Suffragium Protestantium. Wherein Our GOVERNORS ARE Justified In Their Impositions and Proceed Against Dissenters.  
Meisner also and the Verdict rescued from the Cavils and Seditious Sophistry of the Protestant Reconciler.  
By Dr. LAURENCE WOMOCK, Archdeacon of Suffolk.  
Col. 2. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  

Hoc dico  
Ne quis vobis imponat, Oratione speciosa,  
Per falsas Ratiocinationes,  
Sive ex malitia, sive ex Inscitia  
Id Fiat.   
London, Printed for Robert Clavel, at the Peacock in St. Paul's Churchyard, 1683.   

A Special Verdict Against the PROTESTANT RECONCILER.  
S. Paul foretold that after his departure grievous Wolves should enter in (with a design and malice) not to spare but to devour the Flock: these were Wolves in Sheep's clothing, whose business was to steal, to kill and to destroy; but these were not all, and perhaps not the most pernicious of the Church's Enemies: He foretells further, that also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things to draw Disciples after them. And this Prophecy is fulfilled in our Reconciler. For among others he is risen up, with his perverse Principles, to make and engage a Party.  
Had he intended the satisfaction or information of his Superiors, his Duty would have prompted him to have presented his Papers humbly into their hands and with a modest submission to have expected the result of their wise Councils. But a Noverint Vniversi was fit to carry on his popular Design, and to caress his dear Vain-glory.  
He should have come in the Spirit of Elias, to turn the hearts of the Fathers unto the Children, the Holy Father's Mind and Principles, their Faith and Affections into the Children: and the Disobedient to the Wisdom of the Just: That what the Fathers have believed and practised, 
● L. Brug. ad ●uc. 1. 17. & Paul. de Palatic in Mal. 4. 6.  the Children may also embrace and follow.  
He could have told them, that Christ having assured his Disciples that God, who hears the Addresses of His Church, he straight commands them also to hear Her, upon pain of forfeiting Her (which is the same with His) Blessing; being deservedly (for their contumacy in their Disobedience) turned out of Her Communion as Publicans and Heathens.  
He might have been pleased to take notice, how Christ resolves the case of Conscience about the Tithe of Mint and Cummin, and the weightier matters of the Law, saying unto such as were concerned to be well informed, These things 
Matth. 23. 23.  ought ye to have done and not to have left the other undone. How Christ observed not only the service solemnly established, but such Customs and Festivals as had no divine Institution, laying down this for a Rule of Conscience; Thus it behoves us to fulfil all Righteousness.  
He might have put them in mind (as 
Matth. 3. 15. Tit. 3. 1.  St. Paul exhorts) to be subject to Principalities and Powers, and to obey their Spiritual Guides in their Conduct and to submit to their Orders; in regard that 
Heb. 13. 7. 17. 1 Cor. 14.  the spirit of the very Prophets ought to be subject to the greater authority of the Prophets.  
He knows very well, that we ought not to be contentious about the Customs and Practices of the Church, when they do not supersede the Commands of God, nor interfere with them. That the Governors of the Church have a great Authority from our Lord, and are entrusted in his stead to set things in Order for Edification and Decency in Gods public Worship and Service. And when they have done this with great prudence and deliberation, that the subjects are to do their duty without murmuring or disputing, and to honour such their Governors very highly for their work-sake.  
If not, he could have informed his Readers, That Christ hath furnished those Governors with the power of the Keys to shut the door as well as to open it, with a Rod for Discipline, Authority to mark and censure, to admonish and rebuke sharply, to stop their mouths who speak preverse things, and to reject them from the Communion of Christ's Church, if they will neither obey her commands, nor regard her admonitions.  
Are they not entrusted by our Lord to make Orders for Discipline, and to take the measures of Decency by their own Judgement and Prudence? and when they have established all things to God's Glory, the Peace and Edification of the Church, is it our Duty to follow our Guides or to control them? to confront our Governors or to obey them?  
When a difference arose betwixt the Jews and Gentile Converts, 'twas thought the most prudent and likely Way to compose it, to have recourse to 
Acts 15. Acts 16. 4.  the Apostles and Elders about it, and the Holy Ghost did assist them in the Decision; and S. Paul himself carried about the Decrees to be kept. But our Reconciler takes another course to buoy up a sinking Cause and Faction; He Censures all the Governors of Church and State; decries their Impositions and directly quarrels their Authority.  
Yet 'twas the Resolution of the British 
Acta Synod. in jol. De aequitate Decreti Synodici. pag. 139.  Divines at the Synod of Dort, In adiaphoris Supremus Magistratus vice Dei ostendit quid expedit & decet: The Supreme Magistrate, declares in God's stead what is decent and expedient, in things indifferent. This the whole Synod assented to; and by this Rule they justified their Proceed against the Remonstrants.  
And if the pretence of Christian Liberty be allowed to retrench the King's Prerogative in Church-matters; 'twill soon follow the Pope's Practice (in Ordine ad Spiritualia) and invade his Authority in Temporals. All times have afforded examples of turbulent Spirits, who thought their Christian Liberty could not consist without the downfall of the Civil Power. That their Religion did exempt them from all the Laws and Ordinances of men, and gave them a Privilege to oppose and banish the very Office of the Magistrate from among 
Argument. Ep. ad Rom. 6. Ad Rom. 13.  them. This Calvin as well as Bullinger has observed. And Gualther tells us, that the Jews elated with the conceit of their Ancient Dignity, took it in great disdain, that the Posterity of Abraham, 
E● ad Rom. 13.  and the Elect people of God, should be in Subjection to the Romans; wherefore they made frequent Insurrections to recover their Ancient Liberty; and 〈◊〉 had not quite cast off these Principles of Sedition, when they embraced the 〈◊〉 of the Gospel. Many also of the 〈◊〉, did with no less impa●●●●e bear the Yoke of such as were the Professed Enemies of Christ and 〈◊〉 Gospel.  
And 〈◊〉 these, a sort of subtle 〈◊〉 did insinuate themselves; and having 〈◊〉 the Grace of God into 〈◊〉, that they might enjoy 〈◊〉 carnal satisfactions with the greater licence and impunity, as St. Judas ob 〈…〉, they made it their business to abolish Government.  
By this means the Christian Religion 〈…〉 among such as were in Authority, as the Parent and Breeder of Tumults and Seditions; as at this very day, says Gualther, many render our Religion suspected and odious to Princes upon the very same account.  
For this reason the Apostle does so frequently extol Authority, and so earnestly inculcate and press that Subjection and Obedience, which is justly due to it:  
Thus St. Peter commands the Jews 
1 Pet. 2. 13. to 17. Tit. 3. 1. 1 Tim. 2. 1.  to obey Kings and such as Governed by their Commission. And St. Paul enjoins Titus to admonish those under his charge to obey the higher Powers; And Timothy to make public Prayers for them. And this he does with the greatest care and concern, when he writes to the Christians at Rome; because their Animosities and Disputes about their Christian Liberty were high, and nothing could be acted by the Professors of the Gospel there that looked so like Sedition, without the apparent hazard of the whole Church.  
And this Doctrine, saith he, is no less needful now than heretofore, to repress the rage and madness of those turbulent Spirits, the Anabaptists and Libertines, who abuse their Christian Liberty to overthrow the Power of the Civil Magistrate.  
For they presume, They are Abraham's Seed too, not Semen Carnis, but Semen Foederis, The Spiritual Israel of God, and his peculiar People; and consequently entitled to all the Prerogatives, which the Scripture attributes to those under that Character. And being puffed up with the conceit of their Spiritual Dignity, they look upon all Princes as God's Enemies, and Usurpers of a Spiritual Jurisdiction, which they think does not belong unto them. Hereupon they are ever ready to mutiny, and raise Sedition to shake off that Yoke, which they falsely conceive to be Tyrannical, and to assert that Lawless Liberty, which they mistake for their Christian Privilege.  
Does not the Reconciler too much favour such Factions, and encourage the like Anabaptistical Outrages and run into the same excess of Riot, upon the like unjust account of Christian Liberty? I am sure he has given the Alarm to awaken the Jealousy of Princes, by abetting such peevish quarrels at their commendable Impositions.  
For what is his Practice and the business of this Book? He speaks faintly of the Subjects Duty, but falls foul upon his Superiors; whom he condemns for their care to keep out the Wolf and the little Foxes; and attempts to overthrow their Authority by such weak and fallacious Arguments as have been baffled twenty times over; or else they are nothing to the purpose; or may be retorted with greater force upon the Party he takes upon him to plead for.  
For (1.) He supposes men to be weak, and then he pleads stiffly for a Toleration for them; yea, he supposes them to be such weak ones, and under such circumstances, as those were in S. Paul's time, and then alleges S. Paul's Arguments on their behalf. These are gratis dicta and false suppositions, which he can find no ground for among all the Fathers he heaps together to countenance his Hypothesis; for which of them did ever condemn the Customs and Ceremonies of the Church in their times, upon the account of any thing delivered to the contrary in St. Paul's Epistles?  
Yet (2.) He supposes a Multitude of Rites and Ceremonies among us, and such as have nothing in them of real goodness, or of positive Order, Decency and Reverence; but such as are burdensome and scandalous, and these unjustly imposed, (which would be true enough if he could prove them to be such) and then as such he disputes against them. And indeed his design is to destroy all Authority in matters of indifferency; and to extend this false and Seditious Doctrine to the utmost, to blind and harden such as have rashly (I will not say maliciously) kicked at their Governors, and taken a vain occasion to stumble into Schism, He reckons not only the symbolical protestation of Christianity by the sign of the Cross, but the external worship of God, by bowing and kneeling, amongst things indifferent. p. 39 76, iii.  
We are therefore concerned to take into consideration, (1.) The Persons supposed to be weak and (2.) the Things they take occasion to scruple at.  
I. Men may be weak either in their Faith or in their Morals. These last come not under our consideration in this Controversy.  
Him that is weak in the Faith, saith 
Rom. 14. 1.  the Apostle; Faith is here taken for knowledge of Divine matters, especially 
Rom. 12. 3. 6.  of our Christian Liberty; that a man understands the difference of days and meats established by the Ceremonial Law of Moses to be taken away by Christ under the dispensation of the Gospel. (Calixt. ad Rom. 14. 1.) The Apostles observation was that all men had not this Knowledge. And these were the 
1 Cor. 8. 7.  Apostles weak ones.  
For (1.) they had been bred under another dispensation, the Discipline of a Ceremonial Law, which stood by Divine Right, and being of Gods own appointment, it had the greater force and tie upon the Conscience, and prevailed the more by bearing the Image of a venerable Antiquity, for Custom which had enured them to the practice of it had a Prepossession and made it little less than Natural.  
(2.) On the other side they were called off to another Dispensation which totally evacuated the force of that Law, and rescinded all those Rites and Ceremonies to which they had been so long accustomed.  
Now, that an Institution established with so much Grandeur, Dread and Majesty should quite lose its Authority; and that they should have a power to shake off that Yoke which had been put upon the Necks of their Reverend and Holy Fathers by God himself; this was the great stumbling-block, and the Objection they scrupled at.  
They were but Novices in Christianity, but newly called to the Profession of the Gospel; and they did not perfectly understand the Nature of the Christian Liberty; this was their weakness; and their persons are recommended to us under the title of little ones, of Babes in Christ, and of weak Brethren.  
Such little ones, though their judgements were weak, if their hearts were sound and their Faith unfeigned, Christ had a great compassion for them. Take heed ye offend not one of these little ones that believe in me: And so S. Paul for his Babes in Christ; Him that is weak 
Rom. 1●. 1.  in the Faith receive into your Communion: but not so as to encourage him in his own prejudices, to quarrel with the course of other men's Conversation.  
But did either St. Paul or Christ cocker them up in their childish weakness, and indulge them to continue Babes always (as our Reconciler does?) Did not our Blessed Lord chide his Disciples Duncery in his School? O ye of little Faith! How long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? O fools and slow of heart to believe! Luke 24. 25. And did not St. Paul check the dulness and nonproficiency of his Disciples? And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto Spiritual, but as unto Carnal (He leaves out the word men, and adds) even as unto Babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk and not with meat. For when 
1 Cor. 3. 1, 2.  for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which he the first Principles of the Oracles of God; and are become such as have need 
Heb. 5. 12.  of milk and not of strong meat. Did not he and the rest of the Apostles charge us to be strong in the Lord and in the power of his might: to grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; and to be always building up ourselves in our most holy Faith, and so 
Eph. 6. 10, 2. Pet. 3. 18. Judas v. 20. 21.  to keep ourselves in the love of God.  
But our Blessed Saviour knew there were and ever would be Wolves in Sheep's clothing, and a generation of men that would not be satisfied either full or fasting: that would take offence at his own freedom as well as at the 
Mat. 11. 18, 19  Baptists austerity. Does he dandle these upon his lap for little ones? No, for such he has severer methods; an exprobration: O Generation of Vipers; and 
Matth. 12. 34.— 23. 13.  an increpation; Woe unto you Scribes Pharisees Hypocrites. And does not S. Paul also mark them which cause Divisions and Offences? And does he not tell us such 
Rom. 16. 17.  are false Apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the Apostles of Christ 
2 Cor. 11. 13.  and to enhance the mischief we are told farther, that many shall follow their pernicious ways. Does S. Paul flatter or connive at such as these? no, his pious zeal breaks out into a just indignation against such disturbers of the Church's peace and safety. I would they were even 
2 Pet. 2. 2.  cut off which trouble you: and he tells them plainly, he that addicts himself to such a practice, he shall bear his judgement, (and that a sad doom from the mouth of an Apostle) whosoever he 
ibid. v. 10.  be.  
'Tis a very severe conclusion of Mr. Calvin, and he takes it from Christ's example in curing the blind man which gave so great a scandal to the Pharisees. By this example (saith he) we are taught 
John 9 14.  that such as are enemies to the truth of the Gospel, may be exasperated, ac eos prorsus desipere, and those Reconcilers do but play the fool, who do attempt to coaks the World into a fellowship with Christ, as to condemn all emergent Offences; when Christ himself does rather wittingly and willingly nettle and provoke the wicked. Tenenda ergo, quam alibi praescribit, regula, we must therefore observe that Rule which He prescribes in another place, that the blind leaders 
Mat. 15. 14.  of the blind are to be neglected.  
We must be very careful therefore to observe as Hemmingius doth (add Rom. 14. 1.) that in this point of tenderness, St. Paul speaks of such weak ones as had not yet fully learned the nature and use of their Christian Liberty, & non de praefractis: and speaks not of the refractory, who stubbornly set themselves in opposition to the truth. And Bullinger observes that the Apostle speaks 
Ad Rom. 15. ●. And Beza ad Rom. 14. 2. ait, Non eos qui malitiose & praefractè resistunt Evangelicae libertati, sed qui sola ignorantia peccanti hic infirmos vocari.  remarkably of regarding the infirmities of the weak, nam malitiam nemo pius tulerit aut non oderit etiam, for no good man will endure such a ones malice, but rather hate it. Add yet that learned Protestant makes a further observation, Porro placent sibi hoc loco, qui suo serviunt commodo, & quod agunt, ad suum 
Hi scandalizantur quia veritatem nesciunt: illi quia veritatem oderunt. Hemming. Syntag. de Scandalo.  trahunt compendium: That they who study to serve their own ends, and do nothing but what they can draw to their own advantage, do wonderfully please themselves in that piece of Scripture; and so doth our Reconciler.  
But (2.) wilful and affected Ignorance does excommune us from the privilege of a weak Brother as well as malice and stubbornness: We must not 
Chrysost. ad Rom. 14. Homil. 26.  think (saith St. chrysostom) that ignorance will be sufficient for our Defence: for there will come a time when we shall be punished for our ignorance; that is to say, when ignorance itself shall find no pardon. For the Jews were ignorant, but they were ignorant of those things, the ignorance whereof deserves (or shall obtain) no pardon: the Greeks also were ignorant, but they have no excuse. For if thou art ignorant of such things as cannot be known, thy ignorance is not culpable: but if thou beest ignorant of those things which are both possible and easy to be known, thou dost deservedly suffer extreme punishment.  
Let us take heed therefore that we be not imposed upon by the vizor or fraud of pretended little ones. These Dissenters would (one while) be accounted weak Brethren: but upon what account can we esteem them so? were they bred up (as the Jews were under Moses) under another Dispensation? Were they taught another Gospel than what S. Paul Preached? If they were; I am sure they have not so learned Christ. If they were nursed up in false Principles from their Childhood, is it not high time for them to put away those childish things? have they not had time enough and means enough to be better informed? are they not of age and of capacity to understand the doctrine and practice of the Christian Liberty? what it is in itself, and the extent of its nature, and what it is in its use, when it is limited and determined by Authority.  
But they study to contend, and to build themselves up in Faction. They give themselves up to vain jangling and perverse dispute, instead of an humble and modest address unto their duty, 
Phil. 2. 13.  which they are obliged to perform without mumuring and disputing. If these be S. Paul's Babes in Christ, I am sure they are very froward ones. But they assume the title of weak Brethren for other ends, their weakness improves into Faction, and therein they strengthen themselves, and boast of their might against all Right and all Authority and Power, nothing will serve their turn but Christ on his Throne, and that must be one of their own make, according to their own imagination; and therefore 'tis no wonder, they think he can never ascend it without the help of their Sedition.  
Just such weak ones were those fanatics which infested Germany in the infancy of the Reformation, well esteemed they were at first for their presumptive well-meaning, pitied for their simplicity and countenanced for their zeal and fair pretensions unto Godliness: but when they began to set up themselves in their taking Arms for Jesus Christ, and to oppose all established Order and Government but their own; the Princes thought it high time (when they had unmasqed their hypocrisy) to lay aside their own compassion and kindness and to deal with them according to their deserts, at the rate of headstrong and sturdy Rebels.  
But from the Persons he pleads for, under the feigned notion of weak Brethren (whose pulse and temper we may be called upon to feel and examine a little more precisely hereafter) let us pass on to consider the things he pleads against, as things indifferent, whihc he thinks to be no less imprudently than uncharitably imposed.  
And here I must premise, that, this Reconciler, is as like to be an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; such a busybody in matters which he has no concern to intermeddle in, as any of those, whom the Apostle tells us do deservedly suffer (as 
1 Pet. 3. 17. chap. 4. 1●.  it is sit they should) amongst evil doers.  
For has he any order from his Superiors to undertake the part of a Reconciler? did they furnish him with instructions and give him his Rules and Measures to guide him in a matter of this importance to Church and State? or has he any Commission from the Dissenters to act and play the Advocate on their behalf? have they made their last Will and Testament about things indifferent? Does he know what they are content to bequeath to the Church, or what they are resolved to take from it? Can he tell what will fully satisfy their scrupulosity, and bring them into so hearty a compliance with us as may settle a happy and a seasonable conformity amongst us? if he can produce no delegation to this effect (the design he goes upon running Counter to the Laws and Customs established) his attempt will be ridiculous, and appear to consist of as many and as impertinent fooleries as those he has so civilly charged the Learned Meisner with. But let us proceed.  
When Moses the great Lawgiver was about to make the Tabernacle (a Type of the Church) he was admonished thus of God, see that thou make 
Heb. 8. ●.  all things according to the Pattern shown to thee on the Mount. But I do not find that ever he called the people to consult whether they approved of this or that part of the pattern; nor do I find any attempt of theirs to question or dispute the decency of any particular piece of that pattern. Now parallel to the Pattern on the Mount, the Apostles had the mind of Christ after his frequent Sermons and private discourses. And 
Acts 1. Gal. 1.  S. Paul had it also by a special revelation. And a prospect of this Pattern, we have in those General Rules of the Apostles, let all things be done decently and in order, to public edification and the Glory of God.  
These were the Pattern on the Mount under the New Testament, the Ritual Law of the Holy Gospel, by which alone the Authority of Governors is limited and directed. And when matters of Ecclesiastical Discipline are established by their Prudence according to this Rule, the subjects Duty is to submit and follow their steps and practice. And if this were well observed it would presently free them from all their doubts and scruples as well as from their Schism; which can never be excused, unless they can prove, that their Governors do act contrary to the divine Canon, in which case only, they may plead with S. Peter whether it be right, etc. But 
Acts 4. 19  the Reconciler can never make use of that Plea against our Governors in favour of the Dissenters (if he reckons them amongst S. Paul's weak ones) because he confesses (p. 73.) the Apostle has made as perfect and full a determination against them as words can make.  
And 'tis a little strange to observe the want of Ingenuity in this Reconciler: (according to the wont practice of the Party) he repeats their Cavils and Objections, but never takes notice of the Answers that have been returned; it seems they have been refuted with so much strength of reason, that he thought himself not able enough to grapple with it. But this is not all, he makes a great cry against the imposition of unnecessary Ceremonies, as if the Constitution of this Church were overburdened, and the good Seed of the Gospel choked with the multitude of them, when in truth upon a strict examination they will not amount unto a number. For we may observe  
That he reckons some observances among things indifferent, which really are not so. He does instance in bowing and kneeling, which are parts of God's external Worship, suggested by the light of nature, and enjoined by the second precept of the Moral Law; which command binds always (semper non ad semper) but because this external Worship may be exhibited in several gestures of the Body, which cannot be all performed at once, therefore it is left to the wisdom of the Church to determine it (pro hic & nunc) for place and season; for which notwithstanding She wants not Her sufficient directions in holy Scripture.  
2. We may observe that all things are not alike indifferent. As in those Heavenly bodies, there is one Glory of the Sun, another of the Moon, & another of the Stars and one Star differeth from another Star in Glory: So a great disparity there was betwixt the State and Magnificence of the first and second Temple, for even that which was made glorious, had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. And to bring the discourse 
2 Cor. 3. 10.  more close to our concern; a Surplice is generally a thing indifferent; and yet, when we come to specialties, who sees not that there is a great difference betwixt one of Cambric and one of Canvas: and the richer it is in value according to common estimation, the greater respect it shows to the person to whom we do therein administer. And this is God's own account as well as mine; when the people made the Table of the Lord contemptible by their lame and blind Sacrifices, God upbraids them for their profane ingratitude; Offer it now unto thy Governor: will he be pleased with 
Mal. 1. 7. 8.  thee, or accept thy person, saith the Lord of Hosts? And we must remember that it was the Poverty of the Offerer which God condescended to, when he accepted of a pair of Turtle-doves or two young Pigeons for an Oblation; and this was only in case of a private person, who was able to present no more; and so must not be brought into example, when we are concerned for public Administrations. And we may consider further that  
The estimate of Veneration and Reverence is taken from the customs of several Places and Countries: to put off our shoes in holy places among us would be undecent; and so it would be thought to kiss the King's hand upon our tails. Whatever they do in other places, our Governors have adjudged the Gestures and Observances in use among us to be the most Reverend; and 'tis left to their judgement by Christ himself to determine it; and I know no Government of State or Church in the World, that will lightly change their Country Customs to gratify the designs or importunity of any impetuous Faction, that is crept in, or risen up amongst them.  
3. 'Tis to be considered that there are some things indifferent in the General, and yet there is a necessity for their specification. And herein 'tis left to the prudence of Governors to determine. This is so evident of itself, that the Dissenters acknowledge it, in the instances of time and place. There can be no public Administration, no solemn Assembly without them; herein therefore they will allow Authority to determine.  
And why not as well in the matter of Habit? For to go naked is against the Law of natural decency; and to go in a Fool's Coat is ridiculous: wherefore if Modesty has virtue enough to make a thing necessary, some Habit ought to be appointed for public Officers in their public and solemn Administrations; and who should determine this but the Governors?  
And the like we may plead for our Gesture, for some Gesture in the performance of God's Worship and Service is of absolute necessity (there can be nothing done without it) Authority therefore must determine; and (as was hinted even now) Holy Scripture does suggest enough for the direction of the Church herein, in the Revelation made to the Holy Evangelist, we find the Saints and Elders in three several postures; they were sitting, Rev. 4. 4. (2.) They were standing, Rev. seven. 9, 3. they were falling down upon their knees or faces, Rev. iv. 10, & 5, 8, 14. their sitting was a posture wherein they did attentively hear and receive the Holy Oracle and Instructions of the Gospel (as Rev. iv. 4.) their standing was, to profess their Faith in Christ and to sing 
Rev. 7. 9 10. & Rev. 5. 9, 10, 11, 12. compared with v. 8. and 14. Rev. 4. 10. 5. 8. 14. 7. 11.  God's Praises: their falling down (whether upon their knees or faces) was to Adore and Worship.  
No doubt their behaviour was seemly and Reverend in all these several Postures or Gestures: but sitting (as to hear) was not so Reverend as standing, and standing (as to sing lauds and praises) was not so Reverend as prostration (or falling upon their knees or faces) when they offered up their prayers (Rev. v. 8.) or when they did adore and worship God and the Lamb, they performed it with the profoundest Veneration and Reverence: and from this Pattern on the Mount, the Church does take and prescribe Her practice.  
For kneeling at the Sacrament, the penitent and devout soul must needs be convinced that it is expedient 
† Quia opus habemus stimulis, non parum valet genuflexio. V Calvin ad 6 Dan. 10. m. p. 73. in med. not that g●nuflexio per●se necessaria in precibus.  for (1.) does not the profoundest adoration become us at the performing of our greatest Duty and Service? And do we not here commemorate the most bitter Passion and Death of our dearest Lord and Master; and shall not this humble us? And (2.) upon what account did he suffer that shameful and accursed death? Was it not for our guilt? Did not God lay on him the iniquity of us all? Was he not wounded for our transgressions? And shall not this bring us upon our knees? 3. Do we not here address ourselves for Grace and Pardon? And shall we expect such blessings upon our tails? Is it not a custom with us, and do we not think it highly decent to kneel down when we kiss our Prince's hand to receive a Temporal Benefaction? For my part, when I expect to receive the greatest blessings of heaven from the ever blessed Jesus, by the hand of his Minister, to sit then upon my tail (which may be decent enough in their conceit, who can profane the holy Sacrament in lambs-wool) seems a most vile irreverence, and to deal freely, I cannot find in myself the least inclination to communicate at our Lord's Table in such a posture of good-fellowship.  
4. We are to consider, that where the Scripture is silent it is left to the prudence of Governors to determine what things are most expedient; and without this power there can be no Uniformity, nothing but Disorder and Confusion. The very first Convention at Jerusalem, was to determine a Case of this nature; for the things there specified 
Acts 15. 28, 29  were not necessary antecedently to the decree of that Council. The Apostle commends highly such as observed Traditions and Ordinances of that kind, 
1 Cor. 11. 2. 2 Thes. 3. 6.  and such as did not observe them, He censures as disorderly persons. Indeed the scene of the Governors Legislative power lies chief in expedients. For as to sin and moral virtue, therein they are but Executors to perform the will of the Supreme Lawgiver.  
And now, because our Protestant Reconciler upon all or no occasion lashes out upon the Surplice and the sign of the Cross (taking no notice at all of what has been offered elsewhere in their vindication) I shall add a word or two more for the satisfaction of the ingenuous Reader. How did the Saints and Elders appear before the Throne of God to the great Divine? It was in 
Rev. 4. 4, 7, 9  white Robes: if they had been clothed in Linsey-Woolsey, a Levitical Conscience might have taken offence and bogled at it: but in representing the state of the Church and Priesthood, in a Vision to his beloved Disciple and Evangelist, we may assure ourselves he would not make use of such a Habit as were scandalous.  
And for the sign of the Cross (though they cry out of many) 'tis the only Ceremony in all our practice of Religion; and it is but once applied to any single person in his whole life, and that is done too, for the most part, without his consent or knowledge (which therefore cannot be his sin) by the hand of the public Minister. This is the only symbolical sign we have, that is under no necessity and of no Divine Institution: yet this is a real protestation of our Faith in Christ Crucified; which Faith we must not keep to ourselves as we may do some private opinion about matters of indifferency, wherein the Church has made no determination. 
Rom. 14. 21.  That this is innocent and justified by the practice of those Tribes in building their symbolical Altar, and of Daniel in setting open his windows, (which are approved by all Divines, and by God himself) and that these very examples are written for our learning we are taught by Mr. Calvin ad Dan. 6. 10. in p. 73. princ.  
Discamus itaque, etc. & Lavater. in Librum Josuae c. 22. p. 72. 2. m. exemplum piae solicitudinis parentum pro filiis, etc. as hath been sufficiently declared elsewhere (though the Reconciler thought fit to pass it over in silence.)  
But the Presbyterians are highly obliged to own that proof if they will maintain their own public Communion and protested Doctrine; for in their, Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici, pag. 16. they lay down this for a Rule in Divinity, That the ordinary examples of the Godly approved in Scripture, being against no general precept, have the force of a general Rule, and are to be followed; and p. 22. they say, Those examples in Scripture are obligatory, whose ground, reason, scope or end are obligatory, and of a Moral Nature, and as much concern one Christian as another; whether they be the examples under Old or New Testament.  
Now I say that by a parity of Reason, the command and practice of the Church for the use of the sign of the Cross in Baptism is obligatory; because the ground, reason, scope or end of it, which is the confession of our Faith and Protestation of our Christianity, is obligatory and of a moral nature, and as much concern one Christian as another, one Church as another, one time as another.  
Having thus briefly showed the nature of those impositions, which this Reconciler does condemn; and given a short account of the temper of those weak Brethren on whose behalf he so earnestly solicits an indulgence; I cannot but reflect upon his Preface; wherein he does little less than traduce many worthy Persons by alleging their condescensions, as if they had been the yielding up of a Right to those Dissenters against that Authority and Government, which themselves did constantly assert and manage.  
Indeed their Charity and Compassion carried many of them very far that way. They saw us in a storm; and our condition to be much like to theirs in the 27th. of the Acts (15. 18, 19, 20.) When the Ship was caught (the Church assaulted hy a violent Faction) and could not bear up into the Wind, we let her drive. And being exceedinly tossed with a Tempest, the next day they lightened the Ship: and the third day we cast out with our own hands the tackling of the Ship. And when neither Sun nor Stars, in many days appeared, and no small tempest lay on us, all hope that we should be saved was then taken away. And this, upon the matter, was the case of the Episcopal and Loyal Party, who were Embarked in the Established Church of England; their crafty Adversaries to raise a Storm against them, had put a conceit into the light heads of the Rabble, that they were bound for Rome too, as S. Paul was in another sense; Hereupon their Frantic Zeal pushed them with an impetuous fury into Tumults, wherein the poor distressed Bark was so tossed, She was in danger to be sunk, or split and dashed to pieces. In this forlorn condition no wonder their danger should prompt them to cast Anchor upon the unsteady sands, or comply with any course or method, that might be thought expedient for their present safety. Sometimes empty Casks are thrown out by the skilful Mariner to make diversion for the ungovernable Leviathan, when he threatens to overturn their Vessel. And if a liberty of Prophesying be not sufficient to divert their rage and make them at a loss, and stop their cry; then an Irenicum may be thought a pious charm to allay their heats, to appease their animosities and to bring them to a more calm composure.  
Perhaps this Reconciler thinks we are in a Storm still; and 'tis no wonder if he be of that opinion having taken so much pains to raise a blustering wind to blow up his Euroclydon of Fanatic Zeal amongst us. But 'tis observable in experience, that such well-meant attempts, at such a season, do for the most part give advantage to the watchful Adversary, seldom answer their expectation, and never take effect, to the obtaining that pious end, which their worthy and learned Authors aimed at.  
2. I find, that learned and good men may be mistaken; and 'tis an error of the right hand when Charity leads them to it. We are told that Mr. Hales found occasion to bid John Calvin good night: and whatever Essays of wit might come to his Friends hands when his Fancy was brisk and sprightful, I doubt not, when he came to a more mature judgement he took a solemn leave of many of those unhappy hallucinations, which had been more to his honour, if they had been buried in his ashes. I am sure his Tractate of Schism has been confuted no less than three four times over. And for some others of a much higher rank than He, to my knowledge, they retracted those opinions which had given so much encouragement to the Factious Party, and bewailed their mistaken charity with great remorse upon all occasions, to make amends for the Scandal their well-meant tenderness had given to the Loyal and true Conformist.  
3. There are none of them, I dare be bold to say, that ever intended such dismal disapidations of the Church as the Dissenters had Projected, dreamed not of the introduction of such confusions as were the necessary product of their pernicious practices; and were so far from adhering to them in the prosecution of their wicked Designs, that for the most part of them, they were sufferers under that 11th. Persecution.  
For (4.) Their constant Practice in the use of the Liturgy as it witnessed their steadfast affection to the Church Established, so it betrayed them to the Spite and Malice of the Faction, who were carrying on a design to overthrow it. To say they acted herein against their Judgement, would bring their sincerity into question, and make their Authority of no value, and consequenty insignificant as to that purpose this Reconciler produces it for. We must conclude therefore, that whatever their condescensions were, they were intended merely to gratify the present weakness of such as they believed to be conscientious; but not all to countenance their Nonconformity.  
5. For Foreign Churches and Universities, we very well understand both their Principles and their Practice. And we are well assured that the Doctrine and the Discipline, the Customs and Observances of the present Church of England are fully justified by them both; what esteem they had for us, before the late times of Deformation we may learn from the pen of the learned and noble Deodate in his Epistle to the late Assembly; wherein he gives us this Encomium, That Flourishing England, the very eye and excellency of all the Churches, Christ's own choice, purchase and peculiar, the Sanctuary of the afflicted, the Arcenal of the faint-hearted, the Magazine of the needy, the Royal Standard of good hope (p. 6, 7. & p. 17.) He does acknowledge and solemnly declare it, That on the Theatre of the Universal Church, the Kingdom and Church of England have hitherto excelled and out-shined all the Churches upon Earth in Holiness and Glory.  
Such as well understand the happy constitution of this Church of England cannot but have the like value for Her; and they that are of that persuasion, can never with a sober judgement and deliberation, utter any thing in Derogation to Her Dignity. If this Reconciler can produce any thing from their example to our prejudice (tho 'tis far more fit that we should be a Pattern and Law to them, than they to us) let him give us but one instance, wherein they destroyed their own Establishment to gratify a discontented and Dissenting Faction: the contrary whereof, has been sufficiently proved to be the obstinate resolution of those Churches, as well of the Calvinian, as of the Lutheran Denomination.  
6. I say, we have the Authority of many other excellent persons of another Judgement, to name some few, Whitgift, Bancroft, Andrews, Laud, Sanderson, Hooker, Heylin, Hammond; whose judgements we have greater reason to rely upon; because they judged the case with a more deliberate diligence, and weighed the importance and consequences of a Change with a better attention, and by a clearer and exacter observation, discovered more fully the temper and design of this Dissenting Party. And upon this account I shall only subjoin the Resolutions of a Wise and Learned Prince with a great and prudent Statesman.  
King James concludes his Proclamaion (of March 5. in the first of his beign) in these words;  
We do admonish all men, that hereafter they shall not expect nor attempt any further alteration in the Common and Public Form of God's Service from this which is now established; for that neither will we give way for any to presume, that our own Judgement having determined in a matter of this weight, shall be swayed to alteration by the frivolous suggestions of any light Spirit. Neither are we ignorant of the inconveniencies that do arise in Government, by admitting innovation in things once settled by mature deliberation: and how necessary it is to use constancy in the upholding the public determinatins of States; for that such is the unquietness and unstedfastness of some dispositions, affecting every year new Forms of things, as, if they should be followed in their unconstancy, would make all actions of State ridiculous and contemptible: whereas the steadfast maintaining of things by good advice established, is the weal of all Commonwealths.  
And his Grace the Lord Archbishop Juxton soon after his Majesty's happy Restauration, discoursing with me about the Indulgence (which was then the common talk of all the Town,) he was pleased to express himself after this manner.  
That if the yielding of some few small matters (of indifferency) would win them to join cordially with us in the practice of the rest, he could very well be content with it. But (his Grace added) you know Mr. W. I have sometimes sat at the Helm, and truly I have studied the temper of these men, and could never find them so ingenuous; Assure yourself Mr. W. there is no way to Govern this sort of People, but by a strait Rein. For gratify them in any thing, and you but encourage them to ask more. Your condescension shall be their Argument that their requiries were just, and your conviction that your own practice is unwarrantable, nor will they ever rest satisfied till all matters of decency and Order be laid aside, to make way for their own (as his Grace was pleased to call them) new-fangled Innovations.  
After all this, methinks, so many Authentic Instruments, Proclamations and Acts of Parliament, should be sufficient to supersede all that has been alleged, as of a much inferior stamp and quality.  
But before we proceed further I shall offer two or three things to the Readers serious Consideration.  
1. The first is this, That the Church on Earth is not in a state of Triumph; and though this Reconciler may be a Trimmer in a modern Notion, yet if the Bride of the Lamb wants trimming, the Dissenters (though they take his advice along with them) have no Authority to appoint Her Ornaments, nor are they called to be Her Dressers. Christ has taken a course to present Her to Himself a Glorious Church, not having wrinkle, 
Eph. 5. 27.  spot or blemish at the day of Marriage. In the interim She is as a heap of Corn not clean winnowed from the chaff; as a field of Wheat with a mixture of Tares or Darnel: And this the Church is concerned to Tolerate, lest She should root up the Wheat for the Tares sake, or lest the good grain being separated from the chaff before the time and so left naked, 
Aug. Ep.  instead of being carried into the Granary, should be cast out to be picked up by the fouls of the Air. And according to another of our Lords Parables, we suffer the bad Fishes amongst the good (till we come to the shore) Ne diruptis per Schismata retibus, dum quasi malos pisces cavemus, in mare perniciosae libertatis exeamus: Lest Schism tearing the nets of the Church in pieces, we should launch out into the Sea of a pernicious Liberty. But as the Father saith in another of his Epistles, though the Church being set among much chaff and tares, tolerates many things, tamen quae sunt contra fidem vel bonam vitam, non approbat, nec tacet nec facit. And I dare be bold to say, that in these respects, this Church of England is as innocent, and as eminently watchful as ever any Church was since the days of the Apostle.  
2. 'Tis observable that many well meaning Souls are strangely imposed upon by the plea of a mistaken Charity. Charity I know has in many respects, the sovereignty of all virtues, and aught to have a great command in the 
● Cor. 13. last.  conduct of all our actions: but to transform her into a foolish pity would be a huge degrading of her. A fond Mother will give the froward child the Apple as often as he whines and whimpers for it: but the prudent Father thinks the Rod a more useful instrument to cure him of his frowardness, and yet his affection is never the less towards him. Correction is a work of mercy as well as alms; and many times more seasonable and beneficial. St. Judas has given us an excellent Rule. And of some have compassion making a difference: and others save with fear pulling them out of 
Judas Ep. 22, 23  the fire. Such as cannot be won to do their duties by instruction and good advice, with other wholesome instances of gentleness, must fall under the correction of a severer discipline; and there is some kind that will not be cast out otherwise. 
* See Aretius ad 2 Cor. 13. 2. infra.  The stubborn Egyptian will not conform to Moses' Treaty, till he sees his Rod turned into a Serpent. This is severe you'll say, but 'tis no more than what we learn as well from the Practice as the Doctrine of the Apostle? For does he not threaten the Corinthians 
2 Cor. 13. 2, 10.  with his Rod? And does he not tell them he will not spare, but will use sharpness; and this he threatens against the Schismatics, no doubt, as well as other impenitent sinners that he should find amongst them, 2 Cor. 13. 2. And wherefore did he use or threaten this Severity? was it because he loved them not? this he refers to the searcher of hearts 
2 Cor. 11. 11.  to judge. This was sound Doctrine and wholesome Discipline without question in the Apostles time.  
But perhaps the case may be altered now; no, it was not we are sure in St. Augustine's time. Quid igitur hic faciat Ecclesiae 
Ep. 167.  medicina salutem omnium materna Charitate conquirens, tanquam inter phreneticos & Lethargicos aestuans? nunquid contemnere, nunquid desistere vel debet vel potest? utriusque sit necesse est molesta, quia neutris est inimica. Name & Phrenetici nolunt ligari, & Lethargici nolunt excitari, sed perseverat diligentia charitatis, Phreneticum castigare, Lethargicum stimulare, ambos amare. Ambo offenduntur, sed ambo diliguntur: ambo molestati, quandiu aegri sunt indignantur, sed ambo sanati gratulantur.  
Now what remedy can the Church (which with the tenderness of a Mother seeks the good of all her children) apply in this case, whilst she is embroiled in the contentions of the Frantic on the one hand, and the Stupid and Sullen on the other? She neither can well nor indeed ought she utterly to cast them off, or cease admonishing them; which course soever she takes it must needs trouble her, because she has a kindness for both. But so long as neither the Frantic and unruly will be restrained by her Laws, nor will the sullen be provoked to observe them, she in charity to them both proceeds to chastise the one and rouse up the other, and yet retains a love for them both. Both take offence, and yet what is done is in love to both; both are apt to fret and murmur, and are angry in their sickness as if they were wronged, but upon recovery are glad to find the wholesome effects of those means applied to them.  
I shall trouble the Reader but with one praemonition more; which concerns the Reconcilers dealing with Dr. Womock. The Body of his discourse this Champion of Dissension found solid, and of too high proof for the little strength of his Assault and Battery; and therefore with great wisdom and forecast he never attempts it: but yet to show his good will to the cause, and because some sort of men (out of their great zeal) must be meddling, he acts the part of the old Serpent and falls a nibbling at the Heels of it. But that verdict was drawn up with so much evidence of truth, that the Dr. dares venture it before any Bench, and present it to any that bears the Character and Title of a Judge, except the Protestant Joiner or an Ignoramus Jury.  
With the Readers Patience, we will try how this Reconciler does attaque it. He gins, in reference to the fourteenth and fifteenth chapters of the Epistle to the Romans, and at pag. 89. of the Verdict. Where the Dr. laid down this Position; That the Rules of Advice in those Chapters were directions for common use among private Christians: (and here I am afraid the Reconciler had no honest meaning in changing the Drs. words, saying) and not Decrees; whereas the Dr. goes on thus) but for Decrees and Orders of public use and practice, He (the Apostle) gave out none to this Church; because as yet here was no Jurisdiction settled, no Laws made, no Governors appointed to put them in Execution. To prove this, the Dr. alleged four Arguments, though the Reconciler takes notice but of three.  
1. The first of those Arguments was taken from Grotius, and it is built upon the Apostles command to those Romans; which was only to mark such as caused Divisions and Scandals, and not to excommunicate them: From whence that Learned man collects, that there was not then at Rome any Presbytery or settled Jurisdiction.  
In answer to this Plea, the Reconciler 
pag. 69.  saith, 1. That it is manifestly false. 2. That were it true, it altars not the case, nor doth it take off from the strength of the present Argument.  
But to mollify the sharpness of his stile, in saying, 'tis manifestly false, he is pleased to be a little more civil (and that is much in him) and to say, only 1. That it is not true; For (says he) can any man imagine (yes, he knows, Grotius, and Aretius, and others as well as Dr. Womock, do imagine it) that in such a Church, whose Faith was spoken of throughout the World, there should be no Ministers to Baptise, to Preach the Word, to administer the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to them? and if there were such, there must be a standing Order of Presbyters licenced by the Apostles or their Bishop, or exercising their Ministerial Function without licence.  
Before I return my Answer, I must in Charity deliver the Reconciler out of his own snare, or at least preserve the unwary Reader from it: or exercising their Ministerial Function without Licence: This is a fallacy, which the Logicians call petitio principii: whether there were such a Ministerial Function settled as yet at Rome, is the thing in question: but the Reconciler takes it for granted, and so disputes upon it. He should have proved it first, and then he might very fairly have made his Inference. In the mean while, I shall tell the Reader for his satisfaction,  
That Rome being the Imperial City, and having Commerce with all the World, 'twas no wonder that all the world should soon have intelligence that the Gospel was brought and entertained amongst them.  
But as a very learned and judicious person observes, the Church (or rather the Christians) at Rome, when S. Paul wrote his Epistle thither, seems (as that also at Antioch was) for the most part to be made up of Foreigners (both of Jews and Gentiles) whom business 
Acts 28. 17. Rom. 1. 15. 16.  drew thither from other converted Provinces) as appears both from the Apostles salutations of former Acquaintance 
Anon. Paraphrase & Annot. on the Rom. in the preface.  (chap. 16.) and from his writing the Epistle in Greek.  
Whether the Sacraments were as yet commonly administered there, is not asserted in that Epistle, (for the mention of Baptism in the sixth Chapter, will not evince it, that it was) but the Gospel of the Resurrection could not want Apostles and Evangelists in a large sense, to publish it. The good women, who brought the glad tidings of our Saviour's return from the Grave with life and glory, are somewhere styled Apostolorum Apostolae, the Apostles of the Apostles.  
After the death of S. Stephen, the Disciples who were scattered abroad, 
Acts 8. 4.  went every where Preaching the Word. But were all Apostles properly so called? Had all power to Plant and Establish and Govern Churches? This Reconciler 
Tit. 1. 5.  knows the Gospel was Preached in Crete before any Discipline or Government was established.  
The Schoolmen tell us, with great truth and reason that Potestas Ordinis, & Potestas Jurisdictionis are too several things. There are several parts of the holy Function; I will recite them as they are reckoned up by Dr. Sclater, There is 
ad 2 Thes. 3. 6.  Potestas Ministerii (at large) Authority to Preach the Gospel and administer the Holy Sacraments (Mat. 28. 19) (2.) there is Potestas Ordinis; a power to Ordain Ministers, and make Laws for external Government, (1 Tim. 5. 22. Tit. 1. 5.) (3.) there is Potestas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Censurae, to administer Censures, less or greater, according to the quality of Offences.  
Every man's zeal and knowledge (where there is no Organical Church settled) was licence enough for him to report what had been done at Jerusalem, and what was the present Faith and Practice there. If they had any Ministers to Preach with Authority amongst them, no doubt they had their Holy Orders and a Divine Mission, and were put in Office to that purpose; but 'tis most likely they had none; because though they had knowledge to admonish one another of the Doctrine they had received, yet they had no Authority to teach as S. Ambrose has observed, Rom. 15. 14. non dixit, ut invicem se doceant, sed admoneant; and if there had been any such spiritual guides, doubtless, in such a case of difficulty and danger, the Apostle would have referred the Christians to their Conduct as he did in other places.  
And yet every man that hath a licence as well as ability to preach the Gospel, has not presently the Authority of a Governor. Philip was an Evangelist, and Preached Christ to the City of Samaria, Baptised Converts, and wrought Miracles amongst them, yet he had no Jurisdiction there. The Apostles sent Peter and John from Jerusalem to lay their hands upon them to Confirm them, Acts 8. 14. to 17.  
Secondly, saith our Reconciler, The Apostle among many others, whom he calls his Helpers in Christ, approved in Christ, labourers in Christ. Rom. 16. 3, 9, 12. who may all rationally be deemed to be Church-Officers (and as rationally deemed to be none) Presbyters, Deacons, and Diaconesses, makes mention of Andronicus and Junias, of note amongst Christ's Apostles, i. e. (saith our Reconciler) among the Preachers of the Gospel, the Teachers of the Christian Faith. If these be his Church-Governors, than there was a woman got into the Chair at Rome before Pope Joan was heard of; for Theophilact saith that Junias was the name of a woman, and Grotius thinks she was wife to Andronicus.  
But what is all this to a settled Jurisdiction, to established Laws, and Governors appointed to put them in execution; which was the thing he was obliged to prove? and now to pay him back a little of his own coin (of the finer metal,) who could imagine this Reconciler would have had the confidence to oppose a deliberate Verdict upon a Melius inquirendum; and pretermitting all the solid Grounds of Truth, Reason and Authority, upon which it is established, think to quash it by his own vain Imaginations?  
All the Ancients that writ of the Church of Rome, do conclude that it was founded by those two great Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul, and S. Paul being the Apostle of the Incircumcision, and above all the rest adorned with the title of a chosen vessel to bear the name and Gospel of Christ among the Gentiles, Acts 9 15. in all reason we should allow him a good share in the establishment of that Church which was the most considerable in his whole Province; but 'tis evident when he wrote his Epistle he had never been at Rome to do it; and though he sent Phoebe with his Epistle, I hope no man will be so ill advised as to think he gave her any Commission to Govern.  
If there had been any such Governors there, where should we look for them, but among those persons (of such excellent note) whom S. Paul salutes; and yet if the Reconciler will needs have them to be Church-Governors, the first of the Catalogue is a Woman, (Rom. 16. 3.) Priscilla, so likewise, 2 Tim. 4. 19 She is called Prisca, and set before Aquila, and 'tis thought (what e'er the rest were) that her Husband was her Convert. Priscillam quidem priori loco ponit, cujus ratio certa vix reddi potest. Si tamen conjecturis locus est, illustrior fortussis fuit uxor, & magis nota omnibus, vel prior ad fidem conversa maritum postea instituit. Gualt. ad Rom. Homil. 93. in p. 225. 2. in fine. He sets down Priscilla in the first place, for which no certain Reason can be given; but if we may conjecture, probably the Wife might be of the more honourable extraction, and so more publicly known, or being first converted to the Faith herself, afterwards instructed her Husband in the same.  
That S. Peter was there to plant a Church and settle Governors, so as to make a Coalition of Jew and Gentile into one united body, before S. Paul wrote this Epistle, if he can prove it solidly, the present Church of Rome shall thank him for it: but the generality of Protestant Writers are against it. Take Gualterus instead of all the rest, ad Rom, 16. 7, 16. Homil. 94. Non parum facit hic locus ad confutandum impudens Papistarum figmentum, etc. This place (saith he) makes strongly for the confutation of that impudent Fiction of the Papists, who dream of S. Peter's coming to Rome in the second year of Claudius, and that he first constituted a Church there, over which he himself did preside for five and twenty years together. Now if they say true in this, He must be at Rome when S. Paul wrought this Epistle. Why then makes he no mention of him? or what reason can be alleged why the name of Peter only should be left out of that long and honourable catalogue of those men who were famous in that Church at that time? was it because he was ignorant of his being there? But this cannot well be, seeing that the Faith of Rome was published in most parts of the World; and how could so great an Apostle escape S. Paul's knowledge, who was acquainted with so many of far meaner quality? or shall we think that he concealed S. Peter's name out of emulation? But far be such a thing from the sincerity and uprightness of an Apostle; and why should he envy Peter his honour who speaks so honourably of many others far inferior to him? Therefore our Romanists will never be able to make good this fancy of theirs. For what Answer will they give S. Luke, who says that Peter was present at the Council of Jerusalem, which (as St. Paul witnesseth in his second Chapter to the Galathians) was held in the eighteenth year after his Conversion, which (according to true computation) falls on the ninth year of Claudius? besides these men are not ware how great mischief they do S. Peter, when they talk of his sitting as Bishop of Rome for full five and twenty years, who (according to Christ's command) ought to have traveled up and down and preached the Gospel in several places. And truly if (with other Histories) we compare those places which are found in sacred Scripture, we shall find that those later Writers who questioned S. Peter's ever being at Rome at all, had some show of Reason for their conjecture. But because this may seem somewhat difficult to prove by reason of the general consent of Ancient Writers, who affirm that he suffered Martyrdom at Rome in the last year of Nero, I shall easily assent unto that. But, that he was the first founder of the Church of Rome, and performed the Office of a Bishop there, this I positively affirm to be false. Thus far Gualterus. And this is confirmed 
He lived more than eight hundred years ago.  by a very Ancient and Learned Writer, viz. Haymo in Epist. ad Rom. Argum. A Corintho Civitate Metropoli Achaiae Regionis Scripsit Apostolus Paulus Romanis hanc Epistolam, quos non ipse, non Petrus, non Quilibet Apostolorum duodecim primum instruxit, sed quidam Judaeorum credentium, qui ab Hierosolymis Romam venientes (ubi Princeps Orbis residebat, cui erant ipsi Subjecti) fidem, quam apud Hierosolymam didicerunt, Romanis Evangelizaverunt: From the City Corinth the Metropolis of all Achaia the Apostle Paul writ this Epistle to the Romans, who were instructed in the Principles of Christianity neither by Paul himself, nor Peter, nor yet by any of the twelve Apostles, but some of the believing Jews, who came from Jerusalem to Rome (which was the seat of the Emperor, whose Subjects they were) and made known that Faith to the Romans which they had learned at Jerusalem.  
Soto is of opinion that when S. Paul sent his Epistle to Rome, They had not so much as heard of S. Peter's Vision at Joppa, (Act. 10.) which is an argument that he had not spent so much time there as some imagine. And truly I had rather persuade myself that S. Peter had not been there at all, before that time, than think he carried himself among them, as Calvin says he had done at Antioch, Petrus ita Judaizabat, ut Gentes cogeret in servitutem: & simul hoc quasi praejudicio derogaret Pauli Doctrinae. Non tenuit ergo modum; quia gratificandi majorem curam quam aedificandi habuit, magisque respexit quid Judaeis placeret, quam quid universo corpori expediret. Calv. ad Gal. 2. 11. Peter did so far comply with the Jews, that he had almost brought the Gentiles under the slavery of the Law: and likewise hereby gave so great offence to the Gentiles that it took off very much from the force and efficacy of S. Paul's Doctrine. So that herein he exceeded the bounds of his Commission, because he applied his care more in gratifying some few than in edifying the whole Church, and regarded more the pleasing of one part, the Jews, than the benefit and expedience of the whole Body. And again, ad verse 14. Ideo claudicationis arguitur quia nimis serviliter Judaeis obsequebatur, Calvin ad Gal. 2. 14. therefore S. Paul reproves him of unsteadiness and wavering in his opinion because he saw him so servilely compliant with the Jews. Paulo visus est (Petrus) reprehensione dignissimus. Nam suo facto corrumpebatur synceritas Evangelii, quasi opus haberet tutelis Mosaicis, Aret. ad Gal. 2. S. Paul thought it very necessary to rebuke him, because through his means the Gospel suffered very much in its credit and repute, as though it stood in need of the Mosaical observances to sustain it.  
At the best, when this Epistle was sent, we are sure there was not sufficient Authority at Rome to quell the Faction, or suppress those Impostors and false Teachers who were the Fomenters of it: But S Paul's own personal presence was needful to this effect, with the fullness of his Apostolical Endowments and the Gift of Miracles, as we shall show anon.  
In the mean while it will appear those little Arguments (as the Reconciler is pleased to undervalue them) collected out of Grotius and Catharinus are of so great force to the purpose for which they were produced, that all his little Cavils or Exceptions, upon examination will be of no moment to the contrary. His exceptions are these.  
1. That Exhortation. Mark them which cause Divisions and avoid them (Rom. 16. 17.) he says, is parallel to that in 2 Thess. 3. 6, 14. if any man obey not our word, note that man, withdraw yourselves from every Brother that walks disorderly. If this be all he can say, we shall grant it to him, and so does the learned Grotius; who makes the case exactly parallel; His words are these, Si Presbyterium ibi fuisset, jussisset eos excommunicari, plane quia Presbyterium non erat, jussit tales improbe viventes vitari, id est, familiarem eorum consuetudinem defugi, quod jus singulis Christianis competit, (Grot. ad 2 Thes. 3. 6.) If there had been Governors and a Jurisdiction settled there, he would have commanded to have been excommunicated (those who lived wickedly and disorderly:) But because as yet there were no such Governors or Jurisdiction, He only enjoins them to avoid familiar conversation with them, which is a right that belongs to all Christians.  
But, says our Reconciler, that there were then Church-Governors among the Thessalonians, is evident from chap. 5. 12, 13. why he did not name the Epistle, He knows best, but I can guests: perhaps he would have had us swallow it, that it was in the very same Epistle: But it is in that which we call the first Epistle, where the Apostle saith, we beseech you Brethren to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly for their work-sake. Here indeed it seems there was a Jurisdiction and Governors settled to execute it. But this Reconciler knows very well, that S. Paul's Epistles are not placed in our Bibles, in the same order they were written in; The Epistle which we call the first, was written after that, which goes, among us, for the second; The learned Grotius has given us his reasons for it, as well in his Preface upon 2 Thes. 1. as in another learned and judicious Treatise (in the first volume of his works) to which he refers his Reader. And 'tis worth our observation, That, writing to them when there were no Governors settled among them to oversee and correct emergent miscarriages, He makes use of his Apostolical Authority to oblige them to do as he should think fit to direct 
2 Thes. 3. 12, 14.  and Order. We command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that if any man obey not our word (of command) signify that Man by an Epistle, that according to the Character you shall give of him, I may decree what is fit to be done to him, (or what Discipline he ought to undergo:) In the interim (if his Offence be Scandalous) have no familiar conversation with him, that he may (if possible) be shamed into Reformation; But when there were Governors settled, the Apostle altars his style to them: 1 Thes. 5. 12, 13. after he had admonished the Disciples to have a special regard to those Spiritual Guides, and a high value for them; He treats them with great respect, when he puts them in mind of their Duty, Now we beseech you Brethren, warn them that are disorderly.  
But the Reconciler goes on with his exceptions and tells us, The same Apostle writing to Timothy concerning such who had a Form of Godliness but denied the power of it, writes certainly of Persons, who did as much deserve the Church's Censures as those he mentioned, Rom. 16. 17. (This Reconciler always has a reserve of kindness for such as make Divisions, and Dissensions in the Church) and Timothy says he, to whom he writes, had power to inflict those Censures, and yet he only saith unto him, from such turn away, The place is 2 Tim. 3. 5.  
But to this I reply. 1. That no doubt Timothy (after so long converse with this great Apostle) very well understood the several parts of his Duty; and the Apostle did not think fit to prescribe him particular Rules of Government, having charged him, in the General, in his former Epistle, chap. 5. 21. To proceed according to the merits of every cause that should be brought before him, and to do nothing with Partiality. 2. He speaks there of a dangerous sort of Impostors, which crept into Houses and had cunning enough to lead Captive silly Women; and such false Apostles as take sanctuary in great Families, the Church-Censures cannot always reach them: Timothy had not then the assistance of a Secular arm, and perhaps they were not to be restrained without it.  
3. The Apostle forseaw the Reign of those Impostors would be but short; and concluded it would be most prudent to let them alone to expose themselves to contempt and scorn, to their own ruin, and this is the importance of those words, (2 Tim. 3. 9) They shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as perhaps our Reconcilers' misadventure may be ere he be few months older. But this shall suffice for the vindication of Grotius his little Argument. The next Argument was that of Catharinus; it was but short indeed; and the Reconciler was too  to discern the force of it, 'twas taken from the Apostles expostulation, who art thou that judgest another man's Servant? Cum non sis Pastor, aut Dominus ejus; as Catharinus very truly and judiciously makes the sense of the Apostle; when thou art not his Lord or Bishop and hast no jurisdiction and command over him. This Argument saith our Reconciler is extremely frivolous; (which argues he does not understand it) for (saith he) if this be the import of the Apostles words, why dost thou judge another man's Servant, who art not his Pastor, than his own Master, to whom he stands, or falls, must be his Pastor; and therefore he must have a Pastor. But the Master there mentioned is so plainly God, that it is but lost time to prove it. Thus our Reconciler argues.  
But under favour he has ensnared himself in a Fallacy, which is called Ignoratio Elenchi; For the Assertion was this, that those Rules were given to private Persons; and the reason of that were because there was no Governors then settled among the Christians at Rome, and the proof of this was taken from a hint in Catharinus; why dost thou judge thy Brother? cum non sis Pastor aut Dominus ejus: He had no Bishop or Pastor to Govern him in Church-matters; and therefore the Apostle refers him to God's Tribunal.  
And now I hope the Argument will be clear to the understanding of our Reconciler, for thus it is framed; They that were accountable to none but God (in matters of Religion) They were under no Jurisdiction; they who were under no Jurisdiction had no Governors, and consequently these directions could not concern them, who were not then in Being, especially being a Provision for quietness, designed for want of them.  
And here it will not be impertinent to take notice of Aquinas his observation (in Prol.) That S. Paul wrote fourteen Epistles, whereof nine were to instruct the Church of the Gentiles, four to direct the Prelates and Governors of the Church, and one for the Instruction of the People of Israel. For the whole Doctrine concerns the Grace of Christ, which falls under a threefold consideration. One way, as it is in Christ the Head, and so it is commended to us in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Another way as it is in the Principal Members of the Body Mystical; and so it is commended in those Epistles which are directed to the Prelates. A third way as it is in the Mystical Body itself, which is the Church; and so it is commended in those Epistles, which were sent to the Gentiles, amongst which this to the Romans was one, and not directed to the Prelates of the Church, as Aquinas well observes.  
And it is further observable, That here are Rules given (and particularly in the 14th and 15th Chapters) which are inconsistent with the Governor's Duty; For (1.) He passeth by the Bishop's Office, and applies himself to the Disciples; and instead of giving order to the first to excommunicate the scandalous offenders, He requires the other to avoid them. (2.) He forbids judging, which had been an obstruction of Justice and Discipline, if there had been any Officers to execute and perform it. (3.) As he had done by the Women in another sense, so here he enjoins the Men silence, to keep their Faith, their Opinion and Knowledge to themselves; which in Bishops and Pastors was an obstructing of Edification.  
'Tis clear S. Paul sends them a Prohibition against Judging: but this we may be sure S. Paul would not have done against such as had Authority to Judge; whence it will follow, That he sent not this prohibition to Church-Governors, and from hence it will follow that there were none such amongst them, which was the thing undrtaken to be proved as was hinted by Catharinus.  
The Argument may be put into Form thus: Such as have a Jurisdiction and Divine Authority to Judge of Scandals, and Offences, those Persons the Apostle did not forbid to judge; the reason is because the holy Apostle doubtless would not supersede a Divine Authority, and obstruct the course of Justice and Reformation. But Governors (where they were duly settled) had a Jurisdiction and Divine Authority to judge of Scandals and Offences; Therefore the Apostle did not forbid them to Judge.  
Here are but two things to be made good, to clear the Argument from all possible objection. (1.) That there were among those Christians at Rome, many Misdemeanours, Scandals and Offences, matters fit for Inquisition and Censure. 2. That Church-Governors had Authority (where they were duly settled) to inquire into them and Censure them. The first is clearly proved from the Admonition of the Apostle, Rom. 16. 17. Mark them which cause Divisions and Offences and avoid, etc. Had there not been such Persons among them, they could neither have been observed nor avoided, Non quod condemnatione digna non agate, ne ipsum judices; he does not forbid judging upon this account, because he had done nothing worthy of Condemnation, as Bruno, and Oecumenius, Theophylact 
Infirmitas non ad corporis (imbecillitatem) sed ad animi superstitionem referenda. Bullinger ad Rom. 141. in margin; and so Hyperius and others.  and our Modern Commentators: And among the best of those weak ones the Apostle was so tender of, there were faults enough to be blamed: (1.) Ignorance of that Liberty wherewith Christ had made them free: (2.) Superstition in adhering so stiffly to the Ritual Law of Moses, and (3.) Usurpation of Authority to Censure and Condemn others who were better Christians than themselves.  
Here was matter enough for the Cognizance of a Court of Judicature: but Authority was wanting; there were no Governors established; for had there been such they had had power to judge; which is the second thing that is to be proved; And for this we can look no where but we may be furnished with Evidence, for what was the Power of the Keys given by Christ to his Apostles, but a Power to bind and lose, to Inquire and Judge. And having made Timothy Bishop of Ephesus, and set him to Govern there; He instructs him what to do in point of Judicature: 1 Tim. 5. 19, 20. Against an Elder receive not an Accusation but before two or three witnesses; them that sin (notoriously) rebuke before all, that others also may fear. He does the like by Titus whom he ordained Bishop of Crect: A man that is an Heretic, after the first and second Admonition reject. Tit. 3. 10. And was it not the Apostles own practice, 1 Cor. 5. 3, 4, 5. For I verily as absent in body, 
1 Cor. 5. 3, 4, 5.  but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this (Incestuous) Deed; In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my Spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such a one to Satan, for the destruction of the flesh, that his soul may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.— Do not ye judge them that are 
1 Cor. 5. 12.  within the Pale of the Church and your particular jurisdiction.  
C. Catharinus his Argument is not so 
Ipse Paulus contra mandatum facientes j●dicavit, & aliis judicandi tribuit facultatem Hierom. Ad Rom. 14. Tu quis, etc.  extremely frivolous as our Reconciler very rashly and ignorantly makes it. For he that has a Governor may give an account, and may be called to an account by him; and must stand or fall by his sentence, when he is accused before him, 1 Tim. 5. 19, 20. 1 Cor. 5. 13. 2 Cor. 2. 6, 8.  
But when there is no such Superior or Governor set over me by our Common Master; then I may justly expostulate with my Rash Censurer: 'Tis his right to Judge me who is Governor or Lord over me: Consider thy own business, for I am not under thy Jurisdiction (as Aretius hath it) Thou art a private Christian as well as myself; & Par in Parem non habet imperium, thou hast no command over me, No Tribunal to cite me to, no Authority to Judge me, Who art thou that judgest, etc. where thou art neither certain of the badness of his action; nor, of his intention: nor hast any Authority or Jurisdiction over him, to meddle with, or question any action of his whatsoever.  
A Paraphrase and Annotations. Anonymus.  
This was the very fault that was condemned here by this Apostle, that they Judged without Authority, and so David Dicson understands it, Iniquum est alienum servum sine vocatione à Deo judicare: 'Tis a wicked thing to judge another man's servant without a Call and Authority from God to do it; How darest thou challenge the right to thyself, when thou hast no Law of the Lord for it? Thou dost presume too much in usurping that which does not belong to thee, as our Synopsis has it out of Grotius and Tollet Aretius, a Learned Protestant shall conclude this Argument, who saith the same in effect with Grotius, upon Rom. 16. 17. Mark and avoid them; Because the Church then had no Ordinary Magistrate (by which he means Ecclesiastical as well as Civil Governor) Privatis ostendit viam quam sequantur: Therefore he shows private Persons what course they should take, which is the thing that was asserted by Dr. Womock, after Grotius.  
But has not this Reconciler taken a great deal of pains to make himself a transgressor, and does he not teach the People to arraign their Governors? And to give a good example for it, he sets himself up a Tribunal, and treats his Prince and Bishop as if they were his Servants and under his Jurisdiction. What saith S. James? He that speaketh evil of his Brother, and judgeth his Brother, speaketh evil of the Law, and Judgeth the Law; (so he does by consequence) but if thou judge the Law, thou art not a Doer of the Law, but a Judge. (Jam. 4. 11.) Now this Reconciler does directly speak evil of his Governors and the Law too, and does freely Judge and Condemn them both, and consequently he's not a Doer of the Law but a Judge. He should do well to learn what S. Paul says to his weak Brother's Censure. (Rom. 2. 21, 22.) Thou which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? Thou that Preachest a man should not steal dost thou steal? Thou that sayest a man should not commit Adultery, dost thou commit Adultery? Thou that sayest a man should not judge, dost thou judge? Thou that abhorrest Idols, dost thou commit Sacrilege? He robs his Governors of their Authority, which is Sacred, and usurps it to himself, for while he disputes so fiercely against judging in his superiors, he does not stick to judge them, to censure their Laws, and condemn their Innocent Impositions. If it be never Lawful for the Christian, of what degree or rank soever he be, to judge the Person whom God has received, to walk uncharitably towards his Brother (as he saith p. 72.) much less to carry himself thus towards his Superiors; why then does he so rashly and insolently judge his Governors? either he thinks God hath not received them, and then he walks uncharitably towards them; or else he believes God has received them; and then his judging of them (besides the incivility and sauciness of it) is unlawful by his own Rule; and so he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 like the Heretic (Tit. 3. 10.) condemned at his own Tribunal.  
But 'tis nothing with him to break his own Rules, we shall find him at it again in handling the next Argument, which the Dr. confesseth he had not the least hint of from any Author, but took it upon trust from the words of the Apostle. Hast thou Faith? have it to thyself before God. Rom. 14. 22. From which words the Doctor would infer, That there were no Governors then settled over the Christians who were at Rome; For had there been a Bishop there, it had been the duty of those under his charge in any matter of Hesitation, to have consulted him to resolve their Doubts and settle their persuasions. To this the Reconciler is pleased to answer by a double quere.  
1. Why may not he who hath Faith have it to himself, that is, forbear acting according to his full persuasion of his Liberty, or divulging his opinion to his Brother's prejudice, as well if he had twenty Bishops over him, as if he had none? (2.) Why might not S. Paul advise without consulting of his Bishop? I shall answer to his last quere first, to which I say,  
1. If S. Paul's advice might satisfy when they had it, yet it could not satisfy (before) when they had it not. But (2.) among Dissenting Persons there will be a thousand emergent Doubts and Scruples, which an Apostle can no more prevent or answer than he can foresee them at such a distance; which S. chrysostom 
1 Cor. 11. last.  thinks to be the Reason why the Apostle reserved the correcting of some things among the Corinthians till his coming to them.  
To the second quere the Dr. gave his resolution in the Verdict, p. 125. That Christian Liberty is a Spiritual Privilege, and seated in the Soul, and may be preserved there in silence.  
But what the Reconciler has said to this Argument is nothing to the purpose: He is again ensnared in the common Fallacy (Ignoratio Elenchi) but while the Dr. studied brevity he might be obscure 〈…〉 which the resolves to make amends.  
〈…〉 question is, whether there was 〈…〉 or Church-Governor a 〈…〉 Christians; Dr. Wo●● 〈…〉 none; and he 〈…〉 proved from that Text: for where there is such a Governor in any matter of doubt, 'Tis the Subject's Duty to apply himself to him for satisfaction; and 'tis equally the Bishop's Duty to give it him, 
* Id not and 'em adversus eos, qui suo torpori hunc Apostoli Locum obtendunt, quasi fidei professio non requiratur. Beza ad Locum.  For certainly he is not set over his Flock to keep his finger in his mouth, or (which is all one) to keep his Faith to himself; his duty is to teach, 2 Tim. 2. 15. Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth, who then is that faithful and wise Steward, whom his Lord shall make Ruler over his Household, to give them their Portion of meat in due season? Luke 12. 42. and what is that Portion of Meat but the which is most proper for the present concern and interest of their souls? and does not he feed their hunger, in a Spiritual sense, who resolves their Doubt? and who does this so much belong to as to the Bishop? No says our Reconciler, These cautions, or advices are not only for private persons, but for Bishops and Governors, and much more for them than for Private Persons; Hast thou 
Rom. 14. 22.  Faith? have it to thyself before God: (i. e.) take heed lest ye instruct the Ignorance of those under your Charge, or help their infirmities, or make them to understand what they are to do in doubtful cases. This is our Reconcilers' Doctrine, but point blank against the Apostles Doctrine and Practice. (1.) Against his Doctrine, 1 Thes. 5. 14. where his charge to the Church-Governors is, Warn them that are disorderly, comfort the feeble minded, support the weak; which certainly is no otherwise to be done, but by resolving and removing their doubts and scruples. And this was the Apostles Practise two, if we may take his own Protestation for it. Acts 20. 27. For I have not shunned to declare unto you the whole Counsel of God; whereof doubtless the Truth and Privilege of Christian Liberty was a part.  
And now I hope the Reconciler will be able to understand the Drs. Argument drawn from those words of the Apostle, which may be framed after this manner,  
They who have a Divine Authority and command to resolve Doubts and settle Conscience about things indifferent, They are not forbidden by the Apostle to resolve and settle them; For than he should take them off from their Duty and obstruct Edification.  
But Church-Governors have a Divine Authority to resolve doubts, and settle Conscience about things indifferent;  
Therefore Church Governors are not forbidden by the Apostle to resolve and settle them.  
To argue the case a little further, let 
Si Episcopus taceat & alii per eos seductores corrumpantur, ipse gravem redditurus est Corruptionis rationem, si non possi os obturare, ne sis Episcopus. Theoph apud Joan. Crocium ad Tit. 1. 11.  us descant upon the expostulation and advice upon it; Hast thou Faith? Keep it to thyself. If this be a direction to Pastors and Teachers, who has any Authority to reduce a Schismatic from the error of his ways, or reconcile a Heretic to the Church?  
This his interpretation of that Chap. and Text, takes off all obligation from Bishops and Governors to attempt the Recovering of a Roman-Catholick; Nay it makes the attempt unlawful. For thus in Conscience according to our Reconcilers' Principles, he must argue with himself; 
☞ There could have been no conversion of the Jews from the Law of Moses to the Gospel of Christ; if it had been the Duty of the Apostles, etc. to keep their Faith (of those matters) to themselves.  This man is under the jurisdiction of the Church of Rome, and he is persuaded in his mind, that the Laws and Customs of that Church are in force against him, and that he is under an obligation to observe them: For me to go about to teach him otherwise, and reprove his practices, this would grieve him, and I should walk uncharitably towards him in so doing; yea verily, I should put a stumbling-block in his way, and tempt him to forbear that practice against his Conscience; and in so doing I should sin against Christ, and destroy a Brother for whom Christ died. This I ought not to do, and though I be otherwise persuaded in my own Judgement, and ordained and put in trust to teach the Gospel, yet I must herein follow the advice of the Apostle: Hast thou Faith? have it to thyself before God. I will therefore accordingly resolve to keep my Faith and Opinion to myself and not disturb a weak Brother: and so the poor man must perish (if God be not the more merciful unto him) in his Error and Superstition.  
Whereas the good Pastor does otherwise; He tells him, Sir you live in a dangerous Error; and though the times you observe and the meats you eat be very indifferent in themselves, yet your practice in the use of them is very Superstitious, contrary to the Laws and Privileges of the Gospel, and the practice of Christ and his Apostles. I pray Sir, be you better advised, and hearken to the Holy Scriptures, that you may recover yourself out of the power of Satan, who by the crafty insinuations of bad instruments has taken you Captive in the snare of Superstition.  
Thus a Conscientious Prelate would behave himself; but our Reconciler, has taught himself a more saving Doctrine to serve his Interest in times of Danger. And doubtless the man would make a very Prudential Governor in a juncture of some difficulty; For if a Demure Faction should ferment in his Neighbourhood, and swell up into a Sedition for Conscience sake, if he did not understand, comply, and cunningly encourage it, he would at least wisely shut his mouth, and (to be sure) not utter a word to check the wicked practice; and he would have the confidence to say, that he learned this Doctrine of Neutrality the Apostle.  
But, if he learned it there, why did he not practise it? If he thought the sign of the Cross, or the use of the Surplice, or kneeling at the Sacrament inexpedient and burdensome, and the imposition of them more than the Authority of his Superiors could justify, why did he not follow his own Rule and keep his faith to himself? 'Tis a wise man's advice, (Eccles. 19 10.) If thou hast heard a word, let it die with thee, and be bold, it will not burst thee. The advice is as wise for an Opinion as for a Word; and if his opinion had died with him, the Funeral would not have been so chargeable to him as the Christening of it. When he was fishing for Objections in Rom. 14. If he had but read to the end of the Chapter, he might have met with something that concerns him (in verse 22.) Happy is he who condemneth not himself in doing that thing (to the Affront and Scandal of the Laws and his Superiors,) which he alloweth, (lawful to be left undone.)  
I have now, I hope, sufficiently made good, those little Arguments, which were produced by Dr. Womock to prove that there was not settled jurisdiction at Rome amongst the Christians, nor any Church-Governors to execute such a jurisdiction when S. Paul wrought that Epistle.  
But to follow the steps of our Reconciler, He says secondly, had there been then no Church-Governors in the whole Church of Rome, had they been destitute of any Ministers for public Worship this will not in the least abate the strength of what we argue hence, unless the Dr. dares assert that the Church-Governors were not as much concerned in the Reason here laid down, as were the Common People; that is, that they were not obliged to receive the weak in Faith, v. 1. and being strong to bear the infirmities of the weak, Chap. 15. 1. that they might judge another man's servant, v. 4. that they might put a stumbling-block, or an occasion to fall in their Brother's way, v. 13. That they might walk uncharitably, might grieve, and even destroy him with their meat for whom Christ died, v. 15. that they might let their good be evil spoken of, v. 16. and might for meat destroy the work of God. And that 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 offended, or is made weak; yet may Church-Governors impose such things, although God hath declared that their power is only for Edification, and not for Destruction, (2 Cor. 13. 10.) What therefore do men gain by saying, These Precepts were directed to private Persons, and not to Church-Governors; since it is certain that they do more especially concern them, whose work it is to build up souls, and exercise the greatest charity towards them, than any private Persons in the world. Add to this lastly, That S. Paul was certainly a Church-Governor who had as much power as any of his Successors in these matters; and yet he was so far from varying from these Rules that chief he confirms them from his own example. Thus our Reconciler.  
In order to a full Answer of this plausible Harangue, I must take notice of his Paralogisms, as the Logician calls them, 
* Hi paralogismi Seductorum nascuntur vel ex malitiâ, vel ex inscitiâ. Ex malitiâ, cum veritatem agnitam oppugnant homines improbi, vel ut sibi gloriam & utilitatem quaerant vel ut veris Doctoribus molestiam & invidiam creent. Alii, ex inscitia suâ nam & ipsorum animi irretiti sunt iisdem Laqueis, quibus ●liis irretire ●onantur, Davenant ad Coloss. 24.  either he deceives himself by his false reasonings or else he studies to impose upon the weakness of his Reader by them; and that is very frequent with him. We have one Instance here; Dr. Womock concludes that those cautions in Rom. 14. Viz. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? hast thou Faith? have it to thyself: were not directed to the Church-Governors at Rome; because there were (as yet) none settled there: Then saith our Reconciler, Church-Governors are not obliged to bear the infirmities of the weak, but may walk uncharitably towards them, may put stumbling-blocks in their way, and may destroy them: which is a plain nonsequitur, and Fallacia consequentis; he may as well infer from thence, that if I shall say the History of Bell and the Dragon doth not concern us, that then we are left at liberty to worship them. The inference is just as good as the Reconcilers. What our Saviour said to the Jews, (John 7. 22.) Moses therefore gave you Circumcision, not because it is of Moses but of the Fathers; so I may say S. Paul gave us those injunctions [not to despise our Brother; not to put a stumbling-block in his way, not to walk uncharitably towards him] not because they were of S. Paul, but of the Fathers; they were Duties in force long afore S. Paul's time, and had obliged us tho there had never been such an Epistle wrote to the Christians at Rome nor any such feuds about things Indifferent, to occasion it.  
And now I grant him, that it is the work of Church-Governors to build up Souls, and to that end, They are to exercise the greatest Charity in the World towards them. But withal I must take leave to re-mind him of the very true and useful observation of my Lord Keepers in his Lordship's excellent Speech to Mr. Serjeant Saunders, etc.  
Sometimes (says his Lordship) a Private man is commended for Qualities which in a Magistrate would be faults. A private Man is praised for showing Humility and Deference to others in his Conversation and passing by Indignities. But a Judge must take greatness upon him; He must Consider he represents the King's Person in his seat of Justice; He must therefore be very careful to preserve the Dignity that belongs to it. He must have Passions but not of a private Man, that may Disturb his Judgement, but he must assume Passion to set off his severity, when the greatness of the Crime requires it, but it must be done so, as it may appear that his Judgement governs his Passion, and direct it against the offence, and not against the Person.  
Governor's may set in order what they find Defective or Irregular in God's Church, and prescribe such things as make for Decency in Gods Public and solemn Worship, and these things they may Impose; For that they should do so, is the Apostles Injunction and Gods Command. And for such as will not obey, they may use Sharpness, after S. Paul's Example to reduce them to obedience.  
For this Power the Lord hath given them to Edification (without the word [only] which the Reconciler has foisted into the Text. 2 Cor. 13. 10. Indeed the Apostle adds [and not unto Destruction] because the power of the Gospel Ministry is properly, of itself, and its own nature for Edification; 'tis the power of God unto salvation, (Rom. 1. 16.) But we are to take notice, that Church-Governors have a Rod too, a power to inflict punishment, for the destruction of the flesh, (1 Cor. 5. 5.) and all the works of the flesh likewise, amongst which are Heresy and 
a 1 Cor. 33. & 4. Gal. 5. 19, 20.  Schism, and so is Pride and Self-conceit, which swell and puff men up against their Governors and the Law of Christ; which the Apostolical Power was therefore designed to take down. 
b 2 Cor. 10. 4. & 5.   
There is Destruction in Order to Edification. The rubbish of Error and false Principles must be removed to make way, to lay in and build on better. And this is the Bishop's great business, to take care that the Enemy steals not in to sow his Tares, that well-meaning souls be not seduced, by false Teachers, into ill Principles: But diligently built up in their most holy Faith and the Doctrine which is according to Godliness. And the exercise of this power, in the very severest part of it, is designed for the Edification of the whole Church, and ultimately tends to the salvation of the most profligate Delinquent that suffers under it. Tanti sacit Apostolus aedificationem, 
1 Cor. 5. 4, 5.  ut omnia, ad hanc tanquam scopum 
ad 2 Cor. 13. 10. verse 8. & Gal. 2. 14.  primarium dirigat, saith Aretius, The primary scope of all his Dispensations was Edification, for we can do nothing against the truth; but for the truth; and the sincere truth of the Gospel, that is, the solid Edification.  
But the Apostle had a twofold way to deal with sinners, as that learned man observes; some he reform by instruction, (i. e.) he laid open to them the Nature, the Gild and heinousness of their sin, and reasoned them into a better course of life which they followed upon his admonition. But others, who were more obstinate, the Apostle handled with more severity; The incestuous person he did Excommunicate, Elimas' the Sorcerer he struck with blindness, some he delivered up to Satan, and some he restrained by other means of Discipline. And that was the Apostolical severity which he threatens to use among the Corinthians, where he tells them he will not spare 
e 2 Cor. 13. 2.  unless they correct their manners.  
And this course of Discipline ought to continue still, saith he, where the 
Ad 2 Cor. 13. 2.  Church of Christ is well established. For all the Members of the Church are not sick of the same disease. Nor does a good Physician undertake to cure all Persons with the same Medicine; but in some cases he uses more mild and gentle Remedies, in others more sharp ones, searing, scarifying, amputation; because the Diseases are grievous and the Bodies of such Patients cannot be cured otherwise. And Hemmingius, upon 
Ad Cor. 13. 2.  those words of the Apostle, 2 Cor. 13. 2. [If I come I will not spare] makes this Comment; Hoc severitatis exemplum Ministri verbi piè & prudenter in aedificationem imitentur. Let the Ministers of the Gospel imitate this example piously and prudently to edification. And let it be observed, saith he, that the severer Jurisdiction or Church-Discipline concerns the Edification of the whole Church, and of them who are particularly chastised. And the Governors of the Church are armed with this Power, tum ad puniendum, tum ad salvandum, as well to punish as to save; and for punishment in order to their salvation. And if any destruction happens (besides that which ought to be destroyed in such as unruly) est hoc ex accident, This is but by accident as Sclater hath 
ad 2 Cor, 13. 8. & 10.  observed. 2 Cor. 2. 16. And let us take this into consideration too, that it is at the Governor's discretion to use this Discipline, according as he shall find the Temper and Disposition of the Subject, 1 Cor. 4. 21. What will ye, shall I come unto you with a Rod, or in Love, and in the spirit of meekness?  
But you'll say, are not the Governors of the Church obliged to receive the weak in the Faith? Rom. 14. 1. yes very highly obliged, in S. Paul's sense, as becomes their Place and Office. Receive him that is weak, that is, instituite, & favete donec proficiat, saith Bullinger, take him into your tuition, instruct and cherish him, till he be a good proficicient in the School of Christ, This is the Charity and Care of Church-Governors, and ours are ready to perform it (I dare say for them) with all their heart, if our weak Brethren would hearken to it. And being pious as well as strong, They are willing also to bear their Infirmities; and not only to bear with them, which is the part of every private Christian; but to heal them, which is the part of every good Physician: To bear them as our blessed Saviour bore our sins; not so as to take them upon his shoulders only, but to bear and carry them quite away; and this is their Labour of Love and work of Charity: But they cannot do this in effect (no more could our Lord himself) unless the People be willing to part with them.  
But, who art thou that judgest another man's Servant, saith our Apostle? and may a Church-Governor do this? Why not? He is in Authority, and doubtless he may Judge, where God hath called him to that Office, and given him a jurisdiction for it. Nay, I say he must do it; for what saith the Lord to his Prophet? Jer. 15. 19 If thou take forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth. This is that the Lord requires of a good Governor, Nempè ut condemnet libere quicquid vitiosum est, & fortiter defendat quod rectum est, etiamsi totus mundus repugnet, saith Calvin upon the place; That he freely condemn whatsoever is vicious, and as stoutly defend what is right and just, though the whole World should oppose it. And what shall we say of S. Paul's Charge to Timothy, (1 Tim. 5. 19, 20.) and to Titus, (Tit. 3. 9, 10.) and what shall we say to his own practice, (1 Cor. 5. 3, 12, 13.) of which we have given account already.  
They may not despise or set at nought a Weak Brother; but I hope, being invested with a just Authority, you will allow them to reprove and upbraid such as are wilfully ignorant, upon a supine Carelessness or something worse. Upon such an account sure they may say with the Royal Prophet, Psal. 94. 8. O ye fools, when will ye understand? and have they not our Lord's example to say to such, O fools and slow of heart to believe! and they have the great Apostles practice I am sure to bear them out, if they should say to such as trouble and disturb the Peace of the Church. O 
Gal. 3. 1.  foolish Dissenters, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth!  
But so far are they from putting a stumbling-block or an occasion to fall in their Brother's way; that they endeavour to put him into the right way, wherein (if he has eyes in his head, and will follow their Direction) he shall be sure not to stumble. But when our Superiors they have made the way plain and smooth, and easy, according to the truth of the Gospel. If such as this Reconciler shall throw in their Rubbish and Stones of offence to obstruct it, and then these Brethren will dash their foot willingly against it and stumble at it, Their Fall is wilful, and they must thank themselves for the hurt they take by it.  
I deny not but Governors in some sense, are concerned to please the Subjects: But a man may please others both to his own, and to their destruction (as Theod. ad Rom. 15. 1.) I must not gratify him in his Schism and Sedition to please him; for that would betray him to damnation. I must please him only to his good, to his edification, in the obedience of the Gospel, that he may be saved, to this end it may be a Governor's Duty to grieve him. 2 Cor. 2. 2: for there is a godly sorrow, which worketh repentance unto salvation not to be repent of. (2 Cor. 7. 10.) And he that can bring a soul to this, though his methods may seem severe, yet among wise and sober Christians his Discipline as well as his Liberty will be well spoken of.  
When he tells us of destroying him with our meat for whom Christ died, that (to return him some of those Givilities which he bestows on his Meisner) is but one of his repeated fooleries; for it can concern no man but a Jew, or a Jews fellow (in whose account some meats and drinks are still common and unclean;) and this Reconciler does acknowledge (p. 74, 75.) that now the Apostles instructions of forbearance are out of date as to them, their stubbornness having cut them off from all Title to our Charity in that kind. And for the roman-catholics, though they abstain sometimes from such and such meats, yet they profess they do it, Non quod conscientiam polluant suâ immundity, sed inobedientiâ. (Conte ad Rom. 14. And therefore when we eat with them we see they are in no more danger to be destroyed by our liberty than (we are upon the account of their forbearance.) And thus it was among the Christians in Theodoret's 
* He consuetudo in hunc usque diem mansit in Ecclesiis, & haec quidem abstinentia amplectituri; ille vero omnibus esculentis absque ullo scrupulo vescitur, & nec hic illum judicat, nec ille alterum reprehendit, sed eos claros & insignes reddit Lex Concordiae. Theod. ad Rom. 14. Lat. ver. Parisiis 1608.  time. See the Margin.  
If that would serve his turn, we readily grant, that S. Paul was most certainly an excellent Church-Governor, and had as much power as any of his Successors in Church-matters and we will allow him something more: but did he never vary his Rules, and shift his Battery according to the condition of the Persons whom he attempted to subdue to the obedience of the Gospel? He did sometimes condescend, when it was Prudence and Charity so to do: but when out of weakness he perceived men became Headstrong, when from tenderness they grew restive and obstinate, than he became resolute and positive.  
He was a notable Orator as S. Chrysost. observes of him; and used all the innocent 
Haec autem dicit ut eos anticipet blandiendo ut laudum Cupidine capti tales praestare se studeant ut digni possint haberi quos & efferant omnes & Laudibus prosequantur: Inter. (Theophilact add Rom. 15. 29.)  Arts of Rhetoric to insinuate and gain upon the people; and many times he used Hyperboles vehemency and excesses of expression, that his persuasion might be the more powerful and make the deeper impression;  
Such is that to the Galathians, for I bear you record, that if it had been possible; 
Gal. 4. 15.  ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me. And such is that to the Thessalonians, So being 
1 Thes. 2. 8.  affectionately desirous of you, we were willing to have imparted unto you, not the Gospel of God only but also our own souls, because ye were dear unto us. Such is that 
1 Cor. 8. 13.  to the Corinthians. Wherefore if meat make my Brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my Brother to offend. And of the same 
1 Cor. 9 19, 20, 21, 22.  kind is that. For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant to all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews, I became as a Jew that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the Law as under the Law, that I might gain them that are under the Law: To them that are without the Law as without Law (being not without Law to God, but under the Law to Christ) that I might gain them that are without Law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.  
Here was great truth and sincerity in these Condescensions, but we must understand these pro hic & nunc. When he had to deal with a Jew apart he treated him with all possible lenity and sweetness, and Christian compliance, and so he did by the Gentile when he had him by himself, but this was by way of Dispensation to draw them in to embrace the Gospel: But when the Jew and Gentile came together, these methods of compliance were useless and unpracticable; we have the very Case reported by S. Paul himself upon the congress of the Jew and Gentil Christian at Antioch, where the Apostle was not, nay he could not be so compleasant as to be all things to all men; He withstood S. Peter to the face, etc. Gal. 2. 11, 12, 13, 14.  
And thus a man may carry himself toward Dissenting Parties; he may privately Coax and Flatter a Dissenter in his errors and comply with his weakness, thinking by that means to endear him and win upon him; and on the other side he may applaud the Practice of the Conformist, and encourage him in his Conformity to confirm him and make him the more steadfast: But when the Dissenting Parties come together, he is in the condition of a man that serves two Masters, Mat. 6. 24. he will hold to the one and despise the other, or Trimmer-like his moderation will be taken for Neutrality and perhaps both practices will take him for an Hypocrite, and he will be equally scandalous to them both.  
And this is commonly the Fate of unadvised Reconcilers. For we must come to a point before we can come to any settlement, whereupon (as was observed by Dr. Womoch in his Verdict. p. 114.) Instead of a prudential expedient (which in this case was impossible) S. Paul withstood S. Peter to the Face, etc.  
But let us proceed with the Reconciler who calls upon us thus: secondly observe, etc. p. 72.  
That this as well as other Scriptures being written for our learning, in cases of like nature, must oblige all other Pastors and Rulers of Christ's Church, as well as those of Rome; for the arguments which the Apostle useth here, are of a moral and perpetual obligation, it being never lawful for the Christian, of what degree, or rank soever he may be, to judge, and to despise the Person Whom God hath received, to walk uncharitably towards his Brother, or to destroy him with his meat for whom Christ died, or to put a stumbling-block, or an occasion to fall in his Brother's way. But on the other hand; 'tis the perpetual Duty of the highest Christians to follow after the things which make for peace, and whereby they may edify one another.  
Here we observe a second part to the same Tune; judging and despising persons whom God hath received; (which we shall consider more fully presently) walking uncharitably, destroying him with our meat for whom Christ died; as if he set himself up to be an Advocate for a Sect of Superstitious Jews, who both killed the Lord their King (of whom they have been both the betrayers and Murderers) and their own Prophets, and have persecuted and chased out us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men, (1 Thes. 2. 15.) For his stumbling-blocks (which he is ever laying in our way) and his charitably walking and his things that make for peace, we shall fully consider them before we part.  
In the interim, we shall grant him, that this as well as other Scriptures being written for our Leraning, in cases of like nature (if any such can happen) must oblige all other Pastors and Rulers of Christ's Church, as well I will add, yea and as much) as those at Rome (if there had been any such when S. Paul wrote this Epistle.)  
But if all Scriptures be written for our Learning, in cases of like nature; why do you not practise them equally all alike? We have those two Tribes building their Altar, a symbolical protestation of their Faith and Affiance in God of their Communion with his Church, and their Interest in his public Worship and Service; you have also in these Scriptures, the report of daniel's opening his Windows upon the same account, and to the very same purpose; and we find Lyserus, Lavator, Calvin, our Synopsis (and who not, that have considered the thing among our Protestant Divines) do make the sign of the Cross (in use among all Christians) a Parallel Case with those, a symbolical protestation of our Christianity, of our Faith and Affiance in Christ Crucified, of Communion with God's Holy Catholic Church, and of our Interest in all the privileges of his public Worship and Service: and this Symbolical Protestation, is grounded upon the fundamental Article of Confession, which is of moral and perpetual obligation; why then is not this Reconciler as zealous a Champion for the use of that ancient Ceremony, as he is for matters of meat and drink, as he finds them in this present Scripture?  
But I must observe (2.) That the immediate Inference the Apostle makes from those words, All Scripture is written for our Learning (which have relation to Christ's Condescension to redeem and save us) Rom. 15. 3, 4. is this (ver. 7.) wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us, to the Glory of God.  
This (saith Hemmingius) is the general conclusion of all the matters or concernments, which the Apostle disputed of from the beginning of the fourteenth Chapter. And that we may understand our own, and take some measure of our Governor's Duty (as far as modesty and scripture will allow us,) Let us seriously Consider  
1. That Christ, though he died for all men, yet he received none into actual Communion with him, but such as were willing to be received.  
2. He received none, but upon terms of his own and not of their proposing.  
3. He received none but upon condition of obedience to his Laws, and Institutions; whereof Government in Church and State is undoubtedly one.  
4. He received none but to the glory of God. Now to all such the Arms of our Governors are opened, and they are most ready to receive them. But such as must make their own Conditions, and come in only upon their own Terms, and those terms of Division, Christ never received such, and we know the Jews were cut off upon that account: and therefore the Church cannot receive them to the glory of God, unless She should acknowledge him to be a God of Confusion and not of Peace and Order; To this purpose Erasmus paraphraseth the Text. (Rom. 15. 7.) Receive 
Synopsis ad locum.  him, so as it may redound to God's Glory, who is glorified among the Unbelievers by your Concord.  
This Reconciler, by the Scriptures written for our Learning understands the 14th. and 15th. Chapter to the Romans, which he makes the subject of his discourse (pag. 67.) though he takes no notice of several remarks, which the Verdict has thereon, and he should have done well to have taught the people, what bitter animosities, and sad confusions did arise amongst them, for want of good Laws, and Rules to direct the Professors of Christianity, and of Authority and Governors to awe them into a due obedience.  
For the Convert-Jews would by all means observe Moses his Laws, and Institutions, even such as were purely Ritual and Ceremonial; and not content with an allowance to do it themselves, they would impose the practice upon all others; and because the Gentiles would not observe them, though reconciled to Christianity, they would not admit them to their Communion. On the other side the Gentil-Converts, being very well assured of the Liberty, which they had in Christ, whereby they were exempted from the Yoke of Moses' Law, (which was never designed to be put upon the Christians neck) they were no less earnest to exclude from their Communion such Jews as still addicted themselves to the Customs and Law of Moses. Hereupon arose a wretched Schism which wonderfully obstructed the progress of the Gospel amongst them in the very infancy of it. And wanting Church-Governors, with a secular Arm to assist them, nothing was able to extinguish their dissensions and bring them to a quiet settlement, till the fullness of Apostolical Authority with the power of Miracles should come among them, as shall be declared hereafter.  
But, our Reconciler tells us, 'tis the perpetual Duty of the highest Christians to follow after the things which make for Peace, and whereby they may edify one another. This we can easily grant him: but as Theodoret observes, the Apostle 
Ad Rom. 15. 4.  does not pray for their peace indefinitely and absolutely, but 'tis an honest and pious Consent and Concord that he wisheth them, according to the example of Jesus Christ. Has not God given us Guides, and are not we bound to follow peace after their direction and example? Have not they a command as well as a power 
Heb. 13. 7, 17.  to set things in Order? to make Decrees and Ordinances for the establishment of Peace and Unity? and are not these the means to promote Edification? Did not S. Paul himself carry about such Decrees to be kept of the Churches where he went? and were not those Churches established in the Faith thereupon, and increased in their numbers as well as in their piety by that means? Acts 16. 4, 5.  
These are truths that are evident of themselves, and owned by the Learned of all Persuasions, the Ordering and Appointment of honest and decent Rites, 
See the Verdict. p.  according to the word of God, makes much for the preservation of Discipline, and to strengthen the bond of Peace, saith David Rungius, and Calvin himself.  
Hereupon we find that the great Apostle made Ordinances of the like nature (which are called Traditions) and they were about things indifferent, of no absolute necessity, but only for decency, such as the Woman's Veil in public 
1 Cor. 11. 2.  Assemblies. And such as did observe those Ordinances he commends, but 
2 Thes. 3. 6, 14.  such as did neglect them he does severely censure. And though he was gentle as a Nurse to cherish his children in the Faith, yet did he exercise the Authority of a Father too, in charging and 
1 Thes. 2. 7, 11.  commanding them to observe his Discipline. And let this Reconciler or any of the Dissenters (whose Cause he Pleads) prove that ever the liberty of such Children was allowed either by Christ or his Apostles, to overtop or check the Authority of such a Father, and I will yield the Cause.  
In the mean while Dr. Womock keeps his Ground; viz. That this was only a Temporary provision to keep the Peace among private Christians: and hereupon the Reconciler requires him to prove that the things  (Rom. 14.) were only Temporary; and that Church-Governors are now at liberty to walk uncharitably towards the weak, and to destroy the work of God for meat and drink, and we are satisfied.  
Here we are called upon to prove two things; and I am afraid the last will prove him to be a Sophister. But we shall attempt to prove the first: That those things were only Temporary.  
'Tis the express affirmation of Aretius, 
Ad Rom. 15.  that these Roman Christians having no Ordinary Governor, the Apostle shows private men the way which they should walk in; as was observed formerly. And 
Ad Rom. 14. And Beza observes Apostolum non praecipere ut ejusmodl ignorantia foveatur, sed duntaxat ut tuleretur. tantisper dum isti possint erudiri. Ad Rom. 14. 2. When they became stubborn and indocible, They were rejected.  that the provision was but for a time is the express Doctrine of Hemmingius, Aliquid ad tempus Fratrum infirmitati largiendum est: Something is to be allowed for a time, to the infirmity of our Brethren: secus de obstinatis & pertinacibus judicandum est: but we must determine otherwise of the obstinate and stubborn. He speaks of weak Christians which he supposes to be in every particular Church in these days: but if care were duly taken to Catechise our Youth, and to instruct them in the Principles of 
Acts 13. 46.  Christianity, touching Authority and Liberty, according to the truth of the Gospel (as S. Paul calls it) this kind of Intellectual Rickets, and the weakness that follows it, would be perfectly corrected in our Minority, and we should never infest the Church with our frowardness upon that account. But my task is to prove that the Directions which the Apostle gives to those Christians at Rome, had a peculiar reference, (1.) To that present time. (2.) To some special things, and (3.) To that Critical Dispensation.  
(1.) To that present time; and he that will take the pains to consider the Case, can never be persuaded, that such cautions and directions as were given to Jews, or Gentil-Converts, in reference purely to those Federal Rites of the respective Institutions, to which they had so lately been accustomed; He I say, can never be convinced, that they do lay any obligation upon such as were bred up in Christianity from their Cradles. But that these cautions were calculated for that present time, we have reason to believe upon farther evidence.  
1. The Apostle in his great prudence was wont to make such Temporary 
1 Cor. 7. 26.  provisions; such was his advice about Virgins; I suppose, saith he, this is good for the present distress: not that Marriage was a more impure state of Life: but to avoid the difficulties and molestations of it. Single persons were in a better condition, more prompt and easy to grapple with Persecutions, which in those days did more frequently afflict the Professors of the Gospel.  
The Apostle has an eye to the like 
Rom. 12. 11.  difficulties among the Romans, and therefore he enjoins them to be fervent in Spirit, serving the season; For many Copies 
See Dr. Hammond his note on the place, and Dr. Stern Aphoris. de felicitate, §. 2. Aphor. 22.  read the Text so, and therefore Dr. Hammond doth thus Paraphrase the Text: Doing those things, that in respect of the Circumstances of time and place, wherein now you are, may most tend to the honour of God, and building up of the Church. And S. Ambrose descants very well upon the place, lest they should unseasonably press matters of Religion, in an evil time, whereby they might raise up Scandal: therefore he subjoins this caution, serving the time. The great matters of Faith and Religion, 
Ambros. ad Rom. 12.  he would have them discoursed of modestly, and discreetly, in a fit time, and in a convenient place, and among fit Persons. For there are some, esaith he, even among ourselves, in times of Peace, 
The Epist. for the 2d. Sunday after the Epiphany in the old Liturgy read it so.  who do so abhor the way of Christ, that they can no sooner hear, but they will Blaspheme it. And S. Paul himself made it his practice, sometimes to apply himself to the season, and to do that which otherwise he had no inclination to do. For he Circumcised Timothy unwillingly; and shaving his head he purified himself according to the Law, and went up to the Temple,  Judaeorum sopiret insaniam, that he might appease the Rage of the Jews. And what have we been doing these twenty years, but serving the time, by Clemency and Condescension to gratify an unsteady Faction, whom nothing can oblige. And no doubt S. Paul had an eye to the circumcumstance of time, and the difficulty as well as the inconveniency, of making a peremptory Order for them in this Case, when he wrote that Epistle, as shall be showed.  
2. I am induced to believe this was but a Temporary provision; because it was upon the account of Novices in the Faith, as all the Ancients do unanimously observe. 'Twas in Favour of such as had newly embraced the Gospel; wherefore he would not have the strong Christians (who understood the liberty of their Christianity) to entangle the weak by intricate disputations, which might provoke them unto Apostasy: but charitably to bear with them for a time: and that as a condescension, which argues not a Law and steadfast Constitution, but (as they call it) a Dispensation. 
* Ita Chrysostomus simula●ionem Petri saepius Dispensationem appellavit. ad Gal. 2. Theodoret. Theophilact. Ad Rom. 14.  Whereupon even where he solicits this Indulgence on their behalves (to prevent a Relapse) he blames their Ignorance (discovers the soft and tender part) and lays open the Sore, and gently drops in his Medicinal Wine and Oil. The observation is quick and very material, That while he seems to chide the strong (in the Faith) under pretence of that freedom of Speech to them, He turns all his Correption and Reproof upon the weak. For in calling them weak he declares them to be valetudinary; and when he bids the stronger Christians to receive, to help, and secure them, it argues he thought they stood in need of a Keeper and good Remedies; which is a certain Indication of a Distemper and a Mental Craziness: so far was the Apostle from encouraging them (as this Reconciler doth) to continue and become obstinate in their weakness; For though he would have them treated like Babes, while they were so: Yet he would not have them be Babes always: but to be men in understanding, and to put away childish things. 1 Cor. 3. 1. Heb. 5. 11, 12.  
3. If these directions given to the Christians at Rome, were not temporary; the Apostle contradicted his own Doctrine; for in settled Churches afterwards, He was so far from prescribing forbearance of Meats, or the observation 
Gal. 4. 10, 11. Chap. 5. 4. Col. 2. 8, 16, 21.  of Jewish Festivals, that he severely condemns them (yea as Superstitious, and destructive of Salvation) as this Reconciler does observe (when he finds occasion 
pag. 80.  to forget his own hypothesis.)  
4. That they were but Temporary is the Judgement of the Fathers, and the most Learned Modern Writers; The Verdict has mentioned Matthisius, Estius, our Synopsis, and Mr. Perkins, who saith expressly, that Commandment (Rom. 14. 22.) was given by Paul for those times when men were not fully persuaded of the use of God's Creatures, as meats and drinks, etc. But to these 
Cum enim perfectam fidem 〈◊〉 non haberet (infirmus) se e● rum Esu pollcredebat. Th● Ad Re●.  times it is not (given).  
(2.) I say the Apostles Directions had reference to some special things forbidden by the Law of Moses. (1.) For the difference among those Christians 
ad Rom. 14.  grew upon the account of a distinction betwixt things Clean and : (as the Apostle declares expressly (Rom. 14. 14,) and men's minds being framed to practise according to that Notion, they still disputed the Custom, when the distinction was taken away, not understanding fully the Privilege of the Gospel.  
2. The Ancients do restrain the matters in debate to the prohibitions of the Law: so Theophilact, seeing God 
Theoph. ad Rom. 14.  hath bestowed his ineffable Grace upon the Gentiles, why dost thou still contend with them about the Law? 'Tis manifest, saith S. Ambrose, that all things are clean through the grace of Christ, who freeing us from the yoke of the Law, hath restored the former 
Ambros. ad Rom. 14. Ca 48. P. Martyr.  state of Liberty: So that we are now in a capacity to use all creatures as the Saints of old were wont to do: But for such as are still in bondage under the Law, it is not Lawful for them to eat (or to do) what the Law forbids: Quia indulgentiam datam spernunt. Because they despise the privilege of the Gospel. His multitude of quotations is to little purpose, in this case rightly stated. For  
4. I dare be bold to say, that not one of the Ancient Fathers ever applied that discourse of the Apostle to the prejudice of Authority in ordaining Rites and matters of Decency in God's Service. Did not all the Fathers he alleges, Bow, Kneel, wear a Surplice, sign with the Cross? Yes, and would have spit in his face, that should have offered to dispute so general a practice of the whole Church. His quoting their Authority in this case is therefore trifling, and designed to impose upon the Reader, or else he is deluded himself by a Fanatic Zeal, and vain Imagination; And if old Father Gregory were alive he would make as sharp an Invective against him for this, as he did against Julian upon another account.  
And I have observed particularly 
Vide Epist. 119  that St. Austin, when he complains of the multitude and burden of Ceremonies, which were crept into some particular Churches, yet he never dreamed that St. Paul had condemned any of them by a Spirit of Prophecy in that Epistle to the Romans: Nay he saith plainly, that the forbidding of meats as unclean, was Heretical, and so declared and condemned by the Apostle. (1 Tim. 4.) which is directly contrary to the opinion and practice of those weak ones, whom the same Apostle favours (Rom. 14.) and therefore the Rules he lays down in that Chapter, can be no more than temporary, unless we will be so bold with the great Apostle as to make him forget and contradict himself.  
(4.) Let me put the Case home to our Reconciler and his beloved, the Dissenters; if they claim a title to the Apostles Indulgence (Rom. 14.) in their refusal, or forbearance of those things which are enjoined by Authority; Then they must look upon those things as common and unclean; for that is the very case the Apostle speaks to, (Rom. 14. 14.) If they esteem them unclean (which signifies nothing but unlawful) that must be either according to Moses' Law, or according to the Gospel: If they go according to Moses Law, they run into Judaisme and Superstition; and tempt God, as this Reconciler confesseth (p. 75.) and in effect, deny that Judaisme is abolished, and hath given place to Christianity; if they pretend to go by the Gospel, that very Gospel contradicts their pretence, as we learn by a voice from Heaven to S. Peter, Acts 10. 15. What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common (for persons were so esteemed by the Law as well as things) and by the resolution of S. Paul in this place, Rom. 14. 14. I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself.  
(5.) And I would have it considered, that we have no Rites or Observances in use among us, but what are taken up by the light of Nature, or purely upon the account of Christianity. They never had any Relation to the Institutions of the Heathen, as the meats offered to Idols, nor yet to the Levitical Covenant, as Swines-flesh, Circumcision, the Jewish Sacrifices, and Festivals had. Show me where St. Paul saith, one man regardeth a Surplice, the sign of the Cross, kneeling; another man regardeth them not: Do not Judge, do not grieve, do not offend a Brother for these things. He did not, he could not say any thing to this effect, of any of these 
1 Cor. 14. 26, Eph. 3. 14.  things; not of kneeling or bowing; for they are suggested to all mankind by the light of Nature, and were the Apostles 
1 Cor. 11. 5, 11.  own intimation, charge, and practice. The Surplice he determined in the Woman's Veil by a Parity of Reason; and for the sign of the Cross, 'tis so peculiarly related to Christianity, that it can never tempt any man to turn either Jew or Gentile (which was the great danger St. Paul so carefully provides against) and he hath given us a Reason for it; 
1 Cor. 1. 22.  in telling us, that Christ Crucified was unto the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness. To this I may add  
(6.) The general opinion of Commentators is, that the Apostle does not 
Anon. ad Rom. 14. not. 1.  speak here (Rom. 14.) of the weakness of a Brother in doing any thing unlawful; or that he should be tolerated by the strong therein.  
When the Apostle saith, let every man 
Rom. 14. 5.  abound in his own sense, (according to the vulgar Latin) or let him be fully persuaded 
Theod. ad Rom. 14. 5.  in his own mind, (as the English hath it,) Theodoret observes, that the Apostle did not speak this in general, nor may we be so free in our opinions or persuasions of God's Word and Ordinances, for he doth anathematise or 
Gal. 1. 8, 9  strike him with a Curse, who frames his mind to teach the things that are contrary to Divine Truth. And Gualther, 
Gualther. ad Roman. Homil. 80.  to the same sense, Quae palam contra Dei voluntatem fiunt, ea in proximo reprehendere, deque illis ex Dei verbo judicare licet: What is clearly contrary to the will of God, 'tis Lawful for a man to judge of that by the word of God, and to reprehend our Neighbour for it. Now certainly this is God's Ordinance, let every Soul be subject to the higher Powers; and this is the will of God, even our Submission and Obedience to such as 
Rom. 13. 1. Heb. 13. 7, 17.  God hath set over us. Wherefore unless the Apostle contradicts his own Doctrine, he cannot be supposed to deliver any thing in this case that may derogate from the just power of our Superiors: And let it be once proved, that the Apostle has set up Liberty above Authority, or in opposition to it, and I shall yield the Cause: but this is a challenge, which I dare say none of our Dissenters, No, nor the Reconciler himself, will have the hardiness to answer.  
3. I say, Those Directions of the Apostle 
Rom. 14.  had a special reference to that Critical Dispensation. I call it Critical; because it was something like that juncture of circumstances, which happened in St. Paul's Voyage to Rome; when they came to the place where two Seas met; except the Mariners (the Guides of the Vessel) did abide in the Ship, and submit to the Apostles prudent Steerage and Direction, They could not be saved.  
For that this Indulgence of the Apostle was in favour of the Jews, cannot be denied; and he had taken the advice of the College of Apostles and Elders in it, who tell him thus, Acts 21. 20. Thou seest Brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe, and they are all zealous of the Law. Now 
Exodus 19  the condition of the Jewish Church was this, The Religion established amongst them was of Divine Institution, and the Rites and Ceremonies thereof imposed with great severity, by a dreadful Majesty with an astonishing attendance; this they had been bred in and lived under, and were prepossessed with an opinion of the Sacredness and perpetual obligation of it. But out of this sprang a more refined Religion, introduced by the Ministry of the Son of God.  
Whether the introduction of this did abrogate or supersede the Authority of the other, was the thing in question. The prejudice the Jews had against the abrogation of it (for the Reasons now mentioned) was so great, that it was not easy to be conquered. The Apostle was sensible hereof, (for he lost his own Carnal eyes before he could discern 
Acts 9  a Reason for it) and he was smitten down to the Earth, that he might there bury those beggarly Elements of Judaisme (wherein he had been Disciplined and for which he was so fiercely Zealous) before he could learn humility enough to submit to the Voice and Gospel of the Messiah; and this made him so compassionate to his Brethren of Israel, whom he knew to lie under the like prepossession and prejudice.  
'Tis true, Moses' Law was out of date, de jure, upon the publication of 
John 1. 31. Heb. 10. 1.  the Gospel, and assoon as our Lord was made manifest unto Israel. For the Law was but a shadow of good things to come: the Body and the Sun was Christ, the 
Col. 2. 17. Rom. 10. 4.  end and the Accomplisher of the Law. De Jure therefore, the Law of Ceremonies was abolished: But yet till there was a clear promulgation hereof, the old Law retained its force and vigour among such as understood not that it was now void and of no effect. For though the Law ceases by a mere abrogation, yet the Subject cannot be free from his former obligation, till it does some way appear, that 'tis his Superiors will and that the former Law be presently revoked; which was not yet made manifest convincingly to all the Community of the Jewish Nation.  
And that which increased the difficulty, and confirmed, if not heightened the prejudices on both sides was this: The Jews, they received the gifts of the Holy 
Act. 2. Act. 10, 44, 45. and Chap. 11. 2. to 18.  Ghost under the observation of Moses' Law; the Gentiles did the like under the omission and neglect of it. Hereupon, why should we abandon our old Law, seeing God hath received us 
All this the Reconciler does acknowledge page. 74.  into favour, and attested it by the effusions of his Spirit on us, say the Jews? And why shall we abandon our Liberty and Privilege, say those Gentiles, seeing God hath done the like to us? This was the difference and dispute between them; and nothing but the Ministry of a Divine Authority, assisted by the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, (and agreeing in a Declaration to the same effect) and the power of Miracles, was able to bring them to Conformity, and unite them entirely into one Catholic Communion.  
This I call a Critical dispensation; and it can never be the Case of the Christian Church again, unless Elias should come a second time (as some do vainly dream) to make a farther Reformation; and then perhaps, S. Paul's Rules might be in season again, before the World could come to any settlement.  
How far is the Case of Dissenters wide of this? were they bred under any other Divine Law than that which we profess and practise? Have they any pretence to some other divine Institutions? Have they any divine prohibition against any thing the Church observes? Do we violate any Ordinance that is known to be prae-establisht by Divine Authority? why then do they take up the perverse or peevish practice of those Jews and run upon the same Rock of Judaisme and Superstition, as if they were called to it by a voice from Heaven, when they have not the like pretence for it? For either the Law of Moses is in force, or it is not: If they think it is in force, They may scruple at the eating of a black Pudding or touching the Corpse of their dearest friend deceased, or ploughing with an Ox and an Ass (which conjunction, in a Tropical sense, they never scruple at): If that Law be not in force at all, in their opinion, why do they plead, what S. Paul discourses upon the account of them who believed it was? If it concerns us at all, it must be either directly, or indirectly and by a parity of Reason. But (1.) not directly; because it relates to a Law, whereby things were distinguished into clean and unclean. (2.) Not indirectly or by a parity of Reason; because the like critical juncture of circumstances is never like to happen.  
Let them therefore set their hearts at rest. For those Rules of condescension and forbearance which the Apostle prescribed as a temporary provision to keep those private Christians quiet, under that Critical Dispensation, can never serve to justify their Separation, upon such groundless doubts, empty Scruples, and vain Imaginations.  
And now having made it clear to all 
Rom. 14. & 1●. Chapters.  impartial Readers, that the Apostle did not direct this his advice to Governors: but prescribed it only as a Temporary provision to keep the peace among private Christians: We must expect no Quarter from the Reconciler, but to be severely loaden with the reproach of an odious Inference. 'Tis not enough it seems to prove that the things there mentioned were only Temporary, but we are called to a fresh Task, to prove that Church-Governors are now at liberty to walk uncharitably towards the weak, and to destroy the work of God for meat and drink: Do this says he, very fairly, and we are satisfied.  
This any man would think a fair offer at the first hearing: but upon second thoughts, we find that by suppressing one of the premises he hides a sallacy: and herein he is either catched himself, and deceived in his own captious way of reasoning, and that betrays his want of Logic: or else he designs wittingly to impose upon the weakness or credulity of his Reader; and then he shows his want of honesty.  
If we put his Argument into Form for him, it must run thus: He that says, Those Rules  were but a Temporary Provision to keep the Peace among private Christians, he leaves Church-Governors at liberty to walk uncharitably towards the weak, and to destroy the work of God for meat and drink.  
But Dr. Womock says, Those Rules , were but a Temporary Provision to keep the Peace among private Christians, ergo Dr. Womock leaves Church-Governors etc.  
We must give him time to prove the major Proposition; and I believe he will take till Doomsday, and then he may have something else to answer for; His disturbing the peace of the Church, and encouraging an ungovernable Faction in their Schism and Sedition. But let us follow him.  
Dr. Womock saith from Catharinus, They were Rules to be received till the Apostles had made a perfect determination; and truly saith the Reconciler, if this were all, they were not to be observed at all. His Reason follows; For in this very Chapter he plainly saith, that the things scrupled by the weak were pure and lawful in themselves; and that he knew, and was persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there was nothing unclean of itself; which is as perfect, and full a determination of the Case, against the weak, as words can make.  
Let us take notice (1.) that we have here the Key put into our hands, by the Apostle himself, to open and unlock his meaning, and to give us the full account of his design; which was to indulge the Jewish Christians, who had been bred up under the Mosaical Dispensation; wherein days and meats were distinguished into such as were clean or unclean, common or holy; which cannot concern us who pretend to no such distinction in that Legal sense or of any Divine Authority. Having observed thus much,  
(2.) I answer. That the Apostle did declare his judgement in the Case, as to the matters in question de jure: but as to the use and practice of them at Rome, He did not as yet settle or determine them de facto, by his Apostolical Authority. But with us the case is otherwise; we have a Determination and Settlement against our pretended weak ones, both de jure and de facto too.  
For they know there is nothing the jure unclean, or unlawful among us, and that de Facto, Authority hath settled what they dispute against.  
That S. Paul has determined the Case de jure, we have his own concession; and that (elsewhere) he did state and settle it, de facto, he is forced to confess; and indeed his concessions are so full, when he comes to himself, that they are a perfect confutation of his whole Book, if a man would give himself the trouble or the leisure to collect them.  
That the Apostle did determine the Case de facto as to other Churches, are so full and clear, that we have no need of other evidence to prove it: The 
These Epistles were written after that to the Romans.  Apostle, saith he, doth in the Epistles to the Galathians and Colossians, speak severely against their observation of the Jewish Festivals. (p. 80.) And does he not condemn them for their superstitious abstaining from certain meats and drinks? Let no man judge you in meats and drinks: and let no man beguile you of your Reward through their vain traditions; touch not, taste not, handle 
Colos. 2. I●ridens & contemnens superstitiosam persuasionem in persona pseudapostolorum ait, Ne tetigeris quasi dicat, si secus audeas, eris immundus apud Deum, efficieris Damnationis reus. Hyper. ad Col. 2. Gal. 2.  not. And Gal. 4. 4. Ye observe days and months and times and years; I am afraid of you lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain. Was not the Apostle so earnest and positive herein, that he threatened the Dissenters as Disturbers of the Church, and tells them: That they should bear their judgement; and wisheth them cut off? Gal. 5. Did he not withstand St. Peter to the face; because he was to be blamed; and why? was it not because he did not walk uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel? and was not all this contest upon the account of the difference betwixt the Jew and Gentile Christians? was the Apostle thus positive, did he use such Menaces, did he give such warning in his Epistle to the Romans? If not; why does this Reconciler say, that if those Rules were but a provision till the Apostles had made a more perfect determination, than they were not to be observed at all: was not Ignorance and Superstition as dangerous to the Christians at Rome, as to those at Coloss and Galatia? Are they at Rome indulged to live therein always, when these at Coloss and Galatia are threatened, and in danger to fall from Grace, and be lost by it.  
But for the present, as the Gentile Converts had great assurance of their immunity from the Law of Moses, so those of the Jews were under great prejudices through their veneration for it: And the Impostors and false Teachers, (headed perhaps by Simon Magus who 
See Dr. Ham. Annotat. on the Title of the Epistle to the Romans, towards the end.  had the reputation of a God among the Romans) were so subtle and powerful with the Heathen Magistrate, that a peremptory order from the Apostle, (if such a one had been sent,) especially having no Governor to enforce it, in all probability, could have taken no effect. The Apostle therefore defers this great work (as he did the settling of some such matters in other Churches, 1 Cor. 11. last.) till his own coming with the fullness of Apostolical Power and the gift of Miracles, to encounter all the opposition of the Enemy.  
In the mean while having felt in himself such an experiment of mercy, for the things which he had done in his ignorance and unbelief, (1 Tim. 1. 13.) He was well persuaded, that the same Divine Goodness, which for a time prefers a mistaken Zeal before a deliberate 
Interea vero tamet si opinio quidem sit superstitiosa tamen observatio Deo non displicet, quando infirmus sapienter cavet, ne quid dubitante conscientia facere aggrediatur. Hyper. ad Rom. 15. in principio.  Profaneness, would be pleased to wink at that time of the Romans Ignorance and Superstition, till he should vouchsafe to afford a Dispensation sufficient to cure the Distempers which did afflict them. And to allay and be-calm their Animosities, he forbids all uncharitable altercations; and to prevent Apostasy from the Faith, he prescribes Lenitives, Condescension and gentle usage, lest they should be tempted to forsake the Profession of Christianity, through the asperity of severe Censures and spiteful provocations from their equals, and such as had no Authority to Govern them.  
This, I say, was a Temporary provisision: but he promises them a more perfect redress and settlement in a short time, and then he would determine and settle the Case and those differences de Facto, Rom. 16. 20. The God of Peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. By Satan here he means the false Apostles and Impostors (which were so great Instruments of Satan that he gives them his name) with the Factious and Turbulent Dissenters which were led by them, so Interpreters do generally unstand it: Non solum immittentes offendicula 
Oecum. Theod. Theophilact. Lap. ex Chryso. Bullinger.  conteret, sed & ipsumillorum Ducem, Satanam, Insidiatorum magistrum; Dissentiones vestras cum suo Principo: Nec eos modo qui dissidia moliuntur, sed horum etiam Praefectum & Ducem commoliatur: per Satanam intelligit omnem vim adversariam Christo & Evangelio ejus, sive sint Pseudapostoli; sive Tyranni: Thus seveveral Expositors comment upon the words.  
The History of those times tells us, that the Faction was so impetuous and turbulent, that Claudius in the ninth Year of his Reign, was provoked to put forth an Edict to banish them out of Rome, Claudius Judaeos impulsore Chresto 
Acts 18. 2.  assidue tumultuantes Româ expulit, saith Suetonius: and Josephus to the same purpose: Anno ejusdem imperatoris nono expulsos per Claudium Judaeos refert, and taking the Jews and Christians to be of the same Religion he banished them all together.  
There was little hopes therefore that the order of a Person at a distance, who had never been amongst them should be of any force to quell such Heads of the Faction or to remove their prejudices, so as to unite them in the same belief and practice, also t these matters; But the Apostle foretold and promised that this should be done shortly; and how was that?  
Shortly, Hoc de adventu suo dicit; He speaks this of his own coming to them, saith St. Ambrose: If a question should arise how this could be effected, when it was thought that his Letters were more prevalent than his personal presence? 2 Cor. 10. 10. This is answered by Interpreters, That God Almighty would assist him against the power of all Impostors, and Deceivers, (whom he calls Satan,) for the opposition they made against Christ and his Gospel;) And that at the Apostles coming among them, This Satan, this Adversary 
De la Cerda.  power should be conquered and laid prostrate under their feet.  
And this the Apostle might very well promise without boasting, upon the account of that power, which Christ did bestow upon his Apostles, a power to tread upon Serpents, and Scorpions and all the power of the Enemy (Luke 10.) And so Aretius saith (as the opinion of many Interpreters) Vbi ad vos venero, per gratiam Dei efficietur, ut iste Satan Impostor prodatur & confundatur, meâ praesentia conculcabitur: When I come unto you, by the Grace of God, it shall come to pass, that Satan that Impostor, shall be discovered and confounded, he shall be trodden under foot by my presence.  
For a proof of this, we have the Apostles own asseveration. Rom. 15. 29. And I am sure that when I come unto you, I shall come in the fullness of the blessing of the Gospel of Christ. This is an intimation of the abundant gifts of the Holy Ghost, whereby he should be enabled to confound the Ministers of Dissension, and confirm the true Disciples. Benedictio 
Ambrose.  autem haec signorum virtus est: per quam confirmati sunt, This blessing was the power of Miracles by which they were confirmed in the truth of the Gospel, St. Ambrose. Origen refers it to the gift of Prophesying, whereby S. Paul foretells his coming to Rome instructed with the most eminent gifts of the Holy Ghost. Acts 19 21. Audaciter autem promittere potuit se allaturum copiam Spiritualium 
Pet. Martyr.  bonorum, qui certo sciret sibi concessam esse Gratiam Apostolatus: quam apud eos non dubitabat fore frugiferam; saith Peter Martyr: He might confidently promise, that he should come attended with abundance of Spiritual Blessings: because he knew certainly that the Grace of the Apostleship was bestowed upon him: which he could not doubt but would be very fruitful and of great efficacy amongst them.  
And this he might very well be sure of, upon a double account; that is, both by experience, and by Revelation. (1.) His experience might well assure him hereof; For he was thus highly furnished in his administrations to other Churches: Thus he tells the Corinthians: Truly the signs of an Apostle 
2 Cor. 12. 12.  were wrought among you in all patience in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. And thus he expostulates with the Galathians: He therefore that Ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh Miracles among you, does he do it by the works of the Law, or by the hearing of Faith, or the holy Gospel? and to go no further than this very Epistle to the Romans, He tells them 
Rom. 15. 18, 19  thus, I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient by word and deed, through mighty signs, and wonders; by the Power of the spirit of God, so that from Jerusalem and round about to Illyricum, I have fully Preached the Gospel of Christ: After so great experience of this Divine Assistance he could not doubt of the like as long as he was engaged in the like service of the Gospel.  
And (2.) we may very well conclude 
Acts 19 21.  too, that he had this assurance by Revelation; for the Text says expressly. That he purposed by the Spirit to go to visit 
Acts 23. 11.  Rome, and the Lord appeared to him to encourage him to that effect, and hereupon he declares his power; and foretells the certain effect of it with so much 
Rom. 15. 29. Chap. 16. 20.  confidence: I am sure I shall come to you with the fullness of Evangelical Blessings: and thereupon the Lord shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. By this means the Apostle was sure, that the Church at Rome would be shortly rescued from those pestilent Impostors and Dissensions, which the event witnessed accordingly. Haymo is most full in it: I'll transcribe his words. Spiritu prophetico afflatus, talia cum securitate dicebat. Quum autem dicit, in abundantiâ benedictionis Christi veniam, tale est, quale & illud quod in exordio hujus Epistolae dixit, Desidero, (inquiens) venire ad vos, ut aliquid gratiae Spiritalis impertiar vobis, ad confirmandos vos. In abundantiâ benedictionis veniam plenitudine virtutum, ut meâ praedicatione quod minus habetis in fide, percipiatis ex virtute miraculorum, quae apud vos operabor, roboremini in eadem fide, ut majorem gratiam Christi in meo adventu percipere mereamini. Sic etenim fecit, quia veniens, quod illis deerat in fide, in charitate, & in caeteris rebus spiritalibus, suo adventu supplevit. Haymo above eight hundred years ago, does deliver this sense fully upon the Text, (Rom. 15.) Being inspired by a Prophetical Spirit, he delivered these things with great confidence. When he saith I shall come in the abundance of the blessing of Christ. He repeats what he had said in the beginning of his Epistle (chap. 1. 11.) for I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end you may be established. I will come unto you in the abundance of the benediction of the Gospel, that is, in the fullness of power and virtue, that what you have wanting in the Faith, by my Preaching you may receive it by the power of Miracles, which I will work among you, that ye may be confirmed in that Faith; that you may receive a greater measure of the grace of Christ at my coming. And this the Apostle did perform; for what was wanting in their Faith, in their Charity, and in other Spiritual Graces, He supplied it at his coming to them.  
The short is, the Apostle does declare his sense concerning those Ritual observances: but he sent no peremptory command, that they should presently walk up to the truth and privilege of the Gospel in the practice or forbearance of those things.  
1. Because there was no Bishop or Governor settled to enforce the observation of such a command, if it had been sent. And (2.) Because the opposition was so stiff, and the opposers so subtle and prevalent, that there was no likelihood that an order or command sent at a great distance from a person whom they had never seen, should take effect amongst them.  
Therefore he reserved the full determination & settlement of this difference 
Rom. 14. 1, 2, 3.  till his coming to them in the fullness of the Apostolical Authority, and the power of Miracles, which he made use of in the settlement of other Churches. In the mean while the most prudent provision he could make was (1.) To advise them to a 
Rom. 16. 17.  fair compliance with all Christian meekness and condescension; and to forbear contempt and rash judgement; And (2.) To avoid the pestilent Infusions of Impostors, by withdrawing from them. This justifies the sentiment of Grotius and the Verdict.  
The next place I find Dr. Womock concerned in, is at pag. 77. where the 
Rom. 14. 14.  Reconciler observes, That the Apostle here declares, that the eating of those things, which the weak Brother durst not eat, was a thing Lawful in itself, and that he was persuaded thus to judge by the Lord Jesus, and so the scandal which the weak Christian took at the freedom of the strong, who used his Christian Liberty in eating of these things, was scandalum acceptum non datum, scandal Received but not Given, the action being such as the weak Christian could not justly be offended at: And yet the Apostle plainly doth condemn both here and in the first to the Corinthians, verse 8. the ministering occasion to this scandal. And therefore though this Scandal which the Dissenters take at things indifferent enjoined by Superiors, be scandal received and not given, this doth not hinder but it may be the Duty of Superiors not to afford occasion to it, by the imposing of these things, etc.  
From which words of his, we see plainly, his quarrel is with his Superiors; and if they will not come to School to him to learn their Duty, they shall hear on't with both ears, and the people shall be acquainted with it to judge of their gross neglect. But of this we shall have a more fit occasion to discourse anon.  
At present, we are to observe, That though the Apostle did declare, that the things which the strong did eat, and the weak were offended at were lawful in themselves de jure; and that he was so persuaded by the Lord Jesus; yet he did not, de facto, presently determine the general use of them; because the weak ones were not as yet so well persuaded. This is the sense of all Commentators as well Ancient as Modern.  
The Gentil Christians lived with 
Ad Rom. 14.  great freedom, saith Pet. Martyr, as a People not tied to the Laws of Moses: They understood those Ceremonies of Hellenisme (as he calls it) to be vain and out of date: But the Jews, who knew the Law to be given by God himself, they could not presently be persuaded that it was to be abolished. Wherefore they demurred upon it, and would not easily suffer themselves to be drawn from the observation of it. And therefore they abstained from meats forbidden by the Law (among which were things Offered to Idols. Exod. 34. 15. which therefore does not vary the Case at all) and observed the Jewish Festivals. All which practices, shown them to be still weak in the Faith. For they are the weak in Faith, who do not understand the use of things indifferent, saith 
Conciliat. Con. 885. Pusilli habend● sunt illi, qui non sunt sufficienter instituti circa libertatem ●ostram.  Joan. Thaddaeus.  
Now, though the Law of Moses was abrogated and consequently, the things prohibited by that Law were purified from their uncleanness, that is, were become lawful de jure, yet God had not 
Amesius Cas. Consc. l. 5. c. 11. an. 14.  then clearly and authentically promulged the Abrogation of it de facto, among these Christians at Rome; and therefore the eating such meats and keeping such Festivals, by them that knew their own Liberty was a scandal given to such as 
Illorum infirmitatem tum acriter taxabant tum irridebant. P. Martyr.  knew it not, especially if they were sensible of their ignorance and yet did wittingly and willingly deride and affront them for their weakness, as is believed they did.  
But admit that had been a scandal taken and not given; yet the Reconcilers [and therefore though] is perfect Non sequitur, unless his skill will serve him to draw quidlibet ex quolibet, what he list out of every thing, or out of nothing, and can make the Cart to drag the Horses after it. For there is a vast disparity betwixt that Case of those Jews, and this of our Dissenters. And Amesius himself 
Cas. Cons. l. 5. c. 11. n. 17.  does acknowledge it; Non est tale periculum scandali (saith he) in humanis inventis negligendis quale Apostolus fuisse olim tradit in ceremoniis legis negligendis. Nulla enim conscientia talis potest haberi de inventis hominum, qualem Judaei habebant de institutis Dei: There is no such danger in neglecting Humane inventions, as the Apostle tells us there was of old in neglecting the Ceremonies of the Law. For there can be no such Reckoning or Conscience made of Human Inventions, as the Jews made of Divine Institutions.  
Tho he would make the Ordinances of our Superiors odious by the name of humane Inventions, yet he sufficiently declares the difference between the Case of the Jews and our Dissenters. 'Tis well observed by Beza, De hac ignorantia hic agi, quae tamen possit verbum Dei praetexere. Erat enim hic delectus ciborum & dierum, de quo hîc agitur, ex verbo Dei institutus, adeo ut iis, qui Christianam Libertatem ignorabant, non esset res indifferens, sed observatu necessaria ex Dei mandato. (ad Rom. 14. v. 2.)  
The Jews might very reasonably be offended, because the Divine Law (according to their Present Opinion then in force) was broken; but here is no such Divine Law pretended to be in force among us, and this the Dissenters know and are very well assured of; and yet they are offended. To make the difference more fully appear, I argue thus, either the Jews (who are supposed to be those weak Christians) knew that the Ceremonial Law was abrogated or they knew it not; If they knew it to be abrogated, than they were grossly Superstitious in their adherence to it, and were not to be tolerated in it, but to be restrained from it: if they knew it not to be abrogated, than they looked upon the freedom the strong ones took, contrary to the prohibition, to be a breach of the Divine Law in force; and that was Scandalum Datum as was said even now, a Scandal given. But with us these Dissenters have no Divine Prohibition to rescue them from the contempt of Authority; no negative Precept to allege to justify their refusal of Conformity: but a Humane Constitution, made according to God's Ordinance, is presumptuously broken, contrary to a Divine Law in force, which commands obedience to our Superiors for the Lords sake. 
Pag. 78.   
But let the Reconciler go on, (if he can) to run down Dr. Womock, as he endeavours in these words: When therefore Dr. Womock saith, that the Scandal mentioned here is to be understood of an Active Scandal designed as a Mousetrap set and baited on purpose to entice and catch the unwary Mouse; 
* Hemmingius has the very same notion of the word, Scandalum propriissimè significat tegillum in instrumentis, quibus capiuntur mures, etc. Hemming. Syntag. de Scandalo.  This (saith he) is indeed an Exposition well becoming Cajetan and Tirinus, from whom he doth confess he had it; but most unworthy of a Minister of God. For, can any man of Reason think it lawful to do an unnecessary and uncommanded action, which he knows will minister occasion to the Damnation of many thousand souls, provided they by it be destroyed without his formal, or express designation of their Ruin, especially when the souls ruined are as much ruined by his action, as if he had performed it to that end? Does S. Paul say If meats make my Brother to offend, I will not so eat as to design his ruin? No, but I will never eat whilst the World stands, lest I make my Brother to offend.  
Here the Reconciler quarrels at the critical Interpretation of a word; though the Learned and Pious Dr. Hammond does the same thing; He observes that 
Mat. 11. 6. at note c.  the word for Scandal signifieth a Trap; a Gin, a Snare. Let the Reader consult him if he please. For Cajetan and Tirinus they are not such contemptible writers with the Author of the Synopsis: And why may not such an Exposition become Cajetan and Tirinus as well as Hemmingius, Beza, or any other Calvinist? Certainly the expression of putting a stumbling-block in our Brother's way does denote a voluntary and deliberate action; and whereas he saith, let us judge this rather, that no man do so. Obliqne malignos istos Censores perstringit, saith Beza, after Calvin, he does obliquely nip. (or has a back blow at) those Malignant Censurers, who bend all their Will to Carp at their Brother's Conversation.  
However, I am well assured, 'tis not so unworthy of a Gospel Minister to declare a necessary truth, though it draws enemies upon him thereby, as to speak perverse things to draw Disciples after him: This is like enough to be the design of the Reconciler: but the other was the case of the Apostle, Gal. 4. 16. 
Hieronym. ad Gal. 4. 16.  Haec est conditio veritatis, ut eam semper inimicitiae sequantur, sicut per adulationem perniciosam amicitiae conquiruntur; libenter enim quod delectat, auditur: & offendit omne quod nolumus: This is the condition of sober truth, saith S. Hierome, Strife and Envy do always dog her, whilst a pernicious Flattery shall purchase Friendship.  
But can any man of Reason think it 
pag. 78.  lawful, saith the Reconciler, to do an unnecessary and uncommanded action, which he knows will minister occasion to the Damnation of many thousand souls, etc.  
To which we can reply, that we plead for nothing but what is commanded, either by positive Laws or General Custom, (which among us is Common Law too,) and therefore necessary and so determined in the first Council of the Church at Jerulalem; and we are so far 
Acts 15. 28.  from knowing that those things will minister occasion to any man's Damnation, that we hope they will, as well as intent they should, minister to their Duty and eternal Happiness. He that has the Conduct of an Army in a just War, if all that perish by his Sword should perish everlastingly, their blood and destruction must be upon their own heads; he is under command and has done no more than his bounden Duty; and if his own Soldier's mutiny, and in their disorder the Enemy falls upon them to their ruin, they perish likewise upon their own score; their General and Officers, (whom they would not obey) are blameless. Christ himself says, Ye shall die in your sins, to 
John 8. 24.  such as would not obey his Conduct.  
Let no man therefore fly in the face of Authority; 'tis not the Impositions of their Governors that Damn them; but their singularity 
* Quisquis Ecclesiae Ministerium rejicit, & jugum, quod, ejus manu Deus vult suis omnibus imponi, detrectat, nec ullam cum Christo Communionem habere, nec Dei filius esse potest. Calvin. in Isa. 49. 23. Luke 10 16. 1 Thes. 4. 8.  and Faction, in choosing a Doctrine and way of Worship by themselves (which is directly Heretical both in practice and notion) in opposition to the Ministry of those persons (their Guides) whose Faith and Conduct they ought to follow, For in despising them, They do (interpretatiuè) despise their Lord and Master; and 'tis warning enough to prevent their ruin, (if they would be pleased to take it,) that he has solemnly told us so. And what other course hath God prescribed to prevent Rebellion, but to tell us, They that resist their Lawful Governors, 
Rom. 13. 2.  shall receive to themselves Damnation. If men will be so incredulous and desperate as not to believe God herein, they must make out the experiment at their own Cost and Peril.  
But there are a sort of men, who weigh their Religion only by their Scruples, and they think there is no Scandal but in a Cross or Surplice. 'Tis fit therefore to consider what is meant by Scandal. 'Tis called a stumbling-block and to let us know what he means by that Metaphor, he doth Interpret it by an additional expression, calling it an 
Rom. 14. 13.  occasion of falling, upon which Hyperius grounds this Description: Tunc enim 
ad Rom. 15. in principio.  offendiculum praebetur, ubi per nos committitur, vel in Doctrina, vel in moribus, quo conscientia alterius moveri queat ad deficiendum à doctrina seu Religione semel suscepta, vel certè ad eam minoris quam anteà aestimandum: Then is a stumbling-block or scandal laid in the way, when we commit something in Doctrine or manners, whereby the Conscience of another Person may be moved to departed from the Religion he has once received, or to esteem it less than he did formerly. Now he should be a man of a strange temper, that should think the worse of my Religion for the decency of its address, and my reverence in the performance of God's public and solemn Worship.  
We should consider, that as there is a woe denounced to those, who give offence; so there is one belongs to them that capriciously take it, and there is a blessing promised to them, who take it not: Blessed is he (saith our Sovereign Lord) 
Mat. 11. 6.  who is not offended in me, which (Me) reacheth beyond his Person, to all his Dispensations. Yet how many of his harmless actions were the Pharisees offended at? He could not work a Cure or a Miracle, but they made a Scandal of it, especially if it were performed on Their, which indeed they made more their own, than Gods, Sabbath. It is not to be denied, there was an excellent man once offended at Divine Providence, for I was Envious at the foolish, 
Psal. 73. 3.  when I saw the Prosperity of the Wicked. But this was only by Surprise, he was soon rectified in his judgement when he went into the House of the Lord; and if our Dissenters (who are offended at matters of a far inferior nature,) would find in their hearts, to go to Church, they might soon meet a happy cure of all their fond and needless Scruples.  
However, your Action (saith this Reconciler) doth minister occasion to their Damnation, and though they be destroyed without your formal or express designation of their Ruin, yet they are as much ruined by your action as if you had performed it to that end: This seems to be somewhat hard, that I should be guilty of their ruin or blamed for it, when I never designed it, never intended it, but always by my discourses, by my persuasions, by my prayers and tears, endeavoured to prevent it; yet so it is, saith our Reconciler, you have done an action, though lawful enough and harmless in itself; yet this weak Brother has taken offence at it, and is gone to Hell for it; and you must answer for your want of Charity.  
But what if one of our Brother Dissenters, what if Amesius (after he is cast 
Cas. Cons. l. 5. c. 11. n. 6.  in his fresh Suit against the Ceremonies) Resolves that the Mousetrap must be ready set and baited, as well as Tirinus? What will you say, if, when he is handling this very Case of Conscience, he requires a Formal Scandal, as well as Cajetan, to make a man guilty of our Saviour's Vae vobis of giving Scandal? This is his Resolution, Potest esse Scandalum passivum, vel acceptum, sine peccato agentis: ut cum factum unius est alteri occasio peccandi, praeter intentionem facientis & conditionem facti: There may be a Passive Scandal or Scandal taken without any sin or offence of the Agent: As for example, when the Fact of one man is the occasion of sinning to another, contrary to the nature of the Fact and the intention of him that does it.  
Some capricious person may take offence at my very best performances, when I aim at nothing but the Glory of God, and my own Salvation. The Superstitious Pharisees were offended at the Disciples, for plucking and rubbing out the ears of Corn, and some were offended at the anointing of our Saviour's feet: These Instances were neither necessary nor commanded; but actions indifferent. (Let not man say that was Judas; for others can kiss their Master's hand, and cry Hail to their Mother the Church, and yet take offence and betray them both.) But did Christ check Mary Magdalen, or his Disciples, and tell them they walked uncharitably in so doing? no, he justified the practice as innocent and laudable. Peter likewise was offended, that Christ should condescend to wash his feet: Was not that an indifferent action, and had it not a Religious, and Spiritual signification? Does Christ desist from the performance because a weak Disciple took offence at it? no; though it was a symbolical Ceremony, our blessed Lord sticks not to assert it, and goes on with his own practice.  
'Tis my duty to give no offence; but having avoided the occasion on my part,, 'tis not my duty that a weak or froward Brother takes none. If the woe belongs to him by whom the offence comes, in this sense, let the Reconciler look to himself; For, if he thinks he has not given offence to his Superiors and the Church of God, by his incoherent Book, yet I am sure there is offence, and great offence taken at it; and many think it was no less unnecessary than unseasonable, and I dare be bold to say, 'twas uncommanded, unless the persuasion of some Atheistical Physician has the force of a Command with him.  
But he presses S. Paul upon us in these words: Does S. Paul say, If meats 
Pag. 79.  make my Brother to offend; I will not so eat as to design his ruin? no, but I will never eat whilst the World stands, lest I make my Brother to offend. Here I cannot but take notice of this Reconcilers want of Ingenuity: among the grounds laid in the Verdict for securing the Authority and Peace of the Church and for the Conviction of Gain-sayers, he found such as he could neither answer nor digest: hereupon his Zeal for the Cause, boiled up his passion into such an intemperate heat; as makes him forget the holy Text as well as Humanity, and the right way of Reasoning. Because he was transported himself he will needs have S. Paul so too; for he representeth him thus, saying, If meat make my brother to offend, I will never eat whilst the World stands: If this were it; then he resolved to starve himself; and that is against the Law of Nature; and that must needs be against Charity. We see by this, what a great Casuist he is, A negative precept does always bind, and we cannot quit the obligation though the whole World were in danger to be subverted: Thou shalt not commit Adultery, thou shalt not worship an Idol; thou shalt not kill thyself; to avoid Scandal.  
'Tis a Common Rule from S. Bernard, Melius est, ut scandalum oriatur quam ut veritas relinquatur: 'Tis better that Scandal should arise than the truth be forsaken, or a divine precept broken. And 'tis one of the three exceptions which S. Hierom makes in the Case of Scandal; Dimittendum est propter Scandalum, omne quod potest praetermitti salva triplici veritate sc. vitae, justitiae, & Disciplinae: A man is not bound to quit his Life, nor the course of Justice and good Discipline, to avoid Scandal, unless it be in a Relaxation of Penalty; when need requires. St. Paul says only that he would not eat flesh, and perhaps he means such flesh as had been offered to Idols; or perhaps, his meaning might be, that, though Christ had ordained that they who Preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel, and at the Charge of 
See v. 8. to the end of the ninth Chapter  those, to whom they did Administer; yet that he resolved not to use this Liberty amongst them, but to abstain from it, the more to oblige and endear them to him, so St. Chrysostom and Oecumenius, who does connect the Verse to the ninth Chapter.  
2. I say, he writes here as a Rhetorician: 'Tis Hyperius his observation, that the Apostle uses great Civility and Artifice in his Epistles to oblige them: And Grotius says his expression is Hyperbolical, and Beza upon the place, refers us to Mat. 5. 29. and his Note upon that Text is this, Hyperbolice haec dicuntur: vide Chrysost. Hom. 3. de laudibus Pauli.  
3. And whether the expression may not be restrained to the Dispensation of Moses and the duration of their Laws and Oeconomy, aught to be considered; for that the word signifies that state and the observances there in use is very manifest. 
* Per Elementa m●ndi intelligunt rudimenta illa paedagogica quibus Deus erudivit Ecclesiam Judaicam. In hanc eò lubentius descendo sententiam, quod ipse Paulus ad Gal. 4. 3. per elementa mundi designat illum cultum ceremonialem qui viguit sub Vet. Test. Daven. ad Col. 2. 8.  Gal. 4. 3. Col. 2. 8, 20. for which see the Learned and Pious Dr. Hammond, on the Text, and note 6. on Col. 2. 8. That St. Paul did never do what he there intimated to be his inclination, is the affirmation of St. chrysostom, and that he did otherwise, when the Church was come to a point of settlement, and the obstinacy of the Jews made him despair of their coming into her Communion, is clear from his own Determination and Practice; Ye observe days. I am afraid of you, Gal. 4. 10, 11. & Ch. 5. 1, 2, 4. Stand fast in the liberty, wherewith Christ hath made you free, if ye adhere to the Law for your Justification, Christ is become of none effect to you: He shall profit 
Daven. ad Col. 2. 8. p. 186.  you nothing: ye are fallen from Grace. He saith as much to the Colossians, Ch. 2. 8. Beware lest any man spoil you through Philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the World: This is that which the Apostle saith, they are to be avoided as Impostors, who obtrude upon Christians the Ceremonies which God commanded under the old Testament, being abrogated in Christ by the exhibition of the Gospel; saith Davenant.  
4. The sense of the Apostle (as Dr. Hammond sums up in his Paraphrase upon 1 Cor. 8. 13.) amounts to this, That the Apostle to prevent sin, (and especially the sin of Apostasy) in others, was willing to deny himself that Liberty, which by the Law of Christ did truly belong to him: and every good Christian will be ready to do the same, where there is a just occasion for it. But we must remember that our Liberty though an excellent Privilege, yet is not such an absolute good thing, but it may be abused and evil spoken of; and 'tis 
Rom. 14. 16.  as justly evil spoken of, when it is abused to Schism and Sedition, as when 'tis abused to gratify our fleshly Lusts, and turned into wantonness. But I am sure no good man, no wise man, will speak evil of my Liberty, when 'tis governed by a just Authority. For I am not bound 
Amesius ubi supra.  to disobey the just Impositions of my Superiors, i. e. I am not bound to omit my necessary Duty, or to commit a sin, because I am not bound to go to Hell to avoid Scandal: Charity gins at home, and there it obliges me to avoid sin in myself, before I prevent it in another. The Truth is, the Reconciler is ensnared in a Fallacy, and out of great kindness he would draw in his Brethren for company. The Fallacy is à dicto secundùm quid: and though it be not so perceivable in this, yet in the other instance, Rom. 14. 5, 6. it would appear too gross to be swallowed; for thus it would run: It is not good to regard a day unto the Lord, whereby my brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. Rom. 14. 21. wherefore if a day make my Brother to offend, I will never regard a day, never perform any solemn worship to God, lest I make my brother to offend. In this parallel instance he must distinguish of the Apostles meaning, or confess his own false reasoning.  
But this Reconciler, whilst he allows nothing to be Lawful, but what is necessary and commanded, he destroys Authority, he destroys Liberty, and (in contradiction to his own Hypothesis) he imposes (a Duty I cannot call it but) a Task which is impossible.  
(1.) He destroys Authority; he sets up the fourteenth against the thirteenth to the Romans: And the command of Subjection to the higher powers he controls by that expostulation: Who are thou that judgest another man's Servant. In favour of the Dissenters weakness, he brings a Writ of Error against the force of Lawful Impositions; and to secure them in their Superstition, he makes a Tender Conscience a Supersedeas to the Sacred Prerogative of Authority and the Sovereignty of Governors; of which we shall deliver more hereafter.  
(2.) If he allows nothing to be Lawful but what is necessary and commanded, he destroys Liberty. For what is that Liberty, wherewith Christ hath made us free? (not to speak of our freedom from sin and Satan) was it not from the Ceremonial Law of Moses? If we are delivered from the Law, then from the distinction of things Common and , from things that were not accounted such; if from that distinction, then from the superstitious Opinions and scruples of men about things indifferent, which are grounded upon that distinction. But if we be not set at Liberty from men's superstitious Opinions and Scruples about things Indifferent, then are we still under that distinction of things Common and , and that distinction brings us directly under the Jewish Yoke of Bondage: And if so, we are in a much worse condition than the Jews were, our burden and thraldom greater; for that which obliged them was only the Institution of God; but we are enthralled to the Caprichioes of men; and not to the humour or squeamish Fancy of any single Person, but of a Multitude, who can pretend no Authority over us, but their own will and pleasure, which is a derogation to the Gospel, and a subjection of our Christian Liberty to the Arbitrary whimsies of all weak and Fanatic Persons.  
3. And this will destroy our peace too; For one man will think he may take up Arms against his Prince, to defend his conceits and scruples, which he calls his Religion; (for what has been done, may be done again, by men of the same Principles,) another will think he may not: one man will think he may disobey his Church-Governors, another will think he may not: if no man may be allowed to judge in this case (as I do not see how they can, according to this Reconcilers' sense and principles,) what will be the end of our Peace, or what will become of such Dissensions? One man thinks he may wear a Surplice: why? because Authority has enjoined it: Another thinks he may not: why? he has no reason for it, but his own will and humour. If he saith, he refuseth it, because God has not commanded it; The other will reply, he does it, because God hath not forbidden it: And herein he follows the Apostles own Rule, He obeys God rather than Man; For God commands him to obey those that are set over him: but they tempt him to disobey our Guides and follow a Rabble, who have no stamp at all of Authority to recommend them to our observance.  
To go further; If this Doctrine of the Reconciler were in force, no man could be sure that he is at peace with God, or his own Conscience. For let the Apostle profess as he doth, 2 Cor. 1. 
2 Cor. 1. 12.  12. Our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our Conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the Grace of God, we have had our Conversation in the World, and more abundantly to you-wards: The weak Brother can tell him, his glorying is not good, for he hath walked uncharitably, he has done such things as were unnecessary and uncommanded, whereby he stumbled and was offended, and grieved, and made weak: and that hereby he had destroyed the work of God, and a person for whom Christ died, and made his good evil spoken of, and though there were neither any moral evil in the nature of the things he did, nor any evil intention in his doing of them, yet he had taken offence, and in the event he was actually ruined by his practice, as much as if he had designed it; and therefore he must expect to bear his Judgement for it. Can any man that understands his Interest in Christ and the Privileges of the Gospel, think himself concerned in such Scruples, and Objections; or disturb his inward peace upon that account?  
4. For this Doctrine, that I must do nothing that is unnecessary and uncommanded for fear of Scandal, puts a man upon a task which is impossible; For suppose a Dissenter sees me (for example) wear a Surplice; he tells me he is offended at it, he is grieved and stumbled, and made weak (which perhaps he understands not the meaning of) to give him the better satisfaction I consult the Reconciler (as the great Oracle of Conscience) in the case: he tells me I must forbear the use of it in hopes to gain this weak Brother, Well, I obey him and lay it by. But then a Conformist comes in and observes me to officiate without it; hereat he is offended, and tells me it grieves him to see Authority contemned, the Laws violated, Christian Liberty betrayed by the superstitious forbearance of a thing indifferent, to gratify a Faction set up against the Government: This he will say does weaken his faith, and makes him question the sincerity of such as profess the Gospel, and the Religion established among us. By this Instance, it is evident I cannot please them both; I must unavoidably offend one of them. Can I prevent them both from taking offence? This affair is attended with such perplexity, that the performance is impossible; 
Cas. Cons. l. 5. c. 11. n. 18.  and therefore it cannot be a Christian Duty. And for this I have the suffrage of Amesius, though, in his time, a stiff Dissenter: Nulla datur talis perplexitas, ut necessarium sit pio homini, sive hoc vel illud faciat, sive non faciat, scandalum alicui dare: There can be no such case of perplexity, that it should be necessary for a pious man to give any man scandal, whether he does this or that, or does it not. But how to avoid such perplexity, we must find out some better Rule, among the Casuists, than this Reconciler has yet prescribed or found out for us.  
To show his Ingenuity towards Dr. Womock (or his artifice of concealment) I shall let the Reader see how this Argument 
pag. 114.  was managed in the Verdict: where he takes notice from the Apostle, that one man will observe a day, another will not; one man will eat Swines-flesh, another does abhor it. I 
Rom. 14. 5.  cannot satisfy them both, for both are scrupulous, and both respectively offended at one another's practice. To eat and not to eat, to esteem a day and not to esteem it; these are perfect contradictions; and 'tis impossible for any Charity to reconcile man's practice to both their scruples. S. Paul himself (at last) found this so perplexed a case that the difficulty was insuperable: This he learned by experience, upon the congress of the Jew and Gentile Converts at Antioch, Gal. 2. (of which we have given some account already) wherefore instead of a prudent, and charitable expedient (which in this case was impossible to find out) He withstood S. Peter to the face, and with great Integrity and Stoutness, asserted the truth of the Gospel and the extent of Christian Liberty. And herein he left us his own practice for an Example to maintain our Privilege; and not to govern ourselves by the timorous squeamishness, or pretended scruples of superstitious men, (which may be contradictory and endless) but by the solid Rules of Truth, and the prudent Resolutions of Pious and Careful Governors.  
I shall conclude this with the words of Rollock: When we are conscious to our 
Comment. In Joan. 5. 9  selves in our actings, that we aim at God's glory above all things, and do not transgress the limits of our Office and Calling, we may act confidently, though all the World be offended at us, and after we have done what we ought and what we were able to do, if the success does not answer our expectation so happily as we could wish, yet let us not be dejected at it; but enjoy that good Conscience, which the Apostle glories in. (2 Cor. 1. 12.) This will be of great force and efficacy to our comfort and rejoicing in the time of adversity, and this we cannot but obtain; if we keep within the bounds of our Profession and Calling, and set the glory of God before our eyes in all our actions. Thus saith R. Rolloc; and herein he appears to be a better Casuist than our Reconciler hath expressed himself upon this occasion.  
But let us hear what he hath to say further against Dr. Womock which is as followeth: Secondly, whereas he adds, that the scandal here spoken of, is in a matter of our own choice, and power, 
Pag. 79.  and it is to be understood in a matter wherein Authority hath not interposed her determination; This (he grants) is very true, and the natural Inference from it is this, etc.  
Here the Reconciler fully acquits Dr. Womocks Doctrine in this point of scandal; who pleads only for those things wherein Authority hath interposed her Determination. Why then is he so peevish and froward towards the Dr. when he seems to acquit? The reason is this, he would set up the Liberty of the Subject, in matters of Religion, against the Authority of the Prince and Bishop, which is established in the same Charter of the Gospel, by a divine Grant, precedent to that Liberty; and because Dr. Womock hath endeavoured to vindicate the Authority of our Superiors against his design, therefore he is thus offended; for he finds he shall never be able to prove what he calls the natural Inference from Dr. Womocks words; but let us see what it amounts to.  
Since therefore (says this Reconciler) no Authority can be supposed to interpose to determine our Superiors to the Imposition of these indifferent things, or to hinder their abatement of them by the same power which imposed them, in order to prevent the ruin of so many souls as are involved in a wretched Schism by the continuance of that Imposition, since they declare, 'tis in their own choice and power to command, or not to command them; this case must by his own confession be good against the Imposition of them, though it does not hold good against obedience to them, when Imposed.  
In which words of his there are very many things observable.  
1. 'Tis a great truth, That the case he puts does not hold good against obedience to the things in difference among us, when imposed.  
2. That 'tis good against the Imposion of them, is not the Drs. Confession but his own Inference; which the Doctor is confident he can never make good; being but one of his usual Paralogisms and false Reasonings.  
3. He confesseth that this wretched Schism of the Dissenters is damnable; otherwise, how could he object the ruin of so many souls as are involved in it? But to save them harmless he lays their fault at the door of their Governors, and to Commute for the Disobedience of the Dissenters, he would be content to send our Governors to Hell in their stead.  
4. He can propound no way to prevent the ruin of our Schismatics, but to take down our Governor's Authority by the abatement of their Impositions. But if a Nation be addicted to Drunkenness, is there no way to cure them but to root up their Vines, and burn up all their materials that will afford strong Liquors? A wise man sure, will think it better and more rational, to teach them temperance and the moderate use of those wholesome and comfortable Creatures. In like manner, when there are any Impositions, which some men are led by their own ill temper, or an ill example to take offence at; I should think it might be sufficient, to discharge a good Conscience, to declare and teach the sober and beneficial usefulness of such Impositions; whereas the abolishing or changing of them upon any light suggestion, or Factious importunity, may breed more mischief than it will prevent.  
5. When he says, That no Authority can be supposed to interpose to determine our Superiors to the Imposition of these indifferent things, what does he mean? a new occasional and prophetical Authority? that needs not; for they have an ordinary Apostolical Authority (such as is 
John 20. 21.  conferred upon Church-Governors) and that's derived from Christ; and they have their own humane Judgement, with the advice of Common Council (wherein 
Acts 15. 28.  matters of such a general and public concern should be determined) and that is assisted by the Holy Ghost; and this determines the case according to that 
1 Cor. 14. last.  Apostolical Rule: Let all things be done decently and in order.  
But because this Reconciler cannot tell well how to shake off obedience, he attempts to pull down Authority; and his Superiors are much beholden to him for his kindness; in giving them a Writ of Ease, to discharge them from the troublesome task of Government. St. Peter was once willing to be quit of the like trouble at Antioch, and to that end, he 
Gal. 2. 11, to 14.  dispensed with the profession of his own belief: but what came on't? Barnabas was carried away with his dissimulation, and the faith of others began to stagger, and the truth of the Gospel was like to be brought in question, thro' his silence and gratification of their weakness.  
But we know St. Paul did very boldly rebuke St. Peter upon that occasion; 
* Petrus coelesti visione edoctus, discrimen ciborum esse sublatum, reprehensione meritus est; quia quae à Deo didicit & in publico Consilio docuit, non observavit, scandalum Judaeis & Gentibus praebuit. Joan. T●addaeus Conciliat. n. 885.  and in justification of him therein, Mr. Calvin well observes, this was not a trifling business, neque vero hîc agebatur hominum negotium: sed venerat in discrimen Evangelii puritas, ne Judaico fermento inquinaretur: for it was not the mere concern and business of men that was then and there acted: but the purity of the Gospel was brought in danger, lest it should be corrupted by the Leven of Judaisme. And is it not so with us? Do not the Dissenters look upon the things, they scruple at, as unclean, and refuse them upon that account; and so run into a Jewish Superstition? This cannot in reason be denied.  
But the Reconciler has prepared a 
P. 156. 157.  salve for this sore. Let our Superiors abate their Impositions, not as sinful to be practised, or with a protestation that they do not esteem them so, but purely for the sake of peace and unity;— This, saith he, will be satisfactory to those who scruple the use of them: and he conceives it may be the duty of Superiors to condescend; nor will it be sufficient 
●. 326.  to excuse them, when they neglect to cut 
P. 78.  off this occasion of their Brother's Scandal, to say, that their weak brother acts unreasonably, if it be lawful for them to dispense with their Impositions, etc.  
Here the Reconciler shows himself an excellent contriver for the ease of Government and a tender Conscience: but he plays the Mountebank, and teaches the People to go upon their heads, with their heels upwards; for 'tis evident his attempt and project is to set up Subjects above their Governors. And whereas they pretend to be offended, he could not but take notice, at p. 58, & 59 (which is a Confutation of the rest of his Book) That 'tis because they may not have their own Will, not that they see any sin in the Impositions which they quarrel at. For if they had any sense of weakness in themselves, or any veneration for their Superiors, why should not they have so much deference to their Judgement and Authority as to believe them, when they tell us, that the practice they enjoin is very innocent, and the fears of them who think otherwise, very superstitious, which is the Confession of this Reconciler.  
But to prove that the Head must stoop to the Feet, and the Law bow down to its trangressors, that all Parliaments must take their measures from the Rabble and the wisest Shepherds from the silliest 
P. 3. 24.  of their straggling sheep, he pleads St. Paul's practice and Authority. For he saith; he never doth enjoin the weak to be of the same Principles, and Apprehensions with the strong; 
* This goes beyond all the fooleries he has observed in Meisner.  but always does command the strong to restrain his (own) liberty that he may minister no scandal to the weak, and this (he says) the Apostle confirms by his own practice in like cases. But what! does the Reconciler Burlesque the Apostle to show his wit, and gratify the scoffing Atheist? I am sure he seems to be profane, and to blaspheme as well the practice as the Doctrine of St. Paul. What! would not the Apostle have these weak ones he conversed with be of the same Principles and apprehensions with himself? who can believe it? What would he make of them by his Ministry? What is the meaning of his passionate wish before Agrippa; I would to God, that not only 
Acts 26. 29.  thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am except these bonds. What did he mean by that other wish in behalf of his Brethren his Kinsmen according to the flesh: I could wish that myself were accursed 
Rom. 9 3.  from Christ: Was this, that they might still continue Jews or turn Gentiles? This is his exhortation to the 
Phil. 3. 17.  Philippians. Brethren be ye followers together of me, and mark them which walk so, as ye have us for an Example. That he might prevent the suspicion of being Ambitious, he cares not whom they propound to imitate, Modo se forment ad illam puritatem, cujus ipse erat exemplar, 
Calvin.  provided they would frame themselves according to that purity, whereof he was (so eminent) an example. Does he not pray for the unanimity of these Romans? and doth he not conjure 
Rom. 15. 5, 6, 1 Cor. 1. 10.  the Corinthians, that they be perfectly Joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgement, and that they speak the same thing to prevent Schism. Vult autem cohaerere in unâ ment & unâ sententiâ, & consensum verbis profiteri; saith- Calixtus, he would have them agree together in the same mind and in the same meaning, and to profess their consent in the same words. And when, unto the Jews he became as a Jew, was it to confirm them in their Judaisme? no; but that he might gain them to Christianity.  
But if he would not have the weak to be of the same Principles and Apprehensions with the strong; he must enjoin the strong to be of the same Principles and Apprehensions with the weak; or else he could never expect to see a good effect of his prayers and obtestations.  
But this Reconciler has made himself not the Subjects, but the Sovereign's Remembrancer: He addresses himself to our Superiors and calls upon them to be dutiful, to be subject to, and to obey their good people. This puts me in mind of the character which Isaiah gives of a false Prophet. The Prophet that teacheth 
Isai. 9 15.  Lies, he is the tail. But why is he the tail? because the tail follows the body of the Beast, is carried about by it, and hangs upon it;; and so doth the false Prophet upon the Common People; and whether the Reconciler does not so, let his Neighbour's judge: But we see plainly he would have the Ancient and the Honourable, who are the Head, to do so; that's the Reverence he has for them.  
But I humbly conceive our Governors will find many Reasons not to rescind the Laws established not to restrain, or abate the force of their Impositions as this Reconciler would have them.  
1. They should betray the Supreme power and Prerogative of Authority? 'Tis a Rule laid down by a great Divine, De facto lex humana obligat, Humane Law does bind the Facto, with a Non obstante to any danger whatsoever, when the transgression of the Law would fall out to the ruin of the Community, to the Contempt of Religion or the Christian Faith, or to the lessening and despising of Authority or the Legislative Power. In such Cases no fear of danger can excuse the transgression of the Law.  
Upon this ground the General does expose the Sentinel to imminent danger of death, to preserve the whole Camp, or City from destruction. The Prince commands a Physician to attend a place that is visited with a raging Pestilence. And the Bishop enjoins a Priest in the like case of danger, to administer to the Ghostly welfare of such as are under a great Contagion.  
Where, according to the judgement of wise men, the advantage and benefit does preponderate and outweigh the danger or detriment that may ensue, there, it is the Prerogative of Authority to interpose for the more public and common safety.  
But in such Cases, the obligation does not properly arise from the Humane Law, but from the Natural Divine Law, which forbids that act, which tends to the contempt of the Faith and the despising of Religion, or to the ruin of the Community, or the undervaluing of Authority and the Legislative Power: For such an Act, without doubt, is intrinsically evil.  
Authority and the Legislative Power is a Counterpart of God's Sovereignty, a Depositum, a sacred Trust, for the Government of the World, and to keep distinct Communities in Peace and Order. As God allows no man to despise it, so it ought much less, to despise itself. And nothing can make it more despicable than to stoop to a Lure of Feathers, that is thrown out by a giddy Multitude.  
To this purpose we have the judgement of the Learned and wise King James; who, in his Proclamation, March 5. in the first year of his Reign, having given Reasons, why he would not be swayed to alteration, in the Form of God's Service, by the frivolous suggestion of any light spirit; he adds this,  
Neither are we ignorant of the Inconveniencies that do arise in Government, by admitting Innovation in things one settled by mature Deliberation: and how necessary it is to use Constancy, in the upholding the public Determinations of States; for that such is the unquietness and unstedfastness of some Dispositions, affecting every year new Forms of things, as if they should be followed in their inconstancy, would make all actions of State Ridiculous and Contemptible: whereas the steadfast maintaining of things, by advice established, is the weal of all Commonwealths. And that resolution of King James was in the matter of Ceremonies, which we discourse of.  
And the truth is, if the Prince be brought to those Terms, that he must strike Sail to the humour of the People, and vary his Compass according to every wind of Doctrine that blows from a Republican Coast, he must at last leave the fifth Commandment out of the Catechism (as the Church of Rome has done the second) or give them leave to do by it (as the Pharisees did of old) to make it of none effect by their Traditions.  
And how much the Prelates of the Church are concerned herein we may learn from Joannes Crocius (for I will take in no Authority from the Jesuits or Church of Rome in this Case, that the Reconciler may have no occasion to cavil upon that account) Minister in omni muneris Parte Auctoritatem divinitùs concessam tueatur viriliter & modestè: In every part of his Office, let the Minister manfully, as well as modestly maintain, the Divine Authority which is given him. He gives us St. Paul's Authority and example for it. His Authority is to Titus' Bishop of Crete, Tit. 2. 15. and for his example he refers us to Gal. 16. 7, etc. to 2 Cor. 10, 11, 12, 
Tertul. de Baptis. c. 17.  & 13. Chap. Dandi quidem habet jus Summus Sacerdos, qui est Episcopus; dehinc Presbyteri & Diaconi, non tamen sine Episcopi authoritate propter Ecclesiae honorem; Quo salvo, sata Pax est.  
And if Princes and Governors should rescind and Chop and Change and Innovate Laws and Constitutions upon the motion and Impulse of a turbulent People, this will countenance their claim of a share 
* For the Fly upon the Wheel thinks that all the dust is raised by the force of her agitation.  in the legislative power; which is of too dangerous a Consequence to be suffered in a Monarchy. I do solemnly therefore aver, that in all his Pleas for Christian Liberty, S. Paul did never set it up above Authority, nor allow it to control the power of Governors, or oppose them in things Indifferent.  
2. In abating these Impositions; our Governors must needs act against their own Judgement and Conscience, which is point-blank against St. Paul's Rule, (Rom. 14. 5.) Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. Now if our Governors be persuaded in their own mind, that the things established among us are Decent, as well as Lawful, in the performance of God's public Worship; The Reconciler will tell them their Duty 
Vid. Protest. Reconciler. p. 157.  (as he calls it) for he says expressly they are more concerned in those, whether advices or injunctions, of the Apostle than other men. And if in favour of Dissenters (as the Reconciler would have it) they should abate their Impositions, and enter their Protestations; they do not esteem them sinful to be practised, nor abate them upon that account. This would not at all Correct the Judgement of the Dissenters: but it would tell all the World that such Governors renounced their own Judgement, and 'tis probable many would say, they went against their Conscience, to humour a froward and unsteady Faction.  
How dangerous such a practice would be, we may learn from the experience and complaint of the Royal Martyr, in an instance of a like nature; I never met (saith he) with a more unhappy conjuncture of affairs, than 
* That concerned the Destruction of an excellent man; and this of an excellent Church.  when between my own unsatisfiedness in Conscience, and a necessity (as some told me) of satisfying the importunity of some people; I was persuaded by those, that I think wished me well, to choose rather what was safe than what seemed Just; preferring the outward Peace of my Kingdoms with 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Meditat. on the Earl of strafford's Death.  men, before that inward exactness of Conscience before God. He tells us, He had confessed it with sorrow both to God and men, as an act of so sinful frailty, that it discovered more a fear of man, than God, whose name and place on Earth (saith he) no man is worthy to bear, who will avoid inconveniencies of State by acts of so high injustice as no public convenience can expiate or compensate. And then he goes on profoundly thus.  
I see it a bad exchange to wound a man's own Conscience thereby to salve State sores; to calm the Storms of Popular discontents, by stirring up a Tempest in a man's own Bosom.  
Wherefore our Governors being very well satisfied that in the present settlement of Church affairs, they have acted within the proper sphere of their own Office, and have had an eye all along, to God's Glory therein, though all the Pharisees of the World should be offended, yet let them strenuously assert their own Injunctions with alacrity under the attestation and comforts of a good Conscience.  
3. In abating those Impositions as this Reconciler requires, they should betray the truth of the Gospel in things Indifferent, and depretiate the solemn Worship of God, which among us is determined to be most Decently and Reverently performed by our present establishment: we say (according to the sense of the Apostle) He that has a jealousy he shall displease God, in doing such or such a thing, and yet, will venture to do it, he sins in it; because he shows a want of Reverence to the Authority and Majesty of God: In like manner should we change that Form of Worship which we think better for that which we think worse, a more decent way and manner of Address in our holy Duties for one that is less decent in our own esteem; this would argue and declare a want of Reverence towards the Majesty of God whom we pretend to Worship.  
4. Taking away of those Impositions would cause a greater Mischief than it would prevent; For (1.) instead of a Passive it would procure an Active Scandal; to prevent a Scandal taken there would be a Scandal given: A Scandal per se laid in our Neighbour's way to remove a Scandal per Accidens. For a Scandal by Accident does happen, Quando nec operantis intentio, nec operis natura aut circumstantia eò tendit, ut alter ruat, sed prava peccantis dispositione fit, ut occasionem peccandi inde hauriat, ubi non est: When neither the intent of the Imposer, nor the nature of the Imposition, nor any circumstance thereof tends to that end, that any man should fall by it, but it comes to pass through the corrupt disposition of the Delinquent, that he draws an occasion of sinning from thence, where really there is none, this is a Scandal by accident and a Scandal taken; and this is all the Scandal that the Dissenters have to complain of, in these Impositions.  
Whereas the Repealing or ruffling of these Impositions, would unsettle a well established Church, and rob her of that which is her Glory, her good Order which keeps her steadfast in her Faith and Allegiance both to God and man. This was so Conspicuous in the Church of Coloss, that all men observed it, and the Apostle takes notice of it at a distance with great satisfaction; Tho I be absent in the 
Col. 2. 5.  flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your Order and the steadfastness of your Faith in Christ. Upon which words saith the learned Davenant, Seeing Pastors have so great a joy from that good Order that flourisheth among a People, it follows that they do unworthily afflict and vex the Prelates of the Church, who do contemn and trample down the lawful Ordinances of the 
Heb. 13. 17.  Church contrary to that of the Apostle. Obey them that have the Rule over you and submit to them. For Ordo est tanquam vallus seductoribus oppositus, Order is a Bulwark opposed to prevent the incursions of Seducers: They are therefore seldom precipitated into Errors, who observe that order of Obedience which is due to their Governors; but on the contrary, where the Order of Commanding and Obeying is neglected, ibi tanquam per disjectam aciem facilè perrumpitur, there it is easy to break in upon them as upon a routed and scattered Army.  
Hereupon Grynaeus (Professor at 
1585. A Col. 2. 5. Lect. 18.  Heydelberge) among those Gifts, wherein a well constituted Church ought to excel; he reckons these two, Order and the solidity of Faith. By Order he understands the whole Liturgy and Discipline of the Church; where all things are to be done Decently and in Order, 1 Cor. 14. 40. And such as walk Disorderly, 
2 Thes. 3. 6.  as far as is possible, in ordinem Disciplinae Ecclesiasticae severitate adhibita redigendi sunt: They are to be reduced to Order by the severity of Church-Discipline.  
(2.) A second Mischief that would arise from the Retrenching of those Impositions would be the Offence given to the weak and tender Members of the Church: For we must not deny but we have those that are weak and tender, and are not the worse for it, and they may very well be jealous with a Godly Jealousy, if they should see such a Change, such an abolition of our established Ordinances, they might very well be Jealous of the truth of our Doctrine about things indifferent, jealous of the lawfulness of our Practice herein; or else Jealous of our sincerity in our profession of them both.  
And this might prove so great a scandal that the Church of Rome might make a greater Harvest of it, than they could of all the Plundering and Persecuting times of the late Rebellion, when men of worth and honour did steadfastly adhere to the King and Church out of Conscience, finding them so just and steadfast to their own well settled Principles. And that of the Father is a known truth, Ipsa mutatio consuetudinis, etiam quae adjuvat utilitate, novitate perturbat. The Change of an old Custom gives more trouble and disturbance by the novelty, than it can give advantage otherwise. And if it be Insolentissimae Insaniae, a part of most insolent madness to dispute any of those Customs, which the Church observes all the World over, as St, Augustin says it is; then certainly, no man that is well in his wits, or has any veneration for God's Church, can think it a piece of Prudence or sobriety, to Cassate and make void all, and throw them promiscuously out of doors, upon the srivolous suggestions of Fanatic Spirits ●●o ●●●●●ated with never so much blind Passion and Importunity.  
(3.) There is a third Mischief as great as the former; by this means, Governors should encourage and harden them in their Schism, whom, in Charity they are obliged to correct; and not in their Schism only, but in their Judaisme and Superstition; which is against that Charity we own to them as well as that which we own to ourselves.  
For that they are guilty of a wretched Schism the Reconciler does acknowledge; and that they have a tincture of Judaisme, or Jewish Superstition (if they do really believe the Principles they insist upon in this dispute) cannot be denied as long as they take Sanctuary at Rome, and entitle themselves to the Indulgence of the Apostle (in this Epistle) to the Dissenting Christians, which did then and there converse. For that such was their Distemper and Disease has been sufficiently proved already.  
Now to take off these Impositions (which the Party is thus upon the fret, and in fermentation about them) may be against that Charity we own to them; and it may be in us the sin of scandal too, because we should not be sufficiently careful to remove the occasion of sin from them. This was the sin of Eli, 1 Sam. 3. 13. and the sin of the Angel of the Church of Thyatira. Apoc. 2. 20. 'Tis an authentic Rule, Qui non vetat peccare, cum possit, jubet; and that is of the same importance; Facti culpam habet, qui quod potest, negligit emendare: He that has power to correct a Fault, is guilty if he neglects to correct it.  
I may add this also, that they, to whom we are so indulgent, lest they should be offended, will certainly take occasion to be offended, and be actually scandalised thereby; and so by our Indulgence we shall sin doubly; that is, as well against that Charity which we own to them, as against that which we own to ourselves.  
1. Against that which we own unto ourselves; for if we neglect our Duty, when it is incumbent upon us, to correct them, that neglect is our sin, and that is against the Charity which we own unto ourselves; to prevent which, our Saviour has given us this Charge, If thy right hand offend thee, cut it off and cast it from thee.  
2. 'Tis certainly against that Charity we own to them; for we should hereby encourage them in their Schism and Superstition by our Indulgence, whereas in Charity we are obliged to endeavour their Correction.  
If our Governors be obliged to root Superstition and Judaisme out of the minds and practice of their subjects, than they can find no better Remedy than these Impositions, which, as their Application has discovered the Disease, so the Continuance thereof, will be the best way to correct and cure it.  
And for this our blessed Saviour hath afforded us an example; for, why did 
Luke 13. 32. & 33.  he work so many Cures upon the Sabbath day, which he knew so highly to Scandalise and offend the Jews? The day of itself was indifferent to him (I cast out Devils and do Cures to day and to morrow and the day following) He could have done it the day before, or the day after; why then did he so frequently and so designedly work his Cures upon the Sabbath day? Why, it was to detect the Superstition they had for the Sabbath day and to cure them of it. And herein the Reconciler and I are perfectly agreed: for he saith, our blessed Saviour is supposed to have taken this 
Prot. Recotcil. pag. 318.  occasion, (viz.) to heal the diseased upon the Jewish Sabbath) to deliver the poor People from those superstitions, and heavy burdens, which the Pharisees had laid upon them in reference to that day. In like manner, the great Prudence of our Governors thinks fit to continue these healing Impositions, to deliver our poor people from those Superstitions and burdens, which our modern Pharisees the Presbyterian Divines, have laid upon them in reference to these very Impositions.  
Governors do well remember their own office and know they have something else to do, than to humour a Capricious or froward people. They are Ministers of God's Kingdom: They have 
Wis. 6.  a Master in Heaven who is King of Kings, to whom they must be accountable for their administrations, he claims a Sovereignty over them as entitled to their Thrones by the Commission which he gives them: By Me Kings Reign; and 
Rom. 8.  as he allows them to Reign by him, so he requires they should Reign for him: To this effect, he appoints them to be Nursing Fathers to his Church; and such (God be blessed) have been all our Princes since the Reformation.  
And the Charge is as strict upon the Bishops. Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the Flock over the which 
Acts 20. 28.  the holy Ghost hath made you Overseers, to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own Blood. The way to feed them is not to flatter, but instruct them not to humour their petulancy but to reprove it: not to wink at their superstition but to correct it: They can neither discharge their Duty nor a good Conscience by following the People in their straggling; but by bringing them home into the Fold; if they gratify them to their ruin, they cannot do it but with certain peril of their own.  
There is a great difference betwixt a Lose and unsettled State, and a State that is regularly established: in the first every man does that which is right in his own eyes (and that perhaps he may call his conscience) So we find it, Jud. 17, 6. In those days there was no King in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes. And the meaning of that place, our Synopsis has very well discovered: 'twas no wonder that Idolatry crept in amongst them, when there was no Sovereign like that of Kings to hinder it, for the Judges kept men to their Duty by advice and persuasion, rather than by an effectual command and punishments.  
But may we do so now, when we are under a well settled Government? It may seem so to our Reconciler and his Dissenters, by the Apostles Concession, Rom. 14. 5. according to the vulgar Latin unusquisque sensu suo abundet, let every man abound in his own sense. But is this Gospel? Is this good practical Divinity? No, 'tis a corruption of the Text saith Hemmingius, 'tis wicked and unchristian, for God hath expressly forbidden it, Deut. 12. 8. Ye shall not do that which is right in your own eyes. That is the common practice of such as have no Coercive Government.  
And this is the attempt of such as would have none: Wilt thou put out the eyes of these men? Numb. 16. 14. We will not come up. They think they have lost their own eyes, if they may not be allowed to do what they list. Such an one was Corah; and we are foretold there would spring up a Race of pretended Christians of the same stamp; and that their doom was already paradigmatized, and set forth in Effigy, by his destruction: Woe unto them; for they have gone in the way of Cain; (who out 
Judas Ep. v. 1.  of Malice and Envy slew his Brother Abel, a figure of the true Church of God) and ran greedily after the error of Balaam (who Prophesied as ill things as he could, 
Rev. 2. Hemmingius ad Ep. St. Judas.  and projected worse) for the reward of Lucre and applause: and perished in the gainsaying of Corah. And in the description of Corah and his Company, Hemmingius observes first, that he was not content with that degree of honour to which he was advanced, and then that he did blaspheme the Magistrate, and endeavoured to take away all Degrees from among the Ministers of God. And to effect this he made use of a specious Argument, viz. That it was a very unworthy thing, that the holy people of God should be subject to any Head on Earth. The Papists he says follow this Example, who will not suffer their Priests to be subject to the Civil Magistrate to have any Authority in the Church, and Joannes Agricola has the 
Annot. In Tit. 3. 1. He lived about 1530.  like charge against the Bishops of Rome; who pull down Magistracy (as if it were an injurious encroachment, and not an Ordinance of God) that, upon the ruin of this, they may establish their own Tyranny, similes his fuerunt Prophetae Phanatici horum temporum: And such were the Fanatic Prophets of these times, whose folly (saith he) hath been wonderfully discovered. And now the fury of the Anabaptists wish and aim at nothing more than the common destruction of all the Laws and honest Constitutions of the Magistrates. And are not we leavened with this horrible Fanaticism.  
To say that Church-Governors have not power to impose any thing for Decency and Order, but what is necessary and commanded, is in effect, to charge the Universal Church for 1500 years together, more or less, with Usurpation and Tyranny; and contradicts the Judgement and Declarations of the most Learned Protestants of any credible Denomination. See the Verdict, pag. 24, etc.  
There can be no public Worship of 
See the Verdict, p. 24. p. 35. p. 223. and the two Letters.  God solemnly performed unless some Rules be observed therein. If every man were allowed to have his Psalm, his Revelation, his Interpretation, (to use the Apostles own instance) if every 
1 Cor. 14. 26.  one were suffered to pick and choose his own time, place, gesture, there could be no Decency, no Order, nothing but Confusion. And the unlearned, 
Ibid. v. 2 3.  yea, and the learned too that should come into our Assemblies, would certainly say, we were mad.  
To prevent this, Governors are set up in the Church to determine what is fit to be done, and to restrain our vagrant Liberty to the use and Practice of what is so ordained, 1 Cor. 14. 40. Let all things be done decently and in order. This is an Apostolical Injunction; and that is of great Authority; and so sacred, that no humane Liberty is allowed to dispute, much less to affront it, for indeed a greater that St. Paul is here; these Injunctions touching matters of Decency and Order; they are the Commandments of God; and the Apostle would have the greatest pretenders to the Spirit to know it, 1 Cor. 14. 34. so that we have an Apostolical, we have a Divine Command for Governors, and that lays a necessity upon them, to make such Ordinances and consequently the things Ordained, are neither uncommanded nor unnecessary.  
The evidence of truth is so strong in 
Pag. 340.  this Case, that the Dissenters are forced to allow, that there be many Cases, where somewhat in genere is necessary to be determined; They also add, that in all Cases truly such, the Magistrate Civil or Sacred not only may, but must determine, and indeed (saith the Reconciler) no man in his wits can doubt, that what is necessary to be determined must be determined; and seeing Par in parem non habet potestatem it follows that they cannot be determined by any other but Superiors, (i. e.) they cannot be obligingly determined by others. Thus our Reconciler.  
But it is a great mistake to think that Authority in this Case is restrained to things Necessary: All things are Lawful for me, saith the Apostle, but all things are not expedient. If he had restrained his (or our) Liberty to things Necessary, he would have argued to that effect; All things are Lawful for me, but all things are not necessary; and he would 
1 Cor. 6. 12. & 10. 23.  have enjoined us to keep to things necessary: but he argues otherwise; All things are Lawful but all things are not Expedient. Wherein he teacheth us to distinguish of things; whereof some (saith he) are expedient, and some are inexpedient. Which are expedient is not left to every man to judge; for than we should run again into Madness and Confusion, as was observed even now.  
When we speak of Necessary things 
Acts 15. 28, 29.  we had need be wary and speak with distinction; otherwise the word has so many significations, we may easily be ensnared in a Fallacy upon that account. The Decree of the Council at Jerusalem runs thus, It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things, That ye abstain from meats offered to Idols, and from Blood, and from things Strangled, and from Fornication. Some men I observe run into a great mistake in making the necessity here mentioned, to be Antecedent to the Decree of the Council in respect of the Nature of the things forbidden, (except Fornication which is of doubtful interpretation too.) If those observed things were Antecedently necessary, than they had some moral goodness in them, and were commanded because they were good; which is not affirmed of the Ceremonial Law. Besides 
Acts 15. 23.  this Decree was sent to the Gentiles and made for their use and observation; and these things could not be necessary to them Antecedently to them, because the Ceremonial Law of Moses did not oblige or concern them. The necessity therefore which those things had, (I except Fornication in our common sense of the word) was Consequent to that Decree of the Council. Nor could the necessity, there mentioned, be absolute or simply such (for such necessity has no Law, but is a Law to itself) but only a Hypothetical Necessity or a necessity secundum quid; or, as some call it, a Necessity of expedience; of which necessity or expedience, the Apostles and Elders, that is, the Governors of the Church, were the sole and proper Judges.  
But the Reconciler tells us, the Dissenters do universally deny that it is necessary to determine any of these scrupled Ceremonies, and they have perfect demonstration for the truth of that denial; for Necessarium est quod non potest aliter se habere; that only is necessary to be done, which cannot be left undone. But will the Reconciler say, that the things determined and imposed by that Council were necessary in this sense? That implies a Physical necessity, whereas here was no other necessity than a Moral one; which is only when Prudence or the present reason of things does suggest, That I be willing to do what I can, when I am not able to do what I would: In this sense the word Necessity is taken, 1 Cor. 7. 37. He that standeth steadfast in his heart, having no Necessity, but has power over his own will; (i. e.) he has no Moral consideration of force enough to draw him from his purpose. The necessity was not absolute, 'twas not inevitable: The thing of itself might have been otherwise; and therefore the Reconciler thought fit to mince the matter thus:  
That only is necessary to be determined, in order to the performance of an 
Ibid. p. 340.  Action, without which the Action cannot be done, or (N. B.) at the least not well done; But Divine Service, saith he, may be celebrated, Baptism may be administered, the Sacrament may be received, yea, all these Actions may be performed well, though no determination should be made by our Superiors that all who do Officiate should wear a Surplice, all that receive the Sacrament shall kneel, and all that are Baptised shall receive the sign of the Cross upon their foreheads.  
Here the Reconciler mistakes the question or begs it, The question is concerning these Administrations and performances, now our Superiors have made their determination; And I say, if these Duties be not done according to appointment they are not done decently according to the present Estimation of our Governors; and it is their Estimate and Order, not our own Will or Fancy, that God commands us to obey and follow; and the Reason is, because, according to the common sense and experience of the whole World, They whose Prudence and Authority is entrusted by God himself, to Rule and Govern in all Human Affairs, are not only allowed, to be the most competent Judges 
* The external Worship of God is taken from that which is esteemed the highest reverence among men. See Psal. 2. 12. & 72. 9 Isa. 49. 23.  of what is Civil and Decent in their respective Countries; but the Duties also appointed according to their Order at God's Command, are the more likely to obtain acceptance at God's hands, for their very Office-sake, as Gods Vice-gerents. And hence it is that as we are required to obey them for the Lords sake, so we are encouraged to 
1 Pet. 2. 13.  hope that he will have respect unto us for theirs 
† Nam cum Deus proponere vellet exemplum orationis acceptissimae, non aliam in medium adduxit quam Mosis & Samuelis Orationem, Greg. v. Psal. 99 6 Jer. 18. 1. 1 Sam. 12. 23. .  
And then God having prescribed his Vice-gerents a General Rule, if he leaves the particulars to their Discretion, Who art thou, O man, that disputeth against God? (Rom. 9 20.) Certainly 'tis our Duty to rely upon their Judgement, where God himself is pleased to trust it. We have no reason to be offended at the Laws of our Governors, when God is not offended at them, and we are sure God is not offended at what they do, unless they do it against his will. What they have done and established in his Church and Worship, let us see the Will of God against it, and we will all forth with turn Protestant Joiner's and Reconcile ourselves to the Dissenters upon the account 
Acts 4. 19, 5. 29.  of St. Peter's Aphorism, we must obey God rather than Man.  
But where God has not put a check upon their power, we must obey him in his Officers, rather than follow our own Fancy or the Suggestions of any private Person, or Persons who have no Authority over us; and that is, to obey God rather than man in a second and lower sense of that Rule. For Governors have Authority to institute Rites and Observances for Order and Decency, which we are bound to observe upon that account. For there is a command to Governors, 
1 Cor. 14. 40.  Let all things be done decently and in order: And then there is a command to Subjects, to perform what is established according to that Rule: Obey your Prelates or those who have the 
Heb. 13. 7, 17.  Rule over you. And concerning such Rites and Traditions, St. Augustine's Rule is commended in all the Church of God: In these things a prudent Christian 
Davenant, ad Col. 2. 8. p. 185.  can observe no better Order than this, to do as the Church of God does, wherever he comes: For whatsoever is enjoined that is neither against the Faith, nor against good manners, is to be used indifferently according to the custom of the place. All Ecclesiastical Laws concerning Fasts or Festivals, concerning the difference of Habits, and the whole external Order, which is observed, in the performance of all Sacred Offices, will come under this Rule. Whosoever rejects this kind of Rites, and Traditions of men, not repugnant to the word of God is a disturber of Public Order, and a Contemner of that Power and Authority, which God has settled in his Church.  
Thus the Learned Davenant.  
2. If a weak Brother scruples and acts unreasonably, his weakness may call for our help, and as S. Chrysostom saith, he ought to have it. But what is the help that can be afforded him in this case? The disease, 'tis in his Mind, and 'tis 
●●t. Reconcil. 〈◊〉 78.  only Want of Knowledge and particularly want of the Knowledge of that Liberty which was purchased to us by Christ Jesus; And hence it is, that the Apostle requires the strong to bear with such a Weak Brother and to instruct him. Tantisper dum de Libertate partâ per Christum edoceatur, (as Hyperius, Bullinger, Hemmingius, Beza, and all the Learned Commentators among the Protestants, do unanimously expound it) till he has Learned, what that Liberty is, which was purchased for us by our blessed Saviour. Those are to be esteemed little ones (saith Amesius) qui non sunt sufficienter instituti circa libertatem nostram. 1 Cor. 8. 7. who are not sufficiently instructed 
Case Conscience l. 5. c. 11. n. 14. 15.  about our Liberty. And he adds, That all they are not sufficiently instructed, to whom a just account of the matter of Fact is rendered. For perhaps some are not capable to understand the account that is given them; and therefore saith he, though an account has been given them, they are still to be accounted weak and little ones. But are Governors bound, as well to find them understanding as to give them Laws? And must the Laws be suspended, because some men want a Capacity to understand the Reason of them? 
See the Animadversions on the Prot. Reconc. p. 44.   
God's patience, we know, was weary of waiting for the compliance of an untractable Generation; and is the Patience of Man indefatigable? Forty years long was I grieved with this Generation, and said, it is a People that do err in their 
Psal. 95. 10, 11  hearts: (they loved their Error, but their doom was sad at last) unto whom I swore in my wrath that they should not enter into my Rest. St. Paul turned his back at last upon the Jews, and they were totally cut off for their stubbornness and unbelief. It is a very strange thing to me, that the whole Church of God should be supposed to be in darkness as to the nature and measures of Christian Liberty for 1500 years.  
The Casuists tell us, that a Spiritual Good, if it be not absolutely necessary to Salvation, but only a matter of Counsel, towards the accomplishing of it, with more ease and advantage, is to be deferred 
Malder ad 22. q. 44. a. 7. Dico. 5.  for a time to prevent Scandal. But the Scandal of the weak will hardly require that such Spiritual good should be altogether omitted; for when that comes to be required, 'tis degenerated into a Pharisaical Scandal.  
I confess, says P. Mart. if a man contemns 
Ad Rom. 14. in principio.  those truths which he hears out of the holy Writ, (he speaks of the weak Jews, who would not believe the abrogation of the Ceremonial Law of Moses) and will not admit them, but makes himself a Judge and an Arbitrator, how much of the Scriptures he ought to believe, and attributes more to himself than to the word of God: That, he saith, is no true Faith. Nor does the Holy Spirit inspire such a sense and conceit into any man; which makes him doubtful of the Justification of such a person.  
And though his weakness may seem to need our help, yet if he scorns it, and rejects our instruction, there is no reason that Authority, which comes from God, should truckle under such as ought to be in subjection to her by God's appointment, or that Governors should stoop to break a good and decent Order to gratify a perverse or wanton humour.  
There was some difficulty in treating with those weak ones among the Jews; They were to be brought off from Laws and Ceremonies of a Divine Institution, under which they had been bred, and to which they and their Fathers had been long addicted, as has been already observed. But there's Vnum Necessarium one Principle (and 'tis of unquestionable truth (which well observed, is sufficient to prevent or remove all the Scandal that is or can be 
☞  taken among us upon the account of Ceremonies or things Indifferent, and 'tis this: That nothing can affect or defile 
Rom. 14. 14.  the Conscience, but what is acted or omitted contrary to the Light of Nature or the Laws and Institutions of the Gospel. Take an instance: The Surplice of itself is a thing Indifferent: There is no sin in the use or dis-use of it, but when Authority has enjoined the use of it, then to omit it with Offence and in Contempt of Authority, is a sin; because 'tis against the Law and Institution of the Gospel, which requires us to obey our Governors. I say the same for the Sign of the Cross, and Kneeling at the Sacrament, and Kissing the Book, or holding up the hand, at taking of a solemn Oath. Herein our Governors have done nothing but what becomes Gods solemn Worship (which they are enjoined to see performed decently,) nothing but what becomes the Trust, reposed in them, and the Authority they are invested with for Edification; And they ought not to suffer the People to be nursed up in Ignorance, much less in Superstition and Judaisme. And I say for men to refuse the Surplice, the Sign of the Cross and Kneeling at the Sacrament, as Common and . (i. e.) as things unlawful, this is contrary to the Apostle and smells rank 
1 Cor. 6. 12. c. 10. 23. Pag. 324.  of Superstition and Judaisme, which are to be rooted out of their minds by a due Instruction and Discipline.  
But the Reconciler tells us (as was noted above) that St. Paul never does enjoin the weak to be of the same Principles and Apprehensions with the strong, but always doth command the strong to bear with and restrain his Liberty, that he may minister no Scandal, or Offence unto the weak, and doth confirm his exhortation by his own Practice in like Cases.  
To this I answer, that St. Paul was a 
Precatur eos Apostolus, quos pro suâ Authoritate monere vel etiam praecepto urgere poterat. Sed ut hoc modestius erat, ita prosundius animis piorum insidere poterat humilis illa petitio, quae non obscurè docebat, quàm illi Cordi esset ipsorum salus, etc. Gualt. ad Rom. Homil. 9●. post princi.  Person of great Prudence and Civility, and he knew very well that to some Persons, his very entreaties would have the force of a Command; Thus he chose to treat Philemon, saying, Tho I might be much bold in Christ to enjoin that which is convenient, yet for Love-sake I rather entreat thee.  
2. I observed before, that he sent no Order nor Injunction to the Christians at Rome because they were froward and indisposed for such Injunctions; and there wanted Governors to see his Orders put in Execution.  
3. There is a wretched insinuation in the Reconcilers' words to encourage Dissenters in their Schism; and he wraps it up in a kind of Fallacy. For what does he mean by being of the same Principles and Apprehensions? the words are ambiguous; the question is, whether the Apostle enjoins them to be of the same Faith and Persuasion touching the Abrogation of the Ceremonial Law, touching Christian Liberty, and things Indifferent; 
Gal. 5. 1.  and this He has enjoined, with a Witness; does he not say I stand fast in 
V 12.  the Liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free? Does he vot say of such as disturbed the Peace of the Church with a contrary Doctrine, I would they were even 
V 10.  cut off, which trouble you? Does he not threaten him, that he shall bear his Judgement, whosoever he be? But these suasory Topics of false Reasoning are frequent with the Reconciler.  
And this Practice is not only foul in itself, but of very ill Consequence also to the Public? 'Tis Peter Martyr's Observation; That good men do sometimes 
●d Rom. 15. 31.  judge amiss, because they are not rightly instructed, or else because they are imposed upon by the Fraud of Seducers. Et habent artificium Impostores quo prius persuadeant quam edoceant. Impostors have an Artifice, whereby they do persuade before they do instruct. The truth doth persuade by teaching, not teach by persuading, saith Tertullian. And therefore 
Adversus Valentin. 1 Sam. 12. 23.  'tis incumbent upon Governors, to teach their Subjects, the good and the right way. To this effect they are obliged to speak and they must not hold their peace: Be instant in season, out 
2 Tim. 4. 2.  of season, rebuke, reprove, exhort. Some are so Ingenuous and quick of Apprehension, that a word spoken in season shall prevail to that effect for which it is designed: but the deadness of affection in some and the dulness of Capacity in others 
1 Thes. 5. 14.  may require the Spur, not only of a quickening Exhortation but of a pungent Admonition and Reproof; and 
Tit. 2. 15.  sometimes there are such refractory Spirits as must be bridled by Authority. These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all Authority. And when the worthy Governor sets himself upon the great work of subduing Vice and Error, in order to the advancement of Truth and Piety, no man ought to be so Prodigal of his own Salvation, as to undervalue his Person or slight his Office: Let no Churchman despise thee, saith S. Paul to Titus. 
● Joan. Crocium 〈◊〉 locum.   
But this is not all the Duty of a Church-Governor, He must Watch and Ward, as well as Instruct his Flock. Feed thy Flock with thy Rod, saith the Lord to his Prophet, and if their mouths must 
Mic. 7. 14.  be stopped who subvert whole houses, shall theirs be kept open who endeavour to subvert whole Kingdoms? It belongs to the Pastor's Office, saith Bishop Davenant 
Tit. 1. 11.  (who was a Pastor himself) 
Ad Colos. 24.  not only to instruct his Flock in sound Doctrine, but to arm them against the wiles and treacheries of Seducers; For he is set as a Watchman; wherefore he is bound to give notice of the approach of the Enemy, and to discover his Snares and Stratagems; otherwise à Pastore exigetur, quicquid per inertiam non custoditur, saith Saint Cyprian after the Holy Prophet, Ezek. 
Ezek. 3. & 33. Chapters.  33. 8.  
Great attention and diligence is required to preserve ourselves from the Machinations of Seducers, that we be not surprised through the Cunning Craftiness whereby they lie in wait 
Gualther. Ad Rom. 16. Hom. 95.  to Deceive. The Apostle knew that Impostors were wont with admirable Artifice to insinuate themselves into Families, to see who they could draw into their Nets, and therefore we are to keep a strict Guard upon ourselves against them. And though this be every private man's Duty, yet it is much more incumbent upon the Pastors of the Church, whom God has 
Ut supra Ezek. 3. & 33 chap.  made and appointed to be Watchmen for the common Salvation. The very Title of Bishops under the New Testament does admonish them of their Duty. And they are in Holy Scripture compared to those vigilant Sentinels of the night who by their officious Alarms betray the approaching Thief and Robber, and admonish us to avoid the ruin they would bring upon us.  
There is another part of the Office of Church-Governors, and that is given in charge to Titus, A man that 
Ti●● 3. 10.  is an Heretic after a first and second Admonition reject: If he does seriously and hearty love and favour Piety, he will not be an obstinate Recusant; such good and wholesome Admonitions will prevail with him, saith Calixtus: but if he does Maliciously and Stubbornly oppose any fundamental point of Faith or Practice, against the common consent of Church and Scripture, 
Joan. Crocias'.  and propagate the contrary, whether he remains in the Bosom of the Church, or Schismatically departed from it, he is one of these Heretics, and 'tis as hard for the Author and Broacher of such Heretical Pravity to return into the way of truth, as it is for the Blackamoor to change his skin, or the Leopard his spots; 'Tis the observation 
Joan. Agric. ad locum.  of Joannes Agricola, The Magicians of Egypt, Etiam digito Dei confusi, non resipiscunt: They repent not, though the finger of God himself had appeared to their Confusion. For Impiety, as St. chrysostom saith, is many times Confounded, but seldom Convinced. And this St. Paul intimates: After a fruitless Admonition reject such a Person, Knowing that he is subverted, or condemned of himself. And he concludes thus, Faxit 
Idem.  Deus ne idem nobis contingat in novarum Opinionum Authoribus qui novos errores coeperunt in Ecclesiâ serere. God grant, the same happens not among us in the Authors of Sects and Opinions, who began long ago to sow the seeds of new Errors in the Church.  
Satan has his Impostors, saith Gualther, 
Ad Rom. 16. Homil. 95.  Hypocrites, who, whether for private gain, or to get themselves a name do circumvent men with their new Doctrines, and privately draw them from the way of truth, and publicly raise up tumults and scandals in the Church. And the higher the Persons station is, the more pernicious is his example; his Dignity adds weight and aggravation to his scandal, which like the Dragon's tail 
Hemmingus de scanned. n. 12. Ut enim quo ingentius fuerit saxum Cadens ab altâ rupe eo plura fragmenta facit, ita quo dignior fuerit persona, & in sublimiori dignitatis culmine constituta, eo plures in lapsum secum trahit cum cadit. quare majorem poenam meretur. Ad Rom. 14. 14.  in the Apocalypse, sweeps the pendulous Meteors down from the firmament, wherein for a time they seemed to be fixed.  
Whether the Reconciler has been such an Instrument I leave the Reader to judge by these few instances.  
1. He undertakes to argue out of Rom. 14. 15. but perverts the Apostles meaning; And though he does acknowledge for his own part that those Rules laid down by the Apostle, to govern the present practice of the Romans, do equally bind himself; yet he does violate and break them all with great Study and Deliberation. This is no small sin in itself: but the Gild is greater in one that makes himself an Advocate for a tender Conscience. Si re aliquâ Deum credamus offendi, & nihilominus ab illa non abstinemus, id magno indicio est, nos pluris vostram voluntatem facere, quam Legem Dei, saith Peter Martyr: if we believe God to be offended in any thing, and yet do not abstain from it, that's a great sign that we value our own will above the Law of God. This is in general. Particularly,  
1. The Apostle saith, Him that is 
Ad Rom. 14. 1.  weak in the Faith receive, but not to doubtful Disputations. Prohibet Apostolus odiosas contentiones quae animos infirmorum alienant potius, quam aedicant, saith Peter Martyr. He forbids all odious wranglings which do rather alienate, than edify the minds of the weak: He would have them careful, Ne intricatiores efficiatis ipsorum Conscientias, saith Bullinger. Our Reconciler is so charitable as to receive the weak into his tuition; but he entertains him with doubtful Disputations, and leaves his Conscience more intricate and entangled by his false reasonings, than he found it.  
2. Because the Apostle saith, who art thou that judgest another man's servant? Therefore he will not allow Governors, to Judge, to Rebuke, to Admonish a weak, (i. e.) an ignorant erring Brother; and yet he takes upon him to Judge his Governors, to Censure their Laws, and to Condemn their Impositions. So it seems, He is above St. Paul's advice as well as above his Superiors Jurisdiction; and he can find favour and Indulgence for the meanest of the People rather than for them.  
3. So little esteem he has for Persons and things that relate to God's Service, that (contrary to the Apostles Rule) he despiseth them both, witness that profane Scoff of his; He that will have a Maypole, let him have a Maypole; and let the rest have none.  
4. Instead of pleasing his Brethren to their Edification that they might be saved, as St. Paul requires, he pleases them in their Schism, which he accounts damnable, (if he believes, what he has Transcribed of the Fathers) In this he walks uncharitably; for some he grieves, some he stumbleth, some he hardens in their Dissension. And  
5. To secure them in their wretched Schism (as he calls it) he flatters them with the privilege of weak Brethren; and tells them Saint Paul never enjoined 
Prot. Recanc. pag. 324.  them to change their Principles, or (which is all one) never to be of the same Principles and Apprehensions with the strong, which must needs confirm them in their Schism. And  
6. Thus he encourages them to despise their Pastors and Teachers; though Saint Paul saith, They that despise that 
1 Thes. 4. 8.  Office despise not man but God.  
7. Whereas Saint Paul enjoins us 
Rom. 14. 19,  to follow after the things which make for Peace; his design is more and more to break it; For Peace (as the 
Isa. 32. 17.  Prophet tells us) is the fruit of Justice, and, 'tis an undoubted part of Justice to pay obedience to the Impositions of our Governors; and till that be duly paid there are no hopes of Peace. But instead of pressing Subjects to perform this Duty; He cries down his Sovereign's Impositions: and though Order and Authority be the 
1 Cor. 14. 33.  great Conservators of Peace; yet he teaches men to despise them both and (in matters of Decency at least) to do 
Deut. 12. 8.  what is right in their own eyes. And thus  
8. He directly puts a stumbling-block 
Rom. 14. 13.  in his Brother's way; and this he doth for his Edification downwards, and endangers 
Rom. 14. 15.  his destruction for whom Christ died. And hereby  
9 He causeth his good (whether it be his Faith, or his Liberty) to be evil spoken of.  
10. The Apostle saith, Let every man 
Rom. 14. 5, 23.  be fully persuaded in his own mind. And he that doubteth is damned, if he does the thing he doubts of. Now (to assume upon this Reconciler) Does he Kneel, wear the Surplice, sign with the Cross? If he doubts the Lawfulness thereof, and does them notwithstanding, than he is damned, in acting against his own Conscience. But if he doubts not, if he be fully persuaded in his own mind of their Lawfulness, than he walks uncharitably; Neither like a Priest, for 'tis his Duty to accommodate himself to the Infirmities of such as are ignorant and out of the way. Heb. 5. 2. not to indulge them in their errors, much less to lead them more astray; for than he should be obliged to say Amen to his own Malediction: Cursed be he that maketh the blind to wander 
D ut. 27. 18.  out of the way. Which Text Abulensis thinks may be understood of those, 
Apud Bonfrer.  Qui rudes in fide sunt, who are raw and weak in the Faith, and the Curse belongs to such as make them err through their perverse Counsel. In falsos Doctores, 
Apud Synops.  & qui quomodo libet Causam dederint erroris, quadrat, saith Paul Fagius. It agrees exactly to our false Doctors, and such as by any means administer unto error; Let the Reconciler well consider it; For he has not done like a tender Priest.  
Nor (2.) like a true Convert: After his shameful prevarication, our Saviour says to Peter, & tu aliquando Conversus, 
Luke 22. 32. Luc B●ug. ad locum.  etc. and thou, when thou art converted, strengthen thy Brethren; in bono fidei, spei, Charitatis, in the grace and duty of Faith, Hope, and Charity. Sometimes God suffers such as are Ordaired to conduct others, to take offence and fall themselves: that by that accident they may come to think the more meanly of themselves and to treat the frail Delinquent with the more gentleness. And Christ doth insinuate, that unless such persons be converted, they are the less meet to Confirm others, especially if they have denied the Faith (in any considerable Article of it) as Peter did.  
11. Instead of Rational and Cogent Arguments he many times takes up such as are but probable, plausible and suasory: And because these sway much with himself, he thinks his Reader should be taken with them likewise; and if I had a list to take that trouble on me, I could make a large Collection, out of his Book of Instances to this purpose.  
12. He does unworthily traduce the Spouse (which is the Church) of Christ, and in effect accuse her of Disloyalty, in a Practice of Usurpation and Tyranny for 1600 years together; for so she is if there be nothing lawful to be imposed in her Communion, but what is Necessary and Commanded by God himself. For proof of this we need no other Argument but the Instances, which he hath produced in his Book, of the several things that have been observed, and afterward abolished in the Church.  
13. What the Ancient Fathers and others say by way of descant upon the Apostles Text, in reference to the scandal of the weak Jews, that he applies to the Customs and Ceremonies, which from time to time have been observed in the Church of God. From whence the Reader may easily conclude that the Reconciler designs to put a Fallacy upon him, or else is catched in one himself. The Fallacy is A Dicto secundum quid, ad Dictum simpliciter: When the Predicate agrees to the Subject, but in a certain respect, or in part, at such a time, or place, yet he asserts it simply and absolutely as if the agreement were in every respect, in every part, and time, and place without any limitation. And this is the Fallacy that runs all along in the Reconcilers' Discourse, when he urges the Fathers and other Authors, against a Decent Habit, a Reverend Gesture, or the Symbolical Sign of our Christianity, which is the sign of the Cross; for we may be confident, those Holy Fathers and Authors (who are quoted by him) would never make such sharp Invectives against the Church of God, and their own Sense and constant Practice.  
14. And with this Fallacy he urges as well the example as the say of the great Apostle; as if that had been his constant Practice and Doctrine, according to some standing Rule, which was nothing else but his Condescension Pro hîc & Nunc, at some times, and in some places, and among some Persons, by special Dispensation. And this Fallacy he repeats so often, that it becomes Nauseous.  
After this needful and seasonable Advertisement, I think I may venture any man of Reason, and a small stock of Artificial Logic, to read his Book.  
This Reconciler 
* p. 104. Verdict. 100 etc.  falls again upon Dr. Womock, who says in his Verdict (p. 100) That a Man may lose the Title of a Weak Brother, and the benefits indulged by the Apostle to such persons. The Argument reduced to due Form, runs thus, All Persons under such and such Circumstances: Or, All Persons under such and such Qualifications, do forfeit, or lose the Title of Weak Brethren, and the benefits Indulged to such Persons: But some of the Dissenters are Persons under such and such Circumstances, or such and such Qualifications: Therefore, some of the Dissenters do forfeit or lose the Title of Weak Brethren.  
What says our Reconciler to this Argument? School Divinity is a crabbed Study, and there's little use of Logic to Rhetoricate; and the Man being to seek in these Studies, He does confidently deny the Conclusion; which the judicious Reader cannot but observe:  
For the Major Proposition is drawn out of Holy Scripture, and speaks of Persons so qualified, in such sort, that the Title of Weak Brethren cannot in reason be allowed them: And that some of the Dissenters are such, the Reconciler does not deny 
* V p. 108. .  
In the Verdict, there are mentioned three several Degrees of Men, who cannot, according to the Rules of Reason and Scripture, be accounted among the number of Weak Brethren.  
The First are such as will be offended after sufficient means of Information: For when their Ignorance is convinced, by the Light of clear Instruction, they cannot plead such ignorance for an Excuse. This was the Case of the Pharisees, of whose Conviction I hope the Reconciler makes no doubt. 
* Mat. 12. 15.  Yet when his Disciples told our Blessed Lord that they were offended; What did he do? Did he retract his Doctrine? Did he cry Peccavi to take off their scandal? He took not off the scandal, saith St. Chrysostom, but reproved it; 
Chrysost. Hom. 52. in Mat. 15.  For he knew very well, when Scandals were to be contemned, and when they were not to be contemned. And Calvin well observes, That the trite distinction 
Calvin Harm ad locum.  of Scandal was taken from hence. That we give no Scandal to the Weak, we are to be very careful, but if the stubborn and malicious take Scandal, we are not to regard it; for Christ, who is the Rock of Offence, must be quite Buried, if we would satisfy the frowardness of all Men. And therefore, saith he, we must needs put a difference, inter infirmos qui ignorantia offensi mox reddunt se sanabiles, & superbos & morosos qui scandala sibi accersunt; betwixt the morose and proud, who draw scandals upon themselves, and those, who being offended thro' ignorance, do presently render themselves curable, by good instruction and advice, which are the proper Remedies of such Ignorance.  
Certainly they are not Weak Brethren, whose Mouths the Apostle commands to be stopped. And if we cannot actually 
Tit. 1. 11.  stop them, they are never the more Weak Brethren, for their prating against 
John Ep. 3. vers. 10.  their Governors with Malicious Words, after the example of Diotrephes.  
Johannes Crotius asks the Question, 
Com. in cap. 1. Ep. ad Titum, vers. 11.  How 'tis possible for a Bishop to stop the Mouths of the Refractory, whose Petulancy does the more increase for the attempts that are made to suppress it? The Church, saith he, may enjoin silence to such as are manifestly vanquished upon the account of the Scriptures; if they will not yet be quiet, She may drive them from the Communion of the Faithful. But if none of this be done; yet if the Bishop does solidly convince them of their Error, out of the Word of God; He has then stopped their Mouths. Take notice, He that writes thus is no Jesuit.  
A Second Degree of such as have lost the Title of Weak Brethren, is, When a Man, from a modest Enquirer, comes to be positive, and Dogmatical, and Will 
See the Verdict, pag. 100 etc.  not endure sound Doctrine, but after his own Lust's heaps up to himself Teachers, having itching Ears, he can no longer pass the muster for a weak Brother, etc.  
A Third Degree of this sort of Men, is, When a Man is puffed up with a Conceit of his own Knowledge, when he becomes a fierce Disputant, grows Stubborn and Censorious, despiseth Dominion, and takes the Scorners Chair; then he commenceth Schismatic, and is not to be treated as a weak Brother, but as a Seditious Mutineer; for 'tis now evident, That he dissents not out of Weakness, but out of Pride, Stubbornness, and Animosity.  
What saith the Reconciler to this? Why the Characters here given of such Persons are taken so to the Life, out of Holy Scripture, that he cannot deny the Truth of them; which makes up the Major Proposition: And the Assumption or Minor he confesses expressly; If any of these things (saith he) 
Pag. 107. 108.  be offered to prove, that there be men of this Malicious, Proud, and Subborn Temper among the body of Dissenters, we have cause to fear the thing is too true.  
He yields the Premises, but denies the Conclusiou, and that speaks him a great Logician: Yet something else he finds to oppose; and to make as short work with him as I can, He has reduced it to Three Heads. He says. 
Pag. 105.   

First, This Plea will serve all Parties.  
Secondly, That 'tis a vain Presumption.  
Thirdly, That it is against Scripture, Reason, Charity, and what not, to pass this heavy Sentence upon Dissenters in the General, or without limitation or exception, as the Dr. doth.   
Were the Reconciler's Wits a Woolgathering when he wrote his Book? Is it not as clear as the Sun, that the Dr. distinguished the Dissenters into two sorts, viz. Such as are Weak, and such as have forfeited or lost that Title? And 
Pag. 108.  does he not here make several Degrees of this last sort? The Man has a short Memory, for in the very next Leaf, within less than Four Pages; He takes notice, That the Apostle offers no Rules of Discrimination, as the Doctor doth: If the Doctor offers Rules of Discrimination, than he does no pass Sentence without exception.  
And one Mistake, though never so absurd, does commonly beget another; and so it happens here; for, Where is the heavy Sentence which the Doctor passeth? And, What is it? Certainly it cannot be less than the Sentence of Damnation, which he blames with so much noise in Dr. Womock: I find indeed at every turn, the Reconciler is sending His Dissenters to Hell for their wretched Schism, not by single Persons only, but by Shoals and Myriads; and then he rebukes Dr. 
Pag. 55.  Womock for so doing, when he does it not: Just as he shoots his Censures at his Governors, in the very same Breath, wherein he inveighs against Judging.  
But the Reconciler is Catcht again in a sorry Fallacy, and I am almost persuaded, he is not ware of it. If his Argument were put into Form, it must run thus, Whosoever saith, That the Dissenters have lost the Title of Weak Brethren, and are under the Sentence of Damnation, he is rash, Presumptuous, and Uncharitable.  
But does Dr. Womock make any such Assumption? Then let the Reconciler (who takes great freedom in that kind) tell him of his foolery; and that he wants Logic as well as Charity. But Dr. Womock knows that here is Sophisma Plurium Interrogationum; which perhaps is more than the Reconciler has considered. In effect he puts the question thus, Have the Dissenters lost the Title of Weak Brethren, and fallen under the Sentence of Damnation? If the Dr. affirms it, than he concludes them under the Sentence of Damnation, and is rash and Uncharitable in so doing: If he denies it, than he grants that they are Weak Brethren, and are to have all the Indulgence and tenderness, that belongs to Persons under those Circumstances.  
But Dr. Womock is able to distinguish in this Case, and to separate such as have lost the title of Weak Brethren from the present sentence of Damnation. For the Dr. meddles with no man's Person, having so well considered the Advice of 
Bishop Taylor.  that learned Prelate (whom the Reconciler pretends to admire, while he does abuse him in his writings.) Be not hasty, says he, in pronouncing damnation 
Adu. 52.  against any man or Party in a matter of Disputation. It is enough that you reprove an error; but what shall be the sentence against it at the day of Judgement, thou knowest not, and therefore pray for the erring Person and reprove him, but leave the sentence to his Judge.  
But touching those Weak ones among 
Ad Rom. 14. in Principio.  the Romans, I shall acquaint the Reader with Peter Martyrs Opinion of them. The question is, Whether the Weakness of their Faith were an impediment to their Justification? He thinks not; because it is not the strength or Excellency of our Faith, by which we are justified, but the Merit and Dignity of the Object; and although Faith be weak, yet 'tis Faith still if it be true. But it might be said, that they did not believe all things which were to be believed: For they did not believe the Ceremonial Law of Moses to be abrogated: And that Faith, which does not believe all the Articles of Faith, is no true faith. Fateor equidem, saith Peter Martyr, I do confess it, Si id accidat vitio Credentis, if the fault be in the Believer; if he will not admit of those Truths which he hears out of Holy Writ, but contemns them; and makes himself the Judge and Arbitrator, how much of Scripture he ought to believe; and attributes more to himself, than he does to the Word of God: Non est ista Fides vera; that is not true Faith; nor is the Holy Spirit wont to inspire any such Sense or Judgement. But if there be something which a man does not believe, because it has not been clearly propounded to him, and he carries a mind sufficiently prepared to receive the Truth, when it is made known to him; in this case the Truth of his Faith may be a means to justify, while the Weakness of it doth excuse him.  
I wish the Dissenters may consider this Judgement of Peter Martyr, that they may not make matters of Decency and Order, (under the Gospel) to be Sin, as if we were still under that Mosaical yoke of Bondage, the Law, and not under Grace.  
But to follow the Reconciler, who justifies his Denial of the Conclusion by several Arguments.  
1. He says, what Dr. Womock does 
Pag. 105.  allege is a Plea that will serve all Parties, Papists, Dissenters, Arminians, Calvinists, and almost all Disputers. Now what the true ground of the Dispute is I cannot well imagine; I have reason to think he is offended with the Major Proposition, which contains the Character of such as ought not to claim the Right or Title of Weak Brethren; but that is so expressly the words of Holy Scripture, that he cannot in modesty avow his dislike thereof; and therefore he makes an Assumption (or Minor Proposition) in Dr. Womocks name, and then blames him for it. That Dr. Womock did not assume upon the Dissenters, the Reader will be convinced, 
v. Pag. 100 101, 102.  if he please to consult the place in the Verdict.  
However let us weigh the strength of his discourse which we have in this Syllogism: All Arguments that may be used by other Parties, as Papists, etc. they are ill Arguments: But Dr. Womocks' Argument may be used by other Parties, Papists, etc. Therefore 'tis an ill Argument.  
Here I deny his Major Proposition: All Arguments used by other Parties, and particularly by the Papists, are not ill Arguments; for their Arguments to prove the Divinity of Christ are good Arguments, and many of them the very same that are used by Protestants. And that of Bellarmine is celebrated for a great Truth among all the Learned, even by Amesius himself: Propter incertitudinem proprioe justitioe, & perticulum inanis gloriae, tutissimum est fiduciam totam in sola Dei misericordiâ & benignitate reponere: that is, In regard of the Uncertainty of our own Righteousness, and the danger of Vainglory, it is the safest way to put our whole Trust and Confidence, in the sole Mercy and Favour of God. This is a great Gospel-Truth, and yet it fell from the Pen of Bellarmine: And therefore he is out of the story, when he concludes all Arguments to be ill, because they are used by Papists or other Parties.  
That his Argument may conclude effectually against Dr. Womock it must be framed thus: Those Arguments which will as well, and with equal Truth and Light of evidence, maintain the Points of Popery, etc. as they do the Doctrine of the Church of England, Those must needs be ill Arguments: But such are the Arguments produced by Dr. Womock.  
Here I utterly deny the Minor: The Argumen there used by Dr. Womock, have not an equal Truth or Light of Evidence to prove the Points of Popery, as they have to prove the Doctrine of the Church of England; For let me ask the Reconciler these few Questions: Have the Popish Party as good Reason for their Aversion to our Communion, as we have for our Aversion to theirs? Have they as great Objections against us, as we have against them? Has the Pope any lawful Jurisdiction over us? By what Scripture or Council was it settled? Did we break off from their Communion? Or rather, Did not they leave and interdict Ours? Who is now the Friend to Jesuits?  
I would have the Reconciler to consider, That although the same Sentence for Words and Syllables, may pass against an Innocent as well as against a Malefactor, yet I hope he will not say, it is done with equal Truth and Justice. But he is so ingenuous at last, as to confess the truth in these words:  
It will be hard to show, why either Party may not almost with equal plausibility 
Pr. Recon. p. 107.  make this pretence. Whence we must conclude, that this his Argument (like the rest of his Book) is but almost to the purpose.  
2. He Answers, Secondly (but to what Proposition of Dr. Womock's, I cannot Divine; but thus he saith,) If any of these things be offered, as I hope they are, only to prove that there be men of this malicious, proud, stubborn temper among the body of Dissenters, we have cause to fear the thing is too true.  
This Fear of the Reconciler yields the Argument; for it runs thus; All that are under such and such qualifications have lost the title of Weak Brethren; But Some of the Dissenters are under such and such qualifications: Therefore Some of the Dissenters have lost the title of Weak Brethren; which is all that Dr. Womock is concerned to prove, and more than he did positively affirm in his Verdict.  
But then the Reconciler saith, That the Arguments will hold good, for a Dispensation towards all those, of whom we cannot Charitably pronounce this Sentence. I say this does not follow, according to the Common Rules of Government. Tho every Part be not alike Culpable, yet every part must follow the common condition of the Whole; and if men will follow such Leaders, though they be not led with the same Pride, Malice or Design, as their Leaders are led by; yet making themselves of the Party, and acting therein accordingly, they are involved in the same guilt, and liable to the same Condemnation. I know (as Bullinger saith) There is a great difference betwixt one that errs 
In Epist. ad Tit. 3. 10.  not out of malice, and one that to his error joins malice, and a study to do mischief: But if he is to be punished (as no doubt he deserves it) Cum errandi pervicacia ultro in Religionis Legumque eversionem manifeste tendit, when the stiffneckedness and obstinacy of his erring manifestly tends to the Overthrow of Religion and the Laws established; How can that man in Reason be dispensed with, who joins and abetts him in 
* Idem enim omnes credimur operati, in quo deprehendimur eadem omnes Censurae & Disciplinae consensione Sociati. Cler. Roman. Cypriano Inter Epistol. 31.  it? 'Tis a Rule in Law, Ubi Lex non distinguit, nec nobis regulariter distinguere Licet: Where the Law makes no distinction, there we cannot regularly distinguish; what ever simplicity they may pretend, we cannot in prudence give them a dispensation to contrive our ruin; which we have reason to suspect, as long as they adhere to the Communion of those who design it.  
Such as set up to make a Party against the Government, they have strange Arts of Insinuation to work upon the flexible temper of the People, and some follow their pernicious ways out of simplicity, some out of a love of Novelty, and others out of an admiration or fondness for their Persons: Does God give a Dispensation in this case, when he comes to visit for such things? The Prophet tells us otherwise; For the Leaders of this People cause them to err, and 
Isa. 9 16. Agreeably St. August. upon Christ's words If the Blind, lead the Blind, saith thus: Vae caecis ducentibus, We caecis Sequentibus.  they that are led of them are destroyed. 'Tis worth our observing; That the Original hath it, They that call them Blessed, which notes the Flattery of such false Teachers: They bless them in their Sedition and errors; and they that are called Blessed of them, are swallowed up; though their simplicity is imposed upon, that is no Dispensation, no Plea at all, to secure them against destruction.  
I cannot persuade myself, that Corah and all the Company that adhered to him, were equally Proud, Stubborn and Malicious, yet I find no Dispensation in the Case: They were all involved in the same Gild, and fell under the same Condemnation, Their Wives and their 
Numb. 16. 27.  Sons, and their little Children.  
I allege this the rather, because as Bullinger hath observed, by this horrible 
In Ep. Jud. 11. v.  example of Corah, St. Judas does demonstrate to all the World, what they are to expect, who being seduced by the Spirit of Pride and Arrogancy, are not content with their own Station in the Church, but raise up Tumults and Factions against the Ministers of Truth.  
To this Corah he compares the Seducers not of his own time only, but of all ages, Qui sibi Functionem docendi vendicant repulsis Doctoribus veritatis, who casting out the Ministers of Truth, do challenge the Function of Teaching to themselves.  
woe unto them, for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam, for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Corah. 
Ep. Jud. v. 11. Dr. Dicson has the like upon the place.  Calvin wonders that he should inveigh so sharply against these false Teachers, when he had told us but a few lines before, that the Archangel was so modest he would not reproach the Devil: But this shows (saith he) that their Rage and Fury is intolerable, who disturb the Well composed State of the Church.  
To paint such seducing Teachers to the life, the Apostle makes use of three notable examples; and then he illustrates their Character by several similitudes. He gins with Cain, who was the first that made a Divorce from the Church of God: In him we may observe Envy, Malice and Hypocrisy: The second is Balaam, who turned his Prophetical Office into a Trade, and made himself a wretched Hireling, for his Divination: and in him we have Covetousness, and the liberty of Prophesying set up for filthy 
Bullinger.  Lucre. The third is Corah: In whom we have an example of Ambition and Arrogance, of Disobedience and Sedition; He blasphemed the Magistracy, and attempted to Level all degrees among the Ministers of God: and he 
Hemming.  used a very specious and plausible Argument to this effect: All the Congregation are Holy; and 'twas an unworthy thing that so holy a People should be subject to any Head on Earth. But the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them 
Numb. 26. 10.  up, and they became a sign: A dreadful example of the Divine vengeance against Seditious Schismatics, to deter 
Quem ipsi imitantur contradictione & seditiosa ordinis ac status ecclesiae, perturbatione. Gomar. apud Synops.  others from the like sin; who are said to have perished in effigy in the gainsaying of Corah, as in their representative.  
We should have these Examples always before our eyes (saith Hemmingius) to admonish us of that Rule of Justice, by which God ever measures out his Judgement against the like Transgressor's. Let no man therefore think himself secure by his simplicity, or good intention, or honest meaning as he may pretend; there is so dangerous a Contagion in the Communion of such Persons, that there is no way to escape, but to desert it. To this purpose The Lord spoke unto Moses; and Moses gives the Caution to the Congregation. Numb. 16. 26. Depart I pray-you from the tents of these Wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest ye be consumed in all their sins. 'Tis Crotius his note upon the place. Bonorum subditorum est Segregare se a Seditiosis: 'Tis the part of good Subjects to separate themselves from the seditious; if they mind and value their Duty to their Prince and their own safety.  
This is a point of so great Concernment, and yet so little considered, that 
In Epist. Jud. vers. 23.  I shall add further what Bullinger (not Jesuit I'll assure you) observes upon the same Epistle: 'Tis not enough (saith he) with grief of heart to avoid those desperate Disturbers of the Church's Peace, unless we watch also with all carefulness, to gain those to the Communion of Christ's Flock, whom we find Curable; and especially we are to press them with the Fear and Threaten of God's Judgement; that if possible we may pluck them out of the Danger, as out of some Sodomitical Conflagration.  
But because such as are yet sound, and out of danger, many times thro' Humane Frailty, do perish together with such as they did intent to secure; that is, because the better are sometimes perverted by the worse; Therefore St. Judas adds; Hating even the Garment spotted by the Flesh; As if he had said, I would not have you make yourselves too familiar with them; hating not their Persons, but the Works of the Flesh which are manifest in their outward Conversation, their Pride and their Disobedience, their Schism and Sedition.  
The next thing I observe in this Reconciler, is, That he is so unhappy a Reprover, that when ever he undertakes to rebuke a fault in others, he is sure to fall deeper into it himself. To the Instance of rash Judgement, we may add, his severe, though Groundless, charge of Uncharitableness.  
He supposes Dr. Womock to have this opinion of the Dissenters, That they are all, without exception, Proud, Froward, stubborn and Malicious; that they all sin out of pure Wilfulness, and Obstinacy, or prepensed Malice and Design. Having laid down this Supposition (which is notoriously false, and betrays the Reconcilers' Rashness in his own Censures) He sets up a man of Clouts for his Prowess to encounter (which he does in this manner) Now although such a charge might suit well with the Casuistical Divinity 
Pag. 108.  of Soto, De La Cerda Ambiana, and such Jesuits as here the Doctor citys; yet it is an amazing thing, that Dr. Womock should say any thing, which gives the least occasion to suspect him so uncharitable.  
Why should this Reconciler suggest a thing so utterly False? Without doubt his Design was to bring an Odium upon Dr. Womock, as if he Conversed with none but Jesuits in his Study; and then, be the Discourse never so rational, if they can find a Jesuit at the end of it, 'tis Answered presently with a Mentiris Bellarmine: and the unthinking Mobile will look no more after it. But as good Providence would have it, there is not One Jesuit of the Three he mentions; and for the rest (which he perversely or maliciously insinuates) they are only Ferus Perkins, and St. Paul, such are the Jesuits as the Doctor there 
See the Verdict, pag. the 100, 101, 102.  Cites; and 'tis a common thing with them, to make all Jesuits that are not of their Opinion: But this is not the first Falsehood the Reconciler has suggested for his own advantage.  
What he allegeth out of Dr. Stillingfleet, Dr. Williams, and Mr. Chillingworth, 
Pag. 109. etc.  concerns not Dr. Womock in the least. But we must consider, That the Difference amongst Us is not in a matter of Philosophy or Theological Speculations, wherein the Error is of no great consequence, having no influence upon our practice: But besides the Deformity in the Omission (which directly follows it) the weightyer matters of the Law lie at Stake: Authority is struck at, Government is undermined and shaken, Superiors are despised, Subjection disputed, Obedience denied, and every man under pretence of Weakness and a tender Conscience, learns to claim a Liberty to do whatsoever is right in his own eyes.  
But the Reconciler, calls upon Dr. Wcmock afresh; (and 'tis pity a man of so much Civility should be neglected 
Pag. 111.  though he speaks but by the by in a Parenthesis:) What the Scripture hath determined touching the Wearing of a Surplice, the Cross in Baptism, or Kneeling at the receiving of the Sacrament, I desire the Doctor to inform me. I might very fitly return him the blind man's Answer to the Pharisees, and say, I have told you ailready, and ye did not 
Joh. 9 27.  hear, wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his Disciples? But what if our Lord has left it to be determined by our Governors? What is that to the 
1 Cor. 14. 40. 1 Tit. 1. 5.  Reconciler, who is obliged (if he be Christ's Disciple) to follow the Precepts of our Master, and the Orders of his Church? 
Mat. 13. 17   
1. These things (which he so often carps at) are not only found to be expedient by the most Pious, Learned and Judicious, but so near allied to Holy Scripture, that they may very well claim Kindred of some Practices and Institutions therein mentioned. St. John saw the Elders attend in Surplices before the Throne of God; and though he was the Divine, and a Holy Evangelist, 
Rev. 4. 4.  yet he was not offended at that sight.  
2ly. It seems the Offence of the Cross is not yet ceased. Men are either so much Jews to make it their stumbling-block, or such Heathen Greeks as to ridicule it, for a Piece of foolery. And though the old Prophecy told Us (as Justin Martyr 
Psal. 96 10.  and Tertullian have it) Dominus regnavit a Ligno, the Lord reigneth from the Tree, and calls upon Us to tell it unto the World for Gospel, and glad tidings; yet as the Jews, out of Malice, turned the Wood of the Cross out of the Text, so they would have Us turn the sign of it out of our Baptism, as well as all other Administrations; lest we should make our Weak Brother, be he Jew or Gentile, to offend.  
For Kneeling and bowing, whatever 
Mat. 4. 1.  mean Conceit the Reconciler has of it: The Devil was not so much an Ass, as to offer all the Glory of the World for a trifle. He knew it to be God's due, and a part of his External Worship; and so he valued it, and was desirous to purchase it upon that account. And I am of Opinion, it cannot be totally taken away from God's Service without Sacrilege. And if we can take the Confidence to abolish this, let us never blame the Church of Rome, for taking away the Cup from the Laity in the Lord's Supper: for the Sacrament in ' its integrity, is but a part of External Worship, and the Cup but a part of that part. And the taking away of Kneeling (utterly out of God's Worship) seems to be a greater Offence, than taking away the Cup; because that is a Part of the Law of Nature; whereas the Sacrament is but of positive Institution, and consequently not so strictly binding. And being an undoubted part of God's External Worship, and a piece of Natural Religion; we certainly do well to use it at the Sacrament, as an Acknowledgement of Christ's Divinity, which now a-dayes is so professedly impugned by the Socinians: And We shall allow our Governors very little to do about matters of Religion, if they may neither Ordain a Ceremony, nor so much as appoint a special time for the performance of an undoubted Part of God's External Worship.  
That some of the Dissenters act out of Pride, Malice, Obstinacy, the Reconciler fears is too true: That all of them 
Pag. 108.  are of that Temper, Dr. womock is so far from affirming, that he thinks 'tis very false. He does not pretend to set up a Tribunal in any Man's Heart, to Judge the secret Operations of his Mind. But he is very well assured, That good meanings can never Sanctify wicked Actions; and we need no Window in some Men's Breasts, to read their inward Dispositions. Fides & Incredulitas cordium sunt, fateor, ea nemo hominum judicare potest, saith Bullinger; Faith 
Ad Titum 3. 10.  and Unbelief, I confess, are the Secrets of the Heart, which no Man can judge. Ex Dictis vero & Factis, ijsque manifestis, debent fieri hominum judicia: We must Judge of Men therefore by their Words and Actions, which are manifest and apparent. Our Saviour's Rule cannot fail Us, if we take it aright, and he tells Us more than once, By their 
Mat. 7. 16. Deut. 32. 32, 33.  fruits ye shall know them. What Harvest have we had of these Thorns? What Figs have we reaped from these Thistles? Have not their Grapes been Grapes of Gall, and their Clusters bitter? Has not their wine been the poison of Dragons, and the Crud venom of Asps?  
'Tis Gualters' Observation (and I desire 
Ad Rom. Homil. 87. cap. 15. 5, 6.  the Reader to take Notice, that in this Discourse I make no use of Jesuits to offend the Reconciler, or his weak Brethren, but such Protestants as are the most likely to favour the Cause of the Dissenters, if there were any Reason or Colour for it) Hi ut Ecclesiam turban, it a dei cultores esse non possunt, cum Unitatem scindant quâ ille imprimis delectatur: He speaks of the Sowers of Dissensions, and Authors of Sects and Factions; who, as they disturb the Peace of the Church, so they cannot be the Servants of God, seeing they rend that Unity which he is chief delighted with.  
We are told by the Apostle, That Schism itself is a Work of the Flesh, and excludes the Schismatic from the Kingdom of God. But when the tender Conscience 
Gal. 5. 20.  sets up for Reformation, we cannot easily forget the great Train of Mischiefs, which follows it.  
For, upon this Pretence, Did not that Party make an Insurrection against Moses, and against Aaron, and conspire to destroy both Church and State? and we know they kept their Wicked Covenant in nothing else. How malicious and eager were they to Root out the Royal Family, and to anoint the Bramble to Reign over them? Did not they affront the late KING of ever blessed Memory, by Clamours, and Seditious Tumults? Did they not Persecute him by Votes and Propositions against all the Rules of Honour and Conscience? Did they not Blaspheme his Person, slander and defame his Actions? Did they not usurp his Power, and seize upon his Militia, the only guard of it? Did they not make themselves Masters of his Revenue, his Ships, his Forts, his Castles? Did they not pursue and fight him? Drive him from house and home, and at last Arraign and Murder him?  
If we can pass these Crimes upon the Account of Humane frailty; let us no longer blame the Church of Rome for her Doctrine of Venial Sins. He that can impute them (as the Reconciler is supposed to do) to the Prejudices of 
Pag. 113.  Education, Mis-conception, or Misinterpretation of the sense of Scripture, to the Want of better Information, or to unreasonable Fears and Scrupulosities, and excuse those execrable practices upon that score; may easily be tempted to make an Invective against Moses and Aaron, and a Panegyric upon Corah, and to turn the 30th. of January (as too many of the Party does) into a Festival for the honour of our Unrelenting Regicides.  
But the truth is, All those gay Pretences, viz. the Prejudices of Education, the Want of better Information (which cannot reasonably be alleged among us) Misconception, and the like, we know are inconsistent with the state of Grace in Jews and Turks, and why not in Sectaries, in whom (after the contempt of sufficient instruction) they do certainly degenerate into Pride, Malice, and Stubbornness; and, if they be not finally Corrected and subdued by Repentance, they are damning.  
But were their Clergy wanting in point of Education? Were they ignorant of the sense of Scripture? They would take it in great disdain to be thought so. And yet were not they the most Vociferous Trumpeters of our late Rebellion? Did not they study, invent and publish, the most desperate Principles of Sedition? Who made the People the highest seat of Sovereignty; and placed a Coordinate Power with that of the King in the House of Commons? Who entitled them, at least to an equal Authority with His Majesty in making Laws, and in the command of the Militia? And who animated all the Soldiers they could arm and Levy against the King, and absolved them from their Oath of Allegiance, to Act and Practise those Principles after their Doctrine and Example? These are some of the Reconcilers Weak Brethren.  
And for the Common sort, were they not consenting to the Deeds of their Seditious Leaders? Did they not abett and encourage them by their Addresses and Petitions? Did they not approve and applaud them in all their Villainies? And assoon as they had destroyed the Church and Government, did they not swarm into Sects and Factions, and hived themselves apart in several Conventicles, as their Fancy led them, without any regard to Gospel, Rule, or Government.  

Tantum Religio potuit suadere malorum.  
Such horrid mischiefs never can Commence;  
But when Religion's made the grand Pretence.   
He that is but of yesterday, and knows nothing of these things, let him read the History of Independency. The Mystery of the two Junctoes'. The short view of the late troubles, with, Evangelium Armatum; and the Dissenters say.  
And here I must put in my Apoligy in the Words of St. Austin upon a like Occasion. Non praeterita Vendicando 
Epist. 202. ante finem.  pascere Iram nostram studemus, sed misericorditer in futurum consulendo satagimus: We do not study to challenge things past to feed and gratify our Anger, but we endeavour out of great compassion to consult the common Benefit for the future.  
And we have need enough to look forward, God knows; For Republicans, Hobbists, Atheists, All Factions conspire in the Plea of tender Conscience, and shelter themselves in the combination of Weak Brethren to undermine the Government; and I am sorry they have gotten such an Engineer, as this Reconciler, into their service.  
Have we not still amongst the Party, such as will take upon them to make, not only their own Prayers, but their own Creed, and their own Commandments? And when we soberly consider, how obstinate they are in their Schism and Sedition against the best of Kings and Churches, we have but too much reason to fear, lest they should be given up (as it hath often happened in the like case of disobedience) to their own delusions.  
For do they not attempt to strengthen themselves in their Perversities, by Solemn Leagues and Associations, without and against the leave and liking of their Sovereign? Have they not taken all advantages to stuff the Pillow of the Crown with Thorns, and to make the Throne to totter and become uneasy to his Majesty? These things, and the Particulars of them, are so fresh in memory, it would be but loss of time to repeat them. In short, these are a Race of men of such strange Machiavilian Principles, that when they do most solemnly Protest and Vow to make their Princes Glorious; they have a Jesuitical Reservation in it, Their meaning and projected Method, is to bring them (as they did our late most Dear and Sacred Sovereign) to the Block of Martyrdom. 'Tis high time therefore for us to show ourselves men; and as Rational 
Isa. 46. 8.  Creatures, and Loyal Subjects, not to suffer ourselves to be cheated any longer, with the false Pretence of Tender Conscience, and the title of Weak Brethren.  
Whatever Men's Designs and Pretences be, we are sure our Saviour's Rule is Infallible [by their fruits ye shall know them.] By this I hope we may judge concerning Men's Opinions, Whether they are like to be taken up, and maintained out of Pride, Malice, Perverseness. But the Reconciler does sincerely profess, That He knows not any such as can be certainly applied to the Case of the Dissenters. And therefore  
3ly. He entreats Dr. Womock to 
Pag. 114.  consider the falseness and absurdity of that Rule of Judging so severely of his Brethren, which he hath borrowed from our Roman Adversaries; for if this be a true and certain Rule, which Soto has delivered, That he must be supposed to err through malice, who has been so far admonished, that he cannot justly pretend Ignorance; or who may easily be convinced of his ignorance: And we who are Parties, are left to judge of both these things; What shall we say to all the Papists in this Nation, or all the Learned Papists in the World? To all the Reformed Churches, who retain Presbytery, and all their Pastors, who receive Ordination only from their Hands? To all those Calvinists, who hold the Prelapsarian Doctrines, and absolute Decrees of Reprobation? To all the Lutherans, who hold the foolish Doctrine of Con-substantiation? Will Dr. Womock say; That there has not been said Sufficient to convince them of their Errors; so that they cannot justly pretend Ignorance? May he not put them all in the same Form with our Dissenters, and judge as Charitably of the Dissenter, as of an erring Papist? And if so, all these Persons must be a pack of Damned Villains, that err out of pure Malice, Pride, Affection, and Animosity, Stubborness, and Frowardness; or our Dissenters must escape that heavy Doom.  
In Answer to this third Entreaty, I have many things to offer towards a Satisfaction: But this I learn from the Reconciler in general.  
That such as err out of pure Malice, Pride, Affection, Animosity, Stubborness, and Frowardness, are a Pack of Damned Villains.  
This the Reconciler makes a Major Proposition: And for a Minor, or Assumption, he declares thus, We have cause to 
Pag. 107. & 108.  fear the thing is too true, that among the Body of Dissenters, there be Men of this malicious, proud, stubborn Temper. The Conclusion then from thence should be this; Therefore We have cause to fear, that amongst the Body of Dissenters there is a pack of Damned Villains.  
Whether Dr. Womock ever let fall any Expression against the Generality of the Dissenters so rudely Censorious, he appeals to every Man that has read the Verdict. But the Reconciler, to take off the Odium of such an Inference from himself, has the Confidence to deny the Conclusion. But knowing this (as I suppose) to be most grossly absurd in the Schools of Learning, He affixes an Universal upon 
Pag. 108.  Dr. Womock, as if he had affirmed, That all the Dissenters (to a Man without exception) are Proud, Froward, Stubborn, and Malicious; that they all Sin out of pure Wilfulness and Obstinacy, or prepensed Malice and Design.  
Thus he plays with Dr. Womock's Reputation, to spring his own Game. For upon that false Principle, he Argues for six Leaves together: But Dr. Womock challenges it as a piece of Justice from him, either to make good his Universal Proposition against him, or else to wear the Brand of a Notorious Slanderer.  
Till the Reconciler has acquitted himself of this, Dr. Womock has reason enough to neglect his Harangues, upon such false Suppositions, as impertinent; but as well to entertain the Reader, as to take occasion to assert the Truth, I shall make some other Remarks upon what he has here suggested.  
1. Whereas he says, We, who are 
2 Chron. 19 6. 1 Cor. 5. 4. cap. 14. 37. 2 Cor. 2. 10.  Parties, are left to judge; He is in a great Mistake: The Governors of the Church are in Christ's stead, in the Execution of their Ministerial Office, of Legislation and Discipline; In this their Political Capacity, they judge not for Man, but for the Lord; they act as Christ's Stewards, and not as Parties in opposition to Sectaries: And for that Reason they are to be obeyed for the Lord's sake; though in their Personal capacity, they are subject to the Laws of the Church, as well as other Men.  
2. The Reconciler jumbles Things together of so distant a Nature and Consideration, that it is very reasonable to believe, his Design was to amuse, and not to instruct and edify his Reader.  
3. He seems to have a greater Kindness for the Papists, than the Lutherans: He can afford them the Title of Learned Papists: But contemns the Lutherans all along, as miserable and foolish Triflers: Nay, he has brought in St. Paul among the Jesuits formerly, and here we shall find him again ranked among the Roman Adversaries; so that in time he may possibly set up for a Papist Reconciler, and I believe his common place Book is furnished with Materials for such a Work, as well as for this, which he has put out under another Title.  
4. In Reference to the several Parties he mentions, Dr. Womock would say, there has not been sufficient said to convince them of their Errors; if others had not said more to the purpose, to confute them, than this Reconciler.  
5. If Con-substantiation be a foolish Doctrine, yet 'tis but a Metaphysical Speculation, and so innocent of its own Nature, it never broke the Peace in that Communion wherein 'tis entertained.  
6. Tho this Reconciler would fain get into the Chair, and pass his Sentence, we pretend not to judge such as are not within our own Jurisdiction. Let them Stand or Fall to their own respective Masters; 'tis enough when we have occasion to consider their Tenants, to evince their Falsehood, if we can; and to discover their dangerous Consequence, if they have any.  
7. Our Discourse relates to such as attempt to Subvert that Order and Government, under which they have been bred, and to which they own Subjection. 'Tis true, Contenders are ever stiff 
Judg. 8. 1. cap. 12. 1. 1 Sam. 19 43.  and confident, and many times they are most fierce, who have the worst Title. But we know the Truth cannot lie on both sides, nor can the Light of Evidence be equal to their Advantage. Yet the Parties will not yield, unless they be determined by Authority; which is a clear Demonstration of the Necessity of Governors; without whom, now a days especially, instead of being a Law unto himself, every Man would be a Gospel to himself, and take what Liberty he list. To prevent the Mischief of such Licentiousness, we have these Commands upon us: Obey them that 
Heb. 13. 17. Mat. 18. 17.  have the Rule over you: and he that will not hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a Heathen Man, and as a Publican. And 'tis calvin's own Doctrine, That Men, who are Contentious against the Custom and Practice of the Church, in the 
Ad 1 Cor. 11. 16.  use of Decent Rites, are not to be treated with Disputations (to gratify their itch of contending) but to be bridled by Authority; otherwise there could be no end of Strife; and consequently no bounds set to the Exorb●tances of wicked Men: For 
Jam. 3. ver. 16.  where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.  
But Authority should have some Rule to proceed by; and, Who shall give it? Dr. Womock, he says, has borrowed a Rule from our Roman Adversaries. Why, Did Soto ever write against the Church of England? He presented his Book de Naturâ and Gratiâ, to the Council of Trent, whereof he was a Member; and it's like he writes something therein against the Lutherans; whose Doctrines this Reconciler contemns as foolish and trifling; and so as for as we can see, he is as much an Advocate for the Roman Party, as their Adversary.  
But, What is his Quarrel to the Rule? Will no Rule serve his turn, but such a one as is without Exception? Where shall we find it? But let us give Soto's Rule fair Play, and let it speak for itself. He is supposed to Err through Malice, who has been so far admonished, that he cannot justly pretend Ignorance; or may easily be convinced of it. Can there be any thing said more rational? If he cannot pretend ignorance, or may easily be convinced of it, and yet will persist in his error: Then his Fault proceeds not from the weakness of his Understanding, but from the Pravity or corrupt Inclination of his Will, which the Schoolmen call Malice. For Passion and Surprise can have no place or pretence here, where things are done with so much Deliberation, and continued in against a Known Law, and a just Authority, as well as against frequent and public Admonitions; and when stubborness is added to the Opinion and Practice, then, of a matter of Choice and Knowledge, it becomes Heresy.  
But, Why did the Reconciler single out Soto to the Combat, when Perkins and St. Paul were in the same File on the Front, and on the Rear of him, and 
Verdict, 100 & 101.  no less concerned in the Dispute than he?  
Such Transgressions as our Reconciler undertakes to Excuse, or Vindicate, are hardly consistent with Mr. Perkins definition of weak Ones. For these, he saith, are such as have turned to God, and carry in their Hearts a Purpose in all things to please God; and if they do amiss, 'tis out of simple Ignorance, or bad Custom; and 'twill last no longer than till they be better informed: but if, after a sufficient Information, they hold and practise bad things; 'tis then of wilful Ignorance, and of Malice; and in that case, He calls them Obstinate.  
And for St. Paul his decretory Sentence is this, A man that is an Heretic, after 
Tit. 3. 10, 11.  the first and second admonition, reject: Knowing that he that is such, is subverted, and sinneth being condemned of himself. This is a General Rule laid down by Apostolical Authority, and prescribed to the Governors of the Church, (who are to take their measures from the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, which were wrote on purpose for their Directions, and not from the Epistles to the Romans, where it does not appear that Church-governors are concerned at all, much less directed in their Office.)  
And because that Rule of St. Paul is of so great importance, I shall be the more large in giving the sense of it, according to the exposition of the most learned Protestants.  
By a Heretic the Apostle means, Sectarium Hominem, saith Aretius, Sectarum Authorem, the Author of Sects, or a Sectary, as Bullinger, and Hyperius, and others have it. Calvin makes no distinction betwixt the Heretic and Schismatic in this place; for he saith, Ambitiosos omnes, praefractos, contentiosos, qui Libidine impulsi turbant Ecclesiae pacem, ac dissidia concitant, hoc nomine comprehendit. He comprehends under this Title all Ambitious, Stubborn and Contentious Men, who upon the impulse of their own lust stir up Discord, and disturb the Peace of the Church. In summa quisquis suâ proterviâ unitatem ecclesiae abrumpit, is Haereticus vocatura Paulo: Whosoever breaks the Peace of the Church by his frowardness, St. Paul calls him an Heretic. And yet further (to reach such as set up Conventicles among us) Quoties eo usque procedit pervicacia, ut quispiam sibi addictus, vel discessionem faciat a Corpore vel a grege quosdam subtrahat, vel impediat sanae Doctrinae cursum: hic strenue obviandum est. When the Obstinacy proceeds so far, that a man enamoured of himself, departs from the Body of the Church, or draws others from it, or hinders the Course of sound Doctrine; in this case a strenuous Opposition is to be made against him. In summa, In short, says Calvin, Haeresis vel secta, & ecclesiae unitas, res sunt inter se oppositae: Heresy or Schism, and the Unity of the Church, are things opposite: and this Unity being so precious in the sight of God, it ought also to be in the highest esteem with us, and those Sects and Heresies ought to be no less detested. Thus Calvin  
He that contemns all Admonitions, saith Hyperius, He that is distempered in his mind, & incurabili laborat contagio, and when he is sick of an incurable Contagion, refuses and derides the Remedy that is charitably offered to him; This is the Party affected.  
And how is he to be treated? Must the Bishop flatter him? Or is the Bishop alone obliged to avoid him? No, saith Hyperius, the Bishop is to admonish 
Hyperius.  others to beware of him as a pernicious Wolf.  
But what is the Civil Magistrate concerned herein? Why, says Aretius, the Charge is here given to Titus, who wanted a faithful Magistrate, to assist 
Aretius.  him. But doubtless St. Paul would have wrote otherwise to the Magistrate, or to Titus, if he had had such a faithful Magistrate to take care of God's Church. He speaks here of the Bishop's Office, how far he may; how far in Duty he ought to proceed.  
We now understand, saith Mr. Calvin whom the Apostle means by a Heretic; but we are not to determine, who is such a Heretic, or to reject him till we have first endeavoured to reduce him to a sound Judgement. He must have a first and second Admonition, not from Private Persons, but from the Public Authority and Ministry of the Church; for the Words of the Apostle do import thus much, Graviter quasi censoria correctione reprimendos esse. That such Persons are sharply to be restrained by the Rod of Discipline; for he is condemned of himself, because being so 
Hyperius.  carefully instructed and so frequently admonished, He has no body to impute his condemnation to, but to himself and his own Malice.  
But may we proceed no further against such Sectaries and Disturbers of the Church's Peace and Settlement? They that think so, do not argue to the purpose, saith Mr. Calvin; For the Bishop and the Magistrate have their several parts assigned them in this Work. And St. Paul writing to Titus, does not discourse of the Magistrates Duty, but what is incumbent upon the Bishop.  
What the Judgement of the most Learned and Pious Protestants was a Hundred years ago, I shall give you 
Ad Titum. 3. 10, 11.  the account from Bullinger, to whom Hyperius also refers his Reader. That Bullinger was a man of so great Esteem, that his Decades were translated into English, and thought fit to be read in the Public Congregations, where they wanted able Preachers; and this Doctrine of his passed for Currant, till the Socinian Heresy (which does so much impreach the Satisfaction, Merits and Divinity of our Saviour) prevailed so much among us: And this has happened; because the Canons of 1640. were not duly enforced to prevent the growth of it. But to return to the business in hand.  
I shall give the sense of Bullinger in 
Hen. Bullinger Commentar. in omnes Pauli Epistolas  a clear Translation of his own Commentary upon the Text which gins thus.  Quaerat aliquis quid agam cum eo, etc. 
Some perhaps may ask, what I would do with Him that obeys not 
Tiguri. 1582. Hic Ad Titum. 3. 10, 11.  the Truth, but continues to be contentious, and to stir up Faction? The Apostle answers, after the first and second Admonition, if he will not obey your advice, take heed, and separate yourself from such an hopeless Deplorato.  
But adding the Reason, why he commands Us to abbor the Communion and Fellowship of such an Heretic, He says, He that is such a one as will not admit of good Advice, is rather exasperated by continual Admonitions, and can never be brought to embrace the Truth: For a simple Error is quickly healed, but Stubborness is uncurable. But such a Man is subverted by Prejudice, and therefore swerves from the true Faith, and being entangled in Perplexity, he remains in invincible Ignorance.  
Hereupon Theophylact, explaining these words, says, The Apostle understands by an Heretic, an incorrigible Fellow, and one that is on every side so entangled with Difficulties, that He knows not which way to free himself. Therefore, such a One will never be persuaded to embrace the Truth, but rather attempt to draw his Charitable Adviser into his own Opinion. Wherefore here is a great deal of Danger, but little Hope.  
For when Heretics are so wicked, and hardened in those Things which are manifestly False; there's none, or very small Hopes of their recovering; nay, on the contrary, it oftentimes happens, That they impose upon him, who advises them, if weak, though otherwise a good honest Man: Therefore, He advisedly commands, that they should be avoided.  
But some perhaps will Object, That it is a sad thing, if we should thus neglect the Sheep that is gone astray, our Lord did not so; it's to be feared, his Destruction will be required at our Hands: The Apostle answers, If such a Man Perish, he perisheth not by your Fault, but by his own; for, Why did he not obey his Teacher?  
Moreover, they that gather from hence, That it is against the Scriptures for the Civil Magistrate to restrain Heretics; that is to say, not only such as are perverted from the Faith, but such as Study to pervert others: They do not consider, That the Apostle here doth not Dispute about the Offices of a Lawful Magistrate, but what the Bishop should do. For in these, and other of the Apostle's Prescriptions, the Occasion is to be considered. But they'll say, The Apostle's Command is, Not Compel, or Kill, but avoid an Heretic: It's very true: For no Man is rashly to be Condemned or Rejected, but rather to be Endeared and Instructed. This is the peculiar Work of Bishops. But if after such an amicable and endearing Treatment and Admonition, he refuseth to Repent, and endeavours still to draw whole Multitudes into the same Sedition and Ruin with himself; Here again it is the Bishops concern, not only to Oppose that setitious Doctrine and Practice, but also to lay down his Life for the Sheep, against the assaults and incursions of such Wolves; to defend and preserve his Flock with the Sword of Truth, and manfully to Repel and Subdue them.  
If the Apostle had written an Epistle to Cornelius, or Sergius, and had informed them of their Duties, without doubt, He would have enjoined them to defend the Congregation of the Faithful, and to restrain those encroaching Wolves. For we see St. Paul himself smote the false-Prophet Barjesus with Blindness, because he endeavoured obstinately to maintain a Falsehood, and to reject the Truth. And if an Heretic is only to be avoided, and not also to be punished; Why did the Apostle smite Elymas with Blindness? Why did our Lord Command to take the false-Prophet from among the Living? But you will say He Commanded these things under the Law? True; But Magistracy was not Abrogated with the Law; for now as well as then 'tis the Gift of God. Besides, the Liberty of the Law belongs 
Tim. 1. 9, 10.  only to them that walk after the Law. Wherefore seeing we are obliged to receive the Law in all things which are not Repugnant to the Gospel, or to sound Doctrine, no Man whatsoever under any pretence of the Gospel, shall ever obtain of us to suffer false-Doctrine, to increase in the Church of God without restraint.  
These are very true and plausible Say (to wit) That Faith is the Gift of God: That Faith is not wrought in any Man by the Power of the Sword; but these signify nothing to the present purpose. For we do not speak concerning Internal Faith as the Gift of God; but concerning the Doctrine of Faith, as the Profession of our Religion, which we desire to promote, not so much by restraining their Incredulity, nor their Opinions as false, but as they become infectious. I confess, Faith and Unbelief are of the Heart, no Man can judge of them; but by Men's Words and overt Actions, we may judge of them.  
St. Augustin was sometime of that 
August. advincent Epist. Ordine 48.  Opinion, That Heretics were to be dealt with, only by the Word of God; but he afterwards confessed, That many Reasons and Examples had prevailed with him, to be of another Persuasion. But, What need so many Words? The Church, and Christian Truth, must necessarily be asserted and defended from Errors; Blasphemies are to be punished; and we must take care of the Sound Members of the Church, that they be not infected by the Rotten. But the Manner of performing this, Godly Zeal, the judgement of Faith, and Christian Charity must prescribe; that herein we do nothing, either too much, or too little.  
'Tis the Bishop's Duty to warn, to restrain, and to use all Opportunity and Importunity to gain him that is out of the Way: But if in contempt of the Truth, he shall still go on in the Error of his Ways; and also strive to draw others with him into the same Error; then his Stubbornness and Error is to be refuted by the Word of Truth, in the Face of the Church; and care to be taken, lest any one should give credit to the Impostor.  
Besides, the Magistrate also is to be put in mind (if he be remiss, and the Wolf proceeds more and more to infest the People of God) to have a greater care of God's Flock, that the Wolves may not set upon them. For such Mischiefs are to be removed from the People of God, who, as much as is possible, are to be Preserved.  
Lastly, The Punishment is to be inflicted upon Offenders, not for their Ruin, but Salvation, (to wit) that they may repent.  
Nor are we presently to proceed to a Capital Punishment against those that are in Error, or infected with Heretical Pravity, but when their Blasphemies are so Execrable, that they cannot be born with, without reproach to God; Or when the obstinacy of Erring, does manifestly tend to the Subversion of Religion, and the Laws Established, and they are openly and truly convicted hereof. For there is a great Difference between him that doth not Err out of Malice, and him who Errs wilfully, and out of a design to do Mischief.  
Nor are all Offences to be Capitally Punished; for sometimes the Punishment is Corporal, sometime Pecuniary, as the Quality of the Offence, and the Equity of the Law shall require.  
This Learned Protestant was of Opinion, That in certain Cases, the Magistrate should Assist the Bishop to suppress Sectaries. And such a one he accounts him that is a Broacher of Execrable Blasphemies, to the high Dishonour of Almighty God, and whose stubborn and seditious Practices, do manifestly tend to the Subversion of Religion, and Piety, good Order, and the Laws Established; and yet even in this Case, he does not approve of such a Procedure, as savours of Wrath, and Bitterness. Pius enim Magistratus inquit, etc.  
A Pious Magistrate, says he, would rather argue thus; What can't the Truth prevail with you? Can't the the Authority of the Scriptures, Can't the undoubted Faith and Religion of all Ages, Can't the Care and Diligence of all Pious Men, Can't an Holy Oath, and taken in a good Matter move you? Can't the Fear of God, Can't the Charity you own to your Neighbour, Can't the public Peace and Tranquillity persuade you? Can't you Perish alone, but you must draw others with you into Perdition? Morere igitur, tuâ culpâ, tuoque vitio, si salutem quam vivus excludis, invenias Moriens; You must Die therefore by your own Wilfulness, and Stubbornness, if you think you can find that Salvation when you are Dead, which you now refuse while you are alive.  
And this Learned Protestant tells us, He Disputed the more copiously in this Point, against such as thought they did the Church great Service, if they left it free for every Man, to revive the Heresy of the Donatists, Arrians, Pelagians, Novatians, and others; Disputare libere, Factionesque nectere; To Dispute freely about these things, and to make Factions.  
To Bullinger, I shall add the Judgement 
Ad Tit. 3. 8, 9 10, 11. in locis Communib. De Processu cum Haeret. n. 17. p. m. 571.  of a later Protestant Professor, Joannes Crocius: He moves the Question, Whether it be Lawful for the Christian Magistrate to restrain Heretics? (and we must remember what Calvin has observed, viz. That Schismatics are comprehended under the same title.) Faith as a thing that pertains to Conscience, is to be persuaded, not compelled. As Stephen King of Poland said very fitly; God hath reserved three things to himself; To make something of nothing To foretell future Contingencies, and to rule over Conscience. For Compulsion, for the most part, does not make Believers but Hypocrites. But, for all this, saith he, the Magistrate may compel his Subjects, both by Laws and Penalties, to the Means of Faith, that is, to hear the Word. And being obliged to secure his Subjects in the true Religion, He is concerned to keep out such as would Advance and Propagate Sects and Errors; to remove them if they be entered in, to divest them of their Dignities, and (if the Peace of the Church cannot be preserved otherwise) to proscribe or imprison them, according to the Quality of their Offence, that by such means they may (if possible) be brought unto Repentance.  
And thus much of St. Paul's Rule, which the Reconciler would make his Reader believe, was only a Rule borrowed by Dr. Womock from our Roman Adversaries.  
But 2ly. This Rule, saith the Reconciler, condemns all Christ's Apostles, and all the Primitive Weak Christians, mentioned in Holy Scripture, and in Church-History. I can proceed no further till I have taken notice of the Reconcilers gross mistake.  
1st. The Rule makes only the Major Proposition; Authority must judge of the Matter of fact, and so make the Minor, without which no Conclusion can be inferred, no sentence of Condemnation passed.  
2ly. Here is Ignoratio Elenchi; if they be Weak Christians, they are not within this Rule; which concerns only such as have forfeited that Title, and the Privilege which belongs to it. But let us hear his Reason, such as it is.  
For when the Apostles questioned the Power of our Lord, (as Christ assures us they did in many places,) does not our Saviour's Reproof of this their Unbelief, inform us, That they had sufficient Reason from what he had already done before their eyes, to be convinced of it? When they doubted of his Resurrection, or rather disbelieved it, had they not had sufficient Cause both from Scriptures, and their Masters frequent words, to lay aside that Doubt? When that after our Lord's Commission to Go and Preach the Gospel to all Nations, and the Descent of the Holy Ghost, not only they, but the whole Church held it unlawful to Preach the Gospel to any but the Jews, or to the Circumcised, could they justly pretend Ignorance after so plain an Admonition? Were not the Judaizing Christians sufficiently admonished, by the Holy Ghosts falling on Cornelius, and his Friends, and the Discourses at the Synod at Jerusalem, That there was no necessity of Circumcising the Gentile Christians, or of refusing to Converse with the Uncircumcised? And must not only they but Peter also and Barnabas, be Stubborn and Malicious for acting contrary to it? I shall repeat no more of this Harangue to spare myself as well as the Reader.  
Here we have Fallacy again; so many things of different kinds jumbled together, that no single Answer can comprehend them. And this is a certain sign of Imposture; Dolus versatur in Universalibus. But I hope we shall give such a general Solution as will satisfy the Judicious.  
1. We are to consider, That the Dispensation of the Gospel was stupendious, and all Mystery: The Incarnation of the Son of 
1 Tim 3. 16.  God was a Mystery: The Resurrection of Christ from the Dead was a Mystery; The calling of the Gentiles was a Mystery; which St. Paul sets forth in these words: Even the Mystery which hath been hid from Ages, and from Generations, but 
Col. 1. 26, 27. See also Ephes. 3. 1. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.  now is made manifest to the Saints, to whom God would make known, what is the riches of the Glory of this Mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you the hope of Glory. Of the whole Dispensation the Prophet cries out. Who hath 
Isa. 53. 1.  believed our report? or to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? And again. Behold ye among the Heathen and regard, 
Habak. 1. 5:  and wonder marvellously: for I will work a Work in your days, which ye will not believe though it be told you.  
2. We are to consider that Christ's Disciples were but poor Ignorant and Unlearned Fishermen. They had not been bred in the Schools of the Prophets; nor does it appear that their Apprehensions 
Luk. 24. 25.  were very quick, or their Memories very strong or retentive; Their old Bottles needed a great Reformation, before they were fit for the New Wine of the Gospel, the Effusions of the Holy Ghost. Christ was fain to open their Understanding after his Resurrection, to help them to understand the Scripture, and 
v. 45. Acts 1. 3. v. 8. Acts 2. 17. 18. John 16. 13. John 14. 26.  to teach them the concerns of his Kingdom by Conference, and to send down the Holy Spirit, as well to enlighten them with further measure of Divine Knowledge, as to bring former instructions into their Remembrance.  
3. As long as our Blessed Saviour does not charge them with Malice or Stubborness, we have no reason to do it. Nay, though they were dull and slow of heart to believe, some Articles of great difficulty, and not formerly propounded, or with very Little Evidence: Yet they Stubbornly rejected none, but were willing from time to time, to comply with such Notices as they clearly received from him; and were glad to be convinced of any Error. They did not finally deny his Godhead, or his Resurrection, or the Dispensation of the Gospel 
John 20. 20. 28. Acts 11. 18.  to the Gentiles, nor yet dispute any needful or useful Article.  
4. There is a great difference betwixt a Church in Fieri, and a Church in Facto: A Church that is a making and one that is established: The Church that travelled in the wilderness, was not under such fair Circumstances, as that which was afterwards settled in the Land of Canaan.  
The case of the Dissenters can never be justified by any thing, that can be alleged under those circumstances; For we are now under a Settled Church, with Laws, Discipline and Government, and all established by mature and good Advice, and a just Authority. And the point in difference is drawn into so narrow a compass, that he who unfeignedly desires to know his Duty, (if he will take St. Paul for his Tutor, and Study to be quiet, and to do his own business,) He may learn it out of half a Text of Scripture, I mean Rom. 14. 14. and we 
Pag. 73.  have the Reconcilers own word for it, who tells us, That in this Very Chapter, the Apostles plainly saith, that the things Scrupled by the weak, were pure and lawful in themselves, and that he knew, and was persuaded by the Lord Jesus that there was nothing unclean of itself; which saith the Reconciler, is as perfect and full determination of the case against the Weak, as words can make. Granting this to be true, I demand what is the Reason, if they be not Jews, that the Dissenters are not satisfied? I say, if they be not Jews? And let not the Reconciler conclude me Uncharitable for this Supposition; For the Doctrine and Practice of this Fanatic Party, has been so long corrupted with such a Jewish Leaven, that they have lain under that Suspicion at least, these hundred years; insomuch as Hyperius 
Ad. Tit. 1. 11.  wished so long ago, utinam hodiè nulli sint inter nos praeputiati Judaei: I would to God, there were no Uncircumcised Jews amongst us at this day. 3ly. Saith the Reconciler, were we hereafter to be judged according to the Tenor of this Rule, how sad would be our Doom! For have not most Christians had sufficient Admonitions of those Duties they neglect, and of those sins they do commit? Might they not easily be convinced of these things, by serious Reflections on their Actions: yea, doth not Conscience often do that Office in them? And if in all these Cases they must offend of Malicious Wickedness, and so be such concerning whom the Psalmist prays, that God would not be merciful unto them; May we not ask the Apostles Question, who then can be saved? In a word, doth Peter say even of the People of the Jews, that they through ignorance renounced and Crucified their Saviour? And Paul, that he through Ignorance did persecute the Church of Christ? Can they (I say) do this through Ignorance in such a a Cloud of Miracles, which Christ and his Apostles wrought? And may not our Dissenters in such a Conflict, as there is betwixt the Learned of our Nations touching Ceremonies, be thought to to err, not out of Pride and Malice, but out of Ignorance and Prejudice, not out of want of Will, but Judgement?  
Before I return an Answer, I must enter a Caveat. The Reconciler argues here as he did formerly, ex falsis suppositis, Upon false suppositions: That Dr. Womock affirms, that all the Dissenters to a man without exception, are 
v. pa. 108.  Proud, Froward, Stubborn, Malicious, etc. This Dr. Womock does utterly deny, and takes it for a foul Slander. And he cannot but observe what Montaltius says in his Provincial Letters, Whoever makes use of Lying, acts by 
let. 11.  the Spirit of Satan. There's no directions of the intention can rectify Calumny; and were it to Convert the whole World, it were not lawful to traduce the innocent; because we must not commit the least Evil to promote the greatest Good, and that the Truth of God doth not stand in need of our lying.  
And now I must tell this Reconciler, that be the Doom of such persons never so sad, they are sure to be judged according to this Rule; for do not they sin Wilfully and Maliciously, who sin frequently, by Omission and Commission, against Knowledge, against Conscience, against Admonitions?  
That the Schoolmen call a Sin of Malice, when neither Ignorance, nor Passion is the cause of Sinning, but the Will depraved by Pride, by Envy, by Hatred, or any the like Habit or Evil Custom; and generally, saith Estius, 
In Sent. l. 2. Dist. 22. Sect. 17. John 16.  He that sins out of certain knowledge. And men may think they do well, and that they do God Service when they Sin out of malice: These things they imagined and were deceived; Excaecavit enim eos Malitia eorum; For Malice blinded 
Sap. 2. 21.  them.  
I must add, that Concupiscence does sometime make a Sin the more Voluntary, and consequently the more Malicious, according to the Notion of the Schoolmen, which the Reconciler seems not clearly to understand; (being I suppose better versed in the Homilies of St. chrysostom then in the Writers upon the Sentences, which makes him so indistinct and lax in his discoursing.) When a man is determined by any sort of Concupiscence unto Evil, so that he has no Reluctancy, no inclination to the contrary, in this Case his Concupiscence makes his Sin the more Voluntary. And the Reason is clear, because the Will is carried with more fervour and Vehemency into that Object, unto which it is determined by Concupiscence, than otherwise it would be, as is manifest by experience; and hence is that of St. James. Chap. 1. 14, 15. Every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own Lust and enticed. Then when Lust hath conceived (by the consent or conjunction of the Will with it) it bringeth forth Sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth Death.  
As to the Question, Who then can be 
See Dr. hamond's Discourse of sins of Weakness and Wilfulness.  Saved? The Wise man shall answer it: He that confesseth and forsaketh his Sins shall have Mercy; there is Tabula post Naufragium; and Christ came to call sinners to Repentance. If the Reconciler has a mind to reconcile Schism and Sedition, or any other wilful gross sin, to the State of Salvation, without a particular Repentance (in the Ordinary course of our Ministry) I am no Casuist for his turn: The Moral I have learned and taught is that of the Prophet, Wash ye, make ye clean: put away the Evil of your do from before mine eyes; cease to do Evil, learn to do Well, etc. 
Isa. 1. 16. 17.   
For David's imprecation: Be not merciful 
Psal. 59 5.  unto them, who offend of Malicious wickedness. The Case is Extraordinary: and no man that understands how to discourse pertinently and distinctly, would jumble it in a dispute of this Nature. Here we are to distinguish the Cause from the Persons; for all Sins are not equally Criminal; This is evident from that of Ely: If one man sinneth against 
1 Sam. 2. 25.  another, the Judge shall judge him: but if a man sinneth against the Lord, who shall entreat for him?  
And then among Persons there are Degrees; Some do sin Wittingly and Willingly, and yet they are Curable by the means of Grace, by Instruction and Good Advice. But others run into Blasphemy and such a malicious Opposition of known Truth, that they sin themselves into an Execration, as St Paul declares to the Corinthians, If any man Love not 
v. Moller. in Psal. 59 6.  the Lord Jesus, let him be accursed. And that Explication of St. Austin is very fit to be taken into Consideration, That these Imprecations are the Dictates of the Holy Ghost in the mouth of the Prophet, pronouncing as it were the Last Sentence upon Blasphemers, and the treacherous and implacable Enemies of the Church.  
I cannot give you a fit Character of these Persons than what is done by the Reverend Dean of Peterburgh, in his Paraphrase upon the Text, which is this, Appear now for my relief, and punish all those Wicked men, who call themselves thy People, but are as barbarous and- cruel, as false and perfidious as the Heathen: Do not spare them therefore, nor show any favour to such as violate all the Laws of Justice and Charity, and keep no Faith with their Neighbours.  
The Instances are but few, wherein Prophets and Governors do make Imprecations against their Subjects or Inferiors: But we must conclude the Case is very Sad, when a Moses, the Meakest Prince that ever was; when a Paul, a man so Charitable, that he wished himself accursed from Christ, to win 
Rom. 9 3.  others to Salvation: When such men as these shall take up the most dreadful Imprecations that can be imagined, against any Party that relate to them; this must proceed from some Extraordinary Provocation. The text saith, Moses was 
Numb. 16. 15.  very wroth, and said unto the Lord, Respect not thou their Offering. And St. Paul said, I would they were even cut 
Gal. 5. 12.  off that trouble you. Why, what was the matter? Here was nothing but a Party of Holy men, that divided themselves from the Public Congregation, to 
Numb. 16. 3.  Worship God in their own way, which indeed was not approved of by their Governors.  
But the Sin is Sedition and Schism, and strikes at the Government both of Church and State; 'tis destructive to that Authority and Legislative Power, which the Supreme Lord and Lawgiver, has ordained to keep the World in Peace and Order; and because God is pleased to Govern the World by such a Civil Magistracy, in reference to Temporals, and by such an Ecclesiastical Ministry, in reference to Spirituals, therefore the Insurrection that is made against these his Officers, he interprets, as made against himself: Hence it is, that those Seditious schismatics, (who are set forth for a Sign and Example to them 
Num. 26. 10. Ep. Judas. v. 10.  that should follow their steps afterwards) are said to be gathered together against the Lord, and to have provoked 
Num. 16. 11, 30.  the Lord.  
This is a sin of no Ordinary dye, of no Ordinary Malice; So point blank against Authority and the Ordinance of God, (for the Seditious Schismatic falls into Apostasy from the Communion of the Church, and many times into an hostile Hatred of it) that it seems to be like the sin unto Death, mentioned by St. John; and what mercy soever God may have in store for such a sin, the 
See Dr. Ham Note on 1 Joh. 5. 16. Hebr. 10. 25, to 29.  Church seems to have no Warrant to pray for it.  
Therefore the Church with great Prudence and Charity has thought fit to put such sins into her Litany, by way of solemn Deprecation,  From all Sedition, Privy Conspiracy and Rebellion; From all false Doctrine, Heresy, and Schism; From Hardness of Heart, and Contempt of thy Word and Comandment, Good Lord Deliver us. 
But St. Peter tells us, that The Jews Renounced and Crucified our Saviour out of Ignorance, etc. What a pitiful Reconciler have we here? Sure the man would strain his Wit and Conscience, to make an Apology for Judas and Pontius Pilate, rather than his Dissenters should fall under a just and deserved Condemnation. What if St. Peter Wots that they did it Ignorantly, will the Reconciler infer from thence, that they did it Innocently? Has He embraced the Doctrine of Abaitardus: Non Peccaverunt, qui Christum ignoranter Crucifixerunt: They sinned not, who Crucified Christ Ignorantly: This Proposition was condemned as Haeretical by Innocent the Second.  
There is scarce a sin committed without Ignorance, but 'tis one thing to sin Ignorantly, and another to sin out of Ignorance: In that Case Ignorance does attend the sin, in this it is the Cause of it: For Knowledge to the contrary would have prevented it.  
This Ignorance, if it be involuntary both in itself and in its Cause, that is, 
De Conscient. l. 3. c. 19 q. 3.  Non affectata, nec procurata, nec tollerata aut neglecta, tum actum reddit mere fortuitum, & involuntarium, atque adeo excusat a peccato, saith Amesius; If it be not affected, nor procured, nor tolerated or neglected, than it renders the action merely fortuitous and involuntary, and so excuses a man from sin.  
Will the Reconciler say, that the Ignorance of the Jews was of this Nature? Then he falls under the same Condemnation with Abaitardus, and seems to be of F. Baunius his opinion: Nunquam peccatur nisi praevia peccati Cognition animus illustretur, eiusque vitandi desiderio extimi letur: That a man can never sin, unless his Mind be enlightened with a previous knowledge of the sin, and be stirred up with a desire to avoid it. This Doctrine has been Censured by the Theological Faculty of Paris, and Louvain, as false, & against the Common Principles of Christian Theology; and as that which excuseth innumerable of the most heinous sins to the destruction of Souls.  
To make a man guilty of Sin, it is not requisite, that he has an express or actual Consideration of the Moral Atrceity, Malice or Danger of it, or any express doubt or Scruple about it.  
Otherwise it would follow, that such as are blinded in their minds, Atheists, and those that know neither God nor Sin, should be in such a state, in which they should be free from sin: For then, without any knowledge or doubt of the Malice of the act, they would let lose the Reins of their corrupt and depraved Nature, to follow the lust of their own hearts: And so the blinding of their minds, (their Excaecation) which the Scripture represents as the greatest punishment of Sin, should be no punishment at all, but a privilege, and render them as it were impeccable  
According to the Common Principles of Divinity, when the Cause is Voluntary, the Effect is also Voluntary, that follows from the Position of such a Cause; and he that may and aught to to foresee the Malice of the act that is to follow, and neglects to advert to it, His actual Inconsideration is Voluntary, and may as well aggravate the fault as extenuate it.  
As gross and affected Ignorance is never without sin, so it can never be altogether involuntary, saith Argentina, 
gent. l. 2. d. 40. 41. q. 1. or 4.  because a man may prevent such ignorance, if he will. And, if the Ignorance be affected, 'tis a Sin in itself, saith Amesius, and therefore does not lessen, but 
ubi Supra.  rather increase the guilt of other sins, 2 Pet. 3. 5.  
Whether the ignorance of the Jews in this Case, were alleged as an extenuating or an aggravating Circumstance, is disputed among Divines. That it was affected in some of them, and so an aggravation of their Malice, will easily appear from these Considerations.  
1. Our Saviour's own Affirmation, John 15. 22, 23, 24. If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin. He that hateth me, hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen, and hated both me and my Father. His Doctrine declared him to be a Teacher sent from God, and his Miracles did confirm it. But we have more pregnant Evidence against their Elders, Luk. 20. 14. When the Husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours. And St. Peter charges them home with a guilt of at least affected Ignorance and Malice: Act. 2, 22, 23. Ye men of Israel hear these words, Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, by miracles, wonders, and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him being delivered by the determinate Counsel, and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain. Here he chargeth them, that they imbrued their hands in Christ's blood, and that they did it Wittingly and Willingly. And St. Stephen tells them plainly, that they had been the Betrayers and Murderers of Him. Act. 7. 52. For did they not hire Judas to betray him, and Suborn false witness to give evidence against him? If this Ignorance did did excuse or extenuate their fault, the Apostle would 
1 Thes. 2. 16.  not have told us, that the wrath was come upon them to the uttermost, for their Continuance in it.  
By the Circumstances of his Life and Miracles, their Princes and Rulers might have known him to be the Son of the living God: But Malice blinded their 
Wisd. 2. 21.  eyes. Their Ignorance was not only gross and supine, but also affected, procured by their Voluntary & frequent acts of envy and hatred. There was not so much as the least Congruity towards a Pardon, 
Luc. Brug. Estius.  the Condition they had plunged themselves into was desperate, and that was the only motive for a singular Mercy to step in to Succour them. I would fain know, what Comfort the Reconciler can extract for his Dissenters out of such an Ignorance.  
But Joannes Malcolme tells us, St. Peter 
Comert in Act. 3. 17.  was preparing the Way for their Repentance, and that he might not plunge them actually into desperation, He gives them hope of Salvation to be obtained by Christ upon their true Conversion: When he says through Ignorance, he does not go about to excuse or extenuate their sin by the Fucus or pretence of Ignorance, but the Apostle speaks Comparatively, Comparing these with those who knowingly and willingly, and of set purpose, crucified the Lord of life. And a little after,  
There is a twofold Ignorance, saith he. First, One has Rebellion joined with it; from hence follows Obduration, and it is incurable; And this is Contracted, saith he, partly by acting obstinately and contemptuously against the Will of God, and partly by suffering the Threaten and Judgements of God inflicted on us, to pass by without Amendment. This was in Pharaoh and the People of Israel, Jer. 44. and 'tis seen in many of our time, who do so harden their hearts, that they reject the Grace that is offered to them in the Preaching of the Gospel: St. Peter speaks not of such an Ignorance. But there is Another which pretends to the Glory of God, and such is that he speaks of. This is Curable, and yet 'tis a Sin in itself, and deserves no Pardon; nevertheless by Grace it may find Remission, if it will suffer itself to be corrected; but if it degenerates into that incurable Ignorance, than it lies under the same Condemnation and Punishment.  
S. Paul's Case is much like that of other Jew's: Estius says, he could never observe, that ever Unbelief was pleaded to extenuate a Gild: He obtained Mercy because his sin was Great, and his condition Desperate, and so he was fit for a Superabundant Grace to strike in to rescue him, and make him a Pattern for time to come. But let us take notice, 
1 Tim. 1. 15, 16.  that he stood in need of an extraordinary Grace, and a Miraculous Conversion, and Corporal Affliction with great Severity, to compel him to come in. But then we must do him right too; For having this powerful Call from Heaven He was not disobedient to the Heavenly Vision, He did not confer with Flesh and 
Gal. 1. 16. Act. 9 3.  Blood. Nor did he value his Interest in the Highpriest, from whom he had received his Commission: But upon the first Conviction, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest, he resigned himself up to his Command, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? When the Dissenters do change their Principles, and abandon their Carnal and Factious Interests, and bring forth Fruit meet for their Repentance, let them, a God's Name, apply such examples to their Comfort.  
4thly. (saith the Reconciler) let me entreat him to consider, how opposite this judging and Censorious Humour seems to the Christian Rules and Precepts. 'Tis flatly opposite.  
1st. To that Precept of our Lord, Judge not, that ye be not Judged, Condemn not, that you be not Condemned; And that of Paul, Let not him that Eateth, despise him that Eateth not, neither let him that Eateth not, Judge him that Eateth. Let us not therefore Judge one another. To that of James, There is one Lawgiver, who is able to destroy and to save, who art thou that Judgest thy Brother? In all which places, the Scripture justly may be supposed, to forbid the Judging and Condemning of our Brother, without sufficient Cause. Now thus we evidently do, when we conclude that Action to be done upon corrupt and wicked Principles, which happily was well intended, and free from any ill design; and when we Judge that Person Obstinate and Malicious, who perhaps errs through Weakness and Infirmity, through want of Information, or Prejudice; when we do aggravate the Actions of our Brother, beyond their just Demerit, and pass upon him a more heavy Censure, than he hath deserved; for so far is our Judgement false and without ground, as it exceeds the Nature, and the Demerit of the Fact; when we judge them, whom God receiveth, as may be gathered from that passage of St. Paul, Let not him that Eateth not, judge him that Eateth, for God hath received him; when we pass such a Judgement upon our Brother, as doth dispose us to contemn and vilify him, as may be gathered from that Question of St. Paul, Why dost thou judge, why dost thou set at nought thy Brother, who differs only from thee about Meats, or Festivals? or Things indifferent, in which God's Kingdom by no means doth Consist? And Lastly, when we so judge, as to pronounce, without clear Scripture-Warrant of the Damnation or Salvation of our Brother; for seeing there is one Lawgiver, saith St. James, who is able to Save and to Destroy, who art thou that judgest thy Brother? that is, dost pass the Deretory Sentence, concerning his Damnation or Salvation? I pray the Doctor may be unconcerned in these things, that in passing this Censure on his Brethren, he be not found usurping of the Office of the Judge of all men or judging another man's Servant, who must Stand or Fall to his own Master; that he so Judge, as that he be not Judged, and so Condemn, as that he be not Condemned.  
1st. I observe that this Reconciler follows the steps of the fiercest Presbiterians, who were ever wont to Libel their Prince in their Prayers: For thus he deals with Dr. Womock. He insinuates, That he usurps the Office of the Supreme Judge, that he Judgeth his Brother's Person, and passes the Decretory Sentence concerning his Damnation (for to say Salvation is impertinence:) That he doth this without sufficient Evidence, or Scripture-Warrant: That he Judges to Damnation such as God hath received, such as differ from him only about Meats and Festivals, or Things indifferent, in which God's Kingdom, by no means doth consist: That he aggravates their Actions beyond their just Demerit, and judgeth them so, as to contemn and despise them.  
Let the Reconciler consider, how ill this Censorious humour appears in him, as well as how groundless false and scandalous, it is in itself. If there be any Truth in it, let him name the Persons, that are so censured, let him repeat the Words, and cite the Page, or Pages, where this Censure is to be found. If he can produce none of these things, I have Commission in Dr. Womock's Name, to proclaim him a malicious and shameless Libeler.  
But 'tis a small matter with him, to Judge and Libel Dr. Womock; he has the forehead to do as much by his Prince, and all that are in Authority in Church and State, and is it possible for the Dissenters to escape his Lash? Indeed (P. 114.) he concludes them a Pack of damned Villains, who go astray out of Pride, Malice, Stubbornness; and he saith (p. 108) We have cause to fear the thing is too true, that there be men of this Malicious, Proud, Stubborn Temper, among the Body of Dissenters; But alas, Good man! he would not Censure them for a World.  
And yet at another time, he thinks 
p. 58. 59  fit, but it is in the Spirit of Meekness to ask them these few Questions; Do they prefer Mercy before Sacrifice, who will not submit to Rites or Circumstances, or to the Use of things no where forbidden in the Word, to prevent Schism, and all the dreadful Consequences of it; But rather will give cause to their Superiors to Judge them scandalous Resisters of Authority, and pertinacious Disturbers of the Church's Peace? Are they compassionate towards the Sheep, according to our Lord's Example, who rather will refuse to become Labourers in his Harvest, and Teachers of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, than submit to these little Things, in order to their regular Performance of this Blessed Work? Do not they scandalise, offend, and contribute unto the Ruin of Christ's Little Ones, who do involve them in a wretched Schism, on the account of things which they may Lawfully submit to? Do not they shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against Men, who forbidden them to enter when they may? Do not they impose heavy Burdens also, who say to their Disciples, Hear not the Common-Prayer, Receive not the Sacrament kneeling, Suffer not your Children to be signed with the Cross, Communicate not with that Minister who wears a Surplice, or with that Church who imposeth any Ceremonies, or any Constitutions; But concerning the Time and Place of performing public Worship? If the Good Shepherd should lay down his Life for the Sheep, should not they lay down their unnecessary Scruples for their sakes? If nothing doth so scandalise Christ's Followers, as to find their Teachers at Discord and divided, can They act as becometh his Disciples, who are not willing to procure Unity and Concord, and to avoid this Scandal by their Submission to things indifferent in their own Nature, and not forbidden in the Law of God?  
Now whether this be not much more Magisterial, and not a whit less Censorious, than any thing that fell from the pen of Dr. Womock in his Verdict, let the Reader Judge.  
However Dr. Womock is not much concerned at the Reproaches of his Prayers, but thinks fit to return his Charity in the Exprobration and Command of our Common Judge, which may concern 
Luc. Brug. Significatur Curiositas intuendi in alienos errores Studio reprelendendi.  the Reconciler no less than Dr. Womock, Mat. 7. 3. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy Brother's Eye: but considerest not the beam that is in thine own Eye? (ver. 5.) Thou hypocrite, first cast out beam out of thine own Eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy Brother's Eye.  
And now we may take leave to reflect upon the other Mistakes and false Suggestions in this Paragraph. (1.) What dormant Warrant he may have to pass the Decretory or Final Sentence of Damnation upon any Person, I cannot tell; but I am sure, there is no such Warrant to be found in Scripture, nor any such Sentence to be pronounced by any man without the Spirit of Prophecy.  
2dly. Whereas He saith, the Dissenters differ only from us about Meats or Festivals, or things Indifferent, in which God's Kingdom does by no means consist, We say otherwise: The Difference is in matters of Obedience, under the command of Righteousness, and in matter of Uniformity, under the command of Peace, which, with Joy in the Holy Ghost, are the very Foundation and Pillars of God's Kingdom: For he that in these things 
Rom. 14. 17. 18.  serveth Christ, is acceptable to God and approved of Men.  
3dly. For our Saviour's Prohibition, Judge not, Mr. Calvin saith, His Verbis praecise non prohibuit Christus a Judicando; (which is flatly opposite to the Reconciler) Christ by these Words doth not precisely forbid Judging, but would cure a disease which is commonly bred of Curiosity, or Malevolence. 
Calvin.  But to condemn all Sin, is not only Lawful, but Necessary; unless we have a mind to Bark against God, to abrogate his Laws, to rescind his Judgements, and to overthrow his Tribunal. For he will have us be the Heralds of that Sentence, which he hath pronounced against the Wickedness of men; though withal we are obliged to be so modest, as to acknowledge him the only Judge, and Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy.  
The Public Judgement of Prince, Praelates, Senates, (whose Office it is to condemn the Guilty, and absolve the Innocent) being no less necessary, than beneficial to Civil Societies, is by no means forbidden by our Saviour; and why should Divines study Cases of Conscience, but to Judge, and satisfy such as are Scrupulous, and Doubtful; and a good man, that values his Soul, his Conscience, his Interest in Christ, in Grace and Heaven, would be glad to receive some Satisfaction therein; and, if he be wise he will apply himself to some Ghostly Father to that Effect; but how can He do him good, if he doth not Judge for him?  
The Judgement our Saviour forbids is Private, and not all private Judgement neither, but only what is Rash and Malicious. To condemn Crimes Manifest and Notorious, that is not to Judge, but to follow God's Judgements, who hath expressly condemned Them already in his Word. We are forbidden to Judge of Others, when their Actions are Doubtful, but not when their Works are Manifest, and the matter of Fact clear and out of Question, as St. Augustine hath resolved it; and our Lord before him in that Direction, By their Fruits ye shall know them; which is to be understood of such manifest Deeds, as cannot be done of a Good mind, such as Theft, Whoredom, and all matters of Fraternal Correction, which cannot 
Irenaeus. 2. 4. c. 49.  be performed without a Proevious Judgement, which therefore cannot be here forbidden. They therefore abuse this Testimony, says Mr Calvin, who under 
In Mat. 7. 1.  pretence of that Moderation which Christ commends, would take away all distinction of Good and Evil.  
4thly. But the Reconciler urgeth, That those places of Scripture may Justly be supposed to forbid the Judging and Condemning of our Brother without sufficient cause.  
To this I answer (1.) When the Reasons are Light and Insufficient, upon which the Judgement relies, then 'tis properly called Rash Judgement; but if it relies upon Arguments that are Firm and Solid, and well known to Him that gives the Judgement, then 'tis Just and Prudent.  
I am perfectly of Amesius' Mind, Quisque jus habet ad Famam integram, 
De Consci. Lbi. 5. cap. 15. Num. 8.  tanquam ad Bonum Depositum in Mentibus Aliorum, usque dum Ipsemet suis Factis inde Eam abstulerit. Every man hath a Right or Title to a clear Reputation as a Good Treasure deposited in the Minds of others, until he plunders it away thence by his own Wicked hands.  
He that exposeth his Good Name to Contempt, by manifest Impiety, he hath Adulterated and Debased it, He has made it Cheap and under Value, and taken it out of my Custody.  
A Good Name is resembled to Drecious Ointment, and every Good Man 
Eccles. 7. 8. Cant 1, 3,  will find a convenient Box to keep it in, and will find Discretion also, as well as Charity, as Occasion serves, to open that Box to diffuse the Scent, and Fragrancy of that Ointment, to the Advantage of such as are Praiseworthy. But if any man puts a Dead-Fly into his Ointment, that does Corrupt it; if he makes it Stink, and offensive to the Neighbourhood, I am not obliged to find Incense, to drown the Noisome Scent, especially when Artifice is used, to make it both Grateful, and Infectious.  
But let us leave Metaphors, and deal with our Reconciler and his Brethren in plain English: Can we forget the Copy of their late Reformation, which like Draco's Law's they wrote in Blood? Were not the Characters of Rebellion therein, so Broad, so Plain, that He who runs may read them? If this Evidence be not sufficient to proclaim their Gild, there's nothing left, without Repentance, but an Ite Maledicti for a full Conviction of it.  
5ly. The Reconciler urges further, That 
p. 116.  we Judge and Condemn our Brother without sufficient cause, when we conclude that Action to be done upon Corrupt and Wicked Principles, which haply was well intended, and free from any ill Design.  
For an Answer to this, Behold I show you a Mystery, the Mystery of Jesuitism, one of the most Pestilent Principles, that is to be found among all the Morals of that Society. I'll give it you from Montaltius, as He pretends, to have taken it out of the mouth of a Supposed Provincial, who entertaining a Gentleman with the Maxims of his Casuists, gives Him this account of one of them.  
Know then, saith he, that this Miraculous Principle is nothing else but our Grand Method of Directing the Intention; a thing of so great a consequence in our Morality, that I durst almost compare it with the Doctrine of Probability. He gives some slight Touches of it in explicating the manner, how Servants may comply to gratify their Master's Lust with a good Conscience, In delivering Letters and Presents, in opening Doors, or Windows, in helping their Masters to get in at a Window, in holding the Ladder whilst he gets up; These seem to be unhandsome things, but to perform them with Safety of Conscience, the difficulty only lies, in the Diversion of the Intention, from the Evil whereof they are the Abettors, to direct it to the Advantage accrueing to Themselves thereby. This is the Meaning of Directing the Intention.  
But now, saith the Provincial, I will 
Provin. Let. 6. and 7.  display this Grand Method in its full Lustre upon the Subject Murder, which it justifies upon a thousand Occasions, that by such an Effect, you may Judge what it is able to Produce. But to satisfy you, says He to the Gentleman, that we do not permit all things, know for Instance, that we never suffer a man should have no other design in Sinning, than a formal Intention to Sin; and that if any one be so obdurate, as in an Evil Action to Limit his desire by the Evil itself, we have no more to do with him; This is Diabolical, and admits of no exception, of Age, Sex, or Quality. But if a man be not sunk into that wretched Condition, we endeavour to put in practice our Method of Directing the Intention, which consists in a man's proposing to himself as the End of his Actions, an allowable Object. Not but that we, as far as lies in our Power, Divert Men from doing things forbidden: But when we cannot hinder the Action, we at least purify the Intention, and so Correct the Viciousness of the Means, by the Purity of the End.  
Thus, you see, have our Fathers found out a Means to permit the Violences men ordinarily Commit in maintaining their Honour. For there's no more to be done, than to divert the Intention from the Desire of Revenge, which is sinful, to incline it to a Desire of maintaining one's Honour, which, according to our Fathers, is allowable. And thus they acquit themselves of all Obligations, both towards God, and towards Men. For they satisfy the World, by permitting the Actions, and satisfy the Gospel, by Purifying the Intention. This is a thing the Ancients never knew; the world is engaged for it only to our Fathers.  
1. This is a Principle of great use to men of Design and Action; for example; If I be jealous of my Tenor or Title to the Estate I have acquired, and project not only to secure my present Interest, but to purchase greater Advantages, which I think can never be Accomplished without an Insurrestion, and the Reacting of our late Bloody Tragedy, (wherein so many Fished, with such good success in those Troubled Waters) we must set a broach our Fears and Jealousies, especially those of Popery and Arbitrary Power, we must Remonstrate the Maladministration of our Superiors, and complain of Grievances; when the People are startled, and in Commotion hereat, than we may take the Sword, and usurp the Royal-Office, seize his Majesty's Ships, Castles, and Revenues, and having wrested his Militia out of his Hands, we may then venture to exercise it against Him, to Fight Him, and take Him Prisoner to Arrargn, Scaffold, and Behead Him.  
These are sad Emergencies you'll say; but you must not conclude, that this is done upon corrupt and Wicked Principles; take heed of that; be sure to divert your Intention, from the spoil, and plunder, from the Sacrilege, and Murder, from the Schism, Treason, and Rebellion, and Direct it to a plausible End or an allowable Object, that is, To Advance God's Glory, to Reform the Church and State, and to Associate and Unite all True Professors to this Effect. This they must Confess is well intended, & free from any ill Design, & the Reconciler will justify it. By this Miraculous Principle and Method, be the Villainy never so Diabolilical, the Reconciler can put the Jesuit into the Dissenters Belly, to Purify his Intention, and all is well.  
6ly. The Reconciler says further, Perhaps our Brother errs thro' Weakness, and Infirmity, or thro' want of Information.  
If it be so, the Question is, Whether this be not Voluntary and Culpable? For unless it be invincible, it cannot excuse them, it being a Rule amongst the Best, and most Learned Moralists, Nullam in 
Gers. De. Vit. Spir. Lect. 4. Coroll. 3.  his, quae Legis Divinae sunt, cadere Ignorantiam invincibilem: He to whom the Divine Law is promulged, is under the Obligation of it; and therefore cannot be invincibly, and inculpably Ignorant of any Precept thereof. By the Evangelical Law, God has tied all Men in the same Community, to Concord, and Uniformity in his Public Worship; and Men are obliged not only to know that Law, but to use all Necessary Means to observe it. If we want such Knowledge, that Defect is Voluntary to us, and proceeds from our own default, from a Voluntary and Culpable Impediment of our own making. For (1.) Either we do not resist our own Passions, which are apt to blind us: Or, (2.) We do not use sufficient Diligence, to procure that Knowledge which should direct us: For either we do not study to find out the Truth, by a careful Search; or we do not consult such as are more skilful to inform us; or we do not pray earnestly to God for his Grace of Illumination; or else, our Impenitence and Stubbornness, hinders Him from opening our Hearts to attend to our right Instructors.  
Now all these Impediments of our Knowledge being Clearly Voluntary, the Will, (by God's Grace) may remove them, and is obliged to do it; If she does not, the Omission and Ignorance of the Duty, and the Malicious Act which steps up in the room of it, are plainly Vincible, Voluntary and Culpable.  
Truth and Knowledge are that Intellectual Light, which Corrects the Darkness and Disorders of a Depraved Mind. But some Men are Wilfully Ignorant, and 
2 Pet. 3. 5.  keep themselves in Darkness, that they may enjoy their Carnal Satisfactions without Check, and Riot with the greater Freedom; They Love Darkness rather than Light, because their Deeds are Evil, and they hate Knowledge, because they hate to be reform, John 3. 19  
But there are another sort of Men who are more wilfully Active towards their own Seduction. They take Pains to be deceived, and bred up in error; they Study Seditious Books, and Frequent Schismatical Conventicles, which they should avoid as Infection.  
Now their Attention to such Discourses being greedy, and perfectly Voluntary, the Effect that follows it, I mean, the Errors, whether begotten, or bred up by that means, are also Voluntary. And therefore unless those Sins and Errors, (which are so fully Voluntary, and in Practice tends so directly to Schism and Disobedience) are come to be counted Venial; 'tis not want of Charity in me, but the Light and Force of Truth, that makes me call them Damnable. Wherefore let not this Reconciler delude his Dissenting Brethren, in attempting to excuse them by a Pretence of Weakness, and want of Information.  
7ly. Prejudice I know is a great Obstruction to Truth, but it should not be pleaded in Bar to a just Sentence, upon a froward Schismatic. Commonly when men have entertained other Principles, and are prepossessed with a wrong Conceit, instead of submitting to better Information, they add Stubbornness to their Self-conceit, and harden themselves in their first Persuasion, against all Sense and Reason. You may haply convince them, but they will hardly be persuaded. Those great Disputants which opposed St. Stephen, when they were not able to resist the Wisdom and the Spirit by which he spoke, yet could they Suborn False-Witness to swear down both his Doctrine and Integrity, Act. 6.  
Sometimes the Prejudice lies against 
Numb. 16.  the Persons; Ye take too much upon you, Ye Sons of Levi, was Corah's objection against Moses, and against Aaron: They have an Unkindness for their Prince and Prelate, therefore neither their Discipline nor Discourses will Relish with them: This was Ahabs' Obstruction, There is a Prophet of great Integrity, but I hate him. The Apostle becomes the People's Enemy, because he tells them the Truth. Gal. 4. 16.  
The Prejudice sometimes lies against the Article, or Institution. This was naaman's Obstruction; Are not Abanah, and Pharphar Rivers of Damascus, better than all the Waters of Israel, may not I wash in them, and be clean? Factions, Stubbornness, and Infidelity, in the suggestions of those Unbeleiving Jews, made the minds of the Gentiles evil affected toward Barnabas and Paul, whose Doctrine otherwise, in all Probability, they had embraced, Act. 14. 2.  
Sometimes the Prejudice lies both against the Person, and Dispensation too, and this was our Saviour's own Case; He came to bring them Light, and to guide their Feet into the way of Peace, but his State of Meekness and Humility, deceived their Carnal expectations, and the Holiness of his Divine Maxims crossed the Grain of their Avarice and Ambition, and They were offended at him.  
Many times the Prejudice lies only in the Pride and Popularity of the Party; when Men have made an interest to carry on some Design, and got a Name by courting and Seducing the hearts of the Simple, and Headed Faction that Flocks after them; For such Men to see their own Errors, is to them as the shadow of Death, therefore if they cannot break the Glass, that shows them such an ugly Spectacle, they'll either lay it aside, or turn their Backs upon it. To retract and Renounce their Beloved Error, is to deny themselves, and to lay their Honour in the Dust; which is such a severe piece of Mortification, as they have not yet Learned, and know not how to practise. What hinders Reformation in the Church of Rome, so much as the Opinion of their Infallibility? For such as are Infallible have no need of better Information, and such as are so persuaded, whatever their Errors be, They are not in a present Capacity of being corrected. And have we not many among ourselves, who, though they pretend not to Infallibility, are no less stubborn in their own Opinion, than they that do, and that is as ill; Their Self-conceit makes them Inflexible in their Persuasion, and as long as this Impression of Pride and Selfconceit, of Popularity and Vainglory, sticks upon them, their minds are not in a Disposition to receive the Truth; and this was the case of many an Eminent Person among the Jews, John 11. 42, 43.  
When Hatred and Envy appear in the Contest, they heighten the Prejudice exceedingly; and this was so notorious, in the Priests against our Saviour, that Pilate took special notice of it, He knew that for Envy they had delivered Him. 
Mat. 27. 18.  In the Meanness of his Person and Equipage, they were disappointed of their Worldly Pomp, and Carnal Hopes; yet such was the Innocency of his Life, the Regularity and Holiness of his Conversation, that his Doctrine gained Credit, no less from his Example, than the Excellency of his Precepts and Discourses. His Miracles also were admirable to a great Conviction; but yet for all this their hearts were not Won to embrace the Truth; so that his gracious Dispensations served only, to set an Edge upon their Malice, to raise their Spleen, to sharpen their Indignation, and whet their Wits to find our Arguments to elude the Evidence of their Conviction.  
The Priests and Pharisees held a Council against this Holy Jesus, and their Debate resolved to a wicked Expostulation, What do we? For this man doth many Miracles. Here was a clear Conviction: but they preferred their Temporal Interest, before the Truth, and their own Salvation: They resolve therefore, If we let this man alone, all Men will believe on him, and the Romans shall come and take away our Place and Nation. Here they take up a Liberty of Prophesying, which though it sentenced Him, but to a short Death, yet it brought upon themselves a fatal Doom, which was no less sad, than irreversible. 
Joh. 11. 47. etc.   
I may add, that Avarice, and Filthy Lucre, do many times Enhance the Prejudice, and when men come to this point of Belief (which is a desperate sign of Atheism) that Gain is Godliness, they are men of such Corrupt Minds, that the Apostle seems to give them over as hopeless and uncurable. He tells us of men Who take Pleasure in unrighteousness, that are Lovers of their own selves, and despisers of 
2 Tim. 3. to the 8.  those which are Good; Covetous, Boasters, Proud, Fierce, and false Accusers, Traitors, Heady, , Lovers of Pleasures, more than Lovers of God, having a Form of Godliness, but denying the Power thereof. These, for all their fair Pretences, and Diligence to seduce others, He calls them Men of Corrupt Minds, that resist the Truth, and are Reprobates concerning the Faith. What is it that makes the Schismatics so ungovernable, and so bold, in teaching things, which they ought not? Is it not for filthy Lucre's sake? Dost 
Chrys. ad Tit. Cap. 1. Hom. 2.  thou see, says St. Chrysostom, that every where the Love of Rule, and the Appetite of Filthy Lucre is the cause that such men will not be subject to their Superiors? These men are far from the Kingdom of Heaven, in no present disposition to Embrace the Truth in the Love of it; A sharp Reproof which may Melt others, and make them Sound in the Faith, (Tit. 1. 13.) will but exasperate such as these to greater Attempts of mischief.  
In short, when Prejudice and Self-conceit, are the best Talon of their Knowledge; when Popularity is their Devotion, and Gain their Godliness; when Hatred and Envy are the Zeal that whets them on, in their pretences of Justice, or Reformation; that is, in a word, when men make their Consciences truckle to their Covetous or Ambitious Designs, & prefer their Interest in this World, before the Institutions of Christ, & their Hopes of Heaven, their minds are so Corrupt, from the Simplicities that is in Christ, that 'tis High time for them to lay aside all such Prejudices, and seek for better Information, that there be no Schisms amongst us, but that we be perfectly 
1 Cor. 1. 10. Rom. 15. 6. 1. Tim. 2. 2.  joined together in the same mind, & in the same Judgement; & that we all speak the same thing, that we may with one mind, & one mouth, Glorify God; and lead a quiet and peaceable life, in all Godliness and Honesty.  
8. The last Remark I shall make upon this Paragraph is this, That generally the Schismatic, is more confident of the State of his Party, and their Interest in God's favour, than the most eminent Servants of God. Corah pronounceth without the least Hesitation, or any Doubt at all, saying, All the Congregation are Holy, every one of Them; But Moses was astonished at his Confidence, and said more modestly, The Lord will 
Num. 16. 3, 5,  show who are his, and who is Holy, and will cause him to come near unto him.  
When St. Paul commends the Weak 
Rom. 14. 3.  Jew, who had embraced the Gospel, to the care and kindness of those who are better instructed, because God had received him; He speaks out of the Judgement of Charity: But really God receives none upon their own Partial Terms, or Factious Principles; He receives only such as Resign themselves up entirely to his Will, that is, to the Conduct of his Church, according to his Laws and Institutions. Thus he received Saul; when he said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do, the Lord received him; but committed 
Acts 9 6.  him to the Care of his Church, and Ministry, saying, Arise and go into the City, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. Thus, as I said, every true Convert, in Preparation of Mind, and full Purpose of Heart, resigns himself up, to the Conduct of Christ's Church according to his Holy Laws and Institutions.  
But for the Sectary, who refuses the Conduct of the Church, we have no Warrant to assure us that God hath 
Acts 4. 7. John 10.  received Him; for such as he receives, he receives into his Church, All that are his Sheep, he brings into this Fold. 
'tis 3. 10, 11  To this purpose upon those Words of the Apostle, A man that is a Sectary reject; 
In Loc. Com. joc. 8. De 9 aeret. N. 6.  Joannes Crocius a Calvenist, writeth thus, Etsi ex vera Ecclesia prodit Haereticus non tamen est ex Deo: Although the Sectary comes out from the True Church, yet he is not of God. The Reason is irrefragrable, because he is to be rejected; For whatsoever is to be rejected, is not of God. God is Truth and the Author of Truth, but not of Sects and Heresies. They went out from us, says 
1 John 2. 19  St. John, but they were not of us.  
And now I think it high time to speak Plainly; He that makes himself an Enemy to his Prince, And so do such as are Seditious, and he that makes himself an Enemy to the Church, And so do such as are Schismatical, they make themselves unfit for any Trust, and in that respect. They are to be despised. And as to the Schismatical part, we may observe it to be St. Paul's practice in all his Epistles, wherein he takes notice of such Sectaries as did infest the Church, Rom. 16. 17, 18. 2 Cor. 10. 11. cap. Gal. 1. 7. ch. 4. 17 18. ch. 5. 10, 12. Philip. 3. 2, 3. Coloss. 2. 8, 16, 18. etc. 1 Tim. 6. 3, 4, 5. Tit, 1. 10, 11. St. Pet. also Epist. 2. c. 2. throughout, like wise St. John 1 Epist. c. 2. 18, 19 and St. Judas does the like the 11, 12, 13. ver. of his Epistle.  
2dly, says the Reconciler, Thus to condemn and Judge our Brother, seems 
Pag. 118.  inconsistent with the Properties and Rules of Charity. For Charity, saith the Apostle, Hopeth all things, and Believeth all things; and therefore must oblige us to hope and to believe well of our Brother's Actions till we have Demonstration of the contrary, & not condemn Him without certain grounds. Charity thinketh no evil, saith the same Apostle; It is not Jealous or Suspicious, and therefore will not suffer us to pass our Sentence on the Intentions or inward Motions of our Brother's Actions. Because, although we may suspect, we cannot be assured, that he doth perform them with those Vile Intentions, and upon those evil Motives, which we are Prone to charge him with.  
But is Charity so severe a Lady? Will she not suffer me to call a Spade, a Spade? If a man suggests a Lie in his Petition, does Charity oblige me to esteem him Honest, and worthy of the Preferment he Petitions for? I know Justice is Pictured Blind, but I never thought Charity was so in earnest. 'Tis true, Charity Thinks no evil, She frames none, She suspects none, where She finds no Reason for it. 'Tis her Office to make Men Harmless, but not to make them Fools; leaving out their Sting and Venom, She can reconcile the Serpent's Wisdom to the Dove's Innocency: Neque enim Caecutire debent Fideles (says Mr. Calvin) The faithful Servants of Christ, ought not to be so Blind as to discern Nothing, Sed tantum seipsos fraenare, ne Cupidius Judicent quam parest; Tho it be their Duty to Bridle 
Ad Mat. 7. 1.  themselves, lest they should be more lavish in judging than does become them.  
When Things are put into the Balance, we must weigh and value them, as the Moment's or Grains of Reason shall incline us; But if we speak of Persons, when any Doubt ariseth, that touches their Good, or Evil Reputation, we are absolutely concerned to give our Interpretation in the better Sense. Yet this is not so to be understood, as if Speculatively and Positively, we were certainly to Judge those Men Honest, of whose Honesty we have no certain Sign or Indication; for so we should be bound to believe a Falsehood; But the Meaning is, that Negatively, and Practically in Doubtful matters, we ought not to judge ill of our Neighbour, but to carry ourselves so towards Him in Common Conversation, as if He were Honest, when we find nothing in Him to the Contrary.  
This is the Judgement of Charity.  
But this Judgement of Charity must not contradict that of Prudence, which Teaches us to carry ourselves with some Reservedness; whether in order to the Amendment of any Evil, or to the putting in of Caution against it. 'Tis not Prudence to trust those too far, of whom we have no Reason to be confident; for we know there may be a Godly-jealousy, 2 Cor. 11. 2. Gal. 4. 11.  
If the Reconciler says, that some plausible Motives, or a collateral Good-meaning can hollow wicked Practices, he hath the Jesuit for his Casuist, and serves himself of his Morals.  
If He says, we ought not to be Shy, and keep Guard over ourselves in reference to matters of Conscience and Religion, he Cancels Christ's Caveat, and makes his Sign of the false-Prophet as useless (if not as scandalous too) as they would do the Sign of the Cross; Beware, says He, of false-Prophets, who come to you in sheepsclothing— by their Fruits ye shall know them.  
Was it want of Charity in the Apostle, speaking of such as sought occasion to traduce his Life and Doctrine, to say, such are False-Apostles, deceitful Workers, transforming themselves into the Apostles of Christ. And no marvel, for Satan himself is transformed into an Angel of Light. Therefore it is no great thing, if his Ministers also be transformed as the Ministers of Righteousness; whose End shall be according to their Works. Was St. Peter without Charity? Yet he saith, These are Wells without Water, Cloud's that are carried with a Tempest, to whom the mist of Darkness is reserved for ever, 2 Pet. 2. 17. Was St. Judas Uncharitable? Yet He saith, These are spots in your Feasts of Charity, Clouds 
Judas Epist. v. 12, 13.  they are without Water, Trees whose Fruit withereth, Raging Waves of the Sea, Wand'ring Stars, to whom is reserved the Blackness of Darkness for Ever. Was Christ uncharitable? Yet He saith, Woe unto you Scribes, Pharisees, Hypocrites! 
Mat. 5. 20.  and again, Except your Righteousness shall exceed the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees Ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. I thank God, I am not yet arrived at that height of Folly, as to pretend to be more Wise and Charitable, than Christ or his Apostles.  
St. Paul thought it not amiss to make an Argument, to awaken such as were secure and careless, and he puts it home to their own Consideration; Know ye not says he, that the Unrighteous shall not inherit 
1 Cor. 6. 19 20, 21.  the Kingdom of God? Does he mean none but Thiefs, Drunkards and Extortioners, none but Fornicators, Murderers and Idolaters? Yes he takes in the Contentious and Seditious, and such as disturb the Peace of the Church by Sects, and Schisms.  
This was his Major Proposition, and he took the Boldness to Assume, (and doubtless he thought it was without any Breach of Charity, which he had in so eminent a Measure, that he could wish himself Accursed from Christ for his Brethren 
Rom. 9 3. 2 Cor 12. 15.  according to the Flesh) yet to make up his Argument, he tells the Corinthians, and such were some of you. And I would have the Reconciler know, that I should be no less glad than St. Paul was, if I had the like Evidence for it, to say of the most Stubborn and Froward of our Dissenters, But ye are Washed, but ye are Sanctified, but ye are Justified, in the Name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.  
If thy Brother shall trespass against thee, Rebuke him. This Injunction is usherd in with a Caveat that looks inward, which implies, that 'tis of great Concern unto us. Take heed to yourselves. St. Luke 17. 3. Be sure ye do it by word of Mouth or Writing; and, if occasion serves, 
Mat. 18. 17.  present his miscarriage to the Church. The Neglect of this Duty, the Law interprets as an act of Hatred, Levit. 19 17. Thou shalt not hate thy Brother in thy Heart. Thou shalt in any wise Rebuke thy Neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. The Canon Law tell's us, Qui emendat verbere in quem Potestas datur vel coercet aliquâ Disciplinâ— Eleemosynam Dat, quia 
Distinc. 45. c. 11.  Misericordiam proestat: Discipline is reckoned among Alms, and Correction is a Work of Mercy. Fratrem, quo emendetur, corripere, id vel unice diligere est, saith Luc. Brug. to Reprove a Brother, that he may be amended, that's a singular Act of Love and Kindness.  
3ly. Saith the Reconciler, This Practice seems Repugnant to that great Rule of Equity, which doth enjoin us to do to others as we would be dealt with; For we would not have others Judge rashly of the Thoughts, and secret Purposes of our Minds, which they know not, nor of the inward Principles of our Actions, which they cannot discern; and would desire them to Judge, as favourably as they can, of the Miscarriages which they know.  
To this, the Answer will be very short: I know 'tis the Ambition of all Hypocrites to be esteemed better than they are, and 'tis their Study and Care as well as Artifice to seem so; but such a man is a great Fool for his Pains, he may be deceived himself, but God is not mocked by such delusions. He hath laid down the Rule, and we must stand or fall by it, With what Measure ye meet, it shall be Measured to you again. Matth. 7. 2. In this Case I say, God's Will be Done. If ever this Reconciler finds me either a Rebel to my Prince, or a Schismatic to my Church, let him deal with me as I shall deserve, let him put me into his Pack of Villains, and I will forgive him.  
The Reconciler carries on his Argument thus; When it is not evidently Protestatio contra Factum, we would have Men believe us, when we protest, that it is purely out of Conscience towards God, that we refuse Obedience to the Commands of men; and therefore we are by this Rule obliged so to Demean ourselves in passing of our Judgements upon others.  
I perceive this Reconciler is young enough to become Wiser. If he had been of Age at Forty one, he might have seen and taken a Solemn Protestation to maintain His Majesty's Royal Person, Honour and Estate; and after that He might have seen his Weak Brethren take a Solemn League and Covenant, wherein they did Protest and Swear, with Hands and Eyes lifted up to Heaven, that their design was to make His Majesty a Glorious King, to preserve His Royal Person, Crown and Dignity, and that they had no Thoughts or Intentions to diminish any thing of His Majesty's just Power, and Greatness. How they performed that Protestation, Jan. the 30th. will be a lasting Commemoration. Have we not seen Addresses to the late King from those Dissenting Brethren, under the Style of Your Majesty's most Humble and Obedient Subjects, when they had their Swords in their Hands ready to Cut His Throat? That I was not a Stranger to their Proceed, Pretences and Designs, you may conclude from those Historical Observations, Printed for, W. Webb at Oxford, 1643. under the Title of Sober Sadness.  
I'll vary the Apostle's Style while I apply myself to our Dissenters, I writ not these things to shame you, but as my deluded 
1 Cor. 4. 14.  Countrymen, I warn you. And although the Spirit of Mildness and Charity may have its angry Sallies and Emotions, yet that you may be sure I do not stretch myself beyond the Line of Justice, or Charity in this undertaking, I shall acquaint you with the Marks which the Fathers of the Church have left us, whereby to discern, whether Reprehensions proceed from a Spirit of Piety and Charity, or from a Spirit of Impiety and Exasperation.  
These Marks or Rules are Collected to my Hand by Montaltius, in his Provincials; 
Letter. 11.  The first whereof is this.  
1st. That the Spirit of Piety, inclines a man to speak always with Truth and Sincerity, whereas Envy and Exasperation, spares neither Lies, nor Calumnies. If we advance things which are untrue, I say with St. Hilary, let our discourses he reputed Infamous; but if we plainly show, that what we do produce is public and manifest, it is no Breach of Moderation, and Apostolical Liberty to reprove them.  
2ly. As the First Rule is to speak with Truth, so the Second is to speak with Discretion; Wicked Men, says St. Augustine, persecuting the Good, are hurried away with the blind Passion that animates them. Whereas the Good Prosecute the Wicked with a Prudent Discretion, as Surgeons consider where they Cut, but Murderers care not where they Strike.  
3ly. The Third Rule is, That when a Man is obliged to fall into something of satire, the Spirit of Piety inclines him to direct his wit against Errors, not against Holy things; whereas the Spirit of Sycophancy, Impiety, and Heresy, makes Sport with what is most Sacred. I wish the Reconciler to consider, how Profane he has been, in maing a May-game of the Observances of the Church.  
4ly. I shall add but one Rule more, which is the Principle and End of all the Rest; and that is This.  
That the spirit of Charity inclines a man to make Hearty Wishes for their Salvation against whom He speaks, and when He directs his Reproaches to men, at the same time to address his Prayers to God. A man should always with St. Augustin, preserve Charity in his Heart, even when he is obliged to do outwardly things that to men seem very Harsh, and to smite them with a rough but obliging Severity, their Advantage being preferred before their Satisfaction.  
This was the Practice of John the Baptist, who doubtless desired the Salvation of such as applied themselves to his Ministry, yet how did He upbraid the Pharisees and Saducees with their Viperous Temper? How did He undervalue their Carnal Privilege of having Abraham to their Father, as if the conceit of that, had been Charm enough to secure them from approaching Vengeance? How does He press them to a Worthy Repentance, threatening and even frightening them into it with the keen Axe, and a consuming Fire; all this 
Mat. 3. 7, 9 etc.  we are told in the sacred Text; and 'twas no less an instance of his Love, than the discharge of his Holy Office.  
We are now drawing towards the end this Chapter, and that were some comfort if were sure he would not entertain us, (as he hath done too often already) with Repetitions. but he gives us fair hopes of an End, for he says, Lastly, were the Scandal which Dissenters take at the imposing of the Ceremonies Scandalum Pharisaicum, or like to that, which by the Pharises was taken against the Doctrine of our Lord, I know not why we should not be concerned, to do all which lawfully we may, for the Prevention or Removal of it; For when our Saviour paid Tribute, lest he should offend them, did he not then forgo his Liberty to avoid the Scandal of the Pharisees? And when the False-Apostles in the Church of Corinth were like to be offended at St. Paul's taking Wages, doth he not abstain to prevent that Offence?  
The Reconciler is the only man I have met withal, that Loves to talk at Random and without distinction; he knows not why we should not be concerned to prevent or remove the Scandal of a Pharisee, how far concerned, whether in Justice, or Charity, or upon what other account he doth not tell us. However, I am ready to do, what Lawfully may, to such a purpose, with all my Heart.  
When I find a man who has turned his Back upon Jerusalem to go to Jericho, if he has fallen into ill handling, and be wounded with Error and Superstition, I will not flatter him, that he is in a safe condition, like a Levitical Reconciler, but I'll endeavour to dress and bind up his Wounds, and deliver him to the Ministry of the Church for a perfect Cure; that is, in plain English, I will tell our Dissenters, that we are not under the Law, but under Grace; that the Rites and Ceremonies of Moses' Institution are out of Date, and that under the dispensation of the Gospel there is nothing Common or , and Consequently nothing Scandalous but sin, or that which has some notable Appearance of it.  
That to such as have put themselves under Christ's Discipline, there is nothing can affect or Defile the Conscience, but what is Acted or Omitted contrary to his Holy Laws, and Institutions; that among the rest of his Institutions, he has Ordained Ministers to Order and Conduct us in his stead, whose Faith and Practice we are therefore obliged to follow, knowing that the End of their Conversation is the Salvation of our Souls. Having thus instructed them with all Meekness, and warned them to receive these things without Partiality, I have discharged my Duty, and delivered my own Soul.  
After this Christian Condescension, if a pretended Weak Brother will be peevish and Disobedient, if He will be Singular, and forsake his Lawful-Pastour, if he will take offence (which I have faithfully endeavoured to prevent) and go to Hell of his own Head, because I wear a Surplice, as the Badge of my Office, in my Administration about Holy Things; I have done no more than what becomes my Function, if he will Perish, his Blood must be upon his own head.  
Again, if he will be Peevish and Disobedient, if he will be singular and forsake his Lawful Pastor, if he will take offence and go to Hell, because I sign my Child with the Sign of the Cross, as the Badge of my own Christianity, and as an Item to him of his Duty and Allegiance, to his Crucified Redeemer; I have done nothing, but what does very well become my Christian Profession; If he will perish in his Folly, his Blood must be upon his own head.  
I shall speak but this once more; if he will be Peevish and Disobedient, if he will be singular, and forsake his Lawful Guide or Pastor, if he will take offence and go to Hell, because I fall upon my knees to say my Prayers, to bewail my sins, to Receive a Benediction, and to adore my ever Blessed God and Saviour; I have done no more than what becomes me for such invalueable Obligations; if he will die in his wretched Schism, I am innocent, his Blood will be upon his own head. This Fraternal Admonition and Advice, is what I Lawfully may do; but if Men will make occasions to themselves in their own Imaginations, and then take offence at them, who can help it.  
But this will not satisfy our Reconciler. I know very well what he would be at; The Governors must repeal their Laws, and abate their Impositions, or all is nothing.  
Amesius says, All things are to be done or omitted without sin. This, he says, is the Obligation of Charity to avoid Scandal; But he means Scandalum Pusillorum, the Scandal of the Weak, or Little Ones; Not such Scandal as is taken by men of a Pharisaical temper.  
When the Apostle was reported to affirm, that we might do Evil to a good End; He took it for a foul slander, and says, Their Damnation is Just who practice such a Principle. Works under Precept are not to be omitted to avoid scandal, because every man as he is bound to love himself before another, so is he obliged to avoid Sin in himself, rather than in Another.  
Are not Governors under the Obligation of that Rule, Let all things be done Decently, and in Order. 'Tis a part of the Governors' Office doubtless, to Establish Good Order; For this Cause left 
Tit. 1. 5.  I thee in Crete, says St. Paul, That thou shouldest set in order the Things that are wanting. This was the Burden and Charge the Apostle laid upon Titus,  Ecclesiis nondum rite compositis formam daret; ut certam Politiciae rationem una cum Disciplina constitueret; That he might Form and Fashion the Churches which were not yet well Composed, and constitute a certain State and Manner of Policy, with Discipline therein. To that end Titus was settled there, says Calixtus, that he might supply whatsoever was wanting, that might conduce to the Conservation, External Regiment, and Ornament of the Church.  
This is one Command that lies upon the Person of the Governor, and there's another that lies upon him too, not peculiarly as a Governor, but as a Christian in General, Rom. 4. 15, Let every Man be fully persuaded in his own Mind. Is it not the Governors' Duty to set things in Order in God's Church, as the Apostle enjoins, and to be fully persuaded in his own Mind that he does well in it? Shall he break God's Commands? Shall he betray his Trust? Shall he act against his own Practical Judgement and Conscience? He that can allow a Governor to do this, may make a Ghostly Father for the Devil; But he that says, the Governor ought not to neglect his Duty, or to betray his Trust, or to go against his own Mind and Conscience, he must lay his hand upon his Mouth, and never move, either for a Repeal, or for an Abatement of the Laws, in favour of Dissenters.  
'Tis the Observation of Johannes Crocius, 
Ad Tit. 3. 9 Loc. Com. 7. De Content. N. 6.  That they, who under a Pretence of avoiding Contention do Transact with the Adverse Party unjustly contending to the Prejudice of Truth; Or, Disserting the Good Cause, do comply too much with them; they understand not the mind of the Apostle: Tho he would have us cut off Foolish and Vain Questions, yet he would not have us to forsake or Betray the Truth to avoid Contention. In this case the Public Benefit is to be considered; but when any sort of Peace is purchased by the Loss of a Precious Truth, that's not to be accounted a Public benefit; for as Peace gained by such unjust means, is Uncertain and Doubtful, so there ever follows a certain Perturbation of Conscience, an offence of God, a scandal of Good Men, the mourning of the Faithful, great sadness of the whole Church, lastly, Multiplied Punishments in this, and the other World, inflicted by Almighty God; who indeed is the God of Peace, and yet he is the Prime Verity, and his Spirit the Spirit of Truth; who never said, Love Peace without Truth, But Love the Truth and 
Zach. 8. 19  Peace together.  
For the Collectors of the Tribute (supposing he doth not mistake the Story) I Answer, (1.) They were not so apt to Cavil, as our Dissenters. They did not question the Coin, or quarrelled because it was taken out of the Fish's Mouth, or that Peter had taken Pains to Angle for it. (2.) Christ, though he wrought a Miracle, did not break a Law to gratify their Demand, as the Reconciler would have us do. (3.) Tho Christ had a Divine Prerogative, that might exempt him from that Tribute, yet that was not Commonly known, nor suffered to be divulged. He was made under the Law, and according to Common Estimation, he was 
Mat. 16. 20. & 17. 9  obliged to pay that Duty; which he therefore did, that he might not give a Scandal, by the neglect of a General Law and Duty, either to the Collectors or his own Disciples. But what's this to the Dissenters, who positively give a Scandal, both to their Governors, and Fellow Subjects, by the Breach of a Law in Force, and the neglect of a Common Duty, instead of yielding up their Liberty, after Christ's example to avoid Offence.  
What he says of the False-Apostles at Corinth is a clear Mistake. They were not like to be offended at the Apostles taking Wages, for he had never taken any there, and was resolved he never would. They were rather offended that he did not; yet he would not alter his Resolution to take off that offence. They were deceitful 
Clam oblata Captabant. Vides quemadmodum Hos ipsos Apostolos patefaciat, excipiendis muneribus esse intentos. Vid. Chris. Theod. Theoph. Oecum.  Workers, as St. Paul calls them, hiding wicked Designs under fair pretences; they loved to be o'th' taking hand, and were ready enough to devour, (2 Cor. 11. 20.) for they aimed at Filthy Lucre, Tit. 1. 11. and Gain, to 
1 Tim. 4. 6.  them, was Godliness; But they refused ordinary Stipends (as many Dissenters do, and our Reconciler very well understands the knack of it) to gain greater Allowances by private Contributions. In the mean while they wished the Apostle would have taken a public Stipend, that they might have had the opportunity to upbraid him for it, as he tell's them, 2 Cor. 11. 12. But what I do, that I will 
Paraphras, Anonym.  [continue] to do, that I may cut off Occasion, [of reproaching me, or Boasting of themselves] from them which desire occasion, that [for all those things, of Nonself-interest, and gratuital service] wherein they Glory; they may be found even as we.  
Grant this Reconciler, that all Scandal is of a Soul-destroying Nature, and so 
pag. 119.  a kind of Spiritual Murder; how then comes it to pass, that he does not tremble at so great a Gild? For does he not take off that Reverence, which is due both to our Laws and Governors? Does he not Tempt, nay, does he not Teach the People to despise them, when he so often, so openly, so boldly declares their Impositions to be Destructive, to be Snares, and Gall-Traps, to be such Laws of Burden, as make the Willing to be Slaves, and the Unwilling to Rebel? And that they may learn, after his example, to Vilify and Despise their Rules, He gives them the most Odious Characters of unmerciful, Rigorous, and Cruel Tyrants. See the Animadversions from pag. 103. to pag. the 107. How would this Insolence been resented at Geneva? Would the Consistory have been satisfied with his Deprivation? No; they would have hunted him by their Letters, from 
See the Verdict, pag. 280.  place to place, as they did Rotarius, and he has Ten-times more deserved it.  
After Lastly, He brings in Thirdly, without either First, or Second, and puts his Question thus; Doth not Charity oblige us to Love even our most Malicious, and Persecuting Enemies? Mat. 5. 44. To Exercise Patience and Meekness towards those who oppose themselves, and who by Satan are Led Captive at his Will? 2 Tim. 2. 24, 25. And whom then may we Scandalise?  
Now I think the Reconciler has been ensnared in all the Real Fallacies in Logic. And here, to hold Himself and the Credulous Reader the faster, we have a Complication of them; for, First, here is Petitio Principit, He supposes, that our Governors give the Dissenters Scandal, which I deny.  
2dly. Here's Non Causa pro Causa, instead of a true Cause, and that which is such of it Self, He obtrudes that which is not such, or but by Accident. 'Tis just like this, Vinum inebriat, Ergo Exterminandum est ex Republica; Wine does Intoxicate, therefore it must be banished or destroyed out of the Commonwealth; whereas Wine is not the True and Proper Cause of Drunkenness, but men's Intemperance in abusing it. After thy manner the Reconciler Argues: The Impositions do offend the Brethren, therefore says he, they ought to be Rescinded or abated: But I deny the Consequence, for the Impositions are not the True and Proper Cause of Scandal; but the Ignorance and Superstition of such as take offence at them. For this is observed by Gualther to be the Disease, Quo Infirmi Fide et Superstitione aliqua adhuc 
Homil 80 in Ep ad Rom.  detenti, plerumque; Laborant; which such as are weak in the Faith, and declined by Superstition, are for the most part Sick of: Quod nimirum praecipiti judicio Quidvis ut impium et illicitum damnant, cujus Rationem Ipsi non intelligunt aut intelligere nolunt: Namely, that they rashly condemn every thing as Unlawful and Wicked, which they themselves do not, or will not understand; for as Knowledge does puff a Man up, and renders him the more Confident, unless it be Governed by Charity; Ita nihil Arrogantius est Inscitia saith he, So nothing is more Arrogant than Ignorance. They therefore who are Captivated thereby, do break out most Audaciously in condemning every Body; Thus Gualther.  
I grant we ought to Love our most Malicious and Persecuting Enemies; but I would fain know, how that Love is to be Expressed? If they be addicted to Wine, must we Administer to their Intemperance? If they be addicted to Women, must we Administer to their Wantonness, and the like? Will you call this Charity, and a Duty in us? Yet this is clearly as Lawful, as to gratify a Dissenter in his Schism. How Governors are to Reconcile their Charity, to their Trust and Holy Office, I have declared already.  
I am no less satisfied, that Charity obliges us to Exercise Patience and Meekness, towards those who oppose themselves; for 'tis Grotius his Observation, 
In Epist. ad Curcel. in fin. Annot. ad Apocalypse.  and a very True one, Tempore Longo opus est, antequam plane Animis evellantur, quoe sevit Factio aut aluit, It requires a long time before those Principles be rooted out of Men's Minds, which have been sown or fed by Faction. But where Stubbornness is added to Error, the Disease many times becomes incurable. St. Augustine has a severe 
Epist. 167.  Observation upon the Donatists, Puto quod ipse Diabolus, si authoritate Judicis, quem ultro elegerat, toties vinceretur, non esset tam impudens ut in ea Causa persisteret, I think the Devil himself would not have been so impudent, as to have persisted in that Cause, wherein he had been so often overthrown, by the Authority of a Judge of his own choosing.  
Patience and Meekness do very well to attend Instruction, where there is any hope of Amendment; but to the Schismatic who hath entangled himself in so many and various Scruples, that he knows not how to disengage himself, those gentle Methods are ineffectual: Sharpness and Severity, are much more useful for some Tempers, which therefore the great Apostle does both Threaten and 
2 Cor. 13. 2. 10. Tit. 1. 13.  Prescribe. This Distinction of Persons and Tempers, he might have Learned from those Fathers whom he so often citys, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, who have the same Distinction upon the words of the Apostle, Tit. 3. 10. Where he enjoins the use of Severe Applications, when Gentle means will not prevail; A Man that is a Sectary, after the First and Second Admonition, reject: Which Words Calixtus doth thus Paraphrase, Qui quoestiones agitant Frivolas et inutiles, etiamsi 
Ad Tit. 3. 10.  extreme mali non sint, et tolerari aliquatenus possint, compescendi tamen sunt et severe castigandi, ut curiosas atque otiosas istas Questiones missas faciant: Neque ipsi, si pietatem serio & ex animo colant, necessariis monitis obtemperare recusabunt. Such as set on foot frivolous and unprofitable Questions (and such generally have been bandied up and down by the Dissenters to the Disturbance of the Church,) though they be not extremely Bad, and might in some sort be tolerated, yet they are to be restrained and Chastised severely, that they may lay aside those curious and Idle Questions: and if they be hearty devoted to Piety, they will not refuse to obey such necessary Admonitions. But if any man be so addicted to Contention, that nothing will serve his turn, but the Overthrow of all Rule and Order, that he may set up a Religion and Way of his Own choosing, without doubt such a one is to be avoided. The Church Doors have hitherto been kept open to the Dissenters; if they will not regularly come in, to communicate with us, and be instructed, I know no Reason why our Governors should give them leave, to make Ladders to climb up otherways to perpetuate our Schisms.  
What the Reconciler adds, in Answer to an Objection, does serve very well to confirm the Truth, which we undertake to Justify: The Objection is this; When our Lords Disciples told Him, that the Pharisees were scandalised at his Doctrine, He answered, Let them alone, they are Blind Leaders of the Blind; and thereby seems to intimate, that we should not regard the Scandal of such Persons.  
For this, we have the Judgement of Amesius, the best Logician and School-Man 
De Consc. Lib. 5. C. 11. Num. 12.  that ever set Pen to Paper, on the behalf of the Dissenters, he says thus; Nihil Boni aut Liciti est omittendum, propter Scandalum acceptum Hominum Pharisaico Ingenio praeditorum: Nothing Good or Lawful is to be omitted, for the Scandal that's taken by men of a Pharisaical temper; and he citys that very Text for it, Mat. 15. 14. Let them alone, etc.  
The Reconciler says, this doth not follow from our Saviour's words; because the Scandal, mentioned there, was taken at our Lord's Preaching true Doctrine, and necessary to be taught; But I say, the Argument does follow from the words of our Saviour, because the Scandal of the Dissenters is taken at a Doctrine no less True and Necessary, the Doctrine of Obedience, which our Saviour did both Teach and Practice, and wrought a Miracle on Purpose to enable him to do it, and to justify his Performance of it; therefore when we call for Obedience to the Impositions of Things Lawful and Decent in God's Worship, (as the Rites and Observances amongst us are proved to be) we Preach True Doctrine, and necessary to be taught, both for Defence of our Governors, and their Subjects, and for the Rescuing the People from those Superstitions, and Wicked Practices, which have made them Worship God in Vain, and have made the Commandments of God of none effect. Now in such Cases the Reconciler confesses, it is true, That we must not desist from doing of our Duty, though Wicked Persons should be scandalised. Now because we are concerned among the Pharisees, 'twill not be amiss to take Notice of some things, wherein the Dissenting Brethren have resembled them.  
And (1.) our Saviour upbraids them, that they would Strain at a Gnat and Swallow a Camel; and have not our Dissenters done so? I am ashamed to mention the little things they Boggled at, while they Preached up Blood, Sacrilege and Rebellion; they can strain at a Surplice, but swallow Schism, and yet if they had St. John's Eyes, they might see Surplices 
Rev. 4. 4.  in Heaven; Whereas St. Paul tell's us, he could see no Schismatic 
Gal. 5. 20, 21.  there.  
2ly. Our Saviour upbraids them, that they were Blind Leaders of the Blind; and have not some of our Dissenters declared themselves to be such? Go with me saith Mr. Case, to Heb. 11. 13. and ye shall find Abraham with his Staff in 
In his Sermon before the Peers, March 25. 1646. P. 41.  his Hand, and his Sandals on his Feet, and his Loins girt: Please to let me ask him two or three Questions by the way; see what he will Answer. Reverend Patriarch whether are you going? Answer, I know not: When shall you return? Answer, I know not: How will you Subsist? Answer, I know not: He is in haste as well as we; and therefore I'll ask him but one Question more. Abraham, Why then do you go at such Uncertainties? To this he will Answer, I go not upon Uncertainties; I have a Call; I have a Command, and that will secure my Person, and bear my Charges.  
By Faith Abraham, when he was called 
Heb. 11. 8  to go into a Place, which he should after receive for an Inheritance, obeyed, and went out, not knowing whether he went.  
Christians (saith he) observe, a Call is as good as a Promise: (and a little after) we have not only a Call, but a Promise, not in General only, but in Special. The whole Book of the Revelation is nothing else but one great Promise of the Downfall of Antichrist, and Gospel-Reformation; and that is the Work Parliament and Kingdom have now in hand in these Three Nations: Thus Mr. Case.  
But what they meant by that Gospel-Reformation, they could never agree to tell us; witness Mr. Daniel Evance, in 
Entitled the Noble Order,  his Sermon before the Lords, Jan. 28. 1645. (on 1 Sam. 2. 30.) where he tells them thus: I Profess my Lords, I am neither for Paul, nor Apollo's, nor Cephas, nor Christ, till I know what Paul and Apollo's, and Cephas are for, and what those, that say they are for Christ, can say for him.  
But I could wish (my Lords) that we had the Pattern, that every man might consult with the Mount, which of the two is Christ's Government. The Child is Christened (for aught I see) before it is Born, and we have the Names before the Things.  
3ly. Our Saviour charges the Pharisees, that they made the Commandment 
Mat. 15. 4, 5, 6.  of God of none effect by their Tradition. And he instances in the Fift Commandment; now this the Dissenters have done; first by their distinction, that the King is Singulis Major, but Universis Minor. According to the last Branch of this Distinction, who is the Father? Not the Prince, for he is Minor to the Body of the People; Not the People, For (if they were above their Prince,) than They must be their own Father.  
But because this is so grossly absurd, and so perfectly contradicted, by the writings of the Primitive Fathers, and Holy Scriptures, therefore, to gain a Right and Liberty to Resist their Prince, John Goodwin has delivered it for a great 
Mr. Joh. Goodwin's Anti-Caval. See Dr. Ham. of Resisting the lawful Magistrate, etc. Pag. 22. etc.  Truth, that God did hid this Liberty [of Resisting] from the Primitive Christians, lest the use of it should cause an Abortion in the Birth of Antichrist. God caused a Dead sleep (says he) to fall upon these Truths, the hiding of them being necessary to help Antichrist up to his Throne; Yea, he saith, that God by special Dispensation suffered him, the said Antichrist, to make such Truths his footstool, till he had advanced himself to his highest Pitch in the World.  
But now, that this Antichrist, is to be destroyed and cast out, and the Commonalty of Christians (as he pretended) being the Men that must have the Principal hand in Executing God's Judgements upon the Whore; For bringing this to pass, Now, says he, in These our times, God hath given out this Revelation to us, He hath manifested the Doctrine of Resistance, and Christians may act contrary to the will of their Superiors.  
This was the Doctrine of John Goodwin, who though he was a single Person, yet he was a Leading-Man amongst the Party, who generally followed his steps, and acted according to his Pernicious Principles. Thus have they made that Commandment of God of Non-Effect thro' their Tradition.  
How like these men were unto the Pharisees, we may Collect from the Character which Josephus, though himself a Pharisee, gives of them: He says, They were a Crafty and Subtle Generation of men, and so perverse even to Princes themselves, that they would not fear many times openly to affront and oppose them. And so far had they insinuated themselves into the affections and estimations of the Populacy, that their good or ill word was enough to make or blast any one with the People, who would implicitly believe them, let their Report be never so false or Malicious. Dr. Cave in the Life of St. Paul, Sect. 1. N. 6. Pag. 47.  
I shall therefore conclude in contradiction to the Reconciler, That seeing Obedience to the Impositions of our Superiors, is neither a thing indifferent, nor unnecessary, we ought to practise it, though the Dissenters take offence at it. And herein the Doctrine of our Saviour upon that occasion will bear us out, which signifies, that their Scandal is not so much to be esteemed, that we should therefore cease to Preach a needful Truth; and that how much soever they may be offended, yet 'tis good to consult the welfare of the People, Seduced by such blind Guides; as lead them into the Pit by their Traditions.  
The next Assault the Reconciler makes 
at Pag. 155.  is upon a Pitiful Trifling Adversary, one Meisner, a Lutheran, whom he slights with as much scorn and insolence, as if he had not been worthy to carry his Books after him.  
It was pleasantly said by Mr. Hales of a Friends Letter— He sets up Tops, and I must Whip them for Him. But indeed I am concerned for Meisner; I brought him upon the Stage, and therefore am obliged in Justice to appear as a Second in his Quarrel. 'Twas declared in the Verdict Page 272. that no Church of any Creditable Denomination, would change their Established Orders, to gratify any Emergent Faction. Instances were given both of the Lutherans and Calvinists; How Rotarius was treated at Geneva, for the Breach of a Novel-practice there, was specified at Page 280. But that Foolery, to say no worse, the Reconciler passes over in deep silence, which is a conviction of his Partiality. For Meisners Arguments if they be not good, yet they Evidence the Matter of Fact, That the Lutherans would no more recede from their established Rules, than the Calvinists; which is all that Dr. Womock alleged them for.  
But perhaps Meisners Arguments are not so Weak as his Prejudice would make them.  
The first of which is drawn from the Nature of things Indifferent, which is such, as that they may be freely used or disused, practised or abrogated; But when the Use or Disuse, the Practice or Abrogation is obtruded as of Necessity, the nature of such Indifferent things is violated. If he inquires what Meisner means by obtruding, he had occasion no doubt as well as we, to mean an Insurrection of Dissenters to Reform by force of Arms: But the Reconciler has made a Meaning for him, that is, when men thro' the weakness of their Judgement do believe a thing Indifferent to be sinful; and having made this to be Meisners meaning, he harangues upon't with little Judgement and great Bitterness; But that he may not run away, and think to carry the Cause, as he uses to do, by his false Surmises, let him stop a little and tell me, how the Dissenter believes a thing Indifferent to become finful; for 'tis no less than Oppositum in Apposito?  
Does he believe it either with a Divine or Humane Faith? If with a Divine Faith, let him show us some Divine Revelation for the Ground of it; If with a Humane Faith, that's only his Opinion, and that is to be Corrected by Instruction, or some other course of Discipline, that it proceeds not to an obstinate Superstition.  
But were Meisner's meaning such as the Reconciler would have it, yet common Civility should have taught him better manners, than to Charge him, that he gave St. Paul the Lie: He had the Honour of a Learned Professor, when he was alive at Wittengburge, and for that Reason the Reconciler should have a little Veneration for his Ashes, now he's Dead; especially because being Dead he yet speaketh, in his Learned Writings.  
Some body sure has aught this Reconciler a shame for his Factious Arrogance, and has paid him home, in betraying him to such gross delusions and mistakes.  
What! Meisner give St. Paul the lie? 'Tis impossible. He that gives another man the Lie, must contradict him, He that contradicts another man must speak Ad Idem in reference to the same Thing, the same Time, the same Place, the same Persons, as also to the same Respect and Purpose. If there be any Variation in these Circumstances, the Opposition will not amount to a Contradiction or a Lye. 'Tis possible both Parties may speak the perfect Truth. For example, If I say the King forbade all Concourse of People and Horseracing, meaning, at such a Time, and in such a Place: And another man say, the King did not forbid the Concourse of People or Horse-Raceing, meaning at another Time and Place. Again, if I say the King forbids, that men should keep Greyhouds, to Ride with Swords and Pistols, etc. meaning Persons of an Inferior Rank and Quality; and another say, the King does not forbid Men to keep Greyhouds, or to Ride with Swords and Pistols, meaning Persons of a Higher Rank and Quality; here's no Contradiction, no giving of the Lie to one another.  
And thus it is between St. Paul and Meisner; for St. Paul speaks to private Persons, whom he forbids to Usurp Power, to give Law, or to Judge and Censure, where they have no Authority: But Meisner speaks to Governors who are invested with Authority, and Obliged to keep out Schisms, and to preserve good Order within their Jurisdiction.  
2dly. St. Paul speaks of a Church which was Inorganical, that wanted a due Settlement of Laws and Governors; but Meisner speaks of a Church that was Organised in all its Parts and Members, having Rules of Decency and Order, and a settled Discipline with Governors and Officers to execute the same. And this, among such as have a little skill to apply it, will be sufficient to justify at least Meisners first and second Arguments, without giving the Lie to the Apostle.  
In his second Answer, Pag. 156. and 157. the Reconciler would oblige our Governors to betray their own Consciences out of Commiseration, and to betray the Dissenters too by a pitiful Gratification; for he would have our Governors quit the steadfast Persuasions of their own Minds, in Favour to the Dissenters. not to Correct the Error of their Judgements, but to Caresse them in their Superstition.  
At Meisners third Objection (Pag. 158) the Reconciler grows very Froward, and somewhat Ruder again than becomes him towards such an Adversary; but as 'twas observed of the Cynic, that he checked the Pride of his great Visitant, but with another Pride no less Insolent, so may we truly say, that this Reconciler checks those things which He's pleased to call Fooleries in Meisner.  
He Loves to Rhetoricate, but is not very good at distinguishing, which makes him at a Loss and Blunder in his Answers; he was told in the Verdict Pag. 125. that a man has a Lock and Key in his own Bosom, and there he may keep his Christian-Liberty safe enough from being plundered; and there also he may Lock up his Private Opinion, when the Broaching of it may Offend, but cannot Edify. But what's this to a Public Constitution? When 
See 2 Mac. 6. 24. etc. Multa sunt quae de se, seu natura sua sunt Adiaphora: & licent quidem, sed dedecent, quia viro probo indigna, quia viro sunt incongrua Christiano.  the Authority of Prudent and Careful Governors has established Rule and Order, if it be in my Power, I hold it my Duty to defend them. In calling the denial of this Gospel Truth, a Work of Darkness, Meisner says no more than Calvin doth, whose words are these: Necessitate servandae Legis obstringi piorum conscientias, & silentio sepeliri Libertatis Doctrinam: haec erat indigna merces Unitatis. Ad Galat. 2. 14.  
He has no Patience at his own Suspicion of Meisners Sauciness, for here he charges him, with giving the Lie unto the Fathers especially to St. Chrysostom, who says, that St. Paul's advice to the Romans, was not Dissimulation, but Condescension 
pag. 159.  and Dispensation.  
Her's Ignoratio Elenchi, the Reconciler snared in his own Fallacy; for we are discoursing, what is fit to be done under the State of Christianity, where the Church is daily settled by Authority, with Convenient Liturgy and Discipline; but the Reconciler carries us back to reflect upon what was rather connived at than Established, what was tolerated by Condescension and special Dispensation, when the Church was in her Nonage.  
This is just as if upon an Enquiry what Orders were given out to be observed, and what the Custom and Practice was when the Temple was Erected, and God's Solemn Worship fettled and performed in Jerusalem, I should run back, and give him the History of what was Permitted in the Wilderness  
But it may be a Question, whether the Rcconciler does perfectly understand what St. Chrysostom means by Condescension 
Chrysost. ad Gal. 2. apud Massut. in Vit. St. Paul. Lib. ●. Cap. 7.  and Dispensation; for Saint Peter's dissembling at Antioch, He calls a Dispensation, as Massutius has observed of him, Et duo, inquit, per Dispensationem agebat Petrus: Alterum, ne offenderet eos qui erant ex Circumcisione: Alterum, ut Paulo justam proeberet occasionem increpandi. Unde et Paulus Objurgat, et Petrus sustinet, ut Dum Magister objurgatus obticescit, facilius Discipuli mutarent Sententiam. Two things, saith he, St. Peter did by Dispensation: One, that he might not offend those of the Circumcision: The other, that he might give St. Paul a just occasion to reprove him. Hereupon St. Paul rebukes, and St. Peter bears it; that while the Master takes his chideing with a meek & humble Silence, the Disciples may the more easily be brought to change their Opinions.  
By the Reconcilers' Doctrine St Paul's Rebuke was a rash Affront, for St. Peter was not Blame-Worthy, the Dissimulation of his Belief, was out of Condescension to the Jews Weakness, his practice was a Dispensation, and fit for his Successors, and all worthy Governors to imitate. And it would make good Hierom's Argument, Cur damnasset in altero Paulus quod sibi laudi ducit? nam gloriatur se Judaeis factum esse Judoeum, 1 Cor. 9 20. But Mr. Calvin Answers, Long aliud Petrum fecisse. Neque enim aliter se accommodabat Judaeis Paulus, quam salva Libertatis Doctrina. Calvin ad Galat 2. 11.  
But whether Commiseration should outweigh the peace of the Church and of a good Conscience, (as the Reconciler would have it) whether the Bowels of Compassion towards such as call themselves Weak-brethrens, be sufficient to supersede all the obligations that lie upon Christian Governors, to advance God's Glory in the Settlement of his public Worship, I shall leave them to consider, who are so highly concerned in it.  
If we may believe the Assembly of Divines, the Civil Magistrate hath Authority, 
Confession of Faith, cap. 23. Num. 3.  and 'tis his Duty to take Order, that Unity and Peace be preserved in the Church, that the Truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all Blasphemies and Heresies (which include Schisms too) be suppressed, all Corruption and Abuses, in Worship and Discipline, prevented or reform, and all the Ordinances of God duly Settled, Administered and Observed. This is the Magistrates Duty, according to the Faith of the Presbyterians, & who shall acquit them from it? It is Mercy, says Mr. Hales, to pardon 
Serm. on Rom. 14. 1. in Fine.  wrong done against ourselves, but to deny the Course of Justice to him that calls for it, 
Peccatum in Deum Vocatur, quod immediate in Contumeliam Dei redund at. P. Martyr. in 1 Sam. 2. 25.  [& much more when God calls, by whom King's Reign and Princes Decree Justice] and to protect Offenders [against his Public and Solemn Worship] may peradventure be some inconsiderate Pity, but Mercy it cannot be.  
In His Answer to another Argument, (as he calls it) I must observe many things; First the Distinction between Natural and Christian Liberty, He found in the Verdict (pag. 125.) and I am apt to believe he took it upon Trust from thence, because I have not observed him so skilful or ingenious, as to use Distinctions, when there was just Cause for it; and because he takes it up here Impertinently, for no Reason in the World, but to Cavil at it, and that he does Twice for failing.  
Secondly, Whereas he saith, the Dissenters 
pag. 160.  would put no restraint upon others, as to the Ceremonies in Contest, but only crave a Freedom or Indulgence to themselves; herein I believe (as we say) he Reckons without his Host. No man that has read their Books, or observed their Practice, or seen their Public Ordinances, can believe it; And I doubt whether upon Second Thoughts, the Reconciler will believe it himself. In their Ordinance of January, 1644, the Presbyterian Lords and Commons did declare, That they judged it necessary, that the Book of Common-Prayer be abolished, and the Directory for the public Worship of God established and observed, in all the Churches within this Kingdom; And, August the 29. 1648. They Ordained, that all Parishes and Places whatsoever, within the Kingdom of England and Dominion of Wales (as well Privileged Places and exempt Jurisdictions as others) be brought under the Government of Congregational, Classical, Provincial, and National Assemblies, Provided that the Chapel; or places in the House of the King and his Children, and the Chapels, or place in the Houses of the Peers of this Realm shall continue free for the Exercises, of Divine Duties according to the Directory, and not otherwise.  
Thirdly, His Answer is in Effect, no Answer at all; For he says, First the Argument itself pleads strongly upon the Principles acknowledged in it, against the Impositions of Superiors, and even against all Vows made by us concerning any thing indifferent: For both these things do put a Necessary Abstention & Restraint upon us, as to the use of these things: If therefore, says he, by so doing they betray our Liberties, Dissenters ought not to yield to them, nor should good Christians, by a Vow restrain themselves from the Free use of things Indifferent; Secondly, He says the Argument is Evidently Contradictor both to the Doctrine, and Practice, of St. Paul.  
In Answer to which I must observe, that he still abuses his Reader-by his Sophistry, how else could he bring in Personal Vows, etc. into his Answer? Among Orthodox-Divines who hath ever Questioned, whether a man that is Compos Mentis, might not restrain his own Liberty, and that as well by a Solemn Vow, as a Prudent Resolution? Or, who ever denied the Power of Governors, 
The not useing of our Christian Liberty renders us not the worse, and therefore we may Lawfully not use it, when by Superiors we are restrained from the use thereof. Prot. Recon. p. 131.  to restrain the Liberty of such as are under their Jurisdiction? Tho he's confident enough to give the Lie to any thing, yet I hope he will not charge the Rechabites with Folly, nor their Father with Superstition; And if the Sons did add their own Vow to their Father's Command, I know no harm in it. I'm sure God does highly approve of their strict Obedience to the Imposition of things Indifferent.  
But to return and show, that the Reconcilers. Answer is Trifling and Impertinent, not contradicting Meisners Argument. This I prove by Argumentum ad Hominem in this manner.  
That Argument which Pleads strongly against the Impositions of Superiors, that Argument the Reconciler does not contradict: But Meisners Argument pleads strongly against the Impositions of Superiors. Ergo. The Major is evident, because the Reconciler himself, pleads as strongly as he can, against the Impositions of Superiors; therefore he does not contradict Meisners Argument, which, he says, pleads so strongly against them; the Minor is the Recomilers own Acknowledgement, as the Reader may observe in his Words, above mentioned.  
2ly. The Reconciler contradicts himself, and yields the Cause to his Adversary; this is Evident to the Indifferent Reader; for if Meisners Argument is evidently contradictory both to the Doctrine and Practice of St. Paul, as he says it is, Page 161. then the Argument which pleads strongly against the Impositions of Superiors, is Contradictory both to the Doctrine and Practice of St. Paul; and consequently, both the Doctrine and Practice of St. Paul, are for the Impositions of Superiors, which is the thing we contend for.  
Here he inculcates again the Necessity of abstaining from some Meats, and the observing some Days, for fear of offending the Weak Brethren; Indeed the Apostle's expression runs very high of not eating Flesh, (which is one of 
Rom. 14. 21. 1 Cor. 8. 13.  his two Instances,) But does he say the same things of the Time of God's Worship? Does he say it is good no● to Regard a day to the Lord, whereby my Brother Stumbleth, or is Offended, or made Weak? Wherefore if a day make my Brother to Offend, I will never regard a day, never observe the Lords day, never Perform any Solemn Worship, or Service to Almighty God, while the World stands, lest I make my Brother to offend To take up such a Resolution, savour●● of too much Profaneness to be Justified; and this I hope will convince the Reconciler, that in the Parallel Instance of Meats, the Apostle was a little Hyperbolical, as was formerly observed.  
After a great deal of shuffling and trifling for two or three Pages together, to no purpose, but to make a Noise, and show his Confidence, he owns the 
Pag. 163.  Truth at last, that the Apostle came to a Point, and Positively declared against Circumcision, when the False-Teachers would have obtruded it as Necessary to Salvation. And whatsoever his Practice was, out of Condescension and special Dispensation, while) the Church was any where in Planting, yet its evident, where ever the Church was Organised, and settled with Governors, Laws and Discipline, There he gave severe Rules, as well against those Jewish Dissenters, as the False Apostles which seduced them.  
This is easy to be observed in his Epistles to the Corinthians, the Galatians and Colossians: Nay he commands the Governors of the Church to stop their Mouths, who attempted to corrupt the 
Hyperius & Calixtus ad Tit. 1. 11.  Simplicity of the Gospel, by joining their Traditions, Distinction of ●●eats, and Legal Ceremonies with it. And St. Augustine says expressly, that the Opinion 
Epist. 119.  that some Meats would render them Unclean that eat them, was against the Faith and sound Doctrine; and he proves it to be wicked and Heretical, from the words of St. Paul to Timothy. 
1 Tim. 4. in Principio.   
From these and sundry other Evidences it may appear, that although St. Paul in matters of Indifferency, did sometimes both Advise and Practice, out of Condescension, and special Dispensation, yet he came to a Standing-Rule at last, and 'twas no less his Judgement than his Practice, that such things were finally to be settled by Authority.  
Lastly, the Reconciler having shuffled aside some other of Meisners Arguments, he concludes with that drawn ab incommodo, which he endeavours to Baffle, by putting it into the Mouth of a Strong Christian among the Romans; but that Argument concerns the State of a settled Church, and is Pleadable only, by such Persons as are Conformable to the Constitutions of it, and this the Reader that has but half an eye, and a few grains of Discretion may observe: But if you deny the Reconciler his groundless Suppositions, and what he vainly begs, you deflower the Beauty of his whole Harangue, which consists not so much in Truth as Plausibility. To conclude this Rencontre in behalf of Meisner; I have proved already, that the Christians at Rome were not yet Incorporated, that they had no Establishment, by Laws, Discipline and Government; St. Paul for some weighty Reasons no doubt, was pleased to Defer this Settlement, till his coming, which they say, was the very next Year after the Writing of this Epistle to them. Anonym. Paraphrase and Annotations on the 2 Cor. 11. 13. Note the second.  
In the mean while, he directs them as Private Persons, how they should demean themselves towards one another; This Mr. Hales himself was convinced of after some Meditation upon 
Sermon on Rom. 14. 1. in fine.  that Text, Him that is weak in the Faith, etc. Rom. 14. 1. Wherefore having laid down the Method of his Discourse, though he resolved, after he had given an Account; First, Who those weak ones are of whom the Apostles speaks; And Secondly, Who those Persons are, to whom the Precept of entertaining is given, having named two, the Private Man and the Public Magistrate, though he had promised some Instruction for the Public Magistrate, yet upon second Thoughts, with the Pardon of his Audience, he takes Leave to break his Promise, and gives this Reason for it, Because (saith he) I suppose this Precept to Concern us, especially, if not only as Private Men, and that in case of Public Proceeding there is scarce room for it: Private Men may pass over offences at their Pleasure, and may be in not doing it, they'll do worse: But thus to do, lies not in the Power of the Magistrate, who goes by Laws, Prescribing him what he is to do.  
By this time Meisner, I hope, may be set at Liberty, and in a condition to keep the Field. But being obliged to the Reconciler more than a little, for some Civil Entreaties, Dr. Womock is loath to die in his Debt upon that account, and commands me to pay that Score for him. Wherefore I beg of him to consider.  
1. Whether in his Attempt to overthrow the Practice of Uniformity, he does not contradict the Grammatical Sense of Scripture, and the Judgement of the most Learned and Pious Protestants? For whereas 'tis alleged, that Unity of Judgement, and Uniformity of Practice, are not only  in themselves, but also required by those Scriptures, which Conjure us by the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to be perfectly joined together in the same Mind, and in the same Judgement, and that we may the Better prevent Schisms, to walk by the same Rule, and to speak the same Thing; that we may with 
1 Cor. 1. 10. Philip. 3. 16. Rom. 15. 16.  one Mind, and one Mouth Glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.  
This Reconciler, to elude this Evidence, tells the Reader, if these Places 
Pag. 320.  be considered seriously, they will be found not to exhort so much (which if he had spoken Congruously, and made good Syntax, should have been not at all) to Unity of Judgement, but of Affection, not to Uniformity, but to Unanimity. But for the Primitive Christians we are well assured, that they were not only of one Heart, and of one Soul, which implies their 〈…〉 that they continued steadfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and Conduct, (which was the Fellowship of Pastor and Flock) and in breaking of Bread, and in Prayers; which 
Acts 4. 32. C. 2. 42.  implies their Uniformity in all Offices of Church Communion. 
  
And Gualther upon the Apostles Prayer for the Romans, [Now the God of Patience grant you to be — that ye may with one Mind, and one Mouth Glorify God] hath this Observation, Servit-Locus iste jis confutandis, qui ut omnibus Homines Commodi videantur, omnes 
Gualther. Ad Rom. Hom. 87  quoque Religiones aut cultus Divini Formas probant. This Place, saith he, serves very fitly to confute them, who, that they may seem compliant to Men of all Humours, do also approve of all Religions, or Forms of Divine Worship. And by his Writings it appears, that Trimmers and fanatics are of the s●me standing, and came early into the Church, after the Reformation; and he observes another Practice of theirs, which may be no less worth our Notice, Ubi Papatus regnat, says he, In those Places where the Papacy Reigns, these men do searce ever appear, or at least, never set their hands to the purging of Religion, and freeing it from Superstition, 〈…〉 as ever any Reformation is begun, and the Liberty of the Gospel takes Footing, thro' the Care and Pains of Pious Ministers, than they Creep in without delay, Give disturbance to the Church while it is young and tender, Et Ministris adhuc 
Idem, Hom. 90.  cum Superstitione & Idolatria Pugnantibus nova Certamina excitant; And while the Faithful Ministers of Christ are yet in Conflict with Superstition and Idolatry, they step in also to contend, and make fresh assaults upon them. If these Men think themselves obliged under Peril of Damnation, as they pretend they are, to Exercise their Gifts, where Ignorant or Seduced Souls may stand in need of their Ministry, I wish their Zeal would carry them into France or Italy, to set up Conventicles there, and discharge that Duty.  
2. Let me entreat this Reconciler to Consider, whether he does not Style himself the Protestant-Reconciler by a Figure? For there seems to be an Antiphrasis in the Title; because the Book speaks a Design, and looks like an Attempt to set the Governors and People together by the Ears, in that it represents the one Untractable, and the other it proclaims Rigorous.  
3. Let 〈◊〉 entreat him to 〈◊〉 whether when he meditated to Compete his Book, he did not walk upon the Borders of the False Prophets, and borrow 
Ezek. 13. 10.  some of their untempered Mortar; to Da●●e up the Dissenters Walls and Breaches E●gebant Populum Falsa Doctrina ●●●m 〈◊〉 Lenocinio verboram; says Lavater. And has he not borrowed Lime and Sand from the Morals of 
In Ezek. Homil. 46.  the Jesuits, especially those two Miraculous Principles, as Montaltius calls them, which enables them to work such Wonders, I mean, the Doctrine of Probability, without which his Book would be utterly useless; and the Doctrine of Directing the Intention; without which, he durst never Attempt either to Justify or Excuse the Practices of his Party?  
4. Let me entreat him to consider, whether he has not taken up the very Methods, which St. Paul tell us were 
Rom. 16. 17. 18.  used by the False Apostles, who caused Divisions and Offences, Schisms and Scandals, contrary to the Doctrine which had been taught; And by good Words and Fair Speeches; deceived the Hearts of the Simple? In which last words, the Apostle gives a double Character of the False Teacher or 〈◊〉 postor, First He is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who is one that 〈◊〉 much in Words, but and end performer●● 〈◊〉 thing; Again, he is one, whom if you 
Vide Bezam ad Locum.  heard him speak, you would by ready to say, that he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 much more Solicitous for 〈◊〉 and your Interest, than for himself. The Apostle says also, that he does, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Applaud, Commend, and Flarier, 〈◊〉 and Divine happy things, to delude easy and well meaning Souls, with a pre●●nce of Piety; He calls them, Mentium ●●ductores, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hi Summi Artifices s●●● in Fallendo, qui nor 〈◊〉 etiam mentem ipsam a Vero alienare: These are excellent Artists in deceiving and skilful to alienate the very mind itself from Truth, saith Hyperius: They have a double Art 
Hyperius ad Tit. cap. 1. 9 Mel. Ad. Rom 15.  to deceive, saith Melanchthon, First, to apply themselves to the Lusts and Humours of the People; and by this means they deceive the Vulgar; but they have another Art to impose upon the Wiser sort, Quod adserunt Erudite Cogitata, quae non abhorrent a judicio Rationis: When they craftily suggest such Sentiments as seem not altogether unreasonable.  
In short, the Reconciler has put himself upon the Stage to show his Tricks of Activity, to play Hocus Pocus, or Handy Dandy with the Church of God. 〈◊〉 This Book he has Acted the part of 〈◊〉 a ●●rr● Filius to gratify Dissenters, and men of that Lower Level In the next 'tis expected he should entertain, if not Caresse, our Governors; what a Name will he purchase to himself by this Achi●●ment? I know no such standing Officer as a Fraevaricater Theologir●●; but if he comes off cleverly, for aught I know, he may gain the Title by a Popular Creation: and so I leave him to the Honour of his New Conquests.  
I had some hopes that my task had now been at an end: But while the Reconciler was in pursuit of Meisners miserable Tristes and Fooleries, as he is pleased to call them, it came into his mind to have another fling at Dr. Womock, and that he might do it the more cleverly, he reserves a part of Meisners discourse, and (concealing the true Author) entitles Dr. Womock to it, in his Margin, and then falls in upon it, as we shall observe presently.  
The Argument of Meisner, the Reconciler 
Prot. Recon. p. 335. and Verdict. 274.  turns into an Objection, and it runs thus: All change is dangerous in Church and State, no man can see what disturbance may follow upon an inconsiderate 〈…〉 such Christian Privileges and public Authority ought to be owned and preserved in vi●●●lable, what doubts may arise upon such a change, and what confusion may follow it, who will take upon him to determine?  
To this the Reconciler returns a fourfold Answer. First he saith so call the Ceremonies inoffensive, the variation of 
Here the Reconciler is kind to leave out Authority, but 'tis a Question whether he would have it preserved inviolable.  them inconsiderate, to say that they are Christian Privileges, is to affirm what never can be proved.  
To this I Reply, 1. That our Christian Liberty, in the Use or Forbearance of such things as were restrained by the Law of Moses, is no doubt a part of our Christian Privilege. 2. The Verdict told the Reconciler three lines before: [Good Order is not kept in tumultuous Alterations] and I hope he will allow such to be called Inconsiderate. I shall now add, that whatever alteration is made, upon such Motives, is no more Considerate than the Mariners ●asting his goods into the Sea in a time of Storm and Tempest.  
3. That the Ceremonies are Inoffensive, is no hard matter to prove (1.) Inoffensive in their own Nature, and for this we have the Apostles Judgement and Determination, and he quotes our Saviour's Authority for it Rom. 14. 14. I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself, (i. e.) on lawful; therefore Inoffensive. (2.) They are Inoffensive to the Juri●●●us and sound Christian: This is sufficiently 
Psalm. 119. 165.  asserted by the same Apostle. Rom. 14. ●. One man ●e●●eveth (i e.) Novit & per●●●sus est: He knows and is persuaded, that he may eat, and use all Indifferent things without sin. See also, 1 Cor. 8. 7, 11. Psal. 119. 165.  
When we call the Ceremonies Inoffensive, we mean that they give no just Occasion of Offence to discreet and sober Persons. (4.) If the Reconciler will needs understand it of Offence taken, so the Law of God is a Scandal, and Offensive; because it is an Occasion of sin, and yet 'tis not Evil in itself for all that, as the Apostle tells us, Rom. 7. 7, to the 14. Scandal properly is, Malae rei exemplum aedificans ad delictum, 'tis the example of an Evil thing, which does encourage and build up to Sin: Bone ●●●●res, 
Develand. Virg. c. 3.  (saith Tertullian) Neminem Scandalizant, nisi malam mentem. Good things offend none but an Evil mind.  
Here I cannot but take notice, how fiereely Mr. Baxter argues against the 
Prot Recon. p. 327. 328.  Laws of our Superiors, and the Reconciler applauds him for it, though it has at least, an equal force against the Laws of God. When (saith Mr. Baxter) they first make their laws, they know that some will obey them, some will not; if then they think that many will incur the gut it of sin unto ●●●●ation by their Disobedience, they must have something of greater worth than the souls of those men to encourage them to make those Laws; for had there been no such Laws, there would have been none of that Transgression, and consequently no Damnation for it. This is Mr. Baxters' Argument.  
In like manner I can argue thus, when God first gave the Law or Command, Let every Soul be subject to the higher Powers: for they that resist shall receive to themselves Damnation; and again, 
Rom. 13. 1, 2.  when he tells us, that Strife, Seditions, Heresies, are the Works of the Flesh, and they that do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God; and therefore charges as to Obey them that have the Rule over us, and to submit ourselves upon peril of Damnation: I say, when God first made these Laws, he knew some would obey, and some would not; if then he thought that many would incur the Gild of sin unto Damnation by their Disobedience, he must have something of greater worth than the souls of those men to encourage him to make those Laws; for had there been no such Laws, there would have been none of that Transgression, and consequently no Damnation for it. This is Parallel to Mr. Baxters' way of arguing, and our Reconciler is much taken with such weak & Popular Reasonings. 
Rom. 9 20.   
I could Reply with the Apostle. Nay but, O man, who art thou, that disputest with God? But I will tell these men, that God, though he gave his only begotten Son to Redeem Souls, yet having set up a Ministry in his Church to guide their feet into the way of Peace, He has something of greater worth, than such Stubborn and Disobedient Souls as neglect so 
Luke 19 27. Prov. 1. 20. to the 32.  great Salvation; that is, his own Glory, and the Authority which he has delegated unto his Vicegerents and Stewards, and established for the more regular Government of the World; and it is that Glory of God, which Governors do and are obliged to aim at, and this Authority, which they are concerned to maintain, to that effect.  
The Reconciler goes on: The Question who can tell? may be answered by another Question, which he puts thus. Who can tell what doubts may arise, and what Confusion may follow upon the refusal to abate these Impositions?  
But in the mean time this (he saith) is certain, That whilst our Schisms and Contentions about these Trifles do continue, Religion is Blasphemed, the Atheist, and Sceptic, is gratified, the Jew, the Gentile, the Weak Christian is offended, the Protestant Religion is Reproached, and Popery gets great advantage; the Church and State are endangered, the Peace, Unity, Charity, Edification of the Church is much Obstructed, and what mischief, equal to all, or any of these things, can follow from an inconsiderable Variation in a Ceremony, or an Expression used in the Liturgy, it is not easy to conceive. To which 'tis Answered.  
1. That the Mischiefs which will ensue have been mentioned already; Reason may suggest the rest, and Experience, has taught enough of it to very Idiots.  
2. The Mischiefs, which he reckons up in this place, are wholly from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dissenters Contention and Schism, not at all from our Governors' Impositions, which are the Churches Settlement: 'tis their Disobedience that is Malae rei exemplum, as Tertullian calls it, the ill example; and that's the Scandal to all the Parties mentioned.  
3. And that, he confesses, is about trifles and an inconsiderable Variation in a Ceremony, or an Expression used in the Liturgy; and are not they excellent Christians, that will gratify the Atheist and the Sceptic, offend the Jew and the Gentile and the Weak Christian, bring a reproach upon the Protestant Religion, give advantage to Popery, endanger the Peace of Church and State, Obstruct Unity, Charity, Edification, and what not, by contending with Authority about these things, wherein doubtless 'tis their Duty to submit, and conform?  
4. His Question: Who can tell what doubts may arise, and what confusion may follow upon the refusal to abate these Impositions? carries the face of a threatening in the Mask or Vizor of a Question. I remember one of His Majesty's Royal Ancestors had a very witty and significant Motto upon his Coin: The Thistle encircled with this inscription, Nemo me impune Lacessit.  
Tho the Roses of York and Lancaster, and Withered in their Old Stock, and have lost their Scent and Prickles; yet the English Lion is not at all disarmed: If he be roused up by Threats and Tumults, he may find Courage as well as Power to crush all the force of Schism and Sedition.  
His Second Answer (as he calls it) is in the words of the Judicious Lord Verulam (who says) Surely every Medicine is an Innovation, and he that will not apply new Remedies must expect new Evils; For time is the greatest Innovator, and if time of Course altars things to the worse, and Wisdom and Counsel shall not alter them to the better, what shall be the end? A froward retention of Custom is as turbulent a thing as Innovation.  
And here's, break my Head, and give me a Plaster: But [He that will not apply new Remedies, must expect new evils] is a little Preposterous; the new evils should appear first, and then we should think of the Application of new Remedies. Here's a pretty Lepid Knack of fancy out of a great Magazine of Reason: But they are not the Diseases of a Crazy Body, that we are to Administer to; 'tis the Distemper of a profane mind, Irreverence in God's Public Worship and Service, which calls for our Care, if not our Cure. To talk of Innovations upon this account, has been cried out of as an Abomination; And for our parts, we are content with such Remedies as we find prescribed in Gods own Dispensatory, Bowing, Kneeling, Prostration (or what are allied to such Institutions and Practices as are Warranted by examples in Holy Scripture) These are suggested by the Light of Nature, and were in use before the Law (Micah 6. 6.) They were in use under the Law too (Psal. 95. 9 Dan. 6. 10. Luk. 22. 41.) they were still prescribed under the Gospel, Act. 7. 60. c. 9 40. Eph. 3. 14. Apoc. 4. 6. 7. Chapters; and they will keep their force and virtue to the World's end, Isa. 45. 23. Rom. 14. 11. to what purpose therefore should we seek for new Remedies in this case? Is God's mind changed? Or has Jesus Christ repealed his old and given us New Rules of Decency and Order? There's no ground or Colour for such an Imagination. What shall we say then?  
This Reconcilers' Fantasy has been wand'ring in the New Atlantis, and the Climate was so hot, it brought him into a Calenture, and that makes him Thirst so much for the Julip of a New Remedy, and his Appetite will not be satisfied till he takes a surfeit of Novelties.  
His Third Answer is this: The Change here pleaded for (so he professes that he pleads for a Change, and no doubt he has had his Fee for his pains; or if the Party has not done it, his Governors, whom he endeavours to take down, are indebted to him for it) This is his Plea; the Change doth signify no more than a change of Habits, and Fashions, and of some Old Custom which has been found Irrational or Inconvenient, and if this be very dreadful to the State, all our Laws concerning the alteration of them may be so: Or if for the advantage of our Trade, or our Estates, or for the benefit of the Subject in reference to his temporal Concerns, we doubt not to make alterations in those kinds, why should we scruple to make alterations in some few Circumstances, respecting Worship, for the preventing of the ruin of innumerable Souls?  
Here the Reconciler talks at such a rate, as if he had an inclination to put in to be the Master of the Ceremonies; but he must not take upon him to give Laws in that Case He most be so modest and good in his Office (if he intends to continue in it) as to leave it to the Wisdom of our Governors to observe when the Habits and Fashions and Customs are either Irrational or Inconvenient, and then no doubt they will do their own work, though they take not him into the Consult about it: But as he prefers his own and the People's Judgement, before that of their Rulers, so he doth in several places more than insinuate, that 'tis the Governors' duty to Comply 
● pag. 324. 327. 329.  with, and follow them, rather than they should submit to their Governors. 2. By his Change of Habits, we may see he loves to follow the Fashion, when 'tis taken up, at the wrong end of Civility, among the Common People; And by his Alterations for Advantage of Trade, we may take Measure of his Religion, and observe his gain is Godliness, and that the Sect of false Prophets is not quite extinct, of which St. Peter gives the People fair Warning, when he tells them, that through Covetousness with feigned words, they should make Merchandise 
2 Pet. 2. 3.  of them. But I must tell him and them, That to prevent their ruin, they must do as all good Christians have done and do to this very day, obey the Commands and Impositions of God and his Vicegerents.  
His Fourth Answer to Dr. Womock (which in Truth is to Meisner) is but an Interrogation; and he is full of such kind of suggestions; Can any man Imagine? Is another of the same Topics? and these go for Arguments; and indeed he concludes as Positively from them, as if he were at Questions and Commands with his Superiors: His present Question is this.  
Is it not apparent from what hath been discoursed, that there has been as great an alteration, both as to Ceremonies, and other matters contained in the Liturgy of Edward the sixth, without the least Confusion; why therefore may not the like alterations be now made without Confusion? This is a doughty Answer: But,  
It verifyes the Observation of that Wise and Learned Statesman above mentioned, and confirms the Ground of our Governors' Refusal to make any more Alterations: For grant one thing, yet that shall never satisfy, but only give the Party Encouragement to ask more; and they will never give over, till they have turned the Liturgy and Government out of Doors, to bring in their New Modelled Service and Discipline. This our Reconciler cannot choose but acknowledge, if he has any Modesty or Love of Truth, or has taken notice of what has been a doing this Forty Years last passed in these Kingdoms.  
I think Dr. Womock is no further concerned, either by Name or by any other particular Reference to his Verdict, in this Protestant Reconciler: But because I observe he makes very great use of the Reverend Dr. Jeremy Taylor, I think fit to give one Caution to the Reader: He was a very Learned man for whom I had a great esteem, not only because he had a particular kindness for me, but because he was a rare Person; For he was a man of great Reason, and of as great a Fantasy, and this being the Lightest part of him, 'twas no wonder, if sometimes it got uppermost.  
'Twas the Reverend Dr. Hammonds Observation of him; that whatever Argument he undertook, he would drive it as far as was possible to make it go (we have an Instance in his discourses about Original Sin) and when he wanted Strength of Reason, he would endeavour to carry it on by strains of Wit and Rhetoric. And indeed having taken up a Liberty of Prophesying, (which his Majesty of Blessed Memory was not pleased with, though his design therein was to baffle the Presbyterians) he could never totally lay it down, till he came to be better poised and more deliberate; and that was when he came to be made a Bishop. And it had been much more seasonable and useful for our Reconciler, to have commended those sober Advices which he gave to his Clergy, at his Visitation, then to have taken so much pains in gleaning out of his Ductor Dubitantium, such matters as (by his ordering of them) serve to pervert the hearts of Subjects, and set them against the Laws and Impositions of their Governors, contrary to the Sense, and constant Practice of that Excellent Person.  
The Advices I shall offer are much more for the edification of the Reconciler and his Clients, than all the Harangues of Rhetoric which he has propounded in his Book, viz.  
XIV. As it looks like flattery and design to preach nothing before the Magistrates but the Duty of their People, and their own Eminency; so it is the beginning of Mutiny to Preach to the People the Duty of their Superiors and Supreme; it can neither come from a good Principle, nor tend to a good End. Every Minister ought to preach to his Parish, and urge their Duty: St. John the Baptist told the Soldiers what the Soldiers should do, but troubled not their heads with what was the duty of the Scribes and Pharisees.  
XIX. Let no Minister be governed by the Opinion of his People, and destroy his Duty, by unreasonable Compliance with their humours, lest as the Bishop of Granata told the Governors of Leria and Patti, like silly Animals they take burdens upon their backs at the Pleasure of the multitude, which they neither can retain with prudence, nor shake off with safety.  
XLIII. Let not the Humours and Inclinations of the People be the measures of your Doctrines, but let your Doctrines be the measure of their persuasions. Let them know from you what they ought to do; but if you learn from them what you ought to teach, you will give but a very ill account at the day of Judgement, of the Souls committed to you. He that receives from the People what he shall teach them, is like a Nurse that asks of her Child what Physic she shall give him.  
LVIII. Let not the Preacher make an 
We may say the same for matters of necessary duty especially relating to the eighth Commandment.  Article of faith to be a matter of Dispute; but teach it with plaineness and simplicity; and confirm it with easy Arguments and plain words of Scripture, but without Objection; let them be taught to believe, but not to argue, lest if the Arguments meet with a Scrupulous person; it rather shake the Foundation by curious inquiry, then establish it by Arguments too hard.  
XXXVIII. Never appeal to the Judgement of the People in matters of Controversy, teach them Obedience, not Arrogancy; teach them to be humble, not Crafty For without the aid of false Guides you will find some of them of themselves apt enough to be troublesome: and a Question put into their Heads, and a power of Judging into their hands, is a putting it to their choice, whether you shall be troubled by them this week or the next; for much longer you cannot escape.  
LVI. Every Minister ought to be careful that he never expound Scriptures in Public, contrary to the known sense of the Catholic Church, and particularly 
How far the Reconciler has praevaricated herein, let the Reader judge.  of the Churches of England and Ireland, nor introduce any Doctrine against any of the four first General Councils; For these, as they are measures of Truth, so also of Necessity.  
LIV. In your Sermons and Discourses 
Of whom speaketh the Prophet this? Our Reconciler pleads for a change of Gestures Habits and Expressions: and these make up the Subject of his Plea.  of Religion, use Primitive, known, and accustomed words, and affect not new Fantastical or Schismatical terms: Let the Sunday Festival be called the Lords day; and pretend no fears from the Common use of words amongst Christians. For they that make a business of the Words of Common use, and Reform Religion by introducing a new Word, intent to make a Change, but no amendment; they spend themselves in trifles, like the barren Turf that sends forth no Medicinable herbs, but store of Mushrooms; and they give a demonstration, that they are either impertinent people, or else of a querulous nature; and that they are ready to disturb the Church, if they could find Occasion,  
LXI. Let every Preacher in his Parish 
Does our Reconciler do, this?  take care to explicate to his People the Mysteries of the Great Festivals, as of Christmas, Easter, Ascention-day, Whrt-Sunday, Trinity-Sunday, the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary; because these Feasts, containing in them the great Fundamentals of our Faith, will with most advantage convey the Mysteries to the People, & fix them in their Memories, by the solemnity and circumstance of the day. And (Adu. 25.) he tells them, Men are to be permitted to their own Liberty, to the Measures of the Laws, and Conduct 
Let the Recon. note this. Dr. Jeremy Taylor Bishop of Down and Connor.  of their Governors.  
To this let me add the Doctrine and Advice of that Ploughs and Learned Prelate to the Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons of Ireland Assembled in Parliament May the 8th. 1661.  
In his Epistle Dedicatory, he tells them thus [Men pretend Conscience against 
They teach for Doctrine the Commands of men.  Obedience, expressly against St. Paul's Doctrine, teaching us to obey for Conscience sake; but to disobey for Conscience in a thing Indifferent, is never to be found in the Books of our Religion.  
But Obedience is strong Meat and 
Nothing more easy then to obey.  will not down with weak Stomaches. As if in the World any thing were easier than to obey: For we see that the food of Children is Milk and Laws; The Breast-Milk of their Nurses and the Commands of their Parents is all that Food and Government by which they are kept from Harm and Hunger, and conducted to Life and Wisdom. And therefore they that are weak Brethren, of all things in the World have the least reason to pretend an excuse for Disobedience. For nothing can secure them but the Wisdom of the Laws: For they are like Children in Minority; they cannot be trusted to their own conduct, and therefore must live at the public Charge, and the wisdom of their Superiors is their Guide and their Security.  
But (saith he) there are among us such tender Stomaches that cannot endure 
They strain at a Gnat and swallow a Camel.  Milk, but can very well digest Iron; Consciences so tender that a Ceremony is greatly offensive, but Rebellion is not; A Sarplice drives them away as a Bird affrighted with a Man of Clouts; But their Consciences can suffer them to despise Government, and speak evil of Dignities, and curse all that are not of their Opinion, and disturb the peace of Kingdoms, and commit Sacrilege, and account Schism the 
Tender Conscience the pretence of the vilest men.  Character of Saints.— For tender conscience, I shall not need to say, that every man can easily pretend it; for we have seen the Vilest part of mankind, men that have done things so Horrid, worse than which the Sun never saw, yet pretend tender Consciences against Ecclesiastical Laws: But I will suppose that they are really such, that they in the simplicity of their hearts follow Absolom, and in weakness hid 
If really weak yet not to be dispensed but instructed.  their heads in little Conventicles, and places of separation for a trifle; what would they have done for themselves?  
If you make a Law of Order, and in the Sanction put a clause of Favour for tender Consciences, do not you invite every Subject to disobedience by Impunity, and teach him to make his own excuse? Is not such a Law, a Law without an Obligation? May not every man choose whether he will obey or no? And if he pretends to disobey out of Conscience, is not he that disobeys equally innocent with the Obedient; altogether as just, as not having done any thing without leave, and yet much more Religious and Conscientious? Quicunque vult is but an ill Preface to a Law; and 'tis a strange Obligation that makes no difference, between him that obeys, and him that refuses to obey.  
But what course must be taken with tender Consciences; shall the Execution of the Law be suspended as to all such Persons? that will be all one with the Former: for if the Execution be commanded to be suspended, than the obligation of the Law by Command is taken away, and than 'twere better there were no Law made. And indeed that is the pretention, that's the secret of the business; they suppose the best way to prevent Disobedience 
Where there are no Laws there's no Government.  is to take away all Laws. It is a short way indeed: There shall then be no disobedience, but at the same time there shall be no Government: But the Remedy is worse than the Disease; and to take away all Wine and Strong Drink to prevent Drunkness would not be half so great a folly.— To think of removing the Disease by feeding the humour, I confess it is a strange Cure to our present distempers.— I desire him (who is of 
No Church breaks her Orders to gratify a Faction,  that Opinion) besides the calling to mind the late sad effects of Schism, to remember that no Church in Christendom ever did it. It is neither the way of Peace nor of Government, nor yet a proper Remedy for the Cure of a weak Conscience.  
For the matter of Giving Offences, 
Governors are not to be offended whoever be: and the Disobedient rather than the Dutiful.  what Scandal is greater than that which Scandalises the Laws? And who is so carefully to be observed, lest he be offended, as the King? And if that which offends the Weak Brother is to be avoided, much more that which offends the Strong; for this is certainly really Criminal; but for the other it is much odds, but it is mistaken. And when the case is so put, be-between the Obedient and Disobedient, which shall be offended, and one will, I suppose there is no Question, but the Laws will take more care of Subjects than of Rebels, and not weaken them in their Duty, in compliance with those that hate the Laws, and will not endure the Government.— But 
The weak not fit to Govern others, or to be Guides.  they that will be always Learning, and never come to the Knowledge of the Truth, they that will be children of a Hundred years old, and never come to years of Discretion, they are very unfit to guide others, and to be Curates of Souls: But they are most unfit to Reprove the Laws, and speak against the Wisdom of a Nation, when 'tis confessed that they are so weak, that they understand not the fundamental Liberty which Christ hath purchased for them, but are Servants to a Scruple, and affrighted at a Circumstance, and in Bondage under an Indifferent thing, and so much Idolaters of their Sect or Opinion, as to prefer it before all their own Nobler Interests, and the Charity of their Brother, and the Peace of a whole Church and Nation. This is out of his Epistle. In the Body of his Sermon his Doctrine and Advice is this.  
You have no other way of Peace, no better way to appease and quiet the quarrels in Religion which have been too long among us, but by reducing all men to Obedience, and all Questions to the measures of the Laws. For they on both sides pretend Scripture, but one side only can pretend to the Laws: And they that do admit no Authority above their own to expound Scripture, cannot deny, but Kings and Parliaments are the Makers and proper Expounders of our Laws; And if ever you mean to have Truth and Peace kiss each other, let no man dispute against your Laws. For did not our Blessed Saviour say, That an Oath is the end of all Questions, and after the Depositions are taken, all Judges go to Sentence? What Oaths are to Private Questions, that Laws are to Public. And if it be said that Laws may be mistaken, it is true; but may not an Oath also be a Perjury? And yet because in Humane Affairs we have no greater Certainty, and greater than God gives we may not seek for, let the Laws be the last Determination, and in Wise and Religious Governments, no Disputation is to go beyond them.  
2. But this is not only true in Religious Prudence, and plain Necessity, but this is the way that God hath appointed, and that he hath Blessed, and that he hath intended to be the Means of ending all Questions. This we learn from St. Paul, I Exhort that first of 
1 Tim 2. 3.  all Prayers and Supplications, and Intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men: for Kings and for all that are in Authority. For All; for Parliaments, and for Councils, for Bishops, and for Magistrates: It is for All, and for Kings above All. Well, to what purpose is all this? That we may lead a quiet and Peaceable Life in all Godliness and Honesty. Mark, that Kings and all that are in Authority are by God appointed to be the Means of obtaining Unity, and Peace, in Godliness, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all the true and Godly Worshipping of God; No Unity in Religion without Kings and Bishops, and those that are in Authority.  
3. And indeed because this is God's way of ending our Controversies, the matter of Authority is highly to be regarded. If you suffer the Authority of the King to be Lessened, to be Scrupled, to be Denied in Ecclesiastical Affairs, you have no way left to silence the Tongues and Hands of gainsaying People. But so it is, the King's Authority is appointed and enabled by God to end our Questions of Religion: Divinatio in Labiis Regis (saith Solomon) In Judicio non errabit os Ejus, 
Prov. 16. 10.  Divination and a Wise Sentence is in the Lips of the King, and his mouth shall not Err in Judgement. In all Scripture there is not so much for the Pope's Infallibility, but by this it appears there is Divinity in the King's Sentence: For God gives to Kings, who are his Vicegerents, a peculiar Spirit. And when Justinian had out 
L. 8. Cod. de Ve●eri Jure Enucleando.  of the Sense of Julian the Lawyer observed, that there were many Cases for which Law made no Provision, he adds, If any such shall happen, Augustum imploretur Remedium, run to the King for Remedy; For therefore God hath set the Imperial Fortune over humane affairs,  possit omnia quae noviter contingunt & emendare & Componere & Modis ac Regulis competentibus tradere, that the King may amend and Rule, and Compose every New-arising Question. And it is not to be despised, but is a great Indication of this truth, That the Answers of the Roman Princes and Judges recorded in the Civil Law, are such that all Nations of the World do approve of them, and are a great Testimony how the Sentences of Kings ought to be valued, even in Matters of Religion, and Questions of greatest doubt. Bona conscientia Scyphus est Josephi, said the old Abbot of 
Petrus Cellensis Lib. de Conscientia.  Kells; a good Conscience is like Joseph's Cup, in which our Lord the King Divines. And since God hath blessed us with so Good, so Just, so Religious and so Wise a Prince, let the Sentence of his Laws be our last Resort, and no Questions be permitted after his Judgement and Legal Determination. For Wisdom saith, By me Prince's Rule, by me They Decree Justice; and therefore the Spirit of the King is a Divine Eminency, and is as the Spirit of the most High God. This is the solid Doctrine of that Learned Prelate.  
The Reconcilers dealing by his Writings does sufficiently acquaint us, what we are to expect in the Use he makes of all the rest which he alleges. If they speak against the Laws, or the Rites and Customs of the Church, let him produce their Say out of such Discourses, as they have professedly made to that effect; otherwise their Reproof of Scandal in the general does certainly concern, not only Schism and Sedition, but all ill examples whatsoever; and particularly Disobedience to the Impositions of Superiors, than which nothing was looked upon more Scandalous; which our Blessed Saviour therefore wrought a Miracle to prevent; Mat. 17. 27. Lest we should offend them; This Pareus understands of a Scandal given, and observes Scandala cavenda esse, etiam cum cessione nostri Juris, in rebus mediis: That Scandal is to be avoided, though we depart from our own Right, in things Indifferent to that effect; and then especially when Authority calls for our Obedience, which is the very Case before us.  
But the Reconciler is of another mind, and according to his Principles these two things must follow.  
1. That Governors are the only Persons that ought not to be fully persuaded in their own minds.  
2. That Governors are the only Persons that may Lawfully be offended.   

The Address of the House of Commons To the KING, Feb. 28. 1663.  
AFter they had declared their Resolutions for maintaining the Act of Uniformity, and given five notable Reasons why the King's Declaration from Breda could not oblige Him, or Them, and why he must not be pressed with it any further, They added as follows.  
We have also considered the Nature of the Indulgence proposed, with reference to those Consequences, which must necessarily attend it.  
It will establish Schism by a Law, and 
I.  make the whole Government of the Church Precarious, and the Censures of it of no Moment or Consideration at all.  
It will no way become the Gravity or 
II.  Wisdom of a Parliament, to pass a Law at one Session for Uniformity, and at the next Session, the Reason for Uniformity continuing still the same, to pass another Law to frustrate or weaken the Exeeution of it.  
It will expose your Majesty to the 
III.  restless Importunity of every Sect or Opinion, and of every single Person also, that shall presume to descent from the Church of England.  
It will be a Cause of increasing Sects 
iv  and Sectaryes, whose Numbers will weaken the true Protestant Profession so far, that it will at last become difficult for it to defend itself against them. And which is yet further considerable, those Numbers which by being troublesome to the Government finding they can arrive to an Indulgence, will, as their Numbers increase, be yet more troublesome, so at length they may arrive to a General Toleration, which Your Majesty hath declared against, and in time some Prevalent Sect will at last contend for an Establishment, which for aught can be foreseen, may end in Popery.  
It is a thing altogether without Precedent, 
V  and will take away all means of convicting Recusants, and be inconsistent with the Methods and Proceed of the Laws of England.  
It is humbly conceived, that the Indulgence 
VI  proposed will be so far from tending to the Peace of the Kingdom, that it is rather likely to occasion Disturbance.  
And on the Contrary, that the asserting 
VII.  of the Laws, and the Religion established according to the Act of Uniformity, is the most probable means to Produce a settled Peace, and Obedience through the Kingdom; Because, the Variety of Professions in Religion, when openly indulged, doth directly distinguish men into Parties, and withal gives them Opportunityes to count their Numbers, which considering the Animosities that out of a Religious Pride will be kept on Foot by the several Factions, doth tend directly and inevitably to open Disturbance. Nor can your Majesty have any security, that the Doctrine or Worship of the several Factions, which are all governed by a several Rule, shall be consistent with the peace of the Kingdom.  
And if any Person shall Presume to disturb the Peace of the Kingdom, we do in all Humility declare, That we will forever, and upon all occasions, be ready with our Utmost Endeavours and Assistance, to Adhere to, and Serve Your Majesty, according to our Bounden Duty and Allegiance.   

Addenda Pag. 58. l. 8.  
TO Gualther I might add Chemnitius and many others, who could not believe St. Peter was so early at Rome to plant the Christian-Church. I shall name but one more of our own, the Reverend Dr. Buckaridge Bishop of Rochester, who in a Sermon at Hampton-Court September 23. 1606. upon those words, Ye must needs be subject, Rom. 13. 5. says thus;  
The Soul of the Priest and Ecclesiastical Person, as well as the Soul of a Layman, must be subject to the higher Powers. For why? St. Paul in this Epistle wrote as well to the Clerks and Priests or Bishops of Rome (if there were any then Resident at Rome) as to the People. We see he doubts it, nay he seems to deny it, though he supposes them to be there, that he might bring them under the Duty of the Text, the duty of Subjection.  
And if St. Peter were literally in Babylon, I know not how he could be in Rome to plant the Church there before St. Paul's coming thither. And there are great Presumptions that he was there. Take the Judgement of the Learned Gerrard upon 1 Pet. 5. 13. Amongst others of his Arguments I shall only select these three.  
1. In babylon Caldaeae erant Multi Judaei, ideo Petrus eo sese contalit, & Evangelium ipsis Praedicavit vi Conventionis cum Paulo initae, Gal. 2. v. 7. Congruit ergo cum Apostolatu Petri statuere, babylon Assyriorum hanc Epistolam Scriptam. 2. Si Romae hanc Epistolam Petrus Scripsisset, non videtur, satis justam & idoneam afferri causam, our Nomen illius voluit dissimulare, cum Paulus in omnibus Epistolis nomen Urbis addat. 3. Petrus Marcum tunc habuit Comitem, cum hanc Epistolam scriberet, ut patet ex hac ipsa salutatione. Ergo tunc non fuit Romae. Marcum enim tradunt Octavo Neronis Anno Alexandria Mortuum, Petrum vero Sex Annis postea a Nerone Romae occisum. Quod si Alexandrinam Ecclesiam Mareus constituit, diuque illic Episcopatu functus est, non potuit Romae esse cum Petro.  
To Gerrad I shall add the Judgement of Dr. John Lightfoot ad 1 Cor. Addend. ad Cap. 14. 14. Cap. 4. pag. 117. 118. Where he hath these Observations.  
Cum celebrentur tres Apostoli Circumcisionis, Jacobus, Petrus, & Johannes, Gal. 11. 9 hinc Diaecesin unicuique bene distribuas. Palaestinam & quae ei contigua & connumerata, Syriam Jacobo; Babyloniam & Assyriam Petro; & Hellenistas Asianos praesertim, ulterioresque Johanni.  
Babyloniam, inquam, & Assyriam Petro: quod & ipse firmat cum Epistolam suam primam dictat a babylon, & in secunda utitur Idiomate Babylonico. Crederes vocem Bosor prolatam pro Beor vel Solaecismum Petri fuisse, vel errorem Librariorum; 
2 Pet. c. 2. 15.  sed Chaldaismum sapit, & plane docet quaenam ea Babylon foret ubi jam tum Petrus.  
Chaldaeis vulgar erat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 immutare, & viceversa; [& post varia istiufmodi exempla pergit,] Quae observata palam testabuntur, inquit, Petrum in babylon Chaldaica fuisse, & Chaldaice locutum fuisse, cum dicerit Bosor pro Beor.  
Nec erat in toto terrarum orbe Regio ulla in qua Congruentius, & offieto suo consonantius Evangelizare potuit magnus ille Circumcisionis Apostolus, quam in Babylonia & locis adjacentibus, ubi Hebraei purissimi Sanguinis, & ubi decem Tribus, Circumcisio pleno nomine.  
Upon these and many other weighty Considerations, I am induced to believe that St. Paul was a Principal Instrument in settling the Government of the Church at Rome, and do concur with the Learned and Ingenious Dr. Cave, who sums 
In the Life of St. Peter Sect. 11. at the End.  up the Dispute of St. Peter's being at Rome thus.  
Granting, says he, what none that have any Reverence for Antiquity will deny, that St. Peter was at Rome, he probably came thither some few years before his Death, joined with and assisted St. Paul in Preaching of the Gospel, (to which I shall add, and in establishing the Government and Discipline of the Church,) and then both sealed the Testimony of it with their Blood.   

Addenda. Pag. 108. l. 11.  
I am the rather induced to believe, that the Advice or Injunctions which St. Paul gives in his Epistles were but Temporary, and had a peculiar respect to the Jews, because they are restrained to the Rites and Observances of the Ceremonial Law, viz. to Circumcision, to Meats and Drinks, and Festivals, Which Law, though Dead by the Introduction of another Law, that is, the Gospel, yet the Authority and Reverence it had from God's own Institution, and the place it had under his more Peculiar Oeconomy, and Government, required that it should be laid aside with some Decency, and buried with Honour.  
Expediebat enim fieri Differentiam inter 
Vita S. Pauli Lib. 5. cap. 7. p. 255. A Thom. Massut. expl.  Profanos idololatriae ritus, quos Gentiles, Evangelicam legem suscipientes, statim prorsus relinquere tenebantur, tanquam impios, & abominabiles, & Legem illam veterem, olim sanctam, a Deo ipso institutam, & sancte ab antiquis Patribus observatam, a qua proinde Judei, quo magis pij eo minus abhorrere subito potuissent, Christus Dominus, etiamsi non obligaretur, tamen in pluribus observavit, ut in Circumcisione, Purificatione, Sacrificio Agni Paschalis & aliis. Quanto vero tempore Funus illius veteris Legis Duraverit, ita ut usus illarum ceremoniarum, & observantia, tanquam Lege illa iam Mortua, & ad Sepulchrum honest deducenda, permitteretur, S. Augustinus non explicavit. Communiter autem durasse existimatur a Christi Domini passione usque ad excidium Jerosolymitanum, annis videlicet, quadraginta, quando Judaeorum respublica est eversa, Templum Solo aequatum, Summum eorum Sacerdotium, & Magistratus defecerunt. Imo valde credibile est, cum ante hoc tempus Evangelium sufficienter fuisse promulgatum videatur, Apostolos Petrum & Paulum ante ipsorum Martyrium fidelibus declarasse, observare in posterum Legalia, non solum non esse necessarium, sed iam incipere esse perniciosum, ut in Libro nono de Legibus Franciscus Suarius adnotavit.  
And because 'tis evident that many of our Dissenters are prone to play the Jews, especially in the Point of a Sabbath, and some instances of Negative Superstition, [Touch not, Taste not, Handle not] I do therefore hearty commend to their perusal.  
A Speech Delivered in the Star-Chamber against the two Judaical opinions of Mr. Traske, by the R. R. Father in God Lancelot Lord Bishop of Winchester.  
FINIS.   

To the READER.  
Tho' Dr. Womock has been persuaded to own this Book, he cannot but Disclaim the Errors, whether committed by the Printer or Transcriber. Yet such as disturb the Sense of the Discourse, are here Noted; the rest are left to the Judgement and Charity of the Reader, to be Pardoned and Corrected.   

ERRATA.  
PAge 13. for 2 Pet. 2. 6. read Gal. 5. 12. p. 14. l. 16. r. so to. p. 15. l. 9 r. And. p. 17. l. 14. r. all Rule. p. 25. l. 5. r. In. p. 29. l. 21. r. Common. p. 34. l. 23. r. at all. p. 62. l. 13. r. Was— Were. p. 70. l. 3. r. Brother Censurer. p. 73. l. 17. r. but that. l. 21. r. Doubts. p. 77. l. 13, 14. r. underhand. l. 19 r. from the. p. 78. l. 22. r. Wrote. p. 86. l. 3. r. as are. p. 88 l. last, deal they. p. 90. l. 2. deal his. p. 93. l. 27. r. both Parties. p. 122. l. 4. r. his acknowledgements are so full. p. 139. l. 13. r. Wit, l. 18. deal thereby. p. 159. l. 16. r. whom he. p. 171. l. 14. r. Gal. 1. 6, 7. l. 19 r. Salva Pax. p. 175. l. 5. r. Mal. 1. 8. p. 179. l. 26. r. while. p. 185. l. 23. r. And the Anabaptists do so too, who will not allow the Civil Magistrate to have. p. 186. l. 18. r. Creditable. p. 187. l. 13. r. then St. p. 189. l. 19 deal observed. p. 200. l. 13. deal I. p. 247. l. 3. r. as to. p. 249. l. 24. r. Cruel p. 292. l. 2 & 27. r. Abailardus p. 301. l. 18. r. impertinent p. 305. l. 1. r. out the p. 307. l. 10. r. Judgement p. 313. l. 25. r. Protestant's p. 317. l. 27. r. Faction p. 318. l. 19 r. a Faction p. 323. Marg. r. Acts 2. 47. John. 10. 16. p. 336. l. 4. r. end of l. 5. r. if we p. 337 l. 4. r. I may p. 340. l. 24. r. Politiae, in Marg. Calvin p. 343. l. 2. r. quarrel p. 344. in Marg. r. Apostolus p. 347. l. 4 & 5. r. detained p. 363 l. 27. r. duly.