apostolical
Authority
,
but
in
the
use
of
his
private
liberty
,
which
he
was
very
willing
to
restrain
to
make
his
Ministry
the
more
effectual
;
but
he
never
parted
with
his
Authority
to
govern
the
Church
,
and
to
prescribe
the
Rules
and
Orders
of
Worship
,
for
the
sake
of
any
Dissenters
,
as
I
have
already
proved
.
St.
Paul
asserts
his
right
to
live
upon
the
Churches
stock
as
well
as
other
Ministers
,
yet
he
maintained
himself
by
his
own
labour
,
that
he
might
preach
the
Gospel
to
the
Corinthians
without
charge
,
(
for
it
is
plain
that
he
did
receive
Contributions
from
other
Churches
)
and
this
he
did
,
lest
he
should
hinder
the
Gospel
of
Christ
,
and
to
cut
off
occasion
from
them
that
desire
occasion
.
From
whence
our
Reconciler
thus
argues
:
Wherefore
,
although
the
Rulers
of
the
Church
have
certainly
a
right
to
impose
things
indifferent
,
yet
with
submission
to
them
,
I
conceive
they
should
not
exercise
that
power
in
like
circumstances
,
viz.
when
by
the
exercise
thereof
they
give
occasion
to
them
that
desire
occasion
,
to
traduce
them
as
men
who
more
regard
a
Ceremony
than
an
immortal
Soul
,
the
exercise
of
their
commanding
power
,
than
the
preserving
poor
Souls
from
damning
Schisms
,
and
the
Church
from
sad
Divisions
;
when
it
hinders
the
preaching
of
the
Gospel
to
their
Flock
▪
as
this
imposing
seems
to
do
.
Ad
Populum
phalerae
.
Now
I
shall
briefly
consider
the
Case
,
and
then
I
will
consider
our
Reconciler's
Application
.
The
Case
is
this
:
St.
Paul
had
a
right
to
live
on
the
Gospel
,
who
ministred
in
holy
things
,
lived
of
the
things
of
the
Temple
,
and
they
which
wait
at
the
Altar
are
partakers
of
the
Altar
,
have
their
portion
allotted
them
out
of
those
Sacrifices
which
are
offered
there
;
and
thus
the
other
Apostles
were
maintained
.
But
St.
Paul
in
Corinth
,
and
all
the
Regions
of
Achaia
,
preached
the
Gospel
freely
;
took
nothing
of
them
,
but
partly
supplied
his
wants
by
his
own
labour
,
partly
was
supplied
by
the
Contributions
of
other
Churches
,
as
he
expresly
tells
them
,
I
robbed
other
Churches
,
taking
wages
of
them
to
do
you
service
;
when
I
was
present
with
you
and
wanted
,
I
was
chargeable
to
no
man
;
for
that
which
was
lacking
to
me
,
the
brethren
which
came
from
Macedonia
supplied
,
2
Cor.
11.8
,
9.
What
then
was
the
reason
why
the
Apostle
who
made
no
scruple
to
receive
from
other
Churches
,
yet
preached
,
and
was
always
resolved
to
preach
the
Gospel
freely
at
Corinth
?
Now
he
has
hinted
two
reasons
of
this
:
1.
That
he
observed
something
so
saving
in
the
temper
of
that
People
,
that
he
greatly
suspected
it
would
hinder
the
progress
of
the
Gospel
among
them
,
if
it
should
prove
matter
of
charge
,
especially
at
the
first
preaching
of
it
.
This
reason
he
assigns
for
it
in
those
words
,
Nevertheless
we
have
not
used
this
power
,
but
suffered
all
things
,
lest
we
should
hinder
the
Gospel
of
Christ
.
This
is
no
universal
reason
against
the
publick
maintenance
of
Gospel-Ministers
,
that
it
hinders
the
Gospel
of
Christ
;
for
then
God
would
not
have
ordained
,
as
the
Apostle
tells
us
he
has
,
that
those
who
preach
the
Gospel
,
should
live
of
the
Gospel
:
and
therefore
it
must
have
a
particular
respect
to
the
temper
of
that
People
,
as
he
sufficiently
intimates
,
when
he
so
often
repeats
,
that
he
preached
the
Gospel
freely
to
them
,
and
without
charge
,
and
was
not
chargeable
to
any
of
them
,
that
he
kept
himself
from
being
burdensome
to
them
,
even
when
he
was
in
want
;
which
plainly
taxes
them
with
a
niggardly
temper
,
that
they
could
see
so
great
an
Apostle
who
preached
the
Gospel
to
them
,
in
want
,
and
not
supply
his
wants
themselves
,
but
suffer
those
of
Macedonia
to
do
it
.
We
cannot
imagine
that
he
who
was
ready
to
receive
from
other
Churches
,
should
chuse
rather
to
want
at
Corinth
,
than
to
ask
them
for
any
thing
,
or
freely
discover
his
wants
to
them
,
if
they
would
not
take
notice
of
it
themselves
,
had
he
not
perceived
how
unwilling
they
were
to
part
with
any
thing
,
and
what
a
prejudice
they
had
against
a
chargeable
Religion
.
And
St.
Paul
gives
too
much
jealousie
of
this
temper
in
them
,
even
where
he
commends
them
for
their
charity
.
There
was
a
Collection
to
be
made
for
the
relief
of
the
poor
Christians
in
Iudaea
;
the
Churches
of
Achaia
had
done
something
already
,
and
it
seems
had
promised
more
;
and
St.
Paul
took
the
advantage
of
this
to
work
an
emulation
in
the
Churches
of
Macedonia
to
do
the
like
,
and
it
seems
it
had
the
effect
he
hoped
for
;
for
their
zeal
of
which
he
had
boasted
,
had
provoked
very
many
,
that
is
,
had
excited
them
to
very
liberal
Contributions
.
And
now
some
Brethren
of
Macedonia
were
to
go
to
Corinth
with
St.
Paul
to
receive
their
Collections
;
and
it
seems
after
all
his
boasts
of
them
,
he
was
very
jealous
how
he
should
find
things
when
he
came
,
and
therefore
sent
before-hand
to
give
them
notice
of
it
,
that
they
might
be
in
a
readiness
:
Therefore
I
thought
it
necessary
to
exhort
the
Brethren
that
they
would
go
before
unto
you
,
and
make
up
before-hand
your
bounty
,
whereof
ye
had
notice
before
,
that
the
same
may
be
ready
as
a
matter
of
bounty
,
and
not
as
of
covetousness
;
lest
if
it
should
prove
otherwise
,
both
he
and
they
should
be
ashamed
of
it
,
as
he
speaks
in
the
former
verse
:
and
therefore
he
uses
several
Arguments
to
perswade
them
to
a
liberal
Contribution
.
And
indeed
it
is
a
sufficient
Argument
that
they
were
not
very
forward
to
part
with
any
thing
,
that
they
did
not
take
care
of
the
Apostles
maintenance
,
as
it
is
plain
they
did
not
:
for
had
they
been
of
a
generous
and
liberal
temper
,
they
would
have
made
provision
for
the
Apostle
,
whether
he
had
asked
it
or
not
;
and
it
does
not
appear
that
at
least
at
first
he
ever
refused
any
thing
from
them
,
but
onely
that
he
did
not
challenge
it
,
as
of
right
he
might
.
TheApostle
having
discovered
this
to
be
their
temper
,
was
resolved
not
to
disgust
them
at
the
first
preaching
of
the
Gospel
,
by
making
it
chargeable
,
but
rather
chose
to
work
for
his
living
,
and
to
endure
some
want
,
than
to
ask
any
thing
of
them
;
which
being
a
voluntary
service
,
and
more
than
God
himself
required
of
him
,
he
expected
a
great
reward
for
it
.
This
was
matter
of
glorying
to
him
,
that
he
had
not
used
that
power
which
God
had
given
him
to
require
maintenance
from
those
to
whom
he
preached
.
To
preach
the
Gospel
was
his
duty
,
and
this
he
could
not
glory
in
,
because
he
was
under
a
necessity
to
do
it
;
but
it
was
not
matter
of
strict
duty
to
preach
the
Gospel
to
a
People
who
would
not
supply
his
wants
:
for
God
had
ordained
that
those
who
preach
the
Gospel
should
live
of
the
Gospel
.
But
says
the
Apostle
,
I
have
used
none
of
these
things
,
(
he
had
not
challenged
this
right
)
neither
have
I
written
these
things
,
that
it
should
be
done
so
unto
me
:
for
it
were
better
for
me
to
die
,
than
that
any
man
should
make
any
glorying
void
.
For
though
I
preach
the
Gospel
,
I
have
nothing
to
glory
of
;
for
necessity
is
laid
upon
me
,
and
wo
is
unto
me
,
if
I
preach
not
the
Gospel
.
What
is
my
reward
then
?
verily
that
when
I
preach
the
Gospel
I
may
make
the
Gospel
of
Christ
without
charge
,
that
I
abuse
not
my
power
in
the
Gospel
.
Our
Reconciler
fixes
upon
these
last
words
,
That
if
in
these
circumstances
he
had
used
his
power
,
he
should
have
abused
it
;
whereas
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
signifies
to
use
as
well
as
to
abuse
,
as
abutor
does
in
the
Latine
;
and
it
can
signifie
no
otherwise
here
:
for
what
abuse
had
it
been
of
his
power
,
to
have
demanded
a
supply
of
his
necessary
wants
,
which
God
had
ordained
he
should
have
?
or
what
glorying
had
it
been
to
him
not
to
abuse
his
power
in
the
Gospel
,
any
more
than
it
was
to
preach
the
Gospel
,
which
being
a
necessary
duty
,
was
no
matter
of
glorying
to
him
?
and
yet
not
to
use
his
power
,
was
as
much
his
duty
as
to
preach
the
Gospel
,
when
to
use
it
was
an
abuse
,
that
is
,
a
fault
;
but
it
was
matter
of
glory
not
to
use
the
power
he
had
,
which
was
such
a
voluntary
service
as
deserved
a
reward
.
Now
is
not
our
Reconciler
a
man
of
a
wonderful
reach
,
who
from
hence
can
prove
that
the
Governours
of
the
Church
ought
not
in
like
circumstances
to
exercise
that
power
,
which
he
acknowledges
they
have
,
to
impose
indifferent
things
?
for
what
likeness
can
there
be
between
these
two
cases
?
The
power
to
challenge
a
maintenance
,
is
a
personal
right
which
men
may
use
,
or
may
not
use
if
they
please
;
it
is
their
right
,
but
it
is
not
their
duty
:
but
the
power
of
imposing
indifferent
things
,
as
he
calls
it
,
or
the
power
of
prescribing
the
Rules
and
Orders
and
Circumstances
of
Worship
(
if
there
be
any
such
power
,
as
he
grants
there
is
)
is
the
power
and
authority
of
an
Office
,
is
a
Trust
and
a
Duty
,
the
prudent
and
faithful
discharge
of
which
,
they
must
give
an
account
of
;
and
therefore
must
not
,
when
they
please
,
either
part
with
the
power
or
the
exercise
of
it
.
St.
Paul
was
contented
to
part
with
the
temporal
rewards
of
his
Ministry
,
that
he
might
the
more
successfully
discharge
the
Ministry
it self
;
therefore
Church-Governours
must
not
exercise
their
Authority
in
the
discharge
of
their
Ministry
,
to
humour
Dissenters
.
St.
Paul
did
more
than
his
strict
duty
required
,
that
he
might
have
something
to
glory
in
;
therefore
the
Governours
of
the
Church
must
neglect
their
duty
,
and
lose
their
reward
.
Indeed
our
Reconciler
talks
as
if
the
Churches
Authority
in
indifferent
things
,
were
onely
a
personal
right
,
a
Complement
to
Church-Governours
,
an
ornamental
power
,
which
they
may
use
or
may
let
alone
,
as
they
please
;
and
if
this
were
so
,
I
should
presently
be
of
our
Reconciler's
mind
:
but
I
believe
they
have
no
such
kind
of
useless
Authority
as
this
;
Christ
has
not
complemented
his
Ministers
with
any
power
which
is
not
for
the
use
and
service
of
the
Church
:
and
therefore
if
they
have
power
in
indifferent
things
,
this
is
a
useful
power
,
and
that
which
they
ought
to
use
,
when
there
is
reason
for
it
,
whoever
be
offended
at
it
.
Another
reason
why
St.
Paul
preached
the
Gospsl
freely
at
Corinth
,
he
gives
us
in
the
2
Cor.
11.
12
,
13.
What
I
do
,
that
I
will
do
,
that
I
may
cut
off
occasion
from
them
that
desire
occasion
,
that
wherein
they
glory
they
may
be
found
even
as
we
:
for
such
are
false
Apostles
,
deceitful
workers
,
transforming
themselves
into
the
Apostles
of
Christ
.
The
meaning
of
which
is
this
:
There
were
several
false
Teachers
who
crept
in
among
them
,
and
used
all
manner
of
arts
to
recommend
themselves
to
the
Corinthians
;
and
among
others
this
seems
to
be
one
,
that
they
preached
the
Gospel
freely
to
them
,
onely
as
they
pretended
out
of
love
of
their
Souls
;
which
was
a
very
popular
art
,
especially
to
that
People
;
and
therefore
St.
Paul
resolved
to
persist
in
preaching
the
Gospel
freely
to
them
,
to
cut
off
occasion
from
them
that
desire
occasion
,
that
is
,
to
disappoint
those
arts
of
deceit
whereby
these
false
Teachers
endeavoured
to
recommend
themselves
,
that
wherein
they
glory
they
may
be
found
even
as
we
:
that
whereas
they
glory
in
preaching
the
Gospel
freely
,
this
may
give
them
no
advantage
,
since
it
is
no
more
than
what
I
my self
have
all
along
done
,
and
still
continue
to
do
.
Our
Reconciler
paraphraseth
these
words
,
thus
:
To
cut
off
occasion
from
them
that
desire
occasion
;
that
is
,
lest
his
enemies
should
take
occasion
from
the
exercise
of
this
his
liberty
,
to
charge
,
or
to
traduce
him
as
one
who
more
consulted
his
own
profit
than
the
glory
of
God
,
and
the
propagation
of
the
Gospel
.
But
what
occasion
had
there
been
for
this
,
though
he
had
taken
Wages
of
them
,
as
he
says
he
did
of
other
Churches
,
to
supply
his
necessities
?
it
was
sufficiently
evident
notwithstanding
,
that
he
did
exact
nothing
from
them
to
serve
the
ends
of
covetousness
and
ambition
:
for
certainly
a
man
may
desire
the
supply
of
his
wants
,
without
being
charged
with
covetousness
;
but
the
Apostle
would
not
suffer
these
false
Prophets
,
by
a
pretended
and
hypocritical
Zeal
,
to
outdo
him
in
any
thing
.
Now
the
Apostle's
care
to
give
no
advantage
to
false
Teachers
,
is
a
good
Example
to
the
Governours
of
our
Church
not
to
do
so
neither
;
and
I
am
sure
they
cannot
give
them
greater
advantage
,
than
to
sacrifice
all
Order
and
Decency
to
their
pretended
Scruples
.
Well
,
but
says
our
Reconciler
,
the
Rulers
of
the
Church
,
by
the
exercise
of
this
power
in
indifferent
things
,
do
give
occasion
to
them
that
desire
occasion
to
traduce
them
as
men
who
more
regard
a
Ceremony
than
an
immortal
Soul
,
the
exercise
of
their
commanding
Power
,
than
the
preserving
of
poor
Souls
from
damning
Schisms
,
and
the
Church
from
sad
Divisions
,
&c.
These
are
very
spightful
,
but
very
foolish
Insinuations
.
As
for
Schisms
and
Divisions
,
we
have
already
considered
where
that
charge
must
rest
;
and
then
how
do
Ceremonies
come
in
competition
with
the
Souls
of
men
?
Does
the
appointment
of
some
Ceremonies
for
the
decent
and
orderly
performance
of
Religious
Worship
,
hinder
the
salvation
of
mens
Souls
?
Cannot
men
be
saved
who
observe
the
Ceremonies
of
our
Church
?
Then
indeed
our
Reconciler
might
well
complain
,
that
those
who
impose
such
damning
Ceremonies
,
have
more
regard
to
a
Ceremony
than
to
an
immortal
Soul
;
otherwise
there
is
no
competition
between
Ceremonies
and
the
Souls
of
men
,
and
those
who
will
be
Schismaticks
for
a
Ceremony
,
will
be
Schismaticks
without
it
,
and
will
be
damned
for
their
Schism
,
whether
there
be
any
Ceremonies
or
not
.
All
that
remains
in
this
Chapter
,
are
his
Answers
to
Meisner's
Arguments
,
which
I
have
already
considered
,
as
much
as
is
necessary
to
my
purpose
.
CHAP.
VII
.
Containing
an
Answer
to
the
Motives
to
Mutual
Condescension
,
urged
in
the
sixth
Chapter
of
the
Protestant
Reconciler
.
I
Find
nothing
in
this
Chapter
,
besides
some
Harangues
and
Popular
Declamations
,
but
what
has
been
sufficiently
answered
already
:
The
whole
proceeds
upon
those
general
Topicks
,
of
the
smalness
of
these
things
,
the
danger
mens
Souls
are
in
by
these
Impositions
,
the
obligations
to
Love
and
Charity
;
which
have
been
particularly
discoursed
above
in
the
first
and
second
Chapters
,
where
the
reasons
of
these
things
are
particularly
examined
.
But
however
,
I
will
briefly
try
whether
I
cannot
give
an
Answer
to
all
this
,
which
may
be
as
popular
as
his
Objections
are
.
I.
His
first
Argument
or
Motive
is
from
considering
how
small
the
things
are
which
cause
our
Discords
and
Divisions
,
when
they
are
set
in
competition
with
the
more
weighty
duties
and
concerns
of
Love
,
Peace
,
and
the
Churches
Vnion
and
Edification
,
and
the
avoiding
the
offence
and
scandal
of
Iew
,
Gentile
,
and
the
Church
of
God
;
which
he
very
pompously
proves
to
be
great
Gospel-duties
.
Now
suppose
the
things
in
dispute
be
never
so
small
,
if
they
are
of
any
use
in
Religion
,
and
the
Object
of
Ecclesiastical
Authority
,
(
as
our
Reconciler
owns
they
are
)
what
will
he
conclude
from
hence
?
that
the
observation
of
such
little
things
must
not
be
enjoyned
?
What
,
not
when
Christ
has
given
authority
to
enjoyn
them
?
Does
Christ
then
give
any
authority
to
his
Church
,
which
she
must
not
use
?
Must
nothing
be
enjoyned
,
which
is
little
in
comparison
of
Love
,
and
Peace
,
and
Unity
?
or
must
they
be
enjoyned
,
and
left
indifferent
at
the
same
time
?
Must
the
Church
appoint
them
to
be
observed
,
but
command
no
body
to
observe
them
but
those
who
please
?
In
all
well-governed
Societi●s
there
must
be
Laws
about
little
as
well
as
about
great
things
;
and
if
there
be
no
Authority
to
determine
the
least
matters
both
in
Church
and
State
,
it
will
necessarily
occasion
very
great
inconveniences
.
Well
,
but
we
must
not
set
these
little
things
in
competition
with
the
more
weighty
duties
and
concerns
of
Love
and
Peace
:
No
,
God
forbid
we
should
.
But
does
our
Reconciler
know
what
a
competition
between
two
Laws
means
?
I
know
but
of
two
ways
that
this
can
happen
;
either
when
they
contradict
each
each
other
,
or
are
so
contrary
in
their
natures
that
they
can
never
be
both
observed
;
or
when
there
is
a
competition
of
time
,
that
it
so
happens
that
we
cannot
observe
both
at
the
same
time
;
as
when
we
cannot
at
the
same
time
go
to
Church
to
serve
God
,
and
stay
at
home
to
attend
a
sick
Father
or
Friend
;
in
which
cases
our
Saviour
has
laid
down
a
general
Rule
,
That
God
prefers
Mercy
b●fo●e
Sacrifice
.
But
now
upon
neither
of
these
accounts
can
there
be
any
competition
pretended
between
the
Rites
and
Ceremonies
of
Religion
,
and
the
great
duties
of
Love
,
and
Peace
,
and
Unity
,
and
Edification
.
For
cannot
men
observe
the
Orders
and
Constitutions
of
the
Church
,
as
to
the
external
Rites
of
Worship
,
and
love
one
another
,
and
preserve
the
Peace
and
Unity
of
the
Church
at
the
same
time
?
Indeed
,
can
there
be
a
better
means
to
preserve
Love
,
and
Peace
,
and
Unity
among
Christians
,
and
to
promote
mutual
Edification
,
than
an
Uniformity
in
Religious
Worship
,
since
it
is
evident
that
nothing
breeds
greater
Dissentions
,
and
Emulations
,
and
Envyings
among
Christians
,
than
different
and
contrary
Modes
of
Worship
?
And
if
this
be
so
,
then
there
is
no
competition
between
the
Ceremonies
of
Religion
,
and
the
Love
and
Peace
of
Christians
;
and
consequently
,
no
reason
why
the
Governours
of
the
Church
may
not
command
both
,
though
the
particular
Ceremonies
of
Religion
be
acknowledged
to
be
small
things
in
comparison
with
the
great
duties
of
Love
and
Peace
.
Yes
,
you
'll
say
,
the
imposition
of
these
Ceremonies
does
come
in
competition
with
these
great
duties
of
Love
,
and
Peace
,
and
Unity
,
because
there
are
a
great
many
who
quarrel
at
them
,
and
divide
the
Church
upon
that
account
;
and
if
these
controverted
Ceremonies
were
removed
,
Love
and
Unity
would
be
restored
among
us
.
Now
supposing
this
to
be
true
(
which
I
have
already
proved
not
to
be
true
)
what
is
this
to
the
Governours
of
the
Church
?
As
to
give
you
a
familiar
instance
of
this
:
A
Master
commands
his
Servant
to
put
on
a
clean
Band
to
wait
at
Table
,
the
Servant
refuses
to
do
it
;
upon
this
the
whole
Family
is
divided
,
some
take
part
with
the
Master
,
others
with
the
Servant
:
in
steps
a
Reconciler
,
and
tells
the
Master
he
did
very
ill
to
cause
such
Divisions
in
his
Family
;
that
Love
,
and
Peace
,
and
Unity
were
more
considerable
duties
than
a
Servants
wearing
a
clean
Band
,
which
therefore
ought
not
to
come
in
competition
with
them
:
Pray
Sir
,
says
the
Master
,
preach
this
Doctrine
to
my
Servants
,
and
not
to
me
;
I
have
commanded
nothing
but
what
was
fit
to
be
done
,
and
I
will
have
it
done
,
or
he
and
all
his
Partners
shall
turn
out
o●
my
Family
.
Now
let
one
who
is
a
Master
,
judge
whether
the
Master
or
the
Reconciler
be
in
the
right
.
The
breach
of
Love
,
and
Peace
,
and
Unity
,
is
not
the
effect
(
though
it
be
the
consequent
,
which
our
Reconciler
I
perceive
cannot
distinguish
)
of
the
Command
or
Imposition
,
but
of
the
disobedience
;
and
therefore
when
the
Command
is
fit
and
reasonable
,
cannot
be
charged
upon
him
who
commands
,
but
upon
him
who
disobeys
.
But
besides
this
,
I
observe
,
that
Christian
Love
,
But
our
Reconciler
confirms
this
Argument
,
that
the
Governours
of
the
Church
ought
not
to
insist
on
such
little
things
,
when
they
come
in
competition
with
Love
,
and
Peace
,
and
Unity
,
&c.
from
the
example
of
God
himself
,
who
was
not
so
much
concerned
for
the
ceremonial
part
of
his
Worship
,
but
that
he
would
permit
the
violation
of
what
he
had
prescribed
about
it
upon
accounts
of
lesser
moment
than
these
are
.
Now
are
not
these
admirable
proofs
,
That
God
is
not
so
much
concerned
for
the
ceremonial
part
of
his
Law
,
but
that
upon
some
accounts
he
would
permit
the
violation
of
what
he
had
prescribed
,
when
it
does
not
appear
that
he
ever
did
so
?
As
for
the
neglect
of
Circumcision
in
the
Wilderness
,
I
doubt
not
but
God
had
given
express
order
about
it
,
otherwise
Moses
who
was
faithful
in
all
his
house
,
and
a
punctual
observer
of
all
the
divine
Laws
and
Statutes
,
would
never
have
neglected
it
:
and
this
I
may
say
with
as
much
reason
,
as
our
Reconciler
can
produce
for
Gods
permission
of
it
without
an
express
Order
,
and
somewhat
more
.
As
for
the
Passover
,
let
our
Reconciler
consider
again
whether
the
observation
of
it
on
the
second
month
by
those
who
were
unclean
,
or
in
a
journey
on
the
first
month
,
was
a
violation
of
what
God
had
prescribed
,
when
God
himself
had
expresly
prescribed
it
.
And
let
him
consider
once
more
,
whether
works
of
necessity
and
mercy
were
a
violation
of
the
Sabbatick
rest
,
when
our
Saviour
himself
poves
that
they
were
not
;
that
God
never
intended
that
the
rest
of
the
Sabbath
should
exclude
such
works
.
I
am
sure
our
Reconciler
cannot
produce
any
one
instance
wherein
God
permitted
and
allowed
the
violation
of
any
ceremonial
Law
,
according
to
the
true
intent
and
meaning
of
the
Law
,
without
express
order
for
it
;
but
on
the
other
hand
,
God
was
very
strict
and
rigorous
in
exacting
the
observation
of
them
,
and
did
give
as
signal
examples
of
his
Justice
and
Severity
upon
such
accounts
,
as
upon
any
other
whatever
.
Witness
the
man
who
gathered
Sticks
on
the
Sabbath-day
,
and
was
stoned
to
death
for
it
.
The
fate
of
Corah
,
Dathan
,
and
Abiram
,
who
quarrelled
with
Moses
and
Aaron
(
which
is
more
like
the
case
of
our
Dissenters
)
and
offered
Incense
;
the
Earth
opened
her
mouth
and
swallowed
them
up
,
and
a
Fire
consumed
the
two
hundred
and
fifty
men
that
offered
Incense
.
Who
payed
thythe
of
mint
,
and
anise
,
is
a
standing
Rule
in
all
these
cases
,
These
things
ought
ye
to
have
done
,
and
not
to
leave
the
other
undone
:
they
should
observe
them
both
,
the
great
and
the
less
matters
of
the
Law
,
and
not
neglect
or
despise
either
.
So
that
Gods
example
in
the●e
matters
is
so
far
from
helping
our
Reconciler's
Cause
,
that
it
makes
against
him
.
God
did
not
equal
the
Ceremonies
of
the
Law
with
the
more
weighty
duties
of
Judgment
,
Mercy
,
and
Faith
,
no
more
than
the
Church
equals
a
Ceremony
with
the
dearer
interes●s
of
Love
,
and
Peace
,
and
Unity
;
but
yet
God
instituted
these
Ceremonies
,
and
commanded
the
observation
of
them
,
and
punish'd
the
breach
of
them
,
even
when
the
whole
Congregation
mutinied
and
rebelled
upon
it
,
as
they
did
in
the
case
of
Corah
,
that
is
,
when
they
came
as
much
in
competition
with
Love
,
and
Peace
,
and
Unity
,
as
the
Reconciler
pretends
our
Ceremonies
at
this
day
do
.
2.
But
if
this
will
not
do
,
our
Reconciler
has
another
way
of
arguing
from
the
example
of
God
to
oblige
the
Governours
of
the
Church
not
to
impose
these
Ceremonies
,
when
there
are
so
many
Dissenters
amongst
us
who
will
not
submit
to
them
.
As
1.
The
example
of
Gods
love
in
sending
his
Son
into
the
World
,
that
we
might
live
through
him
—
why
then
should
they
who
are
commanded
to
be
followers
of
God
as
dear
children
,
and
walk
in
love
,
refuse
to
part
with
their
unnecessary
Ceremonies
,
and
to
refrain
the
exercise
of
their
imposing
power
in
things
indifferent
—
Now
if
our
Reconciler
will
give
me
a
reason
why
they
should
not
,
I
will
tell
him
why
they
should
.
God
has
in
infinite
goodness
sent
his
Son
into
the
World
to
save
sinners
,
but
still
they
must
be
saved
in
that
method
which
Christ
has
appointed
.
To
this
end
Christ
has
given
us
his
Laws
,
instituted
a
Church-Society
,
appointed
Stewards
of
his
Family
,
and
Rulers
of
his
Houshold
,
and
given
them
authority
to
govern
Religious
Assemblies
,
to
prescribe
the
Rules
of
Worship
,
and
the
Methods
of
Discipline
,
and
all
this
for
the
salvation
of
mens
Souls
;
and
therefore
the
Governours
of
the
Church
must
not
renounce
this
Authority
,
and
the
exercise
of
it
,
because
in
its
rank
and
order
it
is
subservient
to
the
great
end
for
which
God
sent
Christ
into
the
World
,
viz.
the
salvation
of
mens
Souls
,
and
is
instituted
by
Christ
for
that
purpose
.
But
you
'll
object
,
that
the
exercise
of
this
Authority
in
indifferent
things
,
is
so
far
from
contributing
to
the
salvation
of
mens
Souls
,
especially
in
such
an
Age
as
this
,
that
it
destroys
them
.
What
destroys
them
?
the
use
of
indifferent
things
?
No
,
men
may
observe
these
Ceremonies
without
prejudicing
their
salvation
.
What
then
?
is
it
the
imposition
of
these
things
?
Nor
that
neither
:
for
to
command
that
which
will
not
destroy
mens
Souls
,
cannot
destroy
them
.
What
is
it
then
?
an
obstinate
refusal
to
obey
such
Impositions
?
Right
:
for
this
makes
men
Schismaticks
,
and
will
damn
them
;
and
thus
disobedience
to
any
other
of
Christs
Laws
,
will
damn
men
,
though
Christ
died
for
them
.
And
thus
,
according
to
this
way
of
arguing
,
God
,
who
did
so
infinitely
love
sinners
as
to
send
Christ
to
save
them
,
ought
to
have
given
them
no
Laws
,
nor
made
any
Conditions
of
salvation
,
for
fear
men
should
break
them
,
and
be
damned
for
it
.
For
is
it
not
a
greater
thing
to
give
his
Son
for
sinners
,
than
to
indulge
them
in
some
little
Follies
and
Extravagances
?
Will
God
,
who
loved
sinners
so
as
to
give
his
own
Son
for
them
,
damn
them
for
stealing
a
shilling
or
two
,
for
playing
the
Good-fellow
sometimes
,
or
for
some
kind
and
amorous
Embraces
?
Sure
he
is
so
good
,
that
he
will
repeal
all
these
Soul-destroying
Laws
;
and
when
we
see
this
done
,
it
will
be
time
for
the
Governours
of
the
Church
to
renounce
their
Authority
too
in
imitation
of
the
love
of
God
.
God
is
so
merciful
to
weak
and
erring
persons
,
as
not
to
judge
,
condemn
,
or
exclude
them
from
his
favour
for
any
errours
of
their
judgments
,
which
are
consistent
with
true
love
to
him
,
and
which
they
did
not
wilfully
embrace
,
nor
do
persist
in
against
conviction
of
their
Consciences
,
but
will
upon
a
general
repentance
for
their
unknown
sins
,
receive
them
to
his
favour
,
though
they
live
and
die
under
such
errours
and
mistakes
.
—
Why
then
should
we
who
are
commanded
to
be
merciful
,
as
our
heavenly
Father
is
merciful
—
reject
them
from
Communion
,
whom
God
will
receive
?
why
should
we
not
forbear
to
condemn
and
censure
them
,
whom
God
will
absolve
?
—
This
is
so
fulsomly
ridiculous
,
that
I
should
be
ashamed
to
answer
it
,
were
it
not
very
fit
to
expose
such
popular
Cant.
For
,
1.
Though
the
infinite
goodness
of
God
does
incline
us
to
hope
well
of
those
who
lived
and
died
in
invincible
errours
,
yet
we
know
not
certainly
how
God
will
deal
with
them
in
the
other
World
.
God
has
nowhere
told
us
any
thing
of
it
;
and
therefore
this
is
not
so
certain
as
to
make
it
a
President
and
Example
for
Governours
.
2.
But
suppose
this
were
so
(
as
all
of
us
have
reason
to
hope
it
is
)
yet
this
is
no
Example
to
Governours
in
Church
or
State
.
For
there
is
a
vast
difference
between
Gods
judgements
in
the
other
World
,
and
acts
of
Government
and
Discipline
in
this
:
The
one
respects
mens
personal
deserts
,
and
determines
their
final
doom
;
the
other
onely
respects
the
preservation
of
good
order
and
government
in
Church
or
State
.
And
therefore
the
final
judgment
considers
all
circumstances
which
may
deserve
reward
or
punishment
,
pity
and
compassion
;
not
onely
what
was
done
,
but
who
did
it
,
with
what
intention
and
designe
,
whether
knowingly
or
ignorantly
,
or
the
like
:
the
other
considers
onely
what
is
done
,
what
prejudice
it
is
to
the
publick
,
and
how
such
an
example
deserves
to
be
punished
,
and
therefore
it
is
very
fitting
for
earthly
Governours
to
punish
those
sins
which
God
will
pardon
,
because
they
cannot
maintain
good
Government
withour
it
.
If
through
ignorance
and
mistake
(
though
so
innocent
and
involuntary
,
that
God
may
see
reason
to
pardon
it
)
any
men
should
disturb
the
Peace
and
Order
of
Church
or
State
,
it
would
utterly
overthrow
all
Government
,
if
these
men
must
not
be
restrained
nor
punished
.
Our
Reconciler
might
have
considered
,
that
God
forgives
us
all
our
sins
which
we
sincerely
repent
of
,
though
they
were
never
so
great
and
voluntary
;
and
methinks
he
might
as
well
have
undertaken
the
Cause
of
penitent
Thieves
,
and
Rebels
,
and
Murderers
,
as
of
impenitent
Schismaticks
.
He
should
do
well
,
when
he
sees
the
Tears
,
and
Sorrows
,
and
Agonies
of
such
guilty
Wretches
,
and
hears
their
solemn
profession
of
repentance
,
to
mind
the
Judge
and
the
Jury
of
the
mercy
and
pitifulness
of
our
good
God
,
who
forgives
the
sins
of
all
true
Penitents
:
and
therefore
they
who
are
commanded
to
be
followers
of
God
like
dear
children
,
to
be
merciful
as
our
Father
which
is
in
Heaven
is
merciful
,
to
put
on
bowels
of
compassion
as
the
Elect
of
God
,
should
not
hang
up
those
poor
penitent
Wretches
,
but
forgive
that
on
Earth
which
God
will
forgive
in
Heaven
.
Now
I
wonder
how
a
Judge
and
Jury
would
gaze
upon
such
a
Reconciler
as
this
,
whether
they
would
think
him
fittest
for
Bedlam
or
Bridewel
.
It
is
certain
,
that
this
good
and
pitiful
God
whose
Example
our
Reconciler
proposes
,
does
himself
make
a
difference
between
this
World
and
the
next
,
in
executing
Judgments
;
he
sometimes
punishes
those
sins
in
this
World
,
which
he
himself
forgives
in
the
next
:
and
therefore
certainly
Earthly
Governours
,
whether
of
Church
or
State
,
may
punish
those
sins
in
this
World
which
God
will
pardon
in
the
next
.
Thus
it
was
in
the
case
of
David
,
whom
the
Prophet
Nathan
upon
his
repentance
assured
that
God
had
pardoned
him
,
3.
And
yet
Gods
final
Judgment
is
no
Rule
and
Pattern
for
humane
Judicatures
,
because
Earthly
Governours
do
not
know
the
hearts
and
thoughts
of
men
,
as
Gods
does
.
He
knows
when
mens
ignorance
is
invincible
and
involuntary
,
which
no
man
can
know
;
and
therefore
God
can
make
such
allowances
in
his
last
and
final
Judgment
,
which
no
man
can
or
ought
.
God
judges
the
hearts
of
men
,
but
man
can
onely
judge
of
their
actions
;
and
therefore
an
Earthly
Governour
may
and
ought
in
justice
to
punish
that
which
God
may
very
equitably
pardon
.
4.
Especially
considering
that
this
last
and
final
Judgment
of
God
is
designed
to
rectifie
all
the
necessary
defects
,
as
well
as
miscarriages
,
of
humane
Judicatures
.
A
man
who
is
guilty
of
some
troublesome
errour
and
mistake
,
may
and
ought
for
the
publick
good
,
to
suffer
for
it
in
this
World
,
though
it
may
be
hard
that
he
should
suffer
for
it
in
the
next
:
And
this
very
consideration
(
as
I
have
observed
before
)
answers
all
this
difficulty
.
Schismaticks
,
how
innocent
soever
their
mistake
is
,
ought
to
be
cast
out
of
the
Church
on
●arth
,
or
all
Ecclesiastical
Authority
is
lost
,
and
the
Church
left
without
any
Government
to
defend
it self
;
but
if
the
case
be
favourable
,
God
will
make
allowances
for
it
in
the
other
World
;
and
he
who
is
guilty
of
Schism
,
without
a
schismatical
mind
,
we
hope
may
find
mercy
.
And
therefore
this
can
be
no
reason
for
the
Church
not
to
pass
her
censures
upon
such
men
,
if
they
are
visibly
guilty
of
that
which
deserves
a
censure
.
A
temporal
Judge
does
not
intend
to
damn
every
man
whom
he
hangs
,
nor
an
Ecclesiastical
Judge
to
damn
those
whom
he
censures
;
they
are
onely
concerned
to
see
that
the
Judgment
and
Censure
be
deserved
in
this
World
,
but
they
leave
the
final
Judgment
to
God
himself
.
This
,
I
think
,
is
enough
to
answer
to
this
Argument
,
though
our
Reconciler
rhetoricates
upon
it
.
He
observes
,
that
the
Scripture
represents
God
as
very
pitiful
;
it
is
this
God
of
mercy
who
himself
goes
into
the
mountains
to
save
,
and
to
bring
home
the
strayed
sheep
:
And
thus
the
Governours
of
the
Church
ought
to
do
,
to
bring
home
stray
Sheep
into
their
Fold
,
not
to
indulge
them
in
their
wandrings
.
But
God
provided
an
Asylum
for
him
who
ignorantly
committed
murder
,
accidentally
he
means
,
without
intending
any
such
thing
;
which
is
not
the
errour
of
the
mind
,
but
of
the
hand
,
and
therefore
does
not
relate
to
this
business
.
But
God
remitted
the
sin
of
Abimeleck
because
he
did
it
ignorantly
;
he
had
mercy
of
St.
Paul
for
the
same
reason
,
though
he
persecuted
the
Church
of
Christ
;
but
the
mercy
consisted
in
bringing
him
to
repentance
:
unless
the
Reconciler
will
say
too
,
that
he
had
mercy
on
those
who
crucified
Christ
,
because
they
did
it
ignorantly
;
and
on
all
those
Jews
of
whom
St.
Paul
witnesses
,
that
they
had
a
zeal
for
God
,
but
not
according
to
knowledge
.
And
indeed
it
is
worth
co●sidering
,
that
this
Argument
of
the
Reconcil●r's
pleads
●or
a
Toleration
of
all
Religions
,
especially
if
we
can
suppose
that
there
are
honest
and
ignorant
men
among
them
;
such
persons
will
be
received
by
God
according
to
our
Reconciler's
Principles
,
whatever
Religion
they
be
of
,
Jews
,
or
Turks
,
or
Pagans
;
though
he
does
none
the
honour
of
a
particular
vindication
,
but
onely
the
Papists
.
If
Charity
teaches
us
thus
to
hope
,
saith
the
most
learned
Bishop
Sanderson
,
of
our
forefathers
,
who
lived
and
died
in
the
idolatrous
acts
of
Worship
,
why
then
should
we
reject
them
from
Communion
,
whom
God
will
receive
?
So
that
the
poor
Church
of
England
must
receive
Papists
into
her
Communion
,
as
well
as
the
Phanaticks
;
where
we
must
observe
the
Charity
is
Bishop
Sanderson's
,
the
Inference
and
Application
the
Reconciler's
.
III.
His
next
Argument
is
from
one
great
purpose
of
Christ's
Advent
,
and
the
effusion
of
his
precious
bloud
,
to
make
both
Iew
and
Gentile
one
,
by
breaking
down
the
middle
wall
of
partition
that
was
between
them
,
and
abolishing
the
Law
of
Commandments
contained
in
Ordinances
.
Now
the
conceit
of
it
is
this
:
He
supposes
the
Ceremonies
of
the
Church
of
England
to
be
such
a
Partition-wall
between
Conformists
and
Nonconformists
,
as
the
Mosaical
Law
was
between
Jews
and
Gentiles
;
and
therefore
as
Christ
has
broken
down
one
Partition-wall
,
and
made
Jew
and
Gentile
one
Church
,
so
our
Governours
ought
to
break
down
the
other
Partition-wall
to
make
Conformists
and
Nonconformists
one
Body
and
Church
;
which
is
such
a
dull
conceit
,
and
argues
such
stupid
ignorance
in
the
Mysteries
of
Christianity
,
that
I
do
not
wonder
he
is
so
zealous
an
Advocate
for
Ignorance
and
Errour
.
The
Partition-wall
is
an
Allusion
to
that
Partition
in
the
Temple
which
divided
the
Court
where
the
Jews
worshipped
,
from
the
Court
of
the
Gentiles
;
and
that
which
made
this
Partition
was
Gods
Covenant
with
Abraham
,
when
he
chose
his
carnal
Seed
and
Posterity
for
his
peculiar
People
,
and
separated
them
from
the
rest
of
the
World
;
and
the
more
effectually
to
separate
them
from
other
Nations
,
gave
them
a
peculiar
Law
,
which
was
to
last
as
long
as
this
distinction
did
.
For
God
did
not
intend
for
ever
to
confine
his
Church
to
one
Nation
,
but
when
the
promised
Messias
came
,
to
enlarge
the
borders
of
his
Church
to
all
mankind
.
And
therefore
this
Law
was
so
contrived
as
to
typifie
the
Messias
,
and
to
receive
its
full
completion
in
the
perfect
Sacrifice
and
Expiation
of
his
Death
,
which
put
an
end
to
the
former
Dispensation
,
and
sealed
a
Covenant
of
Grace
and
Mercy
with
all
mankind
.
Thus
Christ
by
his
death
broke
down
the
Partition-wall
,
because
he
put
an
end
to
the
Mosaical
Covenant
which
was
made
onely
with
the
Jews
,
and
to
that
external
and
●ypical
Religion
which
was
peculiar
to
the
Mosaical
Dispensation
,
and
made
a
distinction
and
separation
between
Jew
and
Gentile
▪
that
is
,
as
Christ
made
a
Covenant
now
with
all
mankind
,
so
he
put
an
end
to
all
marks
of
distinction
between
Jew
and
Gentile
,
and
to
that
typical
and
ceremonial
Worship
which
was
peculiar
to
the
Jews
,
as
a
distinct
and
separate
People
.
Now
indeed
any
such
Partition-wall
as
this
,
which
confines
the
Covenant
and
Promises
of
God
to
any
particular
People
or
Nation
,
and
excludes
all
others
,
is
directly
contrary
to
the
end
and
designe
of
Christs
death
,
and
ought
immediately
to
be
pulled
down
;
but
must
there
therefore
be
no
Partion
to
distinguish
between
the
Church
of
Christ
,
and
Infidels
,
and
Hereticks
,
and
Schismaticks
?
Must
there
be
no
Walls
and
Fences
about
the
Church
,
this
Vineyard
and
Fold
of
Christ
?
Must
there
be
no
Laws
made
for
the
government
of
Religious
Assemblies
,
and
the
Decency
and
Order
of
Christian
Worship
,
for
fear
of
keeping
those
out
of
the
Church
who
will
not
be
orderly
in
it
?
How
come
the
Ceremonies
of
our
Church
to
be
a
Wall
of
partition
?
the
Church
never
made
them
so
;
for
she
onely
designed
them
for
Rules
and
decent
Circumstances
of
Worship
,
which
it
is
her
duty
to
take
care
of
.
Let
those
then
who
set
up
this
Wall
of
partition
,
pull
it
down
again
;
that
is
,
let
those
who
separate
from
the
Church
,
and
make
these
Ceremonies
a
Wall
of
partition
,
return
to
the
Communion
of
the
Church
,
which
no
body
keeps
them
from
but
themselves
.
As
for
his
modest
insinuations
,
that
our
Ceremonies
are
carnal
Ordinances
,
weak
and
beggarly
Elements
,
and
therefore
ought
to
be
removed
for
their
weakness
and
unprofitableness
,
as
the
Mosaick
Ceremonies
were
,
I
have
already
largely
shewn
the
difference
between
a
Ritual
and
Ceremonial
Religion
,
and
those
Ceremonies
which
are
for
the
Decency
of
Religious
Worship
;
which
are
as
necessary
,
and
must
continue
as
long
as
External
Worship
,
which
requires
external
Signs
of
Decency
and
Honour
,
does
.
should
forbear
imposing
of
some
practices
,
at
which
our
Flocks
,
by
reason
of
their
prejudice
and
weakness
,
will
be
apt
to
stumble
and
take
offence
.
But
how
this
follows
,
I
confess
,
I
cannot
understand
;
if
it
proves
any
thing
,
it
proves
that
the
Governours
of
the
Church
must
not
instruct
their
People
in
any
thing
which
they
are
not
willing
to
learn
;
that
our
Reconciler
should
never
have
published
his
second
part
,
to
convince
Dissenters
that
they
may
lawfully
,
and
therefore
in
duty
ought
to
conform
to
the
Ceremonies
of
the
Church
when
they
are
imposed
:
for
if
notwithstanding
the
Example
of
our
Saviour
and
his
Apostles
,
we
may
instruct
our
People
in
such
things
,
we
may
require
their
obedience
too
,
otherwise
we
had
as
good
never
instruct
them
.
But
did
Christ
and
his
Apostles
then
intend
that
Christians
should
be
always
children
?
Did
not
St.
Paul
testifie
that
he
had
declared
the
whole
Will
of
God
to
them
?
And
when
the
Gospel
has
been
fully
published
to
the
World
for
above
sixteen
hundred
years
,
must
the
Church
return
again
to
her
state
of
infancy
and
childhood
,
to
humour
Diss●nters
?
But
indeed
is
the
duty
of
obedience
to
Governours
in
all
things
which
Christ
has
not
forbid
,
such
a
sublime
and
mysterious
Doctrine
,
that
it
ought
to
be
concealed
as
too
difficult
to
be
understood
?
Is
it
not
a
pretty
way
of
reasoning
,
that
Euclid's
Elements
is
too
difficult
a
book
for
a
young
child
to
learn
,
therefore
his
Master
must
not
teach
him
to
ob●y
his
Parents
neither
?
I
am
sure
this
was
one
of
the
first
Lessons
which
the
Apostles
taught
their
Disciples
,
whatever
else
they
concealed
from
them
:
for
there
can
be
no
Church
founded
without
Government
,
and
there
can
be
no
Government
where
Subjects
must
not
be
taught
Obedience
.
But
however
,
there
is
a
great
difference
between
the
first
publication
of
any
Doctrine
,
and
the
preaching
of
it
after
it
is
published
.
The
first
requires
great
prudence
in
the
choice
of
a
fit
time
to
do
it
in
,
and
of
fit
persons
to
communicate
it
to
;
which
was
the
case
of
Christ
and
his
Apostles
,
which
made
it
necessary
to
reveal
the
Gospel-mysteries
by
degrees
,
and
to
persons
well
disposed
and
qualified
to
receive
them
;
but
when
a
Doctrine
has
been
fully
published
and
confirmed
by
all
necessary
evidence
,
and
universally
received
as
a
Christian
Doctrine
,
the
Governours
and
Pastors
of
the
Church
must
continue
to
preach
it
,
whether
Dissenters
will
hear
or
no
;
for
else
we
may
lose
all
Christian
Doctrines
by
degrees
again
,
and
return
to
our
Milk
,
which
he
says
is
the
Doctrine
of
Christs
Humanity
;
and
leave
off
feeding
on
strong
Meat
,
which
he
says
is
the
Doctrine
of
Christs
Divinity
,
to
condescension
is
from
the
consideration
of
that
great
Rule
of
Equity
,
which
calls
upon
us
to
do
to
others
,
as
we
would
be
dealt
with
.
Now
I
confess
,
this
is
a
very
good
Topick
to
declaim
on
,
as
our
Reconciler
doth
:
for
as
it
is
usually
managed
,
it
contains
an
Appeal
to
the
Passions
and
Interests
,
more
than
to
the
Reason
of
mankind
.
It
is
a
sufficient
Answer
to
this
,
to
observe
,
that
this
Rule
obliges
no
man
to
do
any
thing
but
what
is
in
it self
just
and
equitable
to
be
done
:
for
what
is
more
than
this
,
how
passionately
soever
men
desire
it
,
is
owing
to
their
fondness
and
partiality
to
themselves
,
not
to
a
true
reason
and
judgment
of
things
;
and
therefore
unless
it
appear
upon
other
accounts
to
be
in
it self
reasonable
to
grant
this
Indulgence
,
this
Rule
cannot
make
it
so
.
To
discourse
the
true
meaning
of
this
Rule
at
large
,
would
be
too
great
a
digression
from
my
present
designe
;
and
therefore
in
answer
to
what
our
Reconciler
says
,
Would
we
be
contented
if
we
were
inferiours
,
to
be
punished
,
imprisoned
,
and
banished
for
Opinions
which
we
cannot
help
;
or
shut
out
from
the
means
of
Grace
for
such
Opinions
?
Or
should
we
not
be
glad
that
others
would
bear
with
us
in
some
lesser
matters
in
which
we
by
our
judgments
are
constrained
to
differ
from
them
?
and
would
not
pass
upon
us
the
s●verest
censures
because
we
are
constrained
thus
to
differ
?
I
say
in
answer
to
these
,
and
such-like
Popular
Appeals
,
I
shall
ask
him
some
other
Questions
:
as
,
Whether
ever
any
Offender
or
Criminal
is
contented
to
suffer
for
his
fault
,
or
does
not
earnestly
desire
to
be
pardoned
,
and
to
escape
?
Whether
it
be
unreasonable
to
punish
any
man
,
because
all
men
are
unwilling
to
be
punished
?
Whether
every
mans
love
to
himself
in
such
cases
,
or
that
natural
pity
which
all
men
have
for
those
who
suffer
,
be
a
Rule
for
the
exercise
of
publick
Discipline
and
Government
in
Church
or
State
?
Whether
any
man
in
his
wits
can
think
it
reasonable
that
mens
private
Fancies
and
Opinions
should
over-rule
the
Authority
of
Church
and
State
?
Whether
is
the
most
pitiable
sight
,
to
see
a
flourishing
and
truly
Apostolick
Church
rent
and
torn
in
pieces
by
Factions
and
Schisms
,
or
to
see
such
Schismaticks
suffer
in
the
suppression
of
their
Schism
?
Whether
it
be
reasonable
for
the
Civil
Powers
to
punish
Schismaticks
,
when
their
Schism
in
the
Church
threatens
the
State
,
and
makes
the
Thrones
of
Princes
shake
and
totter
?
The
truth
is
,
this
Rule
,
To
do
to
others
as
we
desire
they
should
do
to
us
,
may
be
a
good
Rule
to
direct
our
private
Conversation
,
but
it
does
not
extend
to
publick
Government
;
and
my
reason
for
it
is
this
:
That
this
Rule
has
respect
onely
to
every
mans
private
happiness
,
and
supposes
an
equality
between
them
.
For
that
which
makes
this
a
Rule
of
Equity
is
,
that
equals
(
as
all
men
are
,
considered
as
men
)
ought
to
have
equal
usage
;
and
therefore
that
natural
sense
which
every
man
has
of
happiness
,
that
natural
aversion
to
suffer
wrong
,
and
that
natural
desire
to
receive
good
from
others
,
should
teach
every
man
to
deal
by
others
,
who
have
the
same
sense
of
happiness
,
and
aversion
to
misery
,
as
they
desire
to
be
dealt
with
themselves
.
But
now
publick
Government
has
a
greater
respect
to
the
Publick
,
than
to
any
mans
private
good
;
and
a
mans
private
and
particular
good
,
must
give
place
to
the
publick
Welfare
:
and
therefore
what
aversion
soever
there
is
in
mankind
to
suffering
,
it
is
very
fit
and
just
that
private
men
,
when
they
deserve
it
,
should
suffer
for
the
publick
Good
;
and
it
is
not
every
mans
love
to
himself
,
or
what
he
is
willing
to
suffer
,
which
is
the
Rule
here
,
but
a
regard
to
the
publick
Good
.
And
though
all
wise
and
good
men
ought
to
prefer
the
publick
Good
before
their
own
private
Interest
,
yet
whatever
reason
there
is
for
this
,
it
is
certain
mens
natural
love
to
themselves
(
to
which
this
Rule
appeals
)
will
never
make
them
willing
to
suffer
,
especially
when
the
sufferings
are
great
and
capital
,
upon
any
considerations
;
and
therefore
to
do
as
we
would
be
done
by
,
is
not
our
Rule
in
such
cases
,
for
then
no
fault
must
ever
be
punished
.
Nor
is
there
an
equality
between
Governours
and
Subjects
either
in
Church
or
State
:
Civil
Magistrates
are
invested
with
the
Authority
of
God
,
who
is
the
supreme
Governour
of
the
World
;
and
the
Governours
of
the
Church
with
the
Authority
of
Christ
,
who
is
the
supreme
Head
of
the
Church
:
and
therefore
they
are
not
to
consider
the
private
passions
and
affections
of
men
,
that
because
they
themselves
are
not
willing
to
suffer
when
they
are
in
a
fault
,
therefore
they
must
not
punish
others
:
for
they
act
not
as
private
men
,
but
as
publick
Ministers
of
Justice
and
Discipline
;
and
where
there
is
an
inequality
,
this
Rule
of
Equity
will
not
hold
.
Governours
and
Subjects
are
equal
considered
as
men
,
but
very
unequal
,
as
Governours
are
invested
with
the
Authority
of
God
,
which
sets
them
above
other
men
.
This
I
take
to
be
the
true
reason
why
the
same
men
pass
such
different
judgments
on
the
same
thing
,
when
they
are
Subjects
and
when
they
are
Governours
,
because
when
they
are
Subjects
,
they
have
a
principal
regard
to
a
private
and
particular
good
,
and
consult
the
desires
,
and
weaknesses
,
and
passions
of
humane
nature
;
when
they
are
Governours
,
they
have
a
greater
regard
to
a
publick
good
,
and
consider
what
their
Character
,
and
Office
,
and
Authority
requires
them
to
do
.
Thus
we
know
,
when
some
of
our
Dissenters
had
got
the
Power
in
their
hands
,
they
were
as
severe
in
pressing
Conformity
to
their
new
Models
and
Platforms
,
as
loud
and
fierce
in
their
Declamations
against
Toleration
,
as
now
they
are
against
Conformity
and
for
a
Toleration
:
When
they
had
the
Power
in
their
hands
,
they
saw
plainly
what
the
necessities
of
Government
required
;
now
the
Power
is
out
of
their
hands
,
they
consider
what
is
necessary
to
their
own
preservation
;
which
makes
them
dislike
those
things
,
when
the
Government
is
against
them
,
which
they
saw
a
necessity
of
before
.
This
is
universally
true
of
all
sorts
of
People
,
that
when
they
are
under
,
they
desire
that
liberty
and
indulgence
which
they
judge
unreasonable
to
grant
when
they
are
in
power
:
And
whereas
some
attribute
this
to
the
weakness
of
humane
nature
,
which
is
corrupted
by
Power
,
and
grows
insolent
and
domineering
;
that
Subjects
see
what
is
fitting
for
Governours
to
do
,
but
Governours
lose
that
tender
regard
to
their
Subjects
,
when
they
have
Power
in
their
hands
:
I
take
the
contrary
to
this
to
be
the
true
reason
of
it
;
that
men
who
are
in
Power
,
understand
the
reasons
and
necessity
of
Government
,
and
have
a
greater
regard
to
a
publick
Good
,
than
to
gratifie
mens
private
Interests
and
Inclinations
;
but
Subjects
,
when
the
Power
is
not
on
their
side
,
are
bribed
by
their
own
interest
and
self-love
,
to
censure
and
condemn
such
acts
of
government
as
they
liked
very
well
in
themselves
when
they
were
in
Power
.
Which
is
a
plain
demonstration
that
this
Rule
,
To
do
as
we
would
be
done
by
,
is
onely
a
Rule
for
private
Conversation
,
not
for
publick
Government
;
and
that
the
private
Resentments
of
those
who
suffer
,
is
no
Argument
against
the
Justice
,
Prudence
,
or
Charity
of
Government
.
VI.
His
sixth
Argument
is
from
the
nature
and
obligations
of
Charity
;
but
I
have
considered
this
at
large
in
the
second
Chapter
,
and
explained
the
difference
between
a
private
Charity
and
the
Charity
of
Government
,
and
made
it
appear
that
there
is
no
want
of
Charity
in
the
Constitution
of
the
Church
of
England
.
VII
.
His
next
Argument
is
this
:
That
those
Arguments
which
with
the
greatest
strength
of
reason
are
offered
to
induce
Dissenters
to
conform
to
the
Constitutions
of
the
Church
of
England
,
do
with
equal
force
and
clearness
conclude
against
the
imposition
of
those
Rites
,
as
the
condition
of
Communion
.
If
this
prove
true
,
I
am
sure
such
Arguments
are
good
for
nothing
on
neither
side
;
but
let
us
hear
what
they
are
.
1.
It
is
well
argued
by
Conformists
,
that
the
Rules
and
Canons
of
the
Church-Governours
imposed
for
Decency
and
Order
,
are
to
be
obeyed
by
inferiours
,
till
it
be
made
as
clear
that
they
are
not
bound
to
obey
in
the
instances
enjoyned
,
as
it
is
evident
in
general
that
Inferiours
ought
to
obey
Superiours
:
for
if
the
exemption
from
obedience
be
not
as
evident
as
the
command
to
obey
,
it
must
be
sin
not
to
obey
.
Now
our
Reconciler
mistakes
the
nature
and
use
of
this
Argument
,
which
is
not
directly
to
press
any
man
to
Conformity
,
but
onely
to
conquer
mens
unreasonable
scruples
about
Conformity
;
that
in
case
they
have
any
doubts
and
jealousies
,
whether
it
be
lawful
to
obey
in
such
instances
,
yet
if
they
are
not
as
certain
that
the
thing
commanded
is
unlawful
to
be
done
,
as
they
are
that
it
is
unlawful
to
disobey
the
lawful
commands
of
their
Superiours
,
they
ought
to
chuse
the
safer
side
,
that
is
,
to
obey
their
Superiours
,
which
they
are
sure
is
their
duty
,
when
they
are
not
equally
sure
that
to
obey
them
in
such
instances
is
a
sin
.
This
our
Reconciler
says
,
is
a
good
Argument
,
and
therefore
I
shall
not
dispute
that
point
now
:
But
let
us
hear
how
he
turns
this
Argument
upon
the
Church
.
That
the
Precepts
of
Christ
and
his
Apostles
,
not
to
offend
his
little
ones
,
not
to
condemn
and
scandalize
our
weak
Brother
,
&c.
must
be
obeyed
by
Superiours
,
till
it
be
made
as
clear
,
that
by
imposing
of
such
things
which
grieve
and
scandalize
their
Brethren
,
&c.
they
do
not
offend
against
the
forementioned
Precepts
,
as
it
is
evident
in
the
general
,
that
they
ought
not
to
offend
against
them
.
Very
good
!
But
to
whom
must
this
be
made
as
clear
?
to
the
Dissenters
,
or
to
the
Governours
of
the
Church
?
If
the
Governours
of
the
Church
are
onely
concerned
to
satisfie
themselves
in
this
,
all
is
safe
:
for
I
suppose
they
have
no
scruple
about
it
,
and
therefore
may
impose
these
things
with
a
safe
Conscience
:
and
yet
this
Rule
concerns
onely
the
private
satisfaction
of
every
mans
Conscience
,
whether
he
be
a
Governour
or
a
Subject
,
in
the
lawfulness
of
what
he
either
commands
or
obeys
.
2.
It
is
strongly
urged
against
Dissenters
,
that
nothing
can
be
unlawful
,
which
is
not
by
God
forbidden
;
and
therefore
that
Dissenters
cannot
satisfie
their
Consciences
in
their
refusal
to
obey
the
commands
of
their
Superiours
,
unless
they
can
shew
some
plain
Precept
which
renders
that
unlawful
to
be
done
by
them
which
is
commanded
by
Superiours
.
But
our
Reconciler
misrepresents
this
Argument
,
which
is
this
:
Nothing
is
unlawful
which
is
not
forbidden
by
God
;
the
Ceremonies
of
the
Church
are
not
forbidden
by
God
,
therefore
they
are
not
unlawful
:
for
as
for
the
satisfaction
of
a
Dissenters
Conscience
,
that
is
so
wild
and
uncertain
a
thing
,
that
whatever
the
premises
be
,
you
can
never
conclude
whether
they
will
be
satisfied
or
not
:
for
they
can
be
satisfied
when
they
please
,
with
,
or
without
,
or
against
a
divine
Law
;
and
nothing
shall
satisfie
them
when
they
are
not
pleased
to
be
satisfied
.
But
let
us
hear
how
this
recoils
upon
Imposers
.
Nothing
can
be
unlawful
to
be
forborn
or
laid
aside
,
for
avoiding
the
scandal
and
offence
of
our
weak
Brother
,
&c.
which
is
not
plainly
by
God
forbidden
to
be
done
for
those
good
ends
.
Wherefore
,
unless
that
our
Imposers
can
shew
some
plain
Precept
which
renders
it
unlawful
to
leave
these
Ceremonies
indifferent
,
or
alter
some
few
places
in
the
Liturgie
which
give
this
scandal
and
offence
to
their
weak
Brethren
—
they
cannot
satisfie
their
Consciences
in
their
refusal
to
forbear
the
imposition
of
those
things
.
But
how
does
our
Reconciler
know
this
?
Suppose
Governours
can
satisfie
their
Consciences
without
such
an
express
prohibition
,
what
then
?
Is
it
a
sin
not
to
grant
that
indulgence
which
they
are
not
forbid
to
grant
by
an
express
positive
Law
?
For
suppose
that
nothing
is
unlawful
to
be
forborn
which
is
not
plainly
by
God
forbidden
to
be
done
,
how
does
this
prove
that
it
is
unlawful
not
to
forbear
that
which
God
has
not
plainly
forbidden
to
be
done
?
The
Imposers
cannot
shew
any
plain
Precept
which
renders
it
unlawful
to
leave
these
Ceremonies
indifferent
,
therefore
it
is
unlawful
not
to
leave
these
Ceremonies
indifferent
;
that
is
,
it
is
unlawful
not
to
do
that
which
we
are
not
forbidden
not
to
do
;
which
cannot
be
true
,
unless
whatever
God
does
not
forbid
,
he
commands
;
which
would
make
ill
for
our
Reconciler
and
all
his
dissenting
Clients
:
for
then
we
could
easily
prove
that
God
has
commanded
them
to
observe
all
the
Ceremonies
of
the
Church
of
England
,
because
he
has
not
forbid
them
to
observe
them
.
And
indeed
now
I
think
on
't
,
I
suppose
he
takes
this
to
be
the
meaning
of
that
Argument
which
is
urged
against
the
Dissenters
,
that
they
are
bound
to
do
what
they
are
not
bound
not
to
do
,
that
what
is
not
forbidden
by
God
,
and
therefore
not
unlawful
to
be
done
,
they
are
bound
to
do
;
and
then
I
confess
the
same
Argument
would
hold
against
the
Imposers
,
as
well
as
against
the
Dissenters
:
but
it
is
a
very
foolish
Argument
against
either
.
The
true
Argument
against
the
Dissenters
,
is
this
:
That
they
are
bound
to
obey
their
Superiours
in
those
things
which
God
has
not
forbidden
:
for
where
God
has
not
interposed
his
Authority
,
they
are
subject
to
the
Authority
of
their
Governours
.
The
Argument
is
not
,
That
they
are
in
all
cases
bound
to
do
what
God
has
not
forbid
them
to
do
;
which
is
ridiculously
absurd
:
for
what
is
not
unlawful
,
not
forbidden
by
God
,
may
either
be
done
or
may
be
let
alone
,
without
sin
,
unless
some
other
consideration
,
besides
its
being
not
forbidden
,
alter
the
case
:
But
the
Argument
is
this
,
That
what
God
has
not
forbidden
,
Governours
may
command
,
and
Subjects
are
bound
in
Conscience
to
obey
.
Let
us
see
then
how
he
applies
this
to
our
Imposers
,
as
he
modestly
calls
our
Governours
in
Church
and
State
.
It
is
not
unlawful
,
as
not
forbidden
by
God
,
to
leave
these
Ceremonies
indiff●rent
;
so
far
indeed
it
agrees
with
the
case
of
the
Dissenters
,
that
the
Ceremonies
are
not
unlawful
,
as
not
being
forbidden
by
God
:
but
now
where
is
the
superior
Authority
over
Governours
to
make
it
unlawful
for
them
to
impose
that
which
it
is
not
unlawful
not
to
impose
,
then
the
case
of
Imposers
would
be
exactly
parallel
with
the
Dissenters
,
who
are
under
the
Authority
of
their
Governours
;
which
makes
that
their
duty
which
God
had
left
indifferent
,
and
that
unlawful
which
God
had
by
no
express
prohibition
made
unlawful
:
but
here
the
Parallel
fails
,
and
therefore
the
Argument
is
not
the
same
.
For
the
supreme
Authority
of
Church
and
State
,
can
have
no
superiour
Authority
on
Earth
to
make
that
unlawful
to
them
which
God
has
not
made
unlawful
.
All
that
our
Reconciler
offers
to
this
purpose
,
is
onely
this
:
That
the
avoiding
scandal
and
offence
,
and
the
preservation
of
Charity
,
Peace
,
and
Vnity
in
the
Church
,
lays
as
necessary
an
obligation
on
Governours
to
forbear
what
they
may
lawfully
forbear
,
for
the
promoting
these
ends
,
as
the
Authority
of
Governours
obliges
Subjects
to
obey
them
in
all
things
wherein
they
lawfully
may
;
that
is
,
that
Governours
are
bound
not
to
command
any
thing
which
they
may
lawfully
not
command
,
when
hereby
they
serve
the
ends
of
Charity
and
Peace
.
Now
if
this
were
the
case
,
yet
so
the
Argument
would
not
be
the
same
;
for
then
we
must
state
the
case
of
Governours
thus
:
That
they
must
not
do
that
which
is
unlawful
to
be
done
,
not
that
they
must
not
do
that
which
is
not
unlawful
not
to
be
done
.
The
Authority
of
Governours
does
not
alter
the
intrinsick
nature
of
things
,
and
therefore
we
may
very
properly
say
,
that
Subjects
must
obey
their
Governours
in
all
things
which
are
not
unlawful
;
and
that
the
things
commanded
are
not
in
their
own
natures
unlawful
,
is
a
good
Argument
to
oblige
them
to
obey
:
but
the
end
and
circumstances
of
action
alters
its
moral
nature
,
and
that
which
in
some
circumstances
is
not
unlawful
,
in
other
circumstances
becomes
absolutely
unlawful
.
And
if
this
be
the
case
here
,
that
the
imposition
of
these
Ceremonies
is
unlawful
,
when
it
gives
scandal
and
offence
,
and
disturbs
the
Peace
and
Unity
of
the
Church
;
then
the
Argument
to
disswade
Governours
from
such
Impositions
is
not
,
that
it
is
not
unlawful
to
forbear
imposing
,
(
which
is
parallel
to
the
Argument
used
against
Dissenters
,
that
it
is
not
unlawful
to
obey
)
but
that
it
is
unlawful
to
impose
in
such
circumstances
;
which
differ
as
much
as
to
perswade
men
not
to
do
what
they
lawfully
may
not
do
,
differs
from
disswading
them
from
doing
what
is
not
lawful
to
be
done
.
This
I
think
is
abundantly
enough
to
shew
that
our
Reconciler
is
very
much
out
in
his
Logick
,
when
he
makes
this
Argument
against
Dissenters
and
Imposers
to
be
the
same
:
as
for
the
Argument
it self
,
that
it
is
unlawful
for
Governours
to
impose
these
Ceremonies
,
when
it
gives
offence
and
scandal
to
weak
Brethren
,
&c.
I
have
sufficiently
answered
that
already
.
3.
His
next
Argument
,
which
he
says
equally
holds
against
the
Dissenters
and
Imposers
,
is
taken
from
the
littleness
and
small
importance
of
the
things
upon
which
we
are
divided
;
and
it
is
in
short
this
:
That
Dissenters
ought
not
to
disturb
the
Peace
of
the
Church
,
by
refusing
obedience
in
such
little
things
;
nor
the
Governours
of
the
Church
,
by
imposing
,
such
little
things
.
Now
I
need
not
concern
my self
about
this
Argument
,
which
is
not
likely
to
have
any
effect
either
upon
Dissenters
or
Imposers
;
who
,
if
they
understand
themselves
,
and
act
honestly
,
it
is
plain
,
do
not
think
these
things
so
little
and
inconsiderable
,
that
they
are
not
worth
contending
about
.
That
the
decent
Ceremonies
of
Religion
are
not
such
very
contemptible
things
,
I
have
already
proved
at
large
in
the
first
Chapter
;
that
they
are
not
so
little
that
Governours
ought
not
to
impose
them
,
I
have
proved
at
the
beginning
of
this
Chapter
,
and
that
sufficiently
proves
that
this
is
no
Argument
against
Governours
;
and
if
,
as
our
Reconciler
says
,
it
be
an
unanswerable
Argument
against
Dissenters
,
I
am
contented
to
leave
it
so
.
However
,
our
Reconciler
is
mightily
out
,
when
he
thinks
the
littleness
of
a
thing
to
be
as
good
an
Argument
against
the
imposition
of
Governours
,
as
against
the
disobedience
of
Dissenters
:
for
Governours
are
bound
to
take
care
of
little
as
well
as
of
great
things
,
because
things
which
are
little
in
themselves
,
may
have
very
great
effects
,
either
good
or
bad
;
but
there
is
no
excuse
for
the
disobedience
of
Subjects
in
such
cases
:
for
the
less
the
command
is
,
the
less
reason
have
they
to
refuse
obedience
.
I
believe
all
Parents
and
Governours
in
the
world
think
so
,
excepting
our
Reconcilers
.
In
the
next
place
,
our
Reconciler
argues
from
many
general
Topicks
received
and
owned
by
all
Casuists
:
1.
Qui
non
vetat
peccare
,
cùm
possit
,
jubet
.
Which
he
translates
thus
:
He
that
being
a
Superiour
,
a
Father
,
a
Master
of
a
Family
,
&c.
doth
not
what
lawfully
he
may
for
the
prevention
of
the
sin
of
those
who
are
subject
to
his
government
,
becomes
partakers
of
their
sin
.
Now
suppose
all
this
,
what
care
can
be
taken
to
prevent
sin
,
which
it
becomes
Governours
to
take
,
which
is
neglected
by
the
Church
of
England
?
Yes
,
says
the
Reconciler
,
they
may
abate
those
Impositions
which
occasion
the
Schism
.
But
this
has
been
so
often
answered
already
,
that
I
shall
now
onely
direct
my
Readers
in
the
Margin
where
to
find
the
Answer
.
2.
He
says
,
Divines
,
concerning
the
right
interpretation
of
the
Ten
Commandments
,
and
of
the
Laws
of
Christ
,
do
generally
lay
down
these
Rules
,
viz.
That
when
any
thing
is
forbidden
by
these
Laws
,
all
those
things
are
forbidden
also
which
follow
from
that
forbidden
action
,
and
for
whose
sake
it
was
forbidden
.
Now
I
think
this
is
a
very
good
Rule
;
and
if
he
can
prove
that
the
imposition
of
these
Ceremonies
is
a
forbidden
action
,
I
will
grant
that
the
Schism
which
is
consequent
upon
it
,
is
imputable
to
the
Church
;
but
if
it
be
not
forbidden
,
if
the
Church
has
this
Authority
,
and
ought
to
take
care
of
the
decent
circumstances
of
Worship
,
then
the
Schism
can
be
charged
onely
upon
the
disobeying
Schismatick
.
But
this
I
have
largely
discoursed
in
the
place
before
cited
.
And
now
I
come
to
those
shrewd
Questions
which
our
Reconciler
says
he
has
met
with
in
the
Books
of
the
Dissenters
,
to
which
he
finds
no
answer
in
the
Replys
of
any
of
their
Adversaries
,
and
which
he
entreats
the
Champions
for
the
Church
of
England
,
as
they
respect
the
credit
of
our
Church-Governours
,
the
reputation
of
the
Church
,
and
of
her
Discipline
,
not
to
pass
by
without
the
least
notice
taken
of
them
,
as
hitherto
they
have
done
.
Now
though
I
do
not
pretend
to
the
honour
and
character
of
a
Champion
,
yet
I
have
such
a
hearty
love
and
reverence
for
my
dear
Mother
the
Church
of
England
,
that
I
cannot
deny
so
easie
a
Request
as
this
;
the
most
troublesome
task
being
to
transcribe
all
these
Questions
.
Quest.
1.
The
first
Question
is
,
Whether
they
do
well
that
unnecessarily
bring
Subjects
into
such
a
straight
by
needless
Laws
for
additions
in
Religion
,
that
the
Consciences
of
men
fearing
God
,
must
unavoidably
be
perplexed
between
a
fear
of
treason
and
disobedience
against
Christ
,
and
disobedience
to
their
Prince
and
Pastors
?
Ans.
I
answer
,
Such
men
do
certainly
very
ill
in
it
;
but
then
this
is
not
the
case
of
the
Church
of
England
,
for
she
has
made
no
needless
Laws
:
for
Laws
to
direct
and
determine
the
external
circumstances
of
Worship
,
according
to
the
Rules
of
Order
and
Decency
,
are
not
needless
,
but
necessary
,
as
I
have
already
proved
.
Our
Reconciler
grants
,
that
the
Church
has
this
Authority
;
and
if
the
exercise
of
it
be
needless
,
the
Authority
is
so
too
;
and
then
Christ
has
given
his
Church
a
needless
Authority
:
for
I
suppose
he
will
not
own
,
that
the
Church
has
any
Authority
but
what
she
has
from
Christ
.
Nor
does
the
Church
make
any
additions
in
Religion
:
for
the
decent
circumstances
of
Worship
are
no
additions
to
external
Worship
,
but
as
necessary
to
it
as
Decency
is
;
unless
our
Reconciler
thinks
that
it
is
an
addition
to
the
Law
of
God
,
which
commands
us
to
reverence
our
Prince
,
and
Parents
,
and
Superiours
,
to
command
Children
,
Servants
,
or
Subjects
,
to
stand
bare
before
them
.
Nor
need
the
Consciences
of
men
fearing
God
be
unavoidably
perplexed
between
a
fear
of
treason
and
disobedience
against
Christ
,
and
of
disobedience
to
their
Prince
and
Pastors
:
for
a
great
many
men
,
who
fear
God
,
are
not
thus
perplexed
,
and
therefore
it
is
not
unavoidable
.
I
will
instance
onely
in
the
Reconciler
himself
,
if
he
will
give
me
leave
to
reckon
him
among
those
men
who
either
fear
God
,
or
reverence
their
Prince
and
Pastors
.
And
there
is
another
good
reason
why
this
is
not
unavoidable
,
because
there
is
no
competition
in
this
case
between
obedience
to
Christ
,
and
obedience
to
our
Prince
and
Pastors
;
and
therefore
no
man
need
to
be
perplexed
about
it
:
and
if
there
were
a
plain
competition
,
there
were
no
need
of
being
thus
perplexed
neither
,
because
all
men
,
who
fear
God
,
do
or
ought
to
understand
,
that
where
Christ
commands
one
thing
,
and
our
Prince
another
,
inconsistent
with
the
command
of
Christ
,
we
must
obey
God
rather
than
men
.
Quest.
2.
Whether
Rulers
may
command
any
(
indifferent
and
unnecessary
)
thing
which
will
notably
do
more
harm
than
good
,
or
make
an
unnecessary
necessary
thing
a
means
or
occasion
of
excluding
the
necessary
Worship
of
God
,
or
preaching
of
the
Gospel
?
Ans.
If
by
indifferent
and
unnecessary
things
,
he
means
things
wholly
useless
,
and
by
their
notably
doing
more
harm
than
good
,
that
they
are
in
their
own
nature
hurtful
as
well
as
useless
,
it
is
certain
Governours
ought
not
to
command
such
things
;
but
what
is
this
to
the
Church
of
England
?
The
Ceremonies
of
our
Church
,
though
upon
some
accounts
they
may
be
called
indifferent
,
yet
are
very
useful
as
contributing
to
the
Decency
of
Worship
,
which
is
as
necessary
as
publick
Worship
is
;
and
are
not
apt
to
do
any
hurt
at
all
,
and
therefore
are
the
proper
Object
of
Ecclesiastical
Authority
.
And
with
what
face
can
our
Reconciler
pretend
that
they
exclude
the
necessary
Worship
of
God
,
or
preaching
of
the
Gospel
,
when
God
is
still
worshipped
,
and
the
Gospel
preached
in
all
the
Parish-churches
of
England
?
unless
he
thinks
that
God
is
not
worshipped
,
nor
the
Gospel
preached
any
where
but
at
a
Conventicle
.
Quest.
3.
Whether
is
it
more
to
common
good
and
the
interest
of
Honesty
and
Conscience
,
that
all
the
Parsons
in
a
Nation
be
imprisoned
,
banished
,
or
silenced
,
that
dare
not
swear
,
say
,
and
practise
all
that
is
imposed
on
them
,
than
that
unnecessary
impositions
be
altered
or
forborn
?
Now
I
think
I
may
have
the
liberty
to
ask
our
Reconciler
a
Question
now
and
then
.
I
ask
therefore
,
Whether
is
most
for
the
common
good
,
that
there
should
be
any
setled
Order
and
Government
in
the
Church
,
or
that
there
should
be
none
?
Whether
it
is
possible
to
maintain
any
Order
or
Government
,
without
rejecting
and
censuring
those
who
will
not
conform
to
it
?
Whether
is
most
for
the
publick
good
,
to
maintain
and
encourage
a
loyal
and
conformable
Clergy
(
when
there
is
no
scarcity
of
such
men
)
or
to
nourish
Shism
and
Schismaticks
,
to
say
no
worse
?
Quest.
4.
Had
Images
been
lawfully
used
in
places
or
exercise
of
Gods
Worship
,
yet
whether
was
it
not
inhumane
and
unchristian
in
those
Bishops
and
Councils
,
who
anathematized
all
that
were
of
a
contrary
mind
,
and
ejected
and
silenced
the
Dissenters
?
Ans.
The
bare
lawfulness
of
any
thing
does
not
make
it
a
fit
matter
for
a
Law
;
but
whatever
is
both
lawful
and
useful
,
if
it
be
enjoyned
by
a
just
Authority
,
ought
to
be
obeyed
by
the
Members
of
that
Church
where
it
is
enjoyned
,
and
Dissenters
ought
to
be
censured
according
to
the
nature
of
the
offence
:
for
without
this
,
there
can
be
no
government
in
the
Church
.
But
why
he
particularly
instances
in
Images
,
I
cannot
tell
,
unless
it
be
to
insinuate
that
the
Ceremonies
of
our
Church
are
of
the
same
nature
with
them
;
but
our
Church
,
which
retains
Ceremonies
,
removed
Images
,
as
just
matters
of
scandal
and
offence
.
Quest.
5.
Whether
Christ
who
made
the
Baptismal
Covenant
the
test
and
standing
terms
of
entrance
,
did
set
up
Pastors
over
his
Church
to
make
new
and
stricter
terms
and
Laws
,
or
to
preserve
Concord
on
the
terms
that
he
had
founded
it
,
and
to
see
that
men
lived
in
Vnity
and
Piety
according
to
those
terms
;
and
when
they
,
as
Christs
Ministers
,
have
received
men
on
Christs
terms
,
whether
they
may
excommunicate
and
turn
them
out
of
the
Church
again
for
want
of
more
,
or
onely
for
violating
these
?
Quest.
6.
His
sixth
Query
,
Whether
anathematizing
men
for
doubtful
actions
,
or
for
such
faults
as
consist
with
true
Christianity
,
and
continued
subjection
to
Iesus
Christ
,
be
not
a
sinful
Church-dividing
means
?
Onely
I
shall
observe
farther
,
that
as
he
has
stated
this
Query
,
it
does
not
concern
the
Church
of
England
.
She
anathematizes
no
man
for
doubtful
actions
,
for
she
commands
nothing
that
is
doubtful
,
though
some
men
are
pleased
to
pretend
some
doubts
and
scruples
about
it
.
But
I
have
already
shewn
,
that
there
is
a
great
difference
between
a
doubtful
action
,
in
a
continued
subjection
to
Iesus
Christ
;
which
no
Schismatick
does
,
whatever
pretences
he
makes
to
holiness
of
life
:
for
subjection
to
Christ
requires
subjection
to
that
Authority
which
Christ
has
set
in
his
Church
,
as
well
as
obedience
to
his
other
Laws
.
Quest.
7.
As
for
his
next
Question
,
about
imposing
heavy
burdens
,
and
intolerable
yokes
,
when
Christ
came
to
take
them
away
,
it
has
been
at
large
answered
already
.
Quest.
8.
Whether
Christ
hath
not
made
Laws
sufficient
to
be
the
Bond
of
Vnity
to
his
Church
,
and
whether
any
man
should
be
cut
off
from
it
,
who
breaketh
no
Law
of
God
necessary
to
Church-unity
and
communion
?
Ans.
Christ
has
made
Laws
sufficient
to
be
the
Bond
of
Unity
to
his
Church
:
for
he
has
commanded
all
Christians
to
submit
to
the
Authority
which
he
has
placed
in
his
Church
,
which
is
the
onely
Bond
of
Union
in
a
particular
Church
;
and
therefore
those
who
are
cut
off
from
the
Church
for
their
disobedience
to
Ecclesiastical
Authority
,
while
nothing
is
enjoyned
which
contradicts
the
other
Laws
of
our
Saviour
,
cannot
be
said
to
break
no
Law
of
God
necessary
to
Church-unity
or
communion
:
for
they
break
that
Law
which
is
the
very
Bond
of
Union
,
and
deserve
to
be
cut
off
,
though
they
should
be
supposed
to
break
no
other
Law
of
Christ
.
Quest.
9.
Whether
if
many
of
the
children
of
the
Church
were
injudiciously
scrupulous
,
when
fear
of
sin
and
Hell
was
the
cause
,
a
tender
Pastor
would
not
abate
them
a
Ceremony
in
such
a
case
,
when
his
abating
it
hath
no
such
danger
?
Ans.
A
tender
Pastor
in
such
cases
ought
to
instruct
such
children
,
but
not
to
suffer
such
childish
fancies
to
impose
upon
Church-authority
.
For
to
disturb
the
Peace
and
Order
of
the
Church
,
and
to
countenance
mens
injudicious
scruples
by
such
indulgence
,
is
a
much
greater
mischief
,
and
more
unpardonable
in
a
Governour
,
than
the
severest
censures
on
private
persons
.
If
a
private
connivance
for
a
time
in
some
hard
cases
would
do
any
good
,
it
might
be
thought
reasonable
and
charitable
;
but
to
alter
publick
Laws
and
Constitutions
for
the
sake
of
such
injudicious
people
,
is
for
ever
to
sacrifice
the
Peace
and
Order
and
good
Government
of
the
Church
,
to
the
humours
of
children
;
which
would
not
be
thought
either
prudent
or
charitable
in
any
other
Government
.
Quest.
10.
If
diversity
in
Religion
be
such
an
evil
,
whether
should
men
cause
it
by
their
unnecessary
Laws
and
Canons
,
and
making
Engines
to
tear
the
Church
in
pieces
,
which
by
the
ancient
simplicity
and
commanded
mutual
forbearance
,
would
live
in
such
a
measure
of
Love
and
Peace
as
may
be
here
expected
?
Ans.
Whoever
cause
a
diversity
of
Religions
by
their
Laws
and
Canons
,
or
make
Engines
to
tear
the
Church
in
pieces
,
are
certainly
very
great
Schismaticks
;
but
Laws
for
Unity
and
Uniformity
can
never
make
a
diversity
of
Religions
,
nor
occasion
it
neither
,
unless
every
thing
produces
its
contrary
;
heat
produce
cold
,
peace
war
,
and
love
hatred
.
Men
may
quarrel
indeed
about
Laws
of
Unity
and
Uniformity
,
but
it
is
the
diversity
of
Religions
or
Opinions
,
which
men
have
already
espoused
,
not
the
Laws
of
Unity
,
which
makes
the
quarrel
.
The
plain
case
then
is
this
:
Whether
when
men
are
divided
in
their
opinions
and
judgments
of
things
,
and
if
they
be
left
to
themselves
,
will
worship
God
in
different
ways
,
according
to
their
own
humours
and
perswasions
,
it
be
unlawful
for
Church-Governours
to
make
Laws
for
Unity
and
Uniformity
,
because
whatever
they
be
,
some
men
will
quarrel
at
them
?
Or
whether
the
Church
may
justly
be
charged
with
making
a
diversity
of
Religions
,
by
making
Laws
to
cure
and
restrain
that
diversity
of
Religions
which
men
have
already
made
to
themselves
?
It
is
certain
,
were
men
all
of
a
mind
,
the
Laws
of
Unity
could
not
make
a
difference
;
and
therefore
these
Laws
and
Canons
are
not
the
Engines
which
tear
the
Church
in
pieces
,
but
that
diversity
of
opinions
which
men
have
wantonly
taken
up
,
and
for
the
sake
of
which
they
tear
and
divide
the
Church
into
a
thousand
Conventicles
.
But
had
it
not
been
for
these
Canons
,
by
the
ancient
simplicity
and
mutual
forbearance
,
they
would
live
in
such
a
measure
of
love
and
peace
,
as
may
be
here
expected
.
But
what
ancient
simplicity
does
he
mean
?
The
Church
of
England
is
the
best
Pattern
this
day
in
the
World
of
the
Primitive
and
Apostolick
simplicity
:
for
a
Phanatick
simplicity
was
never
known
till
of
late
days
;
there
never
was
a
Church
from
the
Apostles
days
without
all
Rites
and
Ceremonies
of
Worship
,
till
of
late
,
when
men
pretended
to
reform
Religion
by
destroying
all
external
Order
and
Decency
of
Worship
:
and
therefore
he
is
fain
to
take
in
a
commanded
mutual
forbearance
to
patch
up
Church-unity
;
that
is
,
if
men
be
permitted
to
worship
God
as
they
please
,
and
are
commanded
not
to
quarrel
with
one
another
,
and
are
not
permitted
to
cut
one
anothers
throats
,
this
is
such
a
measure
of
Love
and
Peace
as
may
be
here
expected
,
that
is
,
among
Schismaticks
and
Dissenters
.
But
this
is
not
such
a
Love
and
Peace
as
makes
the
Church
one
,
for
that
consists
in
one
Communion
;
which
can
never
be
had
,
where
men
differ
in
the
Rites
and
Modes
of
Worship
,
and
every
man
is
permitted
to
worship
God
as
he
pleases
.
Quest.
11.
If
a
Patient
would
not
take
a
Medicine
from
one
mans
hand
,
whether
would
not
a
good
Physician
consent
that
another
should
give
it
him
;
whether
would
the
merciful
Father
let
the
Infant
famish
that
would
take
food
from
none
but
his
Mother
?
And
if
the
People
culpably
will
hear
no
others
but
Dissenters
,
is
it
better
to
let
them
hear
none
at
all
,
than
that
they
should
preach
to
them
?
Ans.
Now
I
would
ask
our
Reconciler
one
Question
,
Why
all
this
will
not
hold
as
well
in
Civil
as
Ecclesiastical
Government
?
If
the
People
culpably
will
be
governed
not
by
a
King
and
Parliament
,
but
by
some
select
and
trusty
Members
of
a
House
of
Commons
,
or
by
another
Oliver
,
is
it
better
these
poor
People
should
be
without
any
Government
,
than
that
they
should
be
governed
by
Rebels
,
or
a
new
modelled
Commonwealth
?
Now
here
is
an
excellent
Argument
to
perswade
the
King
,
out
of
great
charity
to
his
People
,
to
resigne
up
the
Government
,
and
let
them
chuse
their
own
Governours
;
though
I
am
afraid
then
,
they
would
be
cantoned
into
as
many
little
Independent
Kingdoms
,
as
there
are
now
Independent
Pastors
.
But
let
us
consider
his
comparisons
.
He
says
,
If
a
Patient
would
not
receive
a
Medicine
from
one
mans
hands
,
whether
would
not
a
good
Physician
consent
that
another
man
should
give
it
him
?
Yes
,
why
not
,
so
long
as
the
Physician
prescribed
the
Physick
?
But
would
such
a
Physician
suffer
such
a
humorsome
Patient
(
could
he
hinder
it
)
to
go
to
a
Quack
or
a
Mountebank
?
or
to
take
Physick
very
hurtful
and
pernicious
to
him
?
I
believe
the
Colledge
of
Physicians
are
of
another
mind
,
who
have
been
as
industrious
to
suppress
such
Quacks
,
as
the
Church
has
been
to
silence
Dissenters
.
But
whether
would
the
merciful
Father
let
the
Infant
famish
that
would
take
food
from
none
but
his
Mother
?
But
suppose
he
is
as
fond
of
a
Strumpet
as
he
is
of
his
Mother
,
what
would
the
Father
do
in
that
case
?
It
is
a
pretty
in●inuation
this
,
that
dissenting
Preachers
are
the
true
Mother
,
and
therefore
it
is
very
pardonable
in
the
People
to
long
after
them
.
But
is
not
our
Reconciler
a
great
Politician
,
who
thinks
it
reasonable
that
publick
Government
should
humour
Subjects
,
as
a
Physician
does
a
sick
Patient
,
or
an
indulgent
Father
a
froward
child
?
that
the
Hospital
or
the
Nursery
should
be
the
best
Platform
of
Government
in
Church
or
State
?
But
now
our
Reconciler
speaks
out
,
and
in
down-right
terms
pleads
for
the
toleration
of
dissenting
Preachers
,
that
the
People
may
have
somebody
to
hear
,
and
it
is
better
to
let
them
hear
them
,
than
that
they
should
hear
none
at
all
.
But
there
is
no
necessity
of
either
that
I
know
of
:
for
thanks
be
to
God
,
there
are
other
excellent
Preachers
to
hear
,
though
the
Dissenters
were
never
to
preach
more
;
and
there
is
no
danger
that
those
People
who
have
such
itching
ears
,
should
ever
grow
so
sullen
as
to
hear
none
at
all
:
when
they
cannot
hear
whom
they
would
,
they
will
hear
whom
they
can
;
and
by
hearing
wise
and
honest
instructions
,
may
in
time
grow
wise
themselves
;
which
I
suspect
some
men
are
afraid
of
,
whatever
our
Reconciler
be
.
These
Queries
our
Author
has
borrowed
from
Mr.
Baxter
,
and
made
them
his
own
by
his
approbation
of
them
;
and
now
he
tells
us
,
That
Mr.
Barret
hath
offered
many
Questions
of
the
like
nature
,
which
he
being
slow
of
understanding
(
which
I
believe
the
Reader
by
this
time
will
take
his
word
for
)
cannot
answer
to
his
own
satisfaction
;
and
therefore
in
a
great
fright
crys
out
passionately
for
help
,
Men
of
Israel
help
.
And
I
will
endeavour
to
help
him
out
here
too
.
Q.
1.
Might
not
Conformists
with
a
good
Conscience
have
forborn
those
needless
Impositions
which
they
very
well
knew
would
be
so
needless
and
burdensome
to
many
?
Was
ever
Schism
made
so
light
a
matter
of
,
and
the
Peace
and
Vnity
of
Christians
valued
at
so
low
a
rate
,
that
for
the
prevention
of
the
one
,
and
the
preservation
of
the
other
,
the
imposing
of
things
indifferent
,
and
not
necessary
in
their
own
judgment
,
but
things
doubtful
and
unlawful
in
the
judgment
of
others
,
might
not
be
forborn
?
Q.
2.
Whether
they
pray
as
they
ought
,
Thy
Kingdom
come
,
or
whether
indeed
they
act
not
against
their
own
Prayers
,
who
endeavour
to
hinder
the
preaching
of
the
Gospel
(
by
making
these
unnecessary
things
the
conditions
of
so
doing
.
)
Let
us
bring
the
case
before
our
supreme
and
final
Iudge
,
and
bethink
your self
whether
of
these
two
things
he
will
most
likely
have
regard
unto
;
the
saving
of
Souls
which
he
bought
with
his
bloud
,
or
the
preserving
inviolate
certain
humane
Institutions
and
Rules
confessed
by
the
devisers
of
them
not
to
be
necessary
?
Ans.
As
for
their
being
confessed
not
to
be
necessary
,
that
has
been
often
enough
answered
already
;
and
as
for
his
Appeals
to
the
final
Judgment
,
we
are
very
well
contented
with
that
,
as
being
satisfied
that
no
popular
Cant
will
pass
currant
there
.
That
the
imposition
of
these
Ceremonies
does
not
hinder
the
preaching
the
Gospel
,
is
evident
to
sense
:
for
the
Gospel
is
still
preached
,
and
I
hope
to
better
purpose
than
in
the
late
days
of
Rebellion
.
And
as
for
the
Kingdom
of
God
in
this
World
,
it
signifies
the
Christian
Church
;
and
to
pray
for
the
coming
of
his
Kingdom
,
is
to
pray
for
the
enlargement
of
his
Church
,
which
was
never
enlarged
yet
by
the
preaching
of
Schismaticks
,
which
divides
and
lessens
the
Church
,
but
will
never
enlarge
it
:
and
therefore
those
who
pray
heartily
Thy
Kingdom
come
,
must
take
care
to
suppress
all
Schisms
and
Schismatical
Preachers
,
who
are
the
great
Obstacle
to
the
enlargement
of
Christ's
Kingdom
.
Q.
3.
Can
you
or
any
mortal
man
prove
that
others
may
not
be
allowed
to
differ
from
you
in
such
things
,
wherein
you
differ
from
the
Apostolick
Primitive
Church
?
Ans.
I
dare
put
the
final
decision
of
this
Controversie
upon
this
issue
,
whether
the
Church
of
England
or
Dissenters
come
nearest
to
the
Pattern
of
the
Apostolick
Primitive
Church
.
But
though
it
should
be
granted
that
we
do
not
use
all
those
Ceremonies
which
were
in
use
in
the
Apostles
times
,
and
that
we
use
some
which
were
not
then
used
,
yet
this
will
not
justifie
Dissenters
:
for
the
Church
in
all
Ages
has
authority
to
appoint
her
own
Rites
and
Ceremonies
of
Worship
,
while
they
comply
with
that
general
Rule
of
Decency
and
Order
;
but
private
Christians
have
no
authority
to
dissent
from
the
Church
,
while
she
enjoyns
nothing
which
is
contrary
to
the
divine
Laws
.
Q.
4.
What
if
the
old
Liturgie
,
and
that
new
one
compiled
and
presented
to
the
Bishops
at
the
Savoy
,
1661.
had
both
passed
and
been
allowed
for
Ministers
to
use
,
as
they
judged
most
convenient
;
might
not
several
Ministers
and
Congregations
in
this
case
have
used
several
Modes
of
Worship
,
without
breach
of
the
Churches
Peace
,
or
counting
each
other
Schismaticks
?
What
if
our
King
and
Parliament
should
make
a
Law
,
enjoyning
Conformists
and
Nonconformists
,
that
agree
in
the
same
Faith
and
Worship
for
substance
,
to
attend
peaceably
upon
their
Ministry
,
and
serve
God
and
his
Church
the
best
they
can
,
whether
they
use
the
Ceremonies
and
(
scrupled
expressions
of
the
)
Liturgie
or
no
,
without
uncharitable
reflections
,
or
bitter
censures
upon
one
another
in
word
or
writing
,
where
would
be
the
sinfulness
of
such
a
Law
?
Ans.
This
is
much
like
Mr.
Humphrey's
Project
of
uniting
all
Dissenters
into
one
National
Church
by
an
Act
of
Parliament
under
the
King
,
as
the
accidental
Head
of
the
Church
;
which
is
largely
and
particularly
answered
in
the
Vindication
of
the
Defence
of
Dr.
Stillingfleet's
Unreasonableness
of
Separation
.
The
onely
fault
in
short
,
is
this
:
That
it
destroys
the
Unity
of
the
Church
,
by
dividing
Christians
into
distinct
and
separate
Communions
,
and
lays
a
foundation
of
eternal
Schisms
and
Emulations
,
which
no
Laws
can
prevent
.
As
for
Mr.
Baxter's
Liturgy
,
I
confess
,
I
do
not
see
why
men
may
not
as
well
be
allowed
to
pray
ex
tempore
,
as
to
use
a
form
of
Prayer
which
was
written
ex
tempore
.
It
argued
very
little
modesty
in
those
men
to
present
such
crude
and
indigested
stuff
to
the
Commissioners
,
and
it
argues
as
little
understanding
and
honesty
in
our
Reconciler
to
plead
for
it
.
Q.
5.
Dissenters
ought
,
for
the
Peace
and
Vnity
of
the
Church
,
to
yield
as
far
as
they
can
without
sinning
against
God
and
their
own
Souls
,
and
should
not
Imposers
do
the
like
?
Were
this
one
Rule
agreed
on
,
what
Peace
and
Vnity
would
soon
follow
?
And
if
the
obligation
to
preserve
the
Churches
Peace
,
extend
so
far
as
to
the
Rulers
and
Governours
of
the
Church
,
there
may
be
as
much
Schism
in
their
setting
up
unnecessary
Rules
,
which
others
cannot
submit
to
,
as
in
mens
varying
from
such
Rules
.
Ans.
I
wonder
what
these
men
mean
by
the
Dissenters
yielding
?
as
if
they
stood
upon
equal
terms
with
the
Church
,
and
that
the
Church
and
Dissenters
,
like
two
Equals
to
compose
a
difference
and
quarrel
,
should
yield
and
condescend
to
each
other
.
The
Dissenters
ought
not
to
yield
to
,
but
to
obey
the
Chu●ch
;
the
Church
ought
not
to
yield
to
Dissenters
,
but
to
govern
prudently
and
charitably
.
The
Church
has
done
her
part
,
as
I
have
already
proved
,
all
her
unnecessary
Rules
which
others
cannot
(
otherwise
called
will
not
)
submit
to
;
that
is
,
at
least
all
the
decent
Ceremonies
of
Worship
,
if
not
her
own
Authority
too
.
And
the
onely
Argument
he
uses
to
prove
that
the
Church
ought
to
yield
,
is
because
Dissenters
ought
to
yield
;
that
is
,
it
is
the
duty
of
Governours
to
submit
to
their
Subjects
,
because
it
is
the
duty
of
Subjects
to
submit
to
their
Governours
.
I
do
not
much
care
to
be
an
Undertaker
,
and
yet
I
will
venture
for
once
to
propose
this
Expedient
for
Peace
:
Let
the
Dissenter
,
as
in
duty
bound
,
yield
as
far
as
he
can
without
sinning
against
God
and
his
own
Soul
,
and
the
Church
shall
yield
every
thing
else
that
is
necessary
to
this
desired
Union
.
This
is
but
a
reasonable
Proposition
,
not
onely
because
Subjects
ought
first
to
yield
,
but
because
the
Church
knows
not
what
is
necessary
to
be
yielded
,
till
she
sees
how
far
the
Dissenter
can
yield
.
Indeed
would
the
Dissenter
yield
as
far
as
he
can
,
without
sinning
against
God
and
his
own
Soul
,
there
would
be
no
need
for
the
Churches
yielding
any
thing
:
for
the
Church
enjoyns
nothing
which
is
a
sin
against
God
,
or
injurious
to
the
Souls
of
men
:
and
there
is
great
reason
to
believe
that
the
Dissenters
themselves
do
not
think
she
does
.
Both
dissenting
Preachers
and
Hearers
,
when
it
serves
a
secular
interest
,
can
hear
the
Common-Prayer
,
receive
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
kneeling
,
though
the
Minister
officiate
in
a
Surplice
;
and
I
am
so
charitable
as
to
hope
that
when
they
do
so
,
they
do
not
believe
that
they
sin
in
it
,
and
therefore
all
this
they
can
yield
without
sinning
against
God
or
their
own
Souls
:
and
therefore
this
they
ought
to
yield
,
and
then
there
will
be
little
left
for
the
Church
to
yield
.
His
two
next
Questions
,
Whether
the
Worship
of
God
cannot
be
performed
decently
and
in
order
,
without
these
Ceremonies
?
and
whether
if
men
must
be
without
the
Word
,
and
without
Sacraments
,
rather
than
without
these
Ceremonies
(
which
yet
there
is
no
necessity
of
,
nor
is
it
the
intention
of
the
Church
,
that
it
should
be
so
,
this
do
not
make
them
of
equal
necessity
with
divine
Institutions
?
have
been
already
answered
at
large
in
the
first
Chapter
.
Q.
8.
Whether
the
constitution
of
the
Church
should
not
be
set
as
much
as
may
be
for
the
incompassing
of
all
true
Christians
,
and
whether
the
taking
of
a
narrower
compass
be
not
a
fundamental
errour
in
its
policy
,
and
will
not
always
hinder
its
stability
and
increase
?
Ans.
The
plain
meaning
of
which
Question
,
is
this
:
Whether
it
be
not
the
best
way
to
s●cure
the
Church
against
her
Popish
Adversaries
,
to
unite
all
Protestants
of
what
denomination
soever
into
one
body
?
and
whether
it
be
not
more
probable
,
that
a
little
Church
which
has
not
many
Members
,
nor
any
worldly
strength
and
interest
to
support
it
,
should
be
sooner
destroyed
than
a
numerous
,
flourishing
,
and
potent
Church
?
In
answer
to
which
,
we
may
consider
,
1.
It
were
very
desirable
,
that
the
Church
could
be
so
modelled
,
as
to
receive
all
Protestants
and
Papists
also
into
our
Communion
,
that
the
Christian
Church
might
have
no
Enemies
who
call
themselves
Christians
;
but
this
is
impossible
to
be
done
,
while
both
of
them
recede
so
far
from
the
Principles
of
Catholick
Communion
.
2.
The
Unity
and
Peace
of
the
Church
within
it self
,
how
small
soever
it
be
,
is
a
better
security
to
it
,
than
Schisms
and
Discords
in
its
own
bowels
;
and
make
the
foundation
of
the
Church
as
large
as
you
please
,
if
the
building
be
not
closely
united
in
all
its
parts
,
it
will
fall
with
its
own
weight
.
While
men
are
possess'd
with
Schismatical
Principles
,
it
is
not
enough
to
make
a
lasting
Union
to
remove
those
particular
things
about
which
they
differ
at
present
;
for
when
men
are
given
to
quarrel
,
they
will
never
want
occasions
for
it
.
Take
away
every
thing
which
our
Dissenters
quarrel
at
,
and
you
leave
no
remains
of
a
Church
of
England
;
and
thus
indeed
you
may
enlarge
the
Church
by
pulling
it
down
,
by
plucking
up
all
its
Hedges
and
Fences
,
that
it
shall
be
no
longer
an
Inclosure
,
but
a
Common
.
A
Church
which
makes
no
new
Articles
of
Faith
,
nor
rejects
any
old
one
,
which
sets
up
no
idolatrous
and
superstitious
Worship
,
which
observes
all
the
Institutions
of
our
Saviour
,
and
secures
the
decency
of
publick
Worship
,
and
exercises
her
Authority
for
the
government
of
Religious
Societies
,
and
the
acts
of
Discipline
prudently
and
charitably
,
has
laid
her
foundations
as
wide
as
she
can
,
and
as
she
lawfully
may
;
and
those
who
will
not
embrace
her
Communion
upon
these
terms
,
must
stay
out
.
3.
For
at
best
,
this
is
nothing
more
than
carnal
Policy
,
to
think
to
secure
the
Church
by
our
strength
and
numbers
.
The
preservation
of
the
Church
is
not
owing
to
an
arm
of
flesh
,
but
to
the
protection
of
Christ
.
His
Flock
is
but
a
little
Flock
,
but
all
the
united
strength
and
power
of
the
World
cannot
destroy
it
,
the
gates
of
Hell
cannot
prevail
against
it
.
4.
When
we
speak
of
enlarging
the
Constitutions
of
the
Church
so
as
to
incompass
all
true
Christians
,
we
ought
to
have
a
principal
regard
to
the
Communion
of
the
Catholick
Church
;
and
those
who
take
any
other
compass
than
what
is
consistent
with
Catholick
Communion
,
though
they
should
inclose
a
whole
Nation
of
Dissenters
,
they
would
mightily
straiten
the
foundations
of
the
Church
.
Those
who
reject
all
external
Rites
of
Decency
and
Order
,
as
unlawful
in
Christian
Worship
,
and
reform
and
enlarge
the
Church
upon
these
Principles
,
reject
the
Communion
of
all
Christian
Churches
that
ever
were
in
the
World
for
1500
years
,
and
of
most
Churches
at
this
day
;
and
if
this
should
enlarge
the
Church
in
England
,
the
Catholick
Church
would
gain
little
by
it
,
when
it
unchurches
most
other
Churches
in
the
World
.
The
Church
of
England
is
modelled
by
such
Principles
,
that
she
can
hold
Communion
with
all
sound
and
Catholick
Churches
that
are
now
,
or
ever
were
in
the
World
,
and
all
Catholick
Churches
may
have
Communion
with
her
;
which
is
as
large
a
compass
as
she
ought
to
take
:
for
that
Church
is
a
little
too
large
,
which
takes
in
Schismaticks
to
her
Communion
;
and
too
narrow
,
which
excludes
any
true
Catholick
Churches
.
Thus
I
have
answered
those
Questions
which
our
Reconciler
borrowed
from
Mr.
Baxter
and
Mr.
Barret
;
and
to
these
he
has
added
some
of
his
own
,
which
I
must
consider
also
.
Q.
9.
Whether
Baptism
being
requisite
for
the
new
birth
of
Infants
,
and
their
regeneration
by
the
Holy
Spirit
—
it
be
not
hardship
to
lay
such
an
unnecessary
Condition
on
the
Parents
,
who
have
power
to
offer
or
withold
the
Child
from
Baptism
,
which
shall
cause
them
to
deprive
their
Infants
of
so
great
a
benefit
;
may
not
such
Children
complain
in
the
language
of
St.
Cyprian
,
Nos
parvuli
quid
fecimus
?
Ans.
Now
though
this
may
be
easily
answered
by
observing
,
that
in
danger
of
death
Children
are
allowed
to
be
baptized
privately
without
the
signe
of
the
Cross
,
and
therefore
no
Child
in
ordinary
cases
can
die
without
Baptism
,
but
by
the
great
neglect
and
carelesness
of
Parents
,
how
scrupulous
soever
they
are
of
the
signe
of
the
Cross
;
yet
since
it
is
so
much
in
fashion
to
ask
Questions
,
I
know
not
why
I
may
not
ask
a
few
Questions
too
,
which
I
would
desire
our
Reconciler
to
resolve
;
and
they
shall
be
but
very
short
ones
.
As
,
1.
How
do
Children
come
to
have
any
right
to
Baptism
?
is
it
an
original
right
of
their
own
,
or
in
the
right
of
their
Parents
?
2.
If
Children
have
a
right
to
Baptism
onely
in
the
right
of
their
Parents
,
how
do
the
Children
of
Schismaticks
,
who
though
they
are
baptized
themselves
,
yet
have
renounced
the
Communion
of
the
Church
,
come
to
have
any
right
to
be
received
into
the
Communion
of
the
Church
by
Baptism
?
3.
How
is
the
Church
obliged
to
receive
those
children
into
Communion
by
Baptism
,
whom
she
certainly
knows
,
if
their
Parents
live
,
will
be
nurst
up
in
a
Schism
?
4.
How
is
the
Church
more
concerned
to
alter
her
Constitutions
for
the
children
of
Schismaticks
,
than
for
their
Schismatical
Parents
?
When
he
has
answered
these
Questions
,
I
will
answer
his
;
in
the
mean
time
I
will
proceed
.
Q.
10.
If
men
conceive
themselves
obliged
to
do
all
they
can
for
the
securing
and
restoring
of
the
civil
Peace
,
when
it
is
once
disturbed
,
and
would
not
stick
to
lay
aside
a
civil
,
if
unnecessary
Ceremony
for
the
prevention
of
civil
Broils
,
and
the
effusion
of
Christian
bloud
,
how
frivolous
soever
were
the
exceptions
of
the
seditious
against
it
;
must
they
not
be
as
much
obliged
to
do
the
like
for
the
prevention
of
Ecclesiastical
Confusions
,
and
the
effusion
of
the
bloud
of
precious
and
immortal
Souls
?
Ans.
No
doubt
but
they
are
.
But
as
a
wise
Prince
ought
not
to
part
with
that
Power
and
Authority
which
is
necessary
to
preserve
Peace
,
and
to
prevent
civil
Wars
and
Confusions
for
the
future
,
onely
that
he
may
allay
and
prevent
some
present
Heats
and
Commotions
;
no
more
ought
the
Church
to
heal
a
present
Schism
,
by
laying
a
foundation
for
eternal
Schisms
.
The
example
of
our
late
martyred
Soveraign
will
teach
all
Princes
to
beware
of
the
one
,
and
those
infinite
Schisms
which
followed
the
dissolution
of
the
Church
of
England
,
will
convince
any
man
how
impossible
it
is
to
preserve
the
Peace
and
Unity
of
the
Church
,
without
the
exercise
of
Ecclesiastical
Authority
.
Q.
11.
Would
not
our
Reverend
Bishops
once
have
condescended
to
these
terms
of
Vnion
?
would
they
not
have
rejoyced
to
have
seen
the
Church
restored
,
and
themselves
readmitted
to
the
execution
of
their
sacred
Function
,
upon
such
terms
as
the
abatement
of
such
trivial
things
?
Ans.
I
judge
it
very
likely
they
might
;
as
a
banished
Prince
would
be
glad
to
be
restored
to
his
Crown
again
,
though
he
parted
with
some
Jewels
out
of
it
.
But
when
the
providence
of
God
restores
them
to
the
exercise
of
their
Function
,
without
any
such
restraints
and
limitation
of
their
power
,
it
is
their
duty
to
use
their
whole
power
as
prudently
and
charitably
as
they
can
.
The
restoring
of
Episcopacy
,
restored
the
face
of
a
Church
again
,
which
was
nothing
but
a
Schism
without
it
;
and
no
doubt
but
all
good
men
would
be
very
glad
of
this
,
though
upon
hard
and
disadvantageous
terms
:
but
surely
to
restore
the
Church
to
its
ancient
beauty
and
lustre
,
in
a
regular
and
decent
administration
of
all
holy
Offices
,
is
more
desirable
than
nothing
but
the
meer
being
of
a
Church
,
still
deformed
with
the
marks
and
ruines
of
an
old
Schism
;
and
therefore
when
this
can
be
had
,
it
ought
to
be
had
:
and
it
is
a
ridiculous
thing
to
imagine
that
Bishops
must
use
no
other
authority
in
the
government
of
the
Church
,
when
they
are
in
a
full
possession
of
their
power
,
than
barely
so
much
as
they
would
have
been
contented
to
have
bargained
for
with
Schismaticks
,
when
they
were
thrust
out
of
all
power
.
Though
whether
St.
Cyprian
would
have
made
any
such
bargain
with
Schismaticks
as
inferred
a
diminution
of
the
Episcopal
Authority
,
I
much
question
.
Had
the
Wisdom
of
the
Nation
at
the
happy
return
of
his
Majesty
to
his
Throne
,
thought
fit
to
have
made
any
tryal
and
experiment
what
some
condescensions
and
abatements
would
have
done
,
the
Reverend
Bishops
no
doubt
would
have
acquiesced
in
it
,
not
out
of
any
opinion
they
had
of
such
methods
,
but
to
satisfie
those
who
do
not
see
the
events
of
things
at
a
distance
,
by
making
the
experiment
.
But
that
factious
and
restless
Spirit
of
Phanaticism
,
which
began
immediately
to
work
,
convinced
our
Prince
and
Parliament
how
dangerous
such
an
experiment
would
be
,
and
prevented
the
tryal
of
it
;
and
now
we
have
such
fresh
and
repeated
experiments
how
dangerous
these
Factions
are
both
to
Church
and
State
,
our
Reconciler
would
perswade
our
Governours
out
of
their
senses
,
to
cherish
those
men
,
who
if
they
be
not
suppressed
,
will
most
infallibly
involve
this
unhappy
Church
and
Kingdom
in
Bloud
and
Confusion
.
As
for
what
our
Reconciler
adds
concerning
the
Rubrick
about
kneeling
at
the
Sacrament
,
about
bowing
of
the
body
in
token
of
our
reverence
of
God
,
when
we
come
into
the
place
of
publick
Worship
,
have
been
sufficiently
answered
already
.
CHAP.
VIII
.
Containing
some
brief
Animadversions
on
the
Authorities
produced
by
our
Reconciler
in
his
Preface
:
and
the
Conclusion
of
the
whole
,
with
an
Address
to
the
Dissenters
.
THus
I
have
with
all
plainness
and
sincerity
examined
the
whole
reason
of
this
book
:
for
as
for
the
remaining
Chapters
,
whatever
is
of
any
moment
in
them
,
I
have
answered
before
in
the
first
and
second
Chapters
of
this
Vindication
:
whether
the
Answer
I
have
given
be
satisfactory
or
not
,
I
must
leave
to
others
to
judge
;
but
I
can
honestly
say
,
I
have
used
no
tricks
and
evasions
,
nor
have
I
used
any
Argument
but
what
is
satisfactory
to
my self
.
All
that
remains
now
,
is
a
brief
examination
of
those
Authorities
our
Reconciler
has
produced
in
his
Preface
,
to
prove
that
our
own
Kings
,
and
many
famous
Doctors
of
our
own
Church
,
besides
many
foreign
Divines
,
have
pleaded
for
that
condescension
for
which
he
pleads
in
this
Book
.
Now
I
thought
it
the
best
way
in
the
first
place
to
examine
his
Reasons
for
this
condescension
:
for
if
there
be
no
reason
to
do
this
,
it
is
no
great
matter
who
pleads
for
it
without
reason
;
and
yet
I
should
be
very
unwilling
to
leave
such
a
reproach
upon
so
many
great
men
,
that
they
declare
their
opinions
and
judgment
for
a
Cause
which
has
no
reason
to
support
it
.
And
therefore
to
give
a
fair
account
of
this
also
,
I
reviewed
his
Preface
,
and
found
there
were
two
ways
of
answering
it
,
either
by
examining
his
particular
Testimonies
,
(
we
having
no
reason
to
believe
any
thing
upon
his
credit
)
or
by
taking
the
Testimonies
for
granted
,
and
shewing
that
this
does
not
prove
that
they
were
of
his
mind
.
The
first
of
these
I
had
no
great
stomach
to
,
as
being
a
tedious
and
troublesome
work
,
which
would
swell
this
Vindication
to
a
great
bulk
;
which
is
grown
too
big
already
;
and
the
onely
end
it
could
serve
,
is
to
prove
that
the
Protestant
Reconciler
does
not
quote
his
Authors
faithfully
:
but
I
have
already
given
such
evidence
of
this
in
my
Vindication
of
Bishop
Taylor
,
as
will
spoil
his
credit
with
all
wary
men
.
And
therefore
I
resolved
upon
the
other
way
of
answering
him
,
to
shew
that
the
Testimonies
produced
by
him
,
as
he
produces
them
,
do
not
prove
what
he
intended
them
for
.
But
I
called
to
mind
that
I
had
a
Book
written
upon
this
very
subject
,
entituled
Remarks
upon
the
Preface
to
the
Protestant
Reconciler
,
in
a
Letter
to
a
Friend
,
which
I
read
over
,
and
to
my
great
comfort
found
my
work
done
to
my
hand
:
for
that
Author
has
with
great
judgment
said
whatever
I
can
think
proper
to
be
said
in
this
Cause
;
and
therefore
I
shall
onely
give
some
little
hints
of
what
I
intended
more
largely
to
discourse
,
and
refer
my
Readers
to
those
Remarks
for
further
satisfaction
.
The
intention
of
this
Preface
our
Reconciler
tells
us
,
p.
3.
was
to
strengthen
the
designe
of
his
Book
,
by
the
concurrent
suffrages
of
many
worthy
Persons
both
of
our
own
and
other
Churches
,
who
have
declared
themselves
to
be
of
the
same
judgment
,
and
have
pursued
the
same
designe
which
he
has
done
in
his
Book
.
Now
the
designe
of
his
Book
,
as
I
have
shewn
from
his
own
words
in
my
Introduction
,
p.
13
,
14.
is
to
prove
that
it
is
utterly
unlawful
for
the
Governours
of
the
Church
to
impose
the
observation
of
indifferent
Rites
and
Ceremonies
in
Religion
,
especially
when
these
Ceremonies
are
scrupled
,
and
many
professed
Christians
rather
chuse
to
separate
from
the
Church
than
submit
to
them
.
Now
to
prove
this
,
he
first
alleadges
the
Authority
of
three
Kings
,
King
Iames
,
King
Charles
the
first
,
the
Royal
Martyr
,
and
best
of
Kings
and
men
,
as
he
is
pleased
to
stile
him
,
and
our
present
Soveraign
;
and
I
know
not
where
he
could
have
named
three
other
Kings
more
averse
to
his
Reconciling
designe
.
What
King
Iames
his
Judgment
was
,
is
evident
from
the
Conference
at
Hampton-court
,
where
he
so
severely
determined
against
Dissenters
,
and
kept
his
word
all
his
reign
,
without
granting
any
liberty
to
these
pretended
scruples
;
which
is
very
strange
,
had
he
been
of
our
Reconciler's
mind
,
that
it
is
unlawful
to
impose
these
Ceremonies
upon
a
scrupulous
Conscience
.
How
much
King
Charles
the
first
suffered
for
denying
this
liberty
and
indulgence
,
is
known
to
all
men
;
and
it
is
hard
to
think
then
that
he
was
a
Reconciler
,
for
never
any
Reconciler
was
a
Martyr
for
the
Church
.
And
methinks
the
Act
of
Uniformity
,
and
the
prosecution
of
Dissenters
upon
that
and
former
Acts
,
might
convince
any
reasonable
man
that
our
present
Soveraign
is
none
of
his
Protestant
Reconcilers
.
But
if
notwithstanding
all
this
,
he
can
prove
against
plain
matter
of
fact
,
and
the
evidence
of
sense
,
and
the
experience
and
complaints
of
Dissenters
,
all
these
to
be
Reconciling
Kings
,
I
am
resolved
I
will
be
a
Protestant
Reconciler
too
;
and
I
hope
I
may
pass
for
as
good
a
Reconciler
as
any
of
these
renowned
Kings
,
without
recanting
this
Book
.
Let
us
hear
then
how
he
proves
these
great
Princes
to
be
Reconcilers
.
As
for
King
Iames
,
he
proves
him
to
be
a
Reconciler
,
But
there
is
no
reason
to
take
Sanctuary
in
this
:
for
whoever
considers
the
occasion
of
those
words
,
may
put
a
very
sober
construction
on
them
,
without
giving
any
countenance
to
our
Reconciler
:
for
the
Dispute
did
not
concern
the
Rules
of
Order
and
Decency
in
Religious
Worship
,
but
the
unscriptural
Innovations
of
Popery
,
which
they
imposed
upon
all
Churches
as
terms
of
Catholick
Communion
.
Now
in
this
Controversie
any
man
may
safely
say
what
Casaubon
says
for
the
King
,
without
being
a
Protestant
Reconciler
.
For
there
is
no
nearer
way
of
concord
,
than
to
separate
things
necessary
from
unnecessary
;
to
call
nothing
simply
necessary
,
but
what
the
Word
of
God
commandeth
to
be
believed
or
done
,
or
which
the
ancient
Church
did
gather
from
the
Word
of
God
by
necessary
consequence
;
that
other
humane
Constitutions
,
whatever
antiquity
or
authority
is
pretended
for
them
,
might
be
changed
,
mollified
,
antiquated
,
and
that
this
may
in
the
general
be
said
of
most
Ecclesiastical
observations
introduced
without
the
Word
of
God
.
Now
this
does
not
refer
to
the
decent
Circumstances
and
Ceremonies
of
Religion
,
but
to
such
Ecclesiastical
observations
as
are
in
dispute
between
us
and
the
Church
of
Rome
;
as
the
Celibacy
of
the
Clergy
,
Prayers
for
the
Dead
,
Pilgrimages
,
Monastick
Vows
,
the
Worship
of
Saints
,
and
Angels
,
and
Images
,
and
the
like
;
for
which
the
Church
of
Rome
pretends
the
Authority
of
ancient
Councils
,
or
the
ancient
practice
and
usage
of
the
Church
.
Now
in
these
cases
I
am
perfectly
of
the
Kings
mind
,
and
yet
do
not
take
my self
to
be
a
Protestant
Reconciler
in
our
Authors
way
.
Our
Royal
Martyr
,
when
he
saw
what
danger
Church
and
State
and
his
own
Royal
Person
was
in
from
the
outrageous
zeal
of
dissenting
Protestants
,
who
did
not
now
humbly
beg
for
Indulgence
and
Toleration
,
but
contended
for
Rule
and
Empire
,
was
willing
,
if
it
were
possible
,
to
allay
these
Heats
,
and
divert
the
Storm
,
by
yi●lding
somewhat
to
their
boisterous
and
threatning
importunities
;
and
if
he
had
yielded
a
great
deal
more
at
that
time
than
he
did
,
I
think
it
had
been
no
argument
of
his
own
setled
judgment
of
things
.
The
Reconciler
might
hence
prove
,
that
the
King
thought
it
much
better
to
yield
a
little
at
that
time
,
than
to
ruine
Church
and
State
by
too
much
stiffness
,
not
that
he
thought
it
unlawful
to
impose
any
thing
on
his
Subjects
in
matters
of
Religion
which
they
were
pleased
to
scruple
.
And
yet
what
is
it
that
the
King
yielded
under
these
necessities
?
For
that
,
our
Reconciler
produces
these
words
:
As
for
differences
among
our selves
for
matters
indifferent
in
their
own
nature
concerning
Religion
,
we
shall
in
tenderness
to
any
number
of
our
loving
Subjects
,
very
willingly
comply
with
the
advice
of
our
Parliament
,
that
some
Law
may
be
made
for
the
exemption
of
tender
Consciences
from
punishment
,
or
prosecution
for
such
Ceremonies
,
and
in
such
cases
,
which
by
the
judgment
of
most
men
are
held
to
be
matters
indifferent
,
and
of
some
to
be
absolutely
unlawful
.
Does
the
King
in
these
words
promise
to
alter
the
Constitutions
of
the
Church
,
to
abolish
all
Ceremonies
,
&
c
?
By
no
means
;
he
onely
says
,
that
he
will
comply
with
the
advice
of
his
Parliament
to
exempt
such
tender
Consciences
from
punishment
:
And
how
can
our
Reconciler
hence
conclude
,
that
the
King
believed
it
unlawful
to
impose
these
Ceremonies
,
because
at
such
a
critical
time
he
was
contented
there
should
be
some
provision
made
to
secure
Dissenters
from
the
execution
of
the
penal
Laws
?
And
yet
that
ill
usage
which
so
excellent
a
Prince
met
with
from
these
dissenting
Protestants
after
such
a
condescension
as
this
,
gives
no
great
encouragement
to
Princes
to
try
this
Experiment
again
.
Thus
he
proves
our
present
Soveraign
to
be
of
his
mind
,
by
his
Declaration
from
Breda
,
which
he
prints
at
large
,
I
suppose
,
for
fear
People
should
forget
that
there
had
been
such
a
Declaration
,
or
what
were
the
contents
of
it
.
How
the
present
circumstances
of
affairs
at
that
time
might
incline
his
Majesty
to
such
a
condescension
,
is
not
my
business
to
inquire
;
it
is
sufficient
for
us
to
know
,
that
the
House
of
Commons
presented
their
Reasons
to
the
King
against
that
Declaration
,
which
so
far
satisfied
him
,
that
he
gave
his
assent
to
the
Act
of
Uniformity
;
and
therefore
I
suppose
is
not
of
our
Reconciler's
mind
now
,
and
indeed
never
was
,
notwithstanding
that
Declaration
:
for
he
never
asserted
it
unlawful
to
impose
scrupled
Ceremonies
upon
Dissenters
,
but
thought
it
expedient
at
that
time
to
indulge
their
weakness
.
And
while
matters
were
under
debate
for
the
re-establishment
of
the
Church
of
England
,
no
wonder
that
the
King
and
his
great
Ministers
should
make
Proposals
of
Accommodation
,
and
offer
their
Reasons
and
Arguments
for
it
;
but
I
always
thought
that
what
is
said
by
any
person
on
one
side
or
other
,
while
the
matter
is
under
debate
,
is
not
so
good
an
Argument
what
his
judgment
and
opinion
is
,
as
what
he
agrees
and
consents
to
,
when
the
Reasons
on
both
sides
have
been
heard
and
scann'd
.
Thus
our
Kings
are
our
own
again
,
and
of
all
men
in
the
world
have
the
least
reason
to
countenance
such
a
designe
as
this
,
which
serves
onely
to
encourage
a
busie
and
restless
Party
among
us
,
who
first
strike
at
the
Church
,
but
will
never
be
quiet
till
they
have
usurp'd
the
Throne
.
What
the
sence
of
our
Church
is
in
this
matter
,
is
evident
from
her
Articles
,
Canons
,
and
Constitutions
;
and
this
signifies
a
great
deal
more
to
me
than
the
opinion
of
any
private
Doctors
,
of
what
note
and
eminency
soever
.
It
is
unreasonable
to
oppose
the
authority
of
any
particular
Doctors
to
the
Judgment
of
the
Church
,
and
it
would
be
an
endless
work
to
number
the
Votes
and
Suffrages
of
private
Doctors
on
both
sides
;
indeed
their
authority
is
no
greater
than
their
reason
is
:
and
if
any
of
them
be
of
our
Reconciler's
mind
,
I
am
sure
they
speak
without
book
,
unless
they
have
something
more
to
say
than
our
Reconciler
has
;
and
when
we
know
what
it
is
,
we
will
consider
it
.
And
yet
those
private
Doctors
of
the
Church
of
England
,
to
whose
judgment
our
Reconciler
appeals
,
say
nothing
to
his
purpose
;
not
a
man
of
them
affirm
that
it
is
unlawful
for
the
Church
to
impose
indifferent
things
,
no
not
when
they
are
scrupled
;
as
any
one
may
observe
,
who
carefully
reads
their
Testimonies
.
Some
of
them
indeed
do
think
it
advisable
,
if
it
would
heal
our
present
Schisms
,
to
part
with
some
things
of
less
moment
for
so
good
an
end
.
And
there
seems
to
be
two
sorts
of
these
men
.
1.
Those
who
think
this
might
be
done
,
were
there
good
evidence
and
assurance
that
such
abatements
would
cure
the
Schism
,
and
lay
a
foundation
of
a
firm
and
lasting
Peace
in
this
Church
.
2.
Those
who
think
this
way
ought
to
be
tryed
,
whether
it
will
effect
the
cure
or
no.
1.
As
for
the
first
,
if
this
were
the
case
,
that
the
exchange
of
a
Ceremony
or
two
,
while
the
external
Order
and
Decency
of
publick
Worship
might
be
otherwise
secured
,
would
certainly
heal
our
Schisms
,
God
forbid
that
I
should
ever
be
the
man
who
should
oppose
so
good
a
work
.
But
if
I
may
speak
my
thoughts
freely
,
that
which
I
take
to
be
the
fault
of
these
great
men
,
is
this
,
that
they
trouble
themselves
and
the
world
in
declaring
their
judgments
unasked
about
an
imaginary
case
,
which
it
is
demonstrably
impossible
should
over
be
a
real
case
.
This
is
evident
not
onely
from
the
present
temper
and
complexion
of
the
Schism
,
which
even
among
the
most
moderote
Dissenters
is
improved
far
beyond
the
dispute
of
a
Ceremony
,
but
from
this
very
consideration
,
that
their
Principles
whereon
they
demand
such
an
alteration
,
are
schismatical
,
and
it
is
impossible
that
the
Peace
of
the
Church
should
be
built
upon
Schismatical
Principles
.
Though
it
were
possible
that
the
removal
of
our
Ceremonies
might
for
the
present
quiet
our
Disputes
,
yet
this
Peace
would
last
no
longer
than
the
men
are
in
a
good
humour
,
because
those
very
Principles
which
disturb
the
Peace
of
the
Church
now
,
will
also
disturb
the
best
Order
and
Constitution
of
the
Church
that
can
possibly
be
devised
;
and
while
the
Principles
remain
,
the
seeds
of
Discord
remain
also
,
and
there
will
never
want
men
or
Devils
to
improve
them
into
open
Contentions
.
Whoever
believes
that
nothing
must
be
done
in
the
Worship
of
God
,
but
what
we
have
an
express
divine
Law
for
;
that
things
lawful
or
indifferent
in
their
own
natures
,
are
sinful
when
they
are
commanded
,
though
by
a
lawful
Authority
;
that
neither
the
Governours
in
Church
nor
State
have
any
authority
in
indifferent
things
;
which
are
the
great
Principles
on
which
men
oppose
the
Ceremonies
of
our
Church
,
will
as
inevitably
be
Schismaticks
under
any
constitution
of
things
,
as
those
who
believe
that
the
Soveraign
Powers
are
accountable
to
the
People
,
will
be
Rebels
whenever
they
are
not
pleased
,
and
have
power
to
resist
.
Take
away
these
Principles
,
and
we
may
keep
our
Ceremonies
;
and
while
these
Principles
last
,
it
is
to
no
purpose
to
part
with
the
least
Ceremony
.
2.
As
for
those
who
think
the
Church
ought
to
try
this
Experiment
,
whether
such
Abatements
and
Condescensions
will
reconcile
Dissenting
Protestants
to
the
Church
,
it
is
in
my
opinion
a
very
dangerous
,
as
well
as
a
very
unreasonable
Experiment
.
All
changes
and
innovations
,
unless
they
be
made
on
great
and
urgent
necessities
,
and
with
wonderful
wisdom
and
caution
,
are
of
very
dangerous
consequence
,
and
the
greatest
Polititians
cannot
always
foresee
what
the
event
will
be
;
but
to
change
lightly
and
wantonly
,
without
a
certain
prospect
of
a
good
effect
,
is
a
reproach
to
the
wisdom
and
gravity
of
Government
;
it
is
onely
like
the
uneasiness
of
a
sick
man
,
who
seeks
for
some
present
relief
by
changing
sides
,
though
when
he
has
done
he
finds
himself
as
uneasie
as
he
was
before
.
If
such
Abatements
do
not
take
effect
,
we
part
with
the
external
Decencies
of
Worship
to
no
purpose
,
we
expose
our selves
to
the
scorn
and
derision
of
Sectaries
,
make
them
more
bold
and
clamorous
,
and
weaken
the
Authority
and
Sinews
of
Government
,
which
loses
it
due
reverence
,
when
it
is
not
steady
and
true
to
it self
.
Of
all
persons
in
the
world
,
Governours
ought
to
make
the
fewest
Experiments
,
and
to
confess
the
fewest
faults
and
mistakes
,
if
there
were
any
,
much
less
to
seem
to
confess
a
fault
when
there
is
none
:
for
Government
ought
to
maintain
its
own
Reverence
and
Authority
;
and
nothing
can
maintain
the
Authority
of
Government
,
but
a
great
Opinion
both
of
its
Power
and
Wisdom
,
that
it
can
defend
it self
,
and
direct
others
;
whereas
all
such
changes
and
alterations
,
though
they
may
be
called
a
charitable
condescension
to
the
weakness
and
importunities
of
others
,
are
always
expounded
as
an
Argument
of
the
weakness
or
mistakes
of
Government
,
that
it
cannot
defend
it self
against
popular
Clamours
and
Oppositions
,
or
that
they
mistake
their
Rule
.
The
first
makes
their
Authority
precarious
,
and
teaches
people
not
to
fear
their
Governours
when
they
see
their
Governours
are
afraid
of
them
;
the
other
destroys
the
Reverence
of
their
Laws
,
and
teaches
people
not
to
obey
,
but
to
dispute
:
And
of
all
mistakes
,
the
mistakes
in
Religion
are
most
unpardonable
,
and
the
greatest
blemish
to
the
Wisdom
of
Government
,
because
here
is
a
standing
Rule
which
is
plain
and
certain
,
and
does
not
alter
with
accidental
and
mutable
events
.
So
that
if
things
be
well
setled
at
first
,
there
is
no
reason
ever
to
change
,
as
may
be
in
all
other
Laws
,
which
must
be
fitted
to
times
and
places
,
and
other
changeable
circumstances
;
but
even
the
external
circumstances
of
Religion
must
not
vary
with
the
unreasonable
humours
and
fancies
of
men
in
every
Age
;
or
if
it
does
,
Religion
it self
,
as
well
as
Ecclesiastical
Authority
,
suffers
by
it
.
Now
whatever
private
Doctors
are
of
another
mind
,
it
is
all
one
to
me
:
for
those
who
assert
any
thing
without
Reason
,
assert
it
without
Authority
too
.
His
next
Testimonies
are
borrowed
from
some
foreign
Divines
,
such
as
Beza
,
Zanchy
,
Iunius
;
and
it
were
easie
to
oppose
other
foreign
Divines
against
them
,
if
not
to
answer
them
out
of
their
own
Writings
;
but
I
do
not
think
this
worth
the
while
,
for
it
is
certain
these
men
are
not
infallible
.
I
will
never
value
those
mens
judgments
about
Ceremonies
,
who
can
be
contented
to
change
the
Apostolical
Order
of
Bishops
for
a
Presbyterian
Parity
.
In
the
next
place
he
insists
at
large
on
those
terms
of
Concord
,
which
have
been
proposed
both
by
our
own
and
by
foreign
Divines
between
distinct
Churches
;
and
hence
very
wisely
concludes
,
that
the
same
liberty
is
to
be
granted
to
the
Members
of
the
same
Church
.
But
this
I
have
considered
already
,
and
refer
my
Readers
for
further
satisfaction
to
the
Remarks
upon
the
Preface
to
the
Protestant
Reconciler
.
Thus
I
have
done
with
our
Reconciler
,
and
shall
conclude
this
Work
with
a
short
Address
to
our
Dissenters
,
lest
they
should
not
rightly
understand
how
much
they
are
beholden
to
our
Reconciler
for
pleading
their
Cause
.
O
ye
Dissenters
!
when
will
you
be
wise
?
when
will
you
learn
understanding
?
when
will
you
be
able
to
distinguish
between
a
Defence
and
a
demure
Abuse
?
I
blush
to
think
that
you
do
not
blush
for
your selves
,
when
you
read
such
an
Apologie
as
this
,
which
casts
all
the
Dirt
upon
you
imaginable
,
and
yet
you
read
;
and
admire
,
and
applaud
your
Reconciler
as
a
man
of
wonderful
charity
and
tenderness
for
you
.
And
yet
if
you
believe
that
he
has
said
any
thing
to
the
purpose
,
you
must
own
your
Cause
to
be
very
bad
,
and
your
condition
to
be
very
dangerous
.
He
all
along
supposes
that
you
are
Schismaticks
,
and
in
very
great
danger
to
be
damned
for
your
Schism
;
which
is
his
principal
Argument
to
perswade
Governours
,
out
of
charity
to
your
Souls
,
to
abate
those
Ceremonies
which
are
very
harmless
and
innocent
in
themselves
,
but
abused
by
you
for
an
occasion
of
Schism
.
He
confesses
the
fault
is
your
own
,
for
our
Governours
command
nothing
but
what
is
lawful
to
be
obeyed
;
and
the
onely
Apologie
he
can
make
for
you
is
,
that
you
are
Children
,
and
that
you
are
froward
and
humoursome
Children
too
,
who
will
be
sullen
and
refuse
your
Victuals
,
unless
you
can
receive
it
from
what
hand
you
please
:
That
you
are
very
weak
in
understanding
,
very
ignorant
of
your
Religion
,
and
this
makes
you
so
fearful
and
scrupulous
,
that
you
start
at
your
own
shadows
,
and
stumble
as
men
do
in
the
dark
,
and
are
almost
scared
out
of
your
Wits
,
if
any
knavish
Wag
make
you
believe
that
there
are
some
Hobgoblins
or
Fairies
in
the
way
.
Now
do
you
indeed
believe
that
this
is
the
true
state
of
your
Case
?
If
you
do
not
,
then
our
Reconciler
has
said
nothing
for
you
,
nor
against
your
Governours
(
which
I
know
you
like
as
well
as
an
Apologie
for
your selves
)
for
which
you
ought
to
thank
him
,
but
has
most
grosly
abused
you
.
If
you
be
not
Schismaticks
,
if
you
be
not
in
danger
of
damnation
for
your
Schism
,
if
you
be
not
fools
and
children
,
silly
,
ignorant
,
humoursome
people
,
then
all
those
Arguments
which
our
Reconciler
draws
from
these
Topicks
,
to
perswade
Governours
to
humour
you
with
Abatements
,
have
no
force
in
them
;
and
if
you
be
,
I
will
leave
you
to
consider
how
reasonable
it
is
,
that
Schismaticks
should
govern
the
Church
,
or
Fools
and
Children
give
Laws
to
their
Parents
,
Masters
,
and
Governours
.
And
if
you
say
,
that
your
Reconciler
onely
urges
this
as
an
Argument
ad
Hominem
,
that
those
who
do
think
you
to
be
such
persons
as
he
there
pleads
for
,
should
grant
you
your
liberty
,
and
condescend
to
your
weakness
;
it
is
a
signe
then
that
he
would
have
our
Governours
take
you
for
weak
,
ignorant
,
humoursome
Schismaticks
;
which
is
a
wonderful
Argument
of
his
charity
to
you
,
and
a
great
signe
of
your
wit
and
understanding
,
to
be
contented
to
be
thought
so
.
But
if
you
would
be
thought
so
(
to
exercise
the
charity
and
condescension
of
your
Governours
)
I
must
advise
you
by
the
way
,
never
to
boast
more
of
your
profound
knowledge
and
attainments
in
Religion
,
nor
to
despise
your
Governours
and
Teachers
as
ignorant
carnal
men
,
lest
you
confute
your
Advocate
,
and
spoil
his
Reconciling
designe
.
This
is
a
hard
case
indeed
,
but
there
is
no
help
for
it
;
if
you
will
enjoy
your
liberty
upon
such
suggestions
as
these
,
you
must
mortifie
your
pride
;
if
you
would
be
indulged
as
Fools
and
Children
,
you
must
never
more
pretend
to
be
wise
men
,
and
then
there
is
no
danger
of
any
other
discovery
:
for
whatever
indulgence
is
due
to
the
weak
and
ignorant
,
yet
(
I
think
all
men
will
grant
,
that
)
a
proud
conceited
fool
is
not
to
be
indulged
,
but
to
be
humbled
,
and
made
to
know
himself
.
Nay
,
if
you
will
stand
to
your
Reconciler's
Plea
for
you
,
you
must
never
write
any
more
Books
to
justifie
your
Separation
,
you
must
never
talk
more
of
Antichristian
Ceremonies
,
and
unscriptural
Impositions
,
nor
pretend
to
teach
your
Teachers
and
Governours
:
for
no
man
can
in
modesty
make
two
such
contrary
Pleas
at
the
same
time
,
to
plead
his
knowledge
,
and
his
ignorance
,
the
weakness
and
indiscretion
of
a
child
,
and
the
understanding
of
a
man
,
at
the
same
time
and
for
the
same
thing
:
which
is
to
plead
,
that
Governours
must
yield
to
you
,
because
you
are
in
the
right
;
and
that
in
charity
they
must
condescend
to
you
,
because
through
ignorance
and
weakness
of
understanding
you
are
in
the
wrong
.
Indeed
though
we
should
grant
that
a
Reconciler
might
honestly
make
such
a
Plea
as
this
for
Dissenters
,
yet
no
Dissenter
can
honestly
make
this
Plea
for
himself
,
because
he
does
not
believe
it
:
He
does
not
think
himself
a
Schismatick
,
nor
weak
and
ignorant
(
though
possibly
he
may
be
conscious
to
himself
that
he
is
froward
and
humoursome
enough
)
and
therefore
cannot
honestly
pretend
that
he
is
so
,
and
that
he
ought
to
be
indulged
for
that
reason
.
St.
Paul
pleaded
●or
condescension
to
the
weak
Jews
,
but
the
Jews
never
pleaded
this
for
themselves
,
but
scorned
the
Plea
:
for
if
men
know
their
own
mistakes
,
they
must
rectifie
them
;
if
they
are
sensible
of
their
own
weakness
,
they
must
submit
to
their
Governours
,
not
plead
their
weakness
to
excuse
their
disobedience
.
In
short
,
no
man
can
honestly
make
this
Plea
,
but
he
who
is
sensible
of
his
own
weakness
and
ignorance
;
and
he
who
is
sensible
of
this
,
cannot
modestly
do
it
:
for
it
is
an
immodest
thing
for
any
man
to
desire
to
be
indulged
in
his
ignorance
and
mistakes
.
So
that
though
a
Dissenter
may
like
the
general
Doctrine
of
the
Reconciler
,
yet
he
cannot
like
the
application
of
it
to
himself
,
and
ought
never
to
plead
it
in
his
own
case
;
which
is
to
put
tricks
upon
Government
,
and
to
cheat
them
with
false
and
counterfeit
Pleas
,
which
when
it
is
known
,
as
it
is
certainly
known
in
this
case
,
is
an
insolent
contempt
of
the
Wisdom
of
Governours
.
And
since
no
Dissenters
can
honestly
or
modestly
use
this
Plea
,
I
have
much
wondered
to
hear
them
so
mightily
applaud
our
Protestant
Reconciler
,
when
they
cannot
justifie
themselves
in
his
way
.
If
they
think
our
Reconciler
did
really
speak
his
Conscience
,
when
he
charges
them
with
a
damning
Schism
,
with
weakness
and
ignorance
,
and
a
childish
folly
,
he
has
given
as
bad
a
character
of
them
,
as
the
worst
Enemy
they
have
can
do
;
onely
he
has
broken
their
heads
and
given
them
a
Plaister
,
and
it
argues
great
tameness
and
mortification
in
them
to
take
it
so
patiently
:
if
he
did
not
believe
this
(
as
I
presume
the
Dissenters
charitably
think
he
did
not
)
he
has
put
a
great
abuse
upon
his
Governours
,
reproaches
them
for
not
indulging
Dissenters
,
who
,
as
he
suggests
,
through
weakness
and
ignorance
,
and
tenderness
of
Conscience
,
fall
into
Schism
,
and
destroy
their
Souls
,
when
he
himself
believes
no
such
thing
of
them
;
and
yet
this
would
prove
a
very
fatal
mistake
in
Government
,
to
grant
that
liberty
to
an
obstinate
,
conceited
,
incurable
Schismatick
,
which
may
in
some
cases
be
charitably
pleaded
for
a
weak
,
and
ignorant
,
and
scrupulous
Conscience
.
And
I
wonder
what
service
our
Reconciler
could
think
to
do
,
by
pleading
for
the
Dissenters
under
such
a
character
as
they
will
neither
own
themselves
,
nor
their
Governours
believe
of
them
.
He
takes
it
for
granted
,
that
they
are
guilty
of
Schism
,
and
that
their
Schism
is
owing
to
a
weak
and
ignorant
,
tender
and
scrupulous
Conscience
.
Now
Dissenters
disown
all
this
;
they
do
not
think
themselves
Schismaticks
,
or
at
least
are
too
wise
to
own
it
;
much
less
do
they
think
themselves
ignorant
,
but
the
most
knowing
and
understanding
Christians
,
the
very
Gnosticks
of
the
Age
;
nor
are
they
scrupulous
,
but
fully
assured
that
they
are
in
the
right
,
and
their
Governours
in
the
wrong
;
and
therefore
if
they
be
wise
,
they
will
give
him
no
thanks
for
his
pains
.
And
our
Governours
know
indeed
that
they
are
Schismaticks
,
and
that
they
are
ignorant
or
worse
;
but
do
not
take
them
for
weak
,
tender-conscienced
,
scrupulous
Schismaticks
,
but
know
the
quite
contrary
,
that
they
are
proud
,
conceited
,
troublesome
,
factious
;
that
they
despise
Dominions
,
and
speak
evil
of
Dignities
;
that
they
are
restless
Underminers
of
the
setled
Constitutions
of
Church
&
State
,
wherein
they
live
;
that
they
despise
instruction
,
and
think
themselves
too
wise
to
learn
,
or
receive
better
information
;
and
this
they
are
as
certain
of
,
as
forty
years
experience
can
make
them
.
So
that
were
our
Reconciler's
Arguments
never
so
good
to
perswade
Governours
to
indulge
weak
,
and
scrupulous
,
and
tender
Consciences
,
yet
they
fail
in
their
application
to
Dissenters
,
and
are
not
so
much
as
an
Argument
ad
hominem
,
because
our
Governours
do
not
,
and
have
no
reason
to
believe
our
Dissenters
to
be
such
persons
;
and
I
cannot
imagine
what
makes
our
Dissenters
so
fond
of
this
Reconciler
,
unless
it
be
that
they
find
so
much
of
their
own
temper
and
spirit
in
him
,
to
unsettle
the
present
Constitutions
of
the
Church
,
and
to
censure
and
reproach
the
Wisdom
and
Charity
of
his
Governours
.
And
therefore
I
would
advise
Dissenters
to
act
like
men
,
and
if
they
are
resolved
to
continue
Dissenters
,
to
keep
their
Post
,
and
stand
upon
their
defence
,
and
not
to
take
Sanctuary
in
such
lame
Apologies
,
as
no
considering
man
can
make
for
himself
without
blushing
.
If
they
are
in
the
right
,
they
may
justifie
themselves
against
all
Imposers
,
without
the
help
of
a
Reconciler
;
and
if
they
are
in
the
wrong
,
no
Reconciler
can
help
them
.
And
therefore
they
are
bound
in
their
own
defence
to
answer
the
Second
Part
of
the
Protestant
Reconciler
,
as
I
have
done
the
First
in
the
defence
of
my
dear
Mother
the
Church
of
England
;
which
God
Almighty
long
preserve
and
defend
against
all
,
whether
Popish
or
Protestant
,
Dissenters
and
Reconcilers
.
Amen
.
THE
END
.