Animadversions upon a late treatise, entituled The Protestant reconciler, humbly pleading for condescention to dissenting brethren in things indifferent and unnecessary for the sake of peace and shewing how unreasonable it is to make such things the necessary conditions of communion by a well-wisher to the churches peace, and a lamenter of her sad divisions.

Sect. VIII.

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

The Church, as we have seen, pleads for her general Warrant,

Let all things be done among you in a seemly and due Order;

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 decently, and according to order.

And the Apostle St. Paul, whose Canon this was, himself practised accord∣ing to it; He gave out Ordinances of this nature to the Corinthians, * 1.1 and prai∣seth them who kept the same, 1 Cor. 11. 11. And hereunto we must, as I con∣ceive, refer that First Disorder, which he there undertakes to correct among them, for the Men to be Covered, and the Women Uncovered in the time of Di∣vine Service. The Apostle doth evident∣ly there preseribe the contrary; and that as a significant Ceremony too, the Man to be uncovered, to express both his Sub∣jection to Christ alone, and Authority over the Woman; the Woman to have a Covering on her Head, to express her Subjection to her Husband, or Inferiority unto Man. The Covering or Veil was a sign of that Po∣wer under which the Woman was; and thence called by a Metonymy; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Castalio tells us, that he had this Ex∣position from a certain Italian:

Things that are base and vitious ought to be covered; and on the other side, such as are comely and perfect, to be unco∣vered and shown. Now therefore, if the Man prayeth with his Head co∣vered, he intimates a defect in his Head worthy to be hidden. But Christ is the Head of the Man, who is without all fault. The Head of the Man there∣fore (saith he) ought to be uncovered, hereby to shew forth the perfection of Christ, who is his Head. But the Head of the Woman is the Man, who, seeing he is defective and vitious, the Woman, in confession of this his imper∣fection, is to cover her Head.

But this may seem too much strained and fanciful, since the Apostle recommends the Covering or Veil to the Woman, not to argue the Defect, but the Authority and Preheminence of the Man.

I rather think, with the learned Cap∣pellus, That this Apostolical Prescript or Canon of good Order was founded up∣on some civil custom then obtaining a∣mong the Corinthians and elsewhere; from whence he concludes, that, accor∣ding to the difference of several Coun∣tries,

such an Habit and Deportment is to be used in Divine Service, which is commonly used to express Reverence and Decency in conversation.

The Reconciler, to evade the convi∣ction of this Instance, saith:

This Practice is reproved by the Apostle, as that, whereby they dis∣honoured * 1.2 their Heads, vers. 4, 5. That, which the Man ought not to do, be∣cause he was the Image of God, v. 7. That, which the Woman ought not to do, because of the Angels, v. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Indecency of this pra∣ctice was, that, which every one might judg of, v. 13. and that even Nature taught, saith the Apostle. The practice therefore here reproved was no indifferent thing.]

To which I answer, That there was, undoubtedly, a great Decency in the thing signified, that Men and Women should respectively own the difference of their Sexes, and demean themselves a∣greeably thereunto; but this particular sign expressive thereof, by the Man's being unco∣vered and the Woman covered, could only be topical, and according to the custom of that Countrey (which 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here questi∣onless denotes, the custom of every place

being as a second Nature to the Inhabi∣tants) And therefore the Rite was in it self indifferent, and the peculiar signifi∣cancy of it in Divine Service very much depending upon the Apostle's prescripti∣on. [He, that will see the different Customs of Nations in this matter, both in and out of Sacred Uses, may consult Grotius and Cappellus at large on the Place.]

But secondly, (saith he, as distrust∣ing the force of this first Reply) it * 1.3 well deserves to be observed, that the Apostle, notwithstanding all these Reasons, lays no Imposition on them in this case: He praises them, who ob∣served the Traditions he had before taught them. He saith, that if any Person would still argue for this Pra∣ctice, he would be a Lover of Conten∣tention, and would act contrary to the customs of the Apostles, and other Chri∣stian Churches; but then he makes no Canen for Uniformity in this matter, imposeth no Penalty on the Refuser to comply, &c.]

To this I answer, That the Apostle doth here impose it as a Rite, which they ought to conform unto; he puts a Non debet on the Man's part,

He ought not

to cover his Head:

and a Debet on the Womans,

For this cause ought the Wo∣man to have power on her Head.

And hereby he calls them to an Uniformity with other Christian Churches; and de∣nounceth them, that will not acquiesce in his Reasons, nor yield to his Authority, to be contumacious and stubborn Dispu∣ters, Lovers of Contention; and as such to be marked and censured for opposing the Customs of the Church.

He is contentious, saith Mr. Calvin on the place, who is stirr'd up with the Lust of Controversy, and doth not care to yield unto Truth. Such are all those, who without necessity carp at good and profitable Rites, who move Disputes of things that are not doubtful, who ac∣quiesce not in Reasons given for their just satisfaction, and suffer not them∣selves to be brought into order. Such are also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an unsociable sort of Men, who are carried out with a foolish affectation to innovate. Such as these, saith he, St. Paul thinks not worthy an Answer, because Contention is a pernicious thing, and therefore to be driven from the Churches of God; * 1.4 and hereby, saith he, he teacheth, that perverse Men, and such as are gi∣ven

to wrangle, are rather to be re∣pressed with Authority, than to be re∣futed with long Disputations; for there will never be an end of Contentions, saith he, if you strive with a quarrel∣some Man; though he be overcome an hundred times, he will not yet be wea∣ried or give over.

And, saith the Learned Grotius,

The Apostle here cuts off all Disputa∣tions, with these two Axes, as it were, Apostolical Institution, and the Custom of the Churches. And, to call that in∣to question, which is received through all the Churches, is the part and character 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of those that are contentious.

It is a point, saith St. Augustin, of * 1.5 most insolent Madness, to think that not to be done well or rightly, which is done by the Universal Church.

And such I esteem to be the Deter∣mination * 1.6 of this matter about Ceremonies.

The Instances are very many, which the Learned Reconciler himself affords us; I will only here refer to two of of them. The former is about the

trine Immersion or threefold Dipping in * 1.7 Baptism, as a Symbolical Ceremony, to signify the Doctrine of the Trinity, or the Death and Resurrection of Christ after three days.

This thing, saith the Reconciler, was so much the Practice of the Church, that, in the 49th Canon of the Apostles, he, that doth not use this trine Immersion, is sentenced to be deposed from his Dignity.

Here then we have, confessedly, a severe Im∣position of a Symbolical Ceremony.

He tells us indeed afterwards,

How, * 1.8 the Arrians expounding this Custom to their Advantage, as signifying the Substantial Difference of the Father from the Son and Holy Ghost, the Bi∣shops of Spain used a single Immersion, and Pope Gregory commends them for doing it upon this Occasion; And this was brought into a Law there by the 4th Council of Toledo.

[Here still is a Symbolical Ceremony brought into Law and Practice; a single Immersion in Ba∣ptism to signify the Unity of Essence in the Trinity. And this only proves the former Ceremony not to be necessary in it self, as the former doth this; and, that either of them may be enjoined, as the Church sees occasion.—And whereas

he adds,

Though the trine Immersion* 1.9 be yet continued in most Churches, yet ours doth take the Liberty wholly to va∣ry from them, and from the Antients in this matter.]

This only recommends the singular Indulgence of our Church, which hath made no Determination for, or against either of those Ceremonies, misliking nei∣ther for their Significancy, and allowing of both to be used, as to her Sons shall seem at any time best.

The other Instance is of the Custom in the Primitive Church to pray stand∣ing* 1.10 on the Lord's-day, and from the time of Easter to Whitsunday symbolically to represent the Resurrection; And such was then the reputed Obligation of this Ceremony, taken up among them; that Tertullian saith,

We account it Wickedness to kneel on the Lord's-day at* 1.11 Praier.

Which I would not censure in him for a superstitious conceit of the Ceremony in its own nature, as necessary; but the value then set upon it for its sig∣nificancy; And,

When some began to vary from it, saith the Reconciler, the great Council of Nice took notice of it,* 1.12 and declared their pleasure, that all Churches should uniformly observe it;

but yet, saith he, such was their Mo∣deration, they imposed no Penalty on the Neglecters of this Custom.]

Now their Moderation I blame not in the Sanction, though they might also have imposed a Penalty too in the case, without the impeachment of it; but, such was the Reverence in that Age to their Authority, that a superadded Penalty might possibly be thought needless. That, which I hence remark, is, That Uni∣formity* 1.13 in a Symbolical Rite was imposed by no less Authority than the great Coun∣cil of Nice.—And, however this Observance now hath ceased by De∣suetude, yet we retain, as I conceive, some prints of its Resemblance, in our standing up at the Creed and the Gospel.

The substance of what I here argue for, is granted, upon occasion, by the Re∣conciler, in the Answer he gives by way of correction in the Words of the excellent* 1.14 Bishop Taylor,

That it is for ever ne∣cessary, that things should be done in the Church decently and in order: And since the Question of Decency* 1.15 will for ever have Variety and Flux, Succession and a Relative Uncertainty; It is necessary, that of this there should be perpetual Judges and Dictators, and

these can be no other than the Rulers of the Church, who have the same power that the Apostles had in this. It cannot therefore (saith the Reconciler) be ra∣tionally denied, that the Rulers of the Church have Power to command things which belong unto the Positive Decency and Order of the Service of God; But then, saith he, it hath been proved al∣ready,* 1.16 that the Ceremonies, now used in the Church of England, have nothing in them of this nature, and consequent∣ly, that this Command affords no ground for the imposing of them upon that Account.

So that in the Issue, the* 1.17 Dissenter directly opposeth his private Opinion and Judgment to that of the Ru∣lers of the Church, whom yet he ac∣knowledges to be of all right the perpe∣tual Judges and Dictators in the case. They say, these things imposed are De∣cent and Orderly; He saith, they have nothing of Positive Decency and Order in them: And this, he saith, he hath al∣ready prov'd. Let us look back here a little to it.

[I call that Positive Order, Decen∣cy,* 1.18 or Reverence, saith he, which, be∣ing done, renders the Service more de∣cent, reverent, and orderly, than other∣wise

it would be, and being undone, the Service becomes irreverent, indecent and disorderly performed;

(he should* 1.19 have said, Less decently, reverently, and orderly performed, than otherwise it would be.)

So that my meaning is, that if our Publick Service was by the Mini∣ster performed without a Surplice, if Baptism were administred by him with∣out the Cross, if the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper were administred to such, as did not kneel, but stand,

(he should have added, or sit, as at an or∣dinary Meal; for that is the great scruple in this Controversy)

at the receiving of it; These Actions would not be performed sinfully, or with defect of any real Goodness, which belongeth to them, nor yet indecently, disorder∣ly, or irreverently.]

(He should say, not less decently, disorderly, or irreve∣rently,* 1.20 than now they are.) Thus he conceives; but the Church (which is to be Dictator in the case) pronounceth otherwise. Let us hear his Reasons.

1. Saith he, if the Omission of* 1.21 these Ceremonies renders those Acti∣ons, to which they are annexed, sin∣ful, indecent, irreverent, or disorderly perform'd,

(he should have said, less

decently, reverently, or orderly)

then Christ and his Apostles, in the perfor∣mance of them, did worship God in such a manner, as was sinful, indecent, irreverent and disorderly: For it is certain, they used not the Surplice in Publick Prayer, the Cross in Baptism, or Kneeling in the act of Receiving.

To this I answer, by denying the Conse∣quence: For, 1. it is not de fide certain, that neither Christ, nor his Apostles used the Surplice, Cross, or Kneeling spoken of, all, or some one of them. This Negative cannot certainly be proved. 2. What was perhaps decent and order∣ly then, may cease to be so, or be less so in after-Ages, and other Countries. For the Question of Decency (as he hath well granted out of Bishop Tailor, had he as* 1.22 well considered it) will for ever have Variety and Flux, Succession and a rela∣tive Uncertainty. And upon this ac∣count we are not confined to follow or imitate Christ or his Apostles in uncom∣manded Circumstances of this nature, which might be in them occasional on∣ly.

2. Saith he, [Then are not these Ce∣remonies* 1.23 indifferent, and alterable by the same Power which enjoins them, as is

asserted by the Church of England?]

I answer still, by denying the Consequence: These Ceremonies do yet remain in their own nature indifferent, that is, they are not particularly and determinat∣ly required or commanded, nor any where forbidden by God: And the Church of England may alter them, whensoever she sees as just Grounds and Causes so to do, as to enjoin them.

3. Saith he, [Then must the Omissi∣on* 1.24 of these Ceremonies be a Trans∣gression of those Precepts, which do command us, to serve the Lord with Reverence, and to let all things be done decently and in order, which cannot be affirmed by them, who confess these Ceremonies to be Indifferent?]

I answer still, by denying the Conse∣quence. The Omission of these Ceremo∣nies upon a just occasion, or in them∣selves considered, may not be a Trans∣gression of those General Precepts; and yet the observing of these Ceremonies too may be a Compliance with those General Precepts; because the Particulars, which they refer unto, are various and inde∣terminate: And in things indifferent (that is, which are not particularly com∣manded or forbidden by God) there may

be yet degrees of more remote or nearer Approaches to Good or Evil, Decent or Undecent. There are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. There may be Reasons, Aptitudes and Tendencies to some or other good and fitting Purpose, sometimes to recommend one, and some∣times to recommend another. And in these matters too, we may be said then to do well, when yet, it may be, we might do better. As the Apostle plainly asserts in the case of Marriage, 1 Cor. 7. 36.

Let him do what he will, he sin∣neth not.—He that giveth her in Marriage, doth well; but he, that giveth her not in Marriage, doth bet∣ter.

Nor, after all, do I see any Reason, why the Power of Church-Governours* 1.25 should be confined to matters of Posi∣tive* 1.26 Decency, as he explains it. A La∣titude, me-thinks, might here do as well, as in other cases. A Latitude of Power in the Church, as well as a Lati∣tude in the Conformity of her Children. Considering especially, how universal∣ly

the Commands run.

Children obey your Parents in all things. Servants o∣bey your. Masters in all things.

Which we cannot safely bound with any other Restriction, than this, that it be

in the Lord,

that is, so far, as may consist with our Obligations to him as our Abso∣lute Supreme, so far, as is not contradi∣ctory to his Commandments.

Whereas therefore he tells us;

[The* 1.27 Dissenters not only allow that there are many cases, wherein somewhat is, in genere, necessary to be determi∣ned; but also add, That in all cases truly such, the Magistrate Civil or Sa∣cred, not only may, but must deter∣mine; And indeed no Man in his wits can doubt, that what is necessary to be determined must be determined; And, seeing par in parem non habet potestatem, it follows, that they can∣not be determined by any other but Supe∣riours; that is, they cannot obligingly be determined by others. But then, saith he, they universally deny, that it is necessary to determine any of these scrupled Ceremonies: and they have perfect demonstration for the Truth of that Denial; for necessarium est, quod non potest aliter se habere, That only is

necessary to be done which cannot be left undone; That only necessary to be de∣termined in order to the Performance of an Action, without which the A∣ction cannot be done, or at least not well done.]

The Result of this Discourse, in my* 1.28 thoughts, is but this great Absurdity, That Magistrates, Civil and Sacred, may do that only without Sin, which they must do of necessary Duty. And I shall not stay to make further Remarks upon it.

Only let the People note, that when* 1.29 we speak of Ceremonies, as indifferent and unnecessary in themselves consider'd, we do not mean, as the Reconciler and the Dissenters commonly represent them, Trifles and needless Things, but such, as the Divine Law hath not laid any parti∣cular Restraint of Necessity upon by its Commands or Prohibitions, but left to be freely determined by our own Prudence, or the publick Authority. And that, which is not necessary by a Divine Command, may yet have other Necessities, or high Conveniences, which are next of kin thereunto to recommend it: It may be necessary to do the Action with greater Order, and Solemnity, and Uniformi∣ty, &c.

It is well noted by a Reverend Per∣son,* 1.30 in the Obedience of the Rechabites to their Fathers Commands, not only uni∣versally to all of them, but omnino pro∣ut, according unto all in every circum∣stance.

You find this Requisite in your several Corporations, saith he, where the omission of a Punctilio draws after it intolerable Defaults. The Hedg is easily press'd through, where but one Bush is wound aside; And the Breach of one Circumstance is but the disposition to another. Things that in themselves seem of no considerable moment, within a while appear consider∣able by the neglect; as the Error, that appears not at the first declining Line of the Workman, a while after mani∣fests an irrecoverable Deformity. [Ac∣cording to all.] That's the surest Rule to go by: you know it your selves in your own Corporations: you know it in your own Families, if you know any thing. Give an Inch, and they will take an Ell, is your own Proverb; and cannot you judg as equally for the Church? &c.

There is no end of those Questions, what is Decent? what is Necessary? if we quit the publick Standard and Deter∣minations.

One saith, Episcopacy is not necessary. Another, Common-Prayer it self, or any Prescribed Form is not ne∣cessary. Another saith, It is not neces∣sary that we have any Creed but the Bible. Another, that a National or Parochial Church it self is not necessary. Another, that Infant-Baptism is not necessary. An∣other, that Material Churches, or Tem∣ples are not necessary. Another, that Holy Daies and Stated Fasts are not ne∣cessary. Another, that Tithes are not necessary, &c. One can be well enough without this; Another without that; And some without all.

'Tis worthily observ'd elsewhere by the Reconciler,

that the Apostle doth in* 1.31 the space of seven Verses thrice repeat the Command, that every Man abide in that Calling, to which he was called, at least so far, as not to desert it un∣der pretence of Christianity; quippe quod in co plurimum situm est, as being an Admonition of great moment to pre∣vent that invidious Accusation which was laid on the Christian Doctrine, that it did innovate in Civil Matters, and tended to dissolve the Relation betwixt Man and Wise, Masters and Servants.

The Opposition, which is made a∣gainst our established Ceremonies, hath, I fear, too great a tendence this way, to innovate in Civil Matters upon the pre∣tences of Christianity, and therefore it may be of no small moment, to give some Admonition against it. For (to say nothing of the Ring in Marriage, which is now, I perceive, well enough digested) is not the significant Ceremony of a corporal Oath, to lay the Hand on the Book, and afterwards to kiss it,* 1.32 every way as exceptionable, as the Cross in Baptism? Is not Swearing a Religious Act? Is not that Ceremony as Symboli∣cal, and in it self as indifferent? Is it not commanded on a severe Penal∣ty? No Right at Law, no Justice ad∣ministred without it, no Priviledg of the Subject without so taking the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, &c.

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

Then, for Kneeling, no Scruple ought to be made of that, when it is remembred, that we use it towards

our Parents, and our Princes, and that as a Gesture properly expressive of Reverence to Superiours.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Quum ge∣nuisset illam Ecclesiam Do∣mino, certam Politiam tra∣diderat, qua gubernaretur; Calv. in loc.
• * 1.2

  P. 310.
• * 1.3

  P. 310.
• * 1.4

  Q•••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Auth••••ita••e m••••g•••• co••••••∣scend•••• esse 〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.5

  This was St. Ambrose his Golden Rule in matters of Rite and Cere∣mony, which St. Augustin, as often as he consider'd of, (which he did often) loo∣ked upon and welcomed as an Heavenly Oracle, Ad quam sortè Eccle∣siam veneris, ejus merem serva, si iniquam non vis esse scandalo, nec quenquam titi. Ep. 118.
• * 1.6

  ☞
• * 1.7

  P. 282, 283.
• * 1.8

  P. 284.
• * 1.9

  P. 284.
• * 1.10

  P. 278.
• * 1.11

  Ibid.
• * 1.12

  Ibid.
• * 1.13

  ☜
• * 1.14

  P. 313.
• * 1.15

  ☜
• * 1.16

  P. 313.
• * 1.17

  ☞
• * 1.18

  P. 38.
• * 1.19

  NB.
• * 1.20

  NB.
• * 1.21

  Ibid.
• * 1.22

  ☞
• * 1.23

  Ibid.
• * 1.24

  Ibid:
• * 1.25

  ☞
• * 1.26

  In his rebus, de quibus ni∣hil certi statu∣it Scriptura Divina, Mos populi Dei, vel Instituta Majorum pro lege tenenda sunt. St. Aug. Ep. 86. Quod neque contra Fidem, neque contra bonos mores injungitur, in∣differenter est habendum, & pro eorum, inter quos vivitur, societate servandum. Id. Ep. 118. ubi plura vide.
• * 1.27

  P. 3••••.
• * 1.28

  NB.
• * 1.29

  ☞
• * 1.30

  Dr. Frank. serm. at St. Paul's Cross.
• * 1.31

  P. 303.
• * 1.32

  ☜