Defense of Brief Inquiry into the Nature of Schism, Part 1 · Chapter 4

Defense of Brief Inquiry into the Nature of Schism · Part 1 · Chapter 4

p. 66CHAP. IV.

The Nature and Rule of Decency; Diſſenters vindicated from the charge of Indecency in Expreſſion, Geſture and Habit; no poſitive Decency in the Ceremonies; Of Parochial Order; A ſhort account of the Reaſons of our Non conformity. Arguments for the impoſition of Ceremonies anſwered.

IF we come off clear in theſe great points of Catholick Unity, and Obedience to Superiors, we ſhall more eaſily defend our ſelves againſt the leſſer imputations of Indecency and Irregularity.

We begin with that of Indecency, and therein ſhall enquire, firſt into the Nature and Rule of Decency, ſecondly into the Practice of the Non-conformiſts, and how far it is agreeable to thoſe Rules.

We fully aſſent and conſent, to that great Law of Decency laid down in Scripture, and believe the tranſgreſſion of that as of all other Divine Laws to be abſolutely ſinful; We do not think it an indifferent thing whether we worſhip God decently or indecently; But the queſtion is, what may be the Standard or Rule by which Decency is to be meaſured, our thoughts about it (ſuch as they are) we ſhall lay down in a few words.

1. It muſt be ſomething Antecedent to the Command of Superiors; even the Apoſtle himſelf when he commands that all things be done decently, ſuppoſes that there was a Decent way and method of acting, which they could not be ignorant of; he does not by his command make the Decency, but ſuppoſes it, and obliges them to the obſervation of it; We therefore conclude Decency is not a thing of meer poſitive inſtitution, nor depends upon the Will and Command of Men, but is of higher Original, even the Light of Nature, and is no other but the Natural decorum of an action: To ſay the Ceremonies of the Church of England are therefore Decent becauſe commanded, is as much as to ſay, were there no ſuch command, there would be no Decency in them, and therefore that the omiſſion of them is guilty of no other indecency than that of diſobeying Superiours, and where Superiours are pleaſed to ſuſpend ſuch commands, the Worſhip of God may be performed as decently without them, which indeed is to ſet aſide the Argument of decency and to betake our ſelves wholly to that of Obedience which has been already diſcuſſed.

2. 'Tis therefore Nature (or Cuſtom which is a ſecond Nature) that is the rule and meaſure of Decency; Vind. of Prot. Prin. p. 100.And Dr. Sherlock argues rationally upon this point, when his Adverſary would ſuggeſt that there is as much neceſſity of an Oecumenical determination of Decency and Order, as of a National p. 67one, he anſwers No, for Decency of Worſhip is nothing elſe but to perform the External Acts of Worſhip in ſuch a manner, as may expreſs our Reverence and Devotion to God, therefore ſince there are no Catholick ſigns of Decency, there can be no Catholick Uniformity in theſe matters, The Decency of Garments, Poſtures, Geſtures, differ in ſeveral Countries, and ſo do the expreſſions of Honour and Reverence, and therefore ſuch external Rites being only for external Decency, and having no ſacredneſs by inſtitution, may vary with the different cuſtoms and uſages of Countries: But as to National Churches, ſince the uſages and cuſtoms of the ſame Nation, and Rules of Decency are the ſame, the Biſhops may agree upon an Uniformity of Rites for a National Church; The ſumm is, it is not the Command of Superiours, but the Cuſtoms of a Country that make a thing Decent, and therefore the ſame Rites may be commanded throughout a Nation, becauſe the Cuſtoms upon which Decency ſtands are the ſame.

3. When we make Cuſtom the Rule of Decency we do not mean, This or that way of Worſhiping of God is Decent, becauſe we are accuſtomed to Worſhip him ſo, but on the contrary, We uſe to Worſhip ſo, becauſe it is Decent, that is agreeable to our cuſtom of expreſſing Honour and Reverence in other caſes; Otherwiſe we ſhould make the ſame thing the Rule of it ſelf, and ſay, this Worſhip is Decent becauſe it is cuſtomary, and it has been our cuſtom to Worſhip God thus, becauſe it is Decent: which would be running the ring; beſides, then might all the fopperies of the Roman Church ſet up for Decency, becauſe they are now become cuſtomary; No actions or geſtures in the Worſhip of God, how long ſoever they have been uſed, can plead Decency, but thoſe which are uſed in other caſes, as well as in Divine Service, and therefore uſed in the ſervice of God, becauſe agreeable to the general cuſtoms of Decency in other matters.

4. Nothing is required of us by the Law of Decency, but to preſerve the Worſhip of God from all Indecencies; It is impoſſible to prove that we are obliged by that Law to uſe this or that Ceremony in the Worſhip of God, if it may be managed decently without them; If the Omiſſion of ſuch Ceremonies do not render the ſervice of God Indecent, the Law of Decency is not broken; As no man can be charged with a breach of the Law of Juſtice, but he that has done ſome unjuſt thing, or of the Laws of Charity, but he that is uncharitable, ſo none can be charged with breaking the Laws of Decency, but he that Behaves himſelf Indecently in Divine Worſhip; As there is no medium between Juſtice and Unjuſtice, ſo there is none betwixt Decency and Undecency, and when of two actions one is ſaid to be more juſt, the other muſt needs have ſomething of injuſtice in it, ſo when one thing is more decent, the other muſt have ſomething of indecency, for theſe things being privately oppoſed, admit of no medium in a capable ſubject.

There are ſome indeed tell us of certain tranſcendental heights of Juſtice, Charity and Devotion, which might be omitted without ſin, Miſcell. p. 275.thus Mr. Norris in his diſcourſe of Heroick Piety; How they can reconcile it with the p. 6814th. Article of the Church of England, I cannot tell; it is like ſuch men will pretend to the ſame Eminencies of Decency too, but ſo long as they acknowledge, we may fall ſhort of ſuch acme's without Sin we are well enough, the Nonconformiſts pretend not to ſuch high Attainments, they would be heartily glad, could they come up to the Rule in any thing, but are ſo far from pretending, that they do not deſire to exceed it, nor do they grudge theſe Gentlemen that unweildy Glory, of being wiſer and better than God has commanded.

Now let us Examine the Practice of Diſſenters, in their worſhipping of God, and its agreeableneſs with the Rules of Decency; The Cheſter Gentleman falls upon the Vindicator for ſaying; We deſire the Rules of the Goſpel may be carefully look'd into, and ſuch a Model of Government and Worſhip taken from thence, as may be likely to anſwer the great ends thereof, that nothing may be impoſed, but either what is expreſly commanded, or has a natural and proper tendency to promote that which is ſo, then would the Worſhip of God appear like it ſelf, Rational, Grave and Majeſtical, becoming reaſonable Creatures to offer, and a Being of perfect Simplicity, and Spirituality to accept; Nor would we as we are accuſed under pretence of Spirituality, reject the natural Decorum of an Action in Divine Worſhip, but only lay aſide theſe Formalities that are over and above natural Decency, which in Civil Converſe are counted Foppiſh, and daily grow out of repute betwixt man and man, and are no where ſo improper as in the Service of God.

Now what harm is there in all this, the Gentleman it ſeems has nothing to object againſt it, but all the Queſtion is, Whether the Worſhip of God in our Conventicles be as agreeable to this Rule, as their is in the Churches; and no doubt he thinks the Caſe is half determined, by the very Names Churches and Conventicles; for is it imaginable that men ſhould worſhip God as decently in a Conventicle, as in the Church? All the Club will ſay, and ſwear too 'tis impoſsible; but what if our Aſſemblies are as much Churches as theirs, and theirs as much Conventicles as ours; 'tis true enough for any thing he has yet produced to the contrary; Of Schiſm.Mr. Hales tells us, that all pious Aſſemblies in times of Perſecution and Corruption are the only lawful Congregations, and the publick Aſſemblies though according to form of Law, are indeed nothing but Riots and Conventicles, if they be ſtained with Corruption and Superſtition.

He charges the Diſſenters with Indecency, 1. In their Expreſsions. 2. In their Geſtures. 3. In their Habits.

1. In Expreſsion, becauſe our Miniſters uſe not a ſtated form of Prayer, and therefore he accuſes them of Ruſhing into the preſence of God with the raſh and ſudden thoughts of one ſingle Perſon, with a Prayer newly Coined, but whether Sterling or no, is uncertain, being never tried, for the People know it not till it be out.

But muſt it needs follow, that becauſe we have not a form laid before us, p. 69that our thoughts are therefore raſh and ſudden, is he ſure that we never uſe Premeditation both as to the general Method and Matter of Prayer? And for the words if they be uſually Scripture Phraſe, I hope they will paſs for currant in a more equal Ballance than his; Will this Gentleman ſay, that all conceived Prayer is raſh and irreverent? Then I am ſure he will condemn the moſt learned and pious Divines, yea and Biſhops too of the Church of England, who in the Pulpit commonly uſe ſuch Prayers, and ſometimes of a conſiderable length too, which we may be ſure they would not do, if they thought it impoſſible for the People to joyn with them in it; and if the Duty of Prayer may be performed rationally and gravely without a preſcribed form, this Objection vaniſhes into putrid Air.

If this Gentleman would only ſay that He and his Companions, cannot expreſs themſelves rationally and reverently in the preſence of God, without a preſcribed form of Words, we would not contradict them, they beſt know what they can do, but to ſay, that without ſuch a form, it is impoſſible to perform this Duty aright, is (as the Vindicator ſpeaks) little leſs than Lampoon upon the common ſence of Engliſh men; and I am ſure it is contrary to the whole ſcope of that excellent Book of Biſhop Wilkins called the Gift of Prayer; for my part I thank God, for the acquaintance I have had, with ſome plain poor People, that in their Prayers to God would expreſs themſelves in much more proper and pertinent Language, than this Gentleman has yet attained to, though he be the Author of at leaſt two famous Books.

2. In our Geſtures; that in Prayer they are confuſed, and irreverent, I know not what he intends by theſe Words, We judge it our Duty either to kneel or ſtand, in the time of Prayer, either of which are poſtures of Adoration, and to ſit or loll we utterly diſallow, unleſs in caſe of bodily weakneſs and inability, where they are excuſed, by that Rule, God will have Mercy and not Sacrifice; I wonder, how this Gentleman ſhould come to know our poſtures, better than we do our ſelves. I ſuppoſe he has ſeldom appeared in our Aſſemblies, unleſs it was in former days, when he came attended by his Setters to break them up, and then perhaps the Terror of ſuch a One might put the People into poſtures odd and confuſed enough, but if he pleaſes to come now, when his Thunder-bolts are ſpent, he may ſatisfie himſelf that our Geſtures are almoſt as grave, though not ſo genteel as his own.

But it ſeems the Diſſenters ſit and loll, and are covered, at the reading of the Pſalms; as for ſitting, I know not why it ſhould be more irreverent at the reading of the Pſalms, than other parts of Scripture, or than at the ſinging of the Pſalms, and at ſuch times, I am ſure in Churches they generally ſit.

And that we are uſually covered, either at the Reading or Preaching of the Word is not true, and yet I know of no great Crime in it, S. B. Eſq The Providences of God obſerved, p. 28.eſpecially in Infirm and Aged Perſons; but I ſhall refer him to what a Learned Gentleman of the Church of England, ſays in this Caſe, his Words are, Though p. 70the Act for enjoyning the Common Prayer, forbids both Affirmatively and Negatively any other Method or Form of Service Rites, and Ceremonies than is there directed; ſome Churchmen are great Nonconformiſts in diſobeying that Rule, by ſeveral Additions in approach to Popery, as in their ſecond Service, &c. As alſo in being ſuperabundant to Popery, in endeavouring to make a Superſtitious Faſhion, to ſit bare during Sermon, which is but a new thing in England, and not known in any other Chriſtian Church, for though the Papiſts are bare in their Churches out of Service-time, whom we endeavour to imitate in that Circumſtance, yet they are covered during Sermon, wherein we outdo them; and he tells us, That the Miniſter of Finchly not long ſince cauſed one to be committed for being covered, whilſt he was in his Sermon, who bringing his Action againſt the Juſtice for falſe Impriſonment recovered good Damages of him; which though ſufficient to prove the Churches Uſurpation in this matter, they do notwithſtanding go on in it, as a part of that new Popery formerly intended by Laud in his time.

But the Gentleman is chiefly ſcandalized at our Geſture in receiving the Sacrament, Reply, p. 46.wherein (he ſays) we ſit like Clowns and Bumkins; but who told him that we ſit ſo Clowniſhly? A man may ſit very decently and handſomely, and how does he know, but we do ſo? I hope meerly ſitting is not the thing that makes a Bumkin, for then this Gentleman is forced to be a Bumkin almoſt all the day long; nor ſitting in the Service of God, for that he does too; and why it ſhould have ſuch a peculiar Ruſtical quality at the Lords Supper, rather than in other Ordinances I cannot imagine; eſpecially when for any thing that appears, our Saviour uſed it in the very Inſtitution of the Ordinance, and the Apoſtles even when they received it from his immediate hand, and though I am not of their minds, that think this makes ſitting neceſſary, yet I am ſure it will at leaſt defend it from the ſcandal of an irreverent Poſture.

3. The Habit of our Miniſters is not pleaſing, For (ſays he) He who adminiſters in their Divine Service, as they call it, has no other habit than what is due to, and becomes a Tradeſman or any other Laick in the Congregation.

And here again, we have Reaſon to complain that the matter of Fact is not truly repreſented, for our Miniſters are generally diſtinguiſhed from others, Tertul. de pallio. p. 490.by the uſe of that very antient Garment the Goak, of which Tertullian has writ a Treatiſe, and prefers it before the Gown, as a more modeſt humble Attire, inſomuch as that, à Toga ad Pallium, became a Proverb to expreſs a Perſon growing humble, from which Beatus Rhenanus argueth againſt the coſtly Wardrobe of the Prelates, as not being à toga ad pallium, but à pallio ad togam, ad purpuram, ad mundi p…mpam. And what if Laicks wear Cloaks too, ſo do Lawyers wear Gowns, and the ſinging Men and Boys have their Surplices, and yet I ſuppoſe they are not thereby advanced above the Condition of L…icks; why then is not our habit as grave, though not as Majeſtical as theirs?

p. 71The Gentleman ſeems to be exceedingly enamoured of the Surplice, and paſſionately cries out, ſhould the Church condeſcend to gratifie your humour to ſtript the Prieſt of his Habit, the Emblem of Innocency, and Colour of the Robes in St. Johns Viſion? I muſt Confeſs, 'tis Pitty the Prieſt ſhould not be Innocent, and Heavenly at leaſt in Emblem; and yet we find the learned men of his Church, Ʋnreaſon. of Separat. Preſ. p. 83. Iren. p. 64.make but a very ſmall account of this Viſional Holy Garment; The Biſhop of Worceſter ſays, As for the Surplice in Parochial Churches, it is not of that conſequence, as to bear a diſpute one way or another; and elſewhere, I am ſure it is contrary to the Primitive Practice, to ſuſpend and deprive Men of their Miniſterial Functions, De rebus Eccleſ. cap. 24.Sir 24for not Conforming in Habits, Geſtures, and the like; and Wulfridus Strabo expreſly tells us, there was no diſtinction of Habits uſed in the Primitive times; Can. 14.and the Concil. Gangrenſe condemned Euſtathius Sebaſtenus for making a neceſſity, of the Diverſity of Habits; and we find Juſtin Martyr foreign, Preaching the Goſpel in his Philoſophers Habit; and if after all this we muſt be condemn'd for irreverent Clowns and Bumkins, it will be ſome comfort to us, that we ſhall ſuffer in very good Company.

In ſhort, The moſt Learned Conformiſts, that have largely writ in Vindication of theſe Ceremonies, Proteſt. Rec…n. p. 41.acknowledge there is nothing of real goodneſs in them, nothing of Poſitive Order, Decency or Reverence, for which they ought to be commanded: The Church her ſelf declares them to be indifferent, which they cannot be, if the worſhip of God might not be decently performed without them.

Biſhop Sanderſon, whoſe Learning and Spirit were both high and great enough, expreſly ſays, If any man ſhall wear a Surplice, or Kneel, Sermon in Mat. 15.9. p. 20, 21.Matt 15:9or Croſs, with an Opinion of neceſſity for Conſcience ſake towards God, as if thoſe parts of Gods Service could not be rightly performed without them, yea though our Church had not appointed them, doubtleſs the uſe of ſuch Ceremonies by Reaſon of ſuch his Opinion, would be Superſtitious to him; this is full to our purpoſe, we have the ſuffrage of this great Prelate, that we may Worſhip God every whit as well without theſe Ceremonies, and if T. W. thinks otherwiſe, one of his own Fathers has condemned him for Superſtition.

Dr. Patrick in his Friendly Debate ſpeaks to the ſame effect; P. 115.Then do we make the Ceremonies parts of Divine Worſhip, when we ſuppoſe them to be ſo neceſſary, that the doing them would be a thing pleaſing to God, and the omitting of them would be a thing diſpleaſing to him, although there were no Humane Law, that required the doing of them.

Now we may thus argue, If it were indecent to omit theſe Ceremonies, it would be diſpleaſing to God, who has commanded that all things be done decently; but we ſee the Defenders of Ceremonies, when they are put to it have no way to defend themſelves from the guilt of Superſtition, and of inſtituting new parts of Divine Worſhip, but by declaring, that theſe things are in their own Nature purely trivial, and the uſing of them would not be p. 72at all pleaſing to God, nor the Omiſſion diſpleaſing, were they not commanded and enjoyned by humane Laws, that is to ſay, the Worſhip of God is not at all the more decent for them, nor the leſs decent without them.

4. We come to the point of Order, and here indeed we are moſt blamed by the ſober Conformiſts, as acting irregularly, ſetting up diſtinct Aſſemblies in Pariſhes, and drawing away the People from the Pariſh Miniſter, gathering Churches out of Churches, which the Presbyterians formerly condemned in others.

To this we Anſwer, That we really approve of all Prudent Rules for the more orderly and effectual Management of the Miniſterial Function, and in ordinary Caſes, we judge it convenient that the Charge of a Miniſter ſhould be confined within ſuch bounds, as our Pariſhes, but we do not think this to be a matter of that Conſequence, Vind. P. 87.as ſtrictly to oblige us in all circumſtances of Affairs, and the Vindicator mentioned ſeveral Caſes, wherein this Order may be tranſgreſt without Sin, to which the Gentleman has not made the leaſt reply.

The Learned Writers of their own party, Defence of Plural. p. 59.tell us, that the Diviſion of Churches by Pariſhes is of a later date, and we know it is not ſo nicely obſerved by themſelves, but that many Chappels of Eaſe have been ſet up, and filled with People of divers adjacent Pariſhes, the Miniſters ſometimes celebrating both the Sacrament, and no Exceptions taken, and why may not our Aſſemblies be look'd upon as ſuch? If it be ſaid theſe Chappels are all under the Pariſh Miniſter, yet it cannot be denyed but they may be freed from that dependance by Law, and made diſtinct Churches, and exempted from the Juriſdiction of the Parſon or Biſhop as ſeveral places already are; unleſs we will with Pythagoras curſe the Number two, becauſe it was the firſt that did depart from Unity.

But we acknowledge it were more deſirable to have the Parochial way obſerved, intereſt, as well as a due regard to Order, would invite us to it, if we could comply with thoſe terms that are required of us in Order thereunto; Our Caſe is plainly this, The Laws of the Land allow us to Aſſemble in other places, upon ſuch Qualifications as we heartily approve of, but admit us not into the Publick Churches, without ſuch a further compliance as we cannot in Conſcience come up unto.

I muſt confeſs, this is that part of the Controverſie, which I have the leaſt Mind to meddle with, not becauſe it is the moſt difficult, but becauſe it may ſeem to reflect upon the Wiſdom or Integrity of many Worthy Learned Conformiſts, of whom I would not ſpeak or think without due reſpect; but the importunate clamours of this Gentleman, and men of his temper extort it from us, he is often challenging us at this Weapon, as in his Reply, p. 4. If theſe men have any thing impoſed upon them by our Governours that is ſinful, let them ſhew it, and their Plea muſt be allowed, but they are forced to confeſs, the terms of Obedience impoſed are but indifferent things, meer trifles, now for a man to diſobey his Governours and have no p. 73other Plea but this, is too mean an excuſe from the Tranſgreſſion of a known Law; This he ſeems to expreſs with a great Elevation of Mind, as if it were a killing Sentence, when indeed it is as fooliſh and inconſiderate, as his Adverſaries can deſire. For,

1. It is not true, that we confeſs the terms of Conformity to be things Indifferent, when the Vindicator ſays they are ſuch by acknowledgment, he plainly ſpeaks of the Acknowledgment of the Impoſers, not of the Diſſenters, and no Body can underſtand it otherwiſe, but thoſe that have a mind to be miſtaken.

2. Our Governours do not now impoſe ſuch things upon us, as terms of Obedience, and therefore all the noiſe he makes about Childrens diſobeying their Parents, becauſe they ſuſpect the Lawfulneſs of their commands, is out of doors, and yet by the way, he would be a very ſevere Father, that ſhould force his Son upon the higheſt Penalties to do a thing, Crudelis Pater magis quàm Puer improbus ille —which he himſelf confeſſes is altogether needleſs, and good for nothing, eſpecially when the Son really ſuſpects it to be unlawful, and thinks he cannot de it without diſpleaſing God; all the World would condemn the Barbarity of ſuch a Father; Bleſſed be God, the illuſtrious Parents of our Countrey, are too juſt and merciful to command ſuch things; our Nonconformity is indeed a loſs to our ſelves, but no diſobedience to our Superiours, as has been already argued at large.

The Authors of the Enquiry and Vindication, waved this Point of the Sinfulneſs of Conformity, out of meer Reſpect and Civility to their Brethren that are otherwiſe minded, and choſe rather to infiſt upon thoſe general precepts of Love and Charity towards weak and ſcrupulous Conſciences, which the Scripture abounds with, being willing to admit that we are miſtaken in theſe matters, rather than to expoſe the miſtakes of others, but this Gentleman had not the Civility to make a ſuitable return, but encourages himſelf, by that Modeſty of theirs to inſult, and hector, and cry aloud, for proof of the ſinfulneſs of Conformity, declaring that they will admit of no other Plea.

But what if terms of Conformity be not ſinful, it is ſufficient for us, that we are under no Obligation to comply with them; our Governours have left us at our Liberty, and though the Biſhops may ſtill command them, yet our own Paſtors are as truly Biſhops as they; The Unity of the Church does not depend upon them, but may be much better preſerved without them, and the Act of Liberty in the Preamble, declares, that it is the Senſe of the King, Lords and Commons, that not Conformity, but eaſe to ſcrupulous Conſciences may be an effectual means to unite Proteſtants in Intereſt and Affection, and the Worſhip of God may be as decently performed without them; how are we then obliged to comply with ſuch things? Will he ſay it is our Duty to uſe all thoſe Ceremonies and Cuſtoms in the Worſhip of God that are not ſinful? What if a Papiſt ſhould ask him; Why do you not Conform to all the Ceremonies of our Church? Why do you not uſe Salt and Cream, and Spittle, in Baptiſm? Why do you not Croſs your Breaſts, and Shave your p. 74Heads? Can you prove theſe things to be ſinful? I ſuppoſe this Gentleman would reply, we care not whether they be ſinful or no, we are not obliged to uſe them; and if the Papiſt ſhould alledge the Command of the Catholick Church, he would reply, No Forreign Prelate or Potentate has Authority to enjoyn ſuch things upon us, and our own Governours have not done it; if the other ſhould urge, that we muſt comply for Unity ſake, he would anſwer, The Unity of the Church lies not in Uniformity of ſuch Rites and Ceremonies; if the Papiſts ſhould preſs it further, Theſe are decent Ceremonies, and ſerve to excite in men devour thoughts of God and Chriſt, and have rare myſtical Signification, ſurely He would rejoyn, The Worſhip of God is managed by us very decently without ſuch things.

Thus we ſay in anſwer to his demand, if we be not obliged to Conformity, though it ſhould not be unlawful, our Nonconformity is very juſtifiable; therefore this Plea of the Sinfulneſs of the thing, is not now ſo neceſſary as he imagines; but leſt we ſhould ſeem to acknowledge that we had nothing to juſtifie our practice heretofore, when Conformity was required by the Law. And that we are ſtill for an unaccountable Singularity, and are reſolved to differ from others meerly for diſtinction ſake, and have no regard to Parochial Order, which we have formerly ſeemed to approve of; I ſhall venture to ſay ſomething upon this point, though I am ſenſible before-hand ſome will blame me for ſaying ſo much, and others for ſaying no more.

The World is not to ſeek for the Reaſons of our Nonconformity, a large Account has been given thereof in a Multitude of Treatiſes, ſome of which have received no anſwer at all, as Dr. Rule's Rational Defence, and Mr. Baxter's Engliſh Nonconformity Stated and Argued; wherein the Caſe is ſo copiouſly and yet ſo cloſely debated, in the ſeveral particulars both of Miniſterial and Lay-Conformity, that it ſeems wholly ſuperfluous to add any thing, till we ſee what anſwer will be made unto it; I have ſeen indeed a little impertinent Scribble of two or three Sheets of Paper, wherein the Author pretends not to engage in the Controverſie, but only tells us with Confidence enough, that Mr. Baxter's Book is an unneceſſary, unſeaſonable and unaccountable Undertaking, and has been already anſwered, which is a very quick and cheap way of confuting Diſſenters, and the common reply of every baffled Party, to all that is writ againſt them, and is only taken up as a little ſhiſt to ſerve an eaſie and credulous ſort of Men amongſt themſelves, but can never be deſigned to give Satisfaction to others; and if ſuch Trifles muſt paſs for an Anſwer to a Book ſo Large, Diſtinct and Argumentative, as Mr. Baxter's is, truly it is to no purpoſe either to write or read Controverſie.

There are three Steps a man muſt take before he can arrive at the heighth of Engliſh Conformity: 1. He muſt ſubmit to the Uſe and Practice of the Impoſitions. 2. He muſt declare his Approbation and good liking of them. 3. He muſt Swear never to endeavour any Alteration, ſome of us ſtumble at the Firſt, many ſtick at the Second, but the Laſt is moſt inacceſſible.

p. 751. Many of us can by no means be ſatisfied with the conſtant Uſe and Practice of theſe controverted Matters, and that for theſe Reaſons amongſt others.

1. We obſerve, That the great Corruption of Churches has in all Ages riſen from this Source, introducing unneceſſary Ceremonies in the worſhip of God, teaching for Doctrines the Traditions of Men; this had reduced the Jewiſh Church to that Leprous condition wherein it lay in our Saviour's time: And the grand Apoſtacy of Rome begun by advancing the Power of Eccleſiaſticks beyond its meaſure, and exerting it in the Invention and Impoſition of ſuch Myſtical Rites and Ceremonies, and by adding ſtill thereunto, it grew up to ſuch a Myſtery of Iniquity, and Monſter of Uſurpation and Tyranny, as it appears at this day in the World; and we know not of any Specifical Difference betwixt the Ceremonies in England and thoſe of Rome, and we could never prevail with our Antagoniſts to give us a Rule to diſtinguiſh them by.

It is uſually ſaid ours are but few, but theirs are many, and therefore burthenſom; but this does not ſatisfie; for many or few alters not the kind, and if it be lawful to uſe Three, why not Six, Twenty or a Hundred? beſides, if ours be therefore better becauſe they are fewer, I hope they will give us leave to infer, the fewer Ceremonies and the better, and therefore beſt of all where there are none; if the Matter muſt be reſolved into their Poſitive decency, we have already ſhewed by their own Confeſſion there is no ſuch decency in them, but the worſhip of God may be managed as well without them: But if the Matter be fixed upon the Churches Authority, then let the Church command never ſo many we muſt comply, and ſo are as much enſlaved to the humours of the Eccleſiaſticks as the Papiſts themſelves; and the caſe ſtanding thus, we think none can juſtly blame us if we are afraid of contributing to the return of Superſtition and Arbitrary Church Power, by entertaining and embracing thoſe things, that have given it riſe and ſtrength in other Parts and Ages of the World. Our Objection againſt them is not that weak and ſilly thing ſome repreſent it, as if we reject them meerly becauſe the Papiſts uſe them; but we do it becauſe the Impoſition and uſe of them has given Life and Growth to the Papacy.

2. Eſpecially ſince they are altogether uſeleſs, and have no tendency to promote that which is good, this much ſtrengthens the prejudice, they have done a great deal of harm, and they can do no good by the Confeſſion of the Impoſers, and we cannot imagine why they ſhould be retained, ſince they are neither good in themſelves, nor have a natural fitneſs to promote the Common Good; were there any uſefulneſs in them, we would not reject them, meerly becauſe they have been abuſed, but ſince by their own acknowledgment the Worſhip of God is not at all the better performed for them, we cannot but judge it irrational to retain them; a Wiſe Man will do nothing deliberately in his common Converſation but what he can give ſome account cui bono, to what end he does it; And really it is ſomewhat a hard p. 76caſe that we are in if we uſe theſe Ceremonies, and know before hand, our Duties are never the better for them, Conſcience and Reaſon tell us we are guilty of trifling in a Matter of the greateſt Solemnity, if we uſe them with an opinion that the Worſhip of God is better performed with them, than otherwiſe, their own Biſhops and Doctors tell us we are guilty of Superſtition and Will-worſhip.

3. We obſerve that the Dealers in Ceremonies are apt to grow upon us, and if we yield to a few, they ſtill urge us with more; and indeed the Principle upon which they are defended, leaves room to bring in as many as they pleaſe, provided they be not expreſly prohibited in the Word of God, which in things of this Nature is not to be expected; for it had been an endleſs task, and would have ſwell'd our Bibles, to a Prodigious Bulk, to have precluded them all by Name, which may be as various and indefinite as the fancies of Men; Thus our Canons enjoyn ſeveral things which are not required by Law, as bowing at the Altar at the Name of Jeſus, reading ſome part of the Service at the Communion Table, &c. and the Practice of ſome Zealous Men outgoes the very Canons themſelves. We are very loth to launch out into ſo vaſt an Ocean, and commit our ſelves to be toſt up and down by the Caprices and Humours of Men, which are as uncertain as the Winds and Waves, and we know not upon what dangerous Rocks, or remote Shores, they may at length drive us.

4. Thoſe things which we ſcruple, are diſapproved by the beſt Reformed Churches; we know it to be ſo from their own words; when the Miniſters of the Helvetian and French Churches were deſired to give their Opinion about theſe things, they did generally expreſs their diſlike of them; See a Book Intituled, The Judgment of the Reformed Churches, Printed at Geneva, Octob. 24. 1547. Subſcribed by Beza, and many famous Divines of thoſe Churches.

And we cannot forget the Exhortation of the poor Remains of the Bohemian Churches, directed to the Reformed, eſpecially to that of England, by the Learned and Pious Comenius, writ in Latine, and Dedicated to King Charles II. at his return into England, I will tranſcribe a few Lines becauſe the Book is not in every Bodies hand.

Contend then, P. 8.Oh great Churches! among your ſelves, if you pleaſe, about the Preheminence; Strive about the Notion of Faith, or for Ceremonies, or the Hierarchy as fiercely as you can; behold God preſents you with a little Child, an Infant ſtript of all Pomp and Dreſſing, conſiderable for nothing but for Simplicity, knows not any thing of preferring it ſelf before others, or quarrelling with any, or coveting Wealth and Honours, only underſtands how to keep at home, to do its own Buſineſs, not to intermeddle in other Mens Matters, but to Serve God in Spirit and in Truth, &c.

And in another Place thus: P. 47.As for the Pomp of Church Ceremonies, God indeed in the old way of Worſhip ordained ſuch a thing, therein by p. 77Shaddows to ſet forth the Spiritual Myſteries of Salvation, which Chriſt at his coming was to diſcloſe; but ſeeing that ſince the coming of Chriſt, they have been demoliſhed and levelled, by ſo many Apoſtolical Strains, as Claps of Thunder and Flaſhes of Lightning directed againſt them, why ſhould we bring them up again ſtill to make uſe of them? Under the Papacy perhaps where the Light of the Goſpel is obſcured, in their Barbarous Generations, they might ſeem to be of ſome uſe, at leaſt with ſome colourable pretence; but in a Reformed Church, I beſeech you, what uſe can be made of them? Thoſe that have been hitherto retained in England under the Reformed Biſhops, have not the very Pentificians themſelves laught them to Scorn and Deriſion? It is plain to be ſeen in Weſton's Theatre of Life Civil and Sacred, Printed at Antwerp 1626. P. 564, &c. Where having ſaid that the Religion of the Proteſtants is without all Religion, becauſe they have no Sacrifice, Prieſthood nor Sacred Ceremonies, he adds, Some Proteſtants indeed, that they may not appear abſolutely Impious and Irreligious, uſe our Miſſal and Breviary, ſelecting what they pleaſe thereof for the Rubrick of their Liturgy, and to make the Form of their Worſhip appear the more goodly, they have their Canonical Perſons forſooth, after the Modes and Cuſtoms of the Church of Rome, their Caps, and Hoods and Holy-Days, and ſuch-like Stuff, which they ſay they found in the Synagogue of Antichriſt; by which very thing it is apparent that the Religion of theſe Proteſtants ſtands guilty of Stealth and Robbery, by which it firſt came into the World, or if they will not be taken for Thieves, let them go for our Apes: Theſe with their whole Service are derided and ſcorned not only by ours, but alſo by their own; the Engliſh ſeem to have driven the Pope out of England in ſuch haſte that they have forced him to leave his Cloaths behind him, which they as Fools in a Play, put on with a kind of Pompous Ceremony of Triumph, and ſo lead the Quire, a goodly Reformation it is that they dare not carry it through, &c.

It will therefore be a glorious thing for the Reformed Churches to come back to the Practice of Chriſt and his Apoſtles, leaving off the Baubles of earthly Riches, Honours and Pomp, and to look after and buſie themſelves about things of a higher Nature, &c. This and a great deal more to the ſame purpoſe is there to be ſeen, by which it appears, not only that thoſe renowned Martyrs and Confeſſors called the Taborites, diſliked our Ceremonies, but that the Papiſts themſelves, for whoſe ſake they are retained, deſpiſe and ridicule us for them.

2. There are thoſe amongſt us that could bear with the uſe of theſe things, but cannot declare their Approbation of them, and their Aſſent and Conſent to all of them; this would be to eſpouſe and commend thoſe things which at beſt they look upon but as Tolerabiles Ineptiae, and this Approbation muſt extend to all things required; and they cannot ſo far diſſemble with God and the World.

There are many things in the Book of Homilies which they like very well, p. 78but they cannot ſay ſo of all; there are ſome very odd Paſſages, which they cannot Aſſent to; P. 160.take one inſtance of many, 2 Hom. of Alms. The ſame Leſſon doth the Holy Ghoſt teach us in ſundry places of Scripture, ſaying, Mercifulneſs and Alms-giving purgeth from all Sin, delivereth from Death and ſuffereth not the Soul to come into darkneſs; alledging for it, Tobit 4. v. 10. and the ſaying of the Son of Syrach, That Alms maketh an Atenement for Sin.

There are many good Petitions in the Liturgy, and good Directions in the Rubrick, which we could (ſome of us) freely uſe; but we cannot prevail with our ſelves to Aſſent to that Notorious Miſtake in the Rule for finding Eaſter, nor can well digeſt that Complemental Prayer, Thoſe things which for our Unworthineſs we dare not, and for our blindneſs we cannot Ask, vouchſafe to give us for the worthineſs of thy Son.

There are excellent Leſſons taken out of Scripture and appointed to be Read, which our Miniſters would gladly do, but we cannot approve of thoſe fulſom Apocryphal Tales, … ch. 3. ch. 5. and 6.about Sarah the Daughter of Reguel, and her infernal Spark Aſmodeus, that killed all her Husbands before they lay with her, till at length, the Angel Raphael put them into a way to get rid of the Amorous Fiend, by burning the Intrals of a Fiſh, which it ſeems had ſuch a Super-ſulphureous ſtench, that the Devil himſelf could not endure it, but quits the Room and his Miſtreſs to the enjoyment of his Rival Tobias; I might take notice of the ſtrange and ſelf-contradicting Stories that this pretended Angel told them; Of the many odd and groſs things we have in Judith and in Eccleſiaſticus, as where we are diſſwaded from receiving Strangers to our Houſes; Eccluſ. ch. 11. v. 34. To be read Octob. 25.Sir 11:34for, ſays the Book, He will diſturb thee, and turn thee out of thy own; and we are bid give Alms only to the Godly, but help not a Sinner, give not to the ungodly, hold back thy Bread, and give it not to him, for the moſt High hateth Sinners; Chap. 12.1, 2, 3.let all Mankind judge how contrary this is to our Saviour's Command, Love your Enemies, bleſs them that curſe you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that deſpitefully uſe you— that you may be like your Father which is in Heaven; for he maketh his Sun to riſe upon the Evil and the Good, and ſendeth rain on the juſt and on the unjuſt. And yet this Apocryphal Doctrine is appointed to be Read in Churches as a Leſſon, To be read, Octob. 30. Concil. Laod. Can. ult. foreign.which I fear too many have learned; and this is part of the Book to which we muſt ſubſcribe, as containing nothing contrary to the Word of God, and the Preface to the Common-Prayer Book ſays nothing is ordained to be Read but the very pure Words of God, or that which is agreeable to them, to which we muſt likewiſe Aſſent. Many more ſuch Paſſages might be, and have been mentioned, which contain things falſe, or odd and ridiculous, and wholly unfit to take up a place in ſo Sacred a Thing as the Worſhip of God.

There are many amongſt us, that would willingly ſubmit to a Moderate Epiſcopacy, according to Archbiſhop Ʋſher's Reduction; but we cannot declare our Approbation of delegating the Power of the Keys to Lay Men, nor p. 79dare our Miniſters promiſe to Publiſh all ſuch Excommunications as they ſend out, which may ſometimes be levell'd at the moſt Sober religious Perſons in the Pariſh, nor dare they conſent to Publiſh the Abſolution of Notorious Debauchees who have given no other Proof of Repentance, beſides Paying the Fees of the Court; we dare not trifle with ſuch things as theſe, nor expoſe the Cenſures of the Church to that Scandal and Contempt they lye under by reaſon of ſuch Practices.

When this Caſe was propoſed to the Miniſters of the Helvetian Churches before-mentioned, That the Keys of binding and looſing, are not uſed by the judgment of the Presbyters, according to the Word of God, but by certain Lawyers, and made a Money Buſineſs; and their advice was deſired, how far theſe things ought to be complied with. They ſeem to be amazed at the thing, Judgment of Forreign Divines, p. 16.as altogether incredible, and anſwer, That though things which are ill done by one Party, may be born with by another, while they cannot change or reform them; yet if they ſhall be forced not only to bear, but to approve ſuch things, and to Aſſent to ſo manifeſt an Abuſe, we then exhort them that they will rather ſuffer any kind of Trouble, than act herein againſt their Conſciences.

3dly, We muſt not only uſe and approve theſe things, but muſt Swear, That we will not endeavour any Alteration in the Government of the Church; this the Oxford Act requires of us, and that in terms as Univerſal as can be, and leaves us no liberty to explain our ſelves, or to ſay that we will not endeavour by any unlawful means to do it: And we remember very well how the Marqueſs of Argyle was dealt with, for putting ſuch a ſence upon the like words. It is not long ſince a Great Prelate of our Church openly declared, That the Spiritual Courts are the great Grievance of the Nation; and it is very hard we muſt be obliged to Swear, that we will not at any time endeavour the redreſs of ſuch a Common Nuſance, that we muſt not Study, Write, or Petition for it; this was a clenching blow indeed to faſten and entail all the faults of the Conſtitution upon our Selves and our Heirs for ever. This is a brief Account of thoſe things that have made us Nonconformiſts, and now keep our Miniſters out of the Pariſh Churches; thoſe that would ſee them more largely and ſtrongly and particularly argued, are remitted to the Books before mentioned.

Let us now ſee what the Gentleman has ſaid to Vindicate theſe Impoſitions, and then I'll bid him farewell till we meet again.

1. He endeavours to juſtifie them, by the like Practice amongſt the Presbyterians, mentioning Three ſignificant Ceremonies impoſed by them at the taking of the Covenant, viz. The Perſon muſt be uncovered, muſt ſtand up, and the right hand muſt be lifted up bare; and theſe, he ſays, were terms of Communion amongſt them.

Now really for my part I am much confirmed in my diſlike of theſe controverted Impoſitions, becauſe I find the Defenders of them are forced inſtead of juſtifying, to recriminate, and all they have to ſay, is the Presbyterians p. 80were as bad as they, when they had the Power in their hands; and if there be any Strength in ſuch a Reply, it concludes againſt themſelves for doing that which they condemn in others, and all that it proves is, that all Parties have been at one time or other tranſported into unreaſonable Severities againſt each other, and ſurely then 'tis time for all to amend, unleſs they reſolve to perpetuate theſe Quarrels, and to act them alternately in an Endleſs round.

There are not many Diſſenters now alive that remember any thing of thoſe days, and fewer that were any way concerned in them; And many of thoſe that were at that time moſt zealous in urging the Covenant, and Engagement and Abjuration, were the firſt that turn'd with the Times, and became as Troubleſome and Vexations on the other Side; and yet the inſtance which this Gentleman brings ought to be a little examined, for 'tis neither Pertinent nor True as to Matter of Fact.

It is not pertinent, becauſe not appertaining to the ordinary Worſhip of God; that which he calls the Rebellious Covenant, was a Solemn Oath whereby Men bound themſelves to endeavour in their Places a Reformation both in Church and State, according to the Word of God, and particularly to preſerve the King's Perſon; purſuant to which Clauſe, Thouſands of Scotch and and Engliſh hazarded all that was dear to them on the behalf of the Royal Family, Royal Declar. at Dumferling, Aug. 16. 1650.it was deliberately and voluntarily taken by King Charles the Second, who profeſſed himſelf deeply humbled for his Father's Oppoſition to it, and that upon full perſwaſion of the Juſtice and Equity of all the Articles thereof, he had Sworn and Subſcribed it, and was reſolved to adhere thereunto to the utmoſt of his Power, and to proſecute the Ends of it all the days of his life: And it is certain, the Reſtoration of that Prince is very much owing to the Sence which a great many had of the binding Power of that Covenant; as Mr. Crofton ſhews in his Defence of it againſt Dr. Gauden.

Now this being a Solemn Oath, muſt needs as all other Oaths, require ſome ſignal Expreſſion of Conſent, according to the Cuſtom of all Civilized Nations; in ſome this Conſent is ſignified Viva voce; in ſome by kiſſing the Book, in Scotland by lifting up the Hand, and as we had the Covenant from thence, ſo their Signification of Conſent was uſed alſo, being more ſuitable for the expreſſing the Joynt Conſent of a Multitude, than any other; but this is nothing to Myſtical Ceremonies in the ſtated Worſhip of God; if no more had been required of us in the late Troubleſome Times than to kiſs the Book when we were called to take an Oath, there would not have been many Diſſenters, excepting thoſe that ſcruple Swearing upon any Account.

Beſides, it is not true, that this Covenant with the manner of taking of it, was ever impoſed as a term of Communion. The Houſe of Commons indeed, and the Aſſembly of Divines took it, and moſt of thoſe that held any Office of Profit or Truſt, but it was never impoſed upon any on Pain of p. 81Excommunication or Suſpenſion from the Lord's Supper; Ruſhworth's Coll. Part. 3. p. 475.it was to be tendered to all in general, and an Exhortation drawn up for the ſatisfying of thoſe that might ſcruple the taking of it, but it was forced upon none by any Penalties Corporal or Spiritual; if the Ceremonies and Subſcriptions had been no otherwiſe impoſed, it had been happy for us. The Presbyterians neither impoſed nor uſed any Myſtical Ceremonies of their own deviſing in the Worſhip of God, they never tied Men up to the Words of their Directory, nor required any to Subſcribe to it, or declare their Aſſent and Conſent to all things therein contained; they never obliged Perſons to Swear againſt endeavouring an Alteration, but bound themſelves to promote a Reformation of whatever ſhould be found to be contrary to the Word of God; and therefore they gave no Preſidents for what has been done againſt them in the late Reigns.

2. The Gentleman tells us, the Apoſtles made meer Ceremonies Terms of Communion in their days; which is not true, and yet if it were, would not juſtifie others in doing ſo, who have not the Commiſſion and Power which the Apoſtles had.

The Gentleman inſtances in having all things Common in their Love-Feaſts, and in the holy Kiſs, and affirms, that theſe were meer Ceremonies impoſed by the Apoſtles as terms of Communion; but he's miſerably out all along.

As to the Cuſtom of having all things common, nothing more evident than that it was a thing purely voluntary, and impoſed upon none. St. Peter tells Ananias, Whilſt it remained it was his own, Acts 5.4.Acts 5:4and after it was Sold it was in his Power, he might have done with it what he pleaſed; but the Sin was Lying againſt the Holy Ghoſt, in pretending they had dedicated the whole to God when part was kept back; ſurely this was more than the omiſſion of a meer Ceremony.

And he is not more happy in the ſecond inſtance of the Love-Feaſts, for as they were no Parts of Religious Worſhip, but either going before or immediately following the Euchariſt, ſo it no where appears that they were ever inſtituted by the Apoſtles at all, much leſs impoſed as terms of Communion; and though ſome Learned Men think the Apoſtles recommended them to the Churches, yet I ſee nothing in Scripture to ground ſuch an Opinion upon, but rather on the contrary; for 1 Cor. 11.20, 21. the Apoſtle does not only reprove them for their Diſorders in thoſe Feaſts, but ſeems to diſapprove of the very thing it ſelf, and adviſes them rather to Eat their Meat at their own Houſes, than to make thoſe Solemn Aſſemblies, Places and Times of ſuch Feaſting: And the Learned Dr. Lightfoot ſeems to have a great deal of reaſon for what he ſays upon this place, viz. That the Jewiſh part of the Church retained ſomething of the Old Leaven, and could not forbear Judaizing in this Ordinance of the Lord's Supper, and therefore it muſt be attended with a Feaſt, as the Paſſover was: And he obſerves, that the Apoſtle does not only find fault with their abuſe herein, but with theſe very Feaſts p. 82themſelves, in that they diſhonoured the Church by bringing their Meat into it, which they ſhould rather have eaten at their own Homes.

And as ridiculous it is to ſay that the holy Kiſs was impoſed by the Apoſtles as a term of Communion, it was indeed the manner of Friendly Salutation, a meer Civil Rite uſed amongſt Jews and Gentiles as well as Chriſtians, and the Apoſtles Command relates only to the ſincere, chaſte and honeſt uſe of it, as became Perſons devoted to God, and that they ſhould not ſuffer that Token of Reſpect to degenerate into an Hypocritical or Laſcivious Complement.

It is ſo far from being plain that theſe things were impoſed as terms of Communion by the Apoſtles, That it is certain from their own words, They determined to lay no burthen upon Chriſtians but neceſſary things, that is, things that had ſome good tendency; for that is the ſofteſt ſence that the word Neceſſary will bear, and our Engliſh Ceremonies, by the Acknowledgment of all can never come under that Denomination.

And indeed if the Apoſtles had made theſe things terms of Communion in the Catholick Church, they muſt have remained ſo to this day, unleſs by ſome latter Apoſtolical Edict repealed, for who will dare to alter the Apoſtolical terms of Communion; and it may be, this Gentleman's deſign is to revive theſe old Ceremonies of Feaſting, and Kiſſing and having all things common, not only for the ſake of their Apoſtolical Inſtitution; but, as being all of them Ceremonies of very comfortable importance to a Man of his Temper and Circumſtances.

But after all, if it were plain that the Apoſtles made meer Ceremonies terms of Communion, it will ſcarcely follow, that our Biſhops may do ſo too, no more than that they may write Canonical Epiſtles, and make Laws to bind the whole World as the inſpired Apoſtles did; To make terms of Communion is a very great Power, eſpecially if out of Communion there be no Salvation, for then to make terms of Communion, is to make the terms of Salvation, and to put ſuch a Power into the hands of weak and fallible Men, is a thing of ſuch diſmal Conſequences to the Souls of Men, that we may be ſure our Bleſſed Redeemer would never do it: He has in his own Perſon, and by his Apoſtles whom he inſpired, fixed that Law by which he will juſtifie and condemn Men, and has not left it in the Power of any Mortal to add thereunto, and to pretend to ſuch Power, is not only to impoſe upon Men, but upon God too; as if he muſt ask them leave, whether he ſhall have a Church upon Earth, or no.