at all before he shall lye under any Obligation to give Obedience to it But Church-Governours says he are obliged to teach us to observe no more than what Christ Commanded them Mat. 28. 20. Acts 10. 33. I grant it But what can be more plain than that the Apostles who were the first Governors appointed by Christ to his Church did teach all men to observe the Lawful Commands of Lawful Authority And will our Author say that they had no Command from Christ for doing this But says he again they have no Power to impose things needless I answer that they who have the Power of making Laws ought not indeed to enact such Laws as impose things altogether useless to any good purpose Nor are there any of our Church Constitutions but what if they were duly respected and observed would tend very much to Order and Decency and also to keep out unnecessary Innovatious and therefore they cannot justly be termed needless things But if I should Judge them to be altogether needless Yet as long as they are innocent this would be no good Reason why I should refuse Obedience to them as well because I have no Warrant from Gods word for so doing as that the Government in their Wisdom may have very good reason for Commanding such things altho' it may be I am not able throughly to comprehend it And that such a modest compliance as this should be judged no less than a Conspiracy with Men usurping Power is such an imagination as no Man of Reason or Charity could ever entertain Well! But did not Paul withstand Peter to the Face in his imposing unnecessary things on the Jews Gal. 2. 11. But will this Man never make any Conscience of imposing not only impertinent but false Allegations of the Holy Scripture upon his unwary Reader S. Paul in the place mention'd did indeed withstand S. Peter But not on account of his Imposing any thing on the Jews of which there is not there the least shadow of a suggestion But purely for his Dissimulation in that by withdrawing and separating himself from the Gentiles for fear of them which were of the Circumcision he laid a stumbling Block before the Gentiles And tho' not by his Doctrine yet by his Example seemed to put a sort of Compulsion upon them to live as did the Jews to which no Law either of God or Man did oblige them And as to what he immediately Adds I grant with him that the Authority which the Lord hath given unto the Church is for Edification 2 Cor. 10. 8. To which I must tell him that a setled Decency and Order in the Circumstances of Worship does not a little conduce I grant also that where a Church ceases to follow Christ we ought not therein to follow that Church according to the Apostles Doctrine 1 Cor. 11. 1. But where the Church is careful to follow Christ in all manner of things that are nâ—cessary and therein to the utmost to promote the Edification of all her Members why it should be a Sin to Comply with that Church for Peace and Unity's sake in such things as are indifferent and therefore Lawful or why a Man should Renounce the Communion of such a Church on account of such things even in case they were needless I cannot in the least gather from either of those places And whereas he tells us that the Synod of Jerusilem Acts 15 thought fit to impose nothing but necessary things Verse 28. I desire to know in what Sense was the abstaining from Meats offered to Idols and from blood and from things strangled at that time necessary If they were absolutely necessary as essential parts of Gods Law how comes S. Paul to teach the lawfulness of eating that which had been offered to an Idol provided it were done without any Worship to the Idol or Scandal given to weak Brethren 1 Cor. chap 8. and chap 10. And how came our Saviour so expressly to assure us and in such general Terms that not that which goeth into the Mouth desilâ—th a Man Matt. 15. 11. But if they were in themselves indifferent and necessary only in order to reconcile the Jews who laid great Weight upon these things and to bring them to a more favourable opinion of the Gentile Christians which I believe our Author will not deny how can the Example of this Synod be alledged to Condemn and not rather to justifie the practise of the Established Church which has retained and kept up the use of some things in themselves likewise indifferent because they conceived them necessary and proper to reconcile those of the Church of Rome who by long custom had entertained a great respect for them and to beget in them a better opinion of the Reformation And lastly as to what he quotes out of my Lord Primate Bramhall's Vindication I freely grant that no man ought to suffer an Erroneous Opinion to be imposed upon him because as it is impossible for him to believe what he judges to be Erroneous so to prosess what he does not believe would be a lye and a sin But the consequence which he would suggest from a supposed parity between an Erroncous Opinion and an Indifferent and therefore innocent Ceremony or Circumstance is altogether weak and groundless The fourth main Proposition which I have insisted on in my Address is that since the Communion of our Church is lawful and innocent in it â—â—â— which I hope I have now abundantly proved against all that our Author â—â—s Objected to the contrary there cannot be any just reason why the Noncâ—â— sormists should refuse to join with us in it And altho' our Author nibbles a little aâ— some of those things which I have touched under this head of my Discourse yet since every thing which he there says is either not to the purpose or else proceeds upon a supposition that our Communion is not lawful and innocent in it self which clearly alters the state of the case and the contrary whereto I have hitherto been asserting against all his weak and trifling Objections I will not give either my self or the Reader the trouble of making any Remarks upon the particulars of what he offers on this occasion only as to that passage of Dr. Holden's which he cites out of my Lord Primate Bramhall p 113. I think it enough to say that altho' it may be less criminal for one National Church upon account of some doubtful Opinions or such 〈◊〉 things to refuse the Communion of such another Church the obligation of whose particular Laws or Canons can only extend to its own members than for subjects to disobey those Laws which are Enacted by their own lawful superiors and thereby to make a Schism in the very body of that National Church of which they are or ought to be members Yet since the obligation to Ecclesiastical Union and Communion is universal and extends unto all Christians and Churches whatsoever wherever there is any separation or
it is not Expedient or does not tend to Edification is what I cannot so readily approve of except I have some better Argument for it than our Author 's bare Assertion And I would fain be informed by him who in this Case is to be judge of the expediency and edification of the thing commanded If the Superiors then since our Legislators have judged our Constitutions to be expedient and edifying no Argument can be drawn from hence against our Conformity to them But if every Subject must herein be a Judge for himself since the Expediency and Edification of things cannot always be brought under certain and fixed Rules but are many times very variable in divers Cases and different circumstances And since the Apprehensions also of different Men are herein very various according to their divers Fancies Prejudices or Inclinations What is this but to set up not only the Conscience but even the sickle Imagination of every private Man to control Authority whensoever the Humour shall take him or any crafty Man who would gain him to his Party shall impose upon him Which is much more easy to do in relation to the Expediency or Edification of a thing than the lawfulness or possibility of it Having dispatch'd the Objection against our Communion which is drawn from the doubts and scruples which some men have entertain'd concerning the lawfulness of it I proceed in the next place in my Address to propose and answer that which is taken from the pretence of Christian Liberty And because our Author seems to have taken more than ordinary care to perplex this part of the Dispute I must crave the Readers patience while I take a little pains faiâ—ly to open and clear it As God Almighty had by Moses given a Written Law unto the Children of Israel so in process of time the Scribes and Pharisees had not only introduced divers Traditions of their own some of which might possibly in themselves have been innocent tho' unnecâ—ssary but also required the observation of these Traditions not only as immediate parts of the Law of God but also in some cases to be preferred even before the precepts of the written Law whenever they should come in competition one with the other of which we have a pretty full account in the former part of the 7th Chapter of St. Mark 's Gospel Now when many of the Jews began to receive the Christian Faith some there were who either out of a secret design to obstruct the progress of the Gospel or a profound veneration for that Institution under which they had been brought up taught this Doctrine in the Christian Church viz. that Circumcision and the Observation of the Law of Moses were absolutely necessary to Salvation notwithstanding that Christ was come into the World as we are informed Acts 15. 1. 24. And as they had generally received the above mention'd Traditions with an equal and in some cases a greater respect than what they had for the written Law so did they no less endeavour to obtrude the one than the other upon all those who had or should Embrace Christianity And notwithstanding that the Apostles and Elders upon the first broaching of this Doctrine endeavoured to suppress and put a stop to it Act. 15. 6 c. yet for all this we find that it took root and prevailed more or less in divers of the Christian Churches To ease the Consciences therefore of all the Faithful from such an unnecessary and unsupportable burden and also to free Christianity from such a clog as must needs very much retard the progress of it the Apostles of Christ wherever there was occasion took constant care to inform all who had received the Faith of that freedom which Christ had given them from the Ordinances of the Mosaick Law as well as from all other uncertain Traditions which some men without any other Authority but their own groundless fancies would impose upon them and also to exhort them to maintain and by no means betray that liberty which was thus vouchsafed unto them Of which I need not stand to produce any Instances because the thing is not only confest on all hands but also most notorious to all who do but read the Epistles of St. Paul and particularly those to the Galatians and Colossians Thus far then the Scripture does undoubtedly require every Christian to assert and stand fast in his liberty viz. Not to â—dâ—it or own any thing as an essential part of Religion and therefore necessary to Sâ—lvâ—â—ion which God has not directly required and prescribed as such For which the Reason I have given in my Address is unanswerable namely that if way be given to such sâ—rt of impositions so many things through pride or ignorance may be introduced into Christianity as to make it a yoke too heavy â—o be born Two things then I think there are which if fainly stated and cleared must one way or other put an end to the difference between our Author and me concerning this point Namely first whether the obligation which lies upon us to maintain our Christian Liberty ought to be extended any farther than those bounds which I have now set toit And if not then secondly whether this obligation even as I have stated it can either by the letter of Scripture or parity of Reason be-justly so construed as to restrain any man from yielding Conformity to any of the Constitutions of the Established Church upon which two things I desire the Reader still to have an eye whilst I am examining what our Author has said which may relate to either of them For I cannot so well handle them each a-part because I am confined to follow that path in which he has thought fit to lead me He tells me then pag. 107. that I have not faithfully framed the Non-Conformists Objection For their Notion it seems of Christian Liberty and the obligation to maintain it is some what different from mine and if things in their own nature indifferent are imposed tho not as essential parts of Religion or necessary to Salvation but only as parts or means of Worship or Conditions of Communion in it this according to him is an infringement of that Christian Liberty in which we are bound to stand fast To which I answer First That since the Worship of God is an essential part of Religion to impose any thing as a part of Worship would be to impose it as an essential part of Religion For as he has thought it necessary to inform me p. 102. quod est pars partis est pars totius As therefore he has thus far said no more than what I had said before him so have I already shewn that those indifferent things which by our Liturgy are required in the service of God are not imposed as parts of Worship and therefore there ought on this account to be no Controversie about them Secondly To submit to such indifferent things as are imposed expressly not as
favour that ought to be extended to him on account of the tenderness of his Conscience But let a mans Consciences be disposed as it will the bare omission of Ceremonies is not by any of our Laws so severely censured as our Author pretends but was so wife as not to produce his proofs nor is any man thereby condemned of Schism except he makes or keeps up a separation in the Church nor of Sedition or Rebellion except he helps to maintain a faction or takes up arms against the Civil State nor lastly made subject to Fining Imprisonment or Excommunication except it be for publick Opposition to the Establâ—shed Laws And if our Author had not consulted more with passion or ill nature than with sober reason or charity he would never have so strained things beyond their due pitch as he has most evidently done in the above mentioned suggestion which he brings in charge against us Nor Secondly do I any where find it to be the Judgment of our Church that every one who comes under the sentence of Excommunication must necessarily be supposed to be delivered to Satan which is another of his good natured insinuations That those Persons who by publick disobedience and opposition to the lawful commands of lawful Authority do cause divisions and â—ffences in the Church should be avoided and excluded from her visible Communion is no more than what I think to be sufficiently warranted by the Apostle St. Paul Rom. 16. 17. But because it is possible and sometimes probable enough that many men are thus missed not so much by wilfulness or obstinacy as by some great mistakes or strong prejudices which they have entertained or it may be by a real zeal of God but not according to knowledge we are so far from concluding any of them to be absolutely given into the possession of the Devil that on the contrary we charitably hope that the generality of them will obtain mercy at the hand of God not do we at all doubt it where the disobedience to Authority prâ—câ—eds not from perverseness but ignorance of their Duty in this particular Thirdly Whereas he would have the world believe that the omission of Ceremonies makes a Minister more liable to deprivation than Whoredom Drunkenness c. If he means that it is commonly more easie to convict such an one of Nonconformity which must be open and notorious than of immorality which may be kept so secret as in many cases scarcely to admit of legal proof I desire to know how is this to be helpt or the Church to be blamed for it Or if he means that immorality in Ministers has not been so strictly prosecuted and punished as Nonconformity Besides that he offers no manner of proof even of this the utmost it could amount to if true would be to fasten a just blame not upon the Laws of the Church but upon those Persons who should have put them in execution wherein I will join with him with all my heart if he can but furnish me with sufficient proof of the matter of fact But if he means that by our Ecclesiastical Laws a Minister who is convicted of such immorality as he mentions is not as liable to deprivation as he that is found guilty of Nonconformity which I think is the only meaning of his words that can be any way to the purpose I challenge the abominable falsehood of this assertion and demand the proof of it from him Fourthly Whereas he suggests that the refusers of Conformity are judged worse than Idolatrous Papists This is an imputation so notoriously unjust and immodest that none but a man of such a tender Conscience as our Author would ever lay it to our charge But 't is no matter for that his party will probably believe that he would never affirm a thing so extraordinary if it were not so And if he does but calumniate stoutly something perhaps may stick But methinks this man who so solemnly in his Preface appeals to the Judge that standeth at the door should remember the account which one day he must give of his words as well as actions unto that same Judge And lastly Whereas he accuses us that we esteem our Ceremonies to be more necessary than the Peace and Unity of the Church I Answer that if any man were once convinced that the abolition of any Ceremonies which lawfully may be laid aside would generally conduce to the Unity and Peace of the Church and that without doing any other hurt which might over-ballance this good and if in this case he should refuse to have these Ceremonies abolished it might indeed justly be said of him that he preferred them before Peace and Unity But where it no way appears that men are thus convinced But on the contrary that there is much reason to fear that the prohibition or disuse of such Ceremonies would not only give a very plausible advantage to the Churches enemies and scandalize a multitude of her own weak Members but also encourage those that causelesly dissent from her to insult and triumph and to demand other things which are yet more unreasonable Where men I say are under these or such like apprehensions as many sober and prudent men of our Church are altho' a man should be of opinion that they were mistaken yet could he not with truth or charity affirm that they preferred their Ceremonies or thought them more necessary than the Peace and Unity of the Church For in this case bare Ceremonies are not put into the Scale against Peace and Unity as our Author would insinuate But all the evil consequences which would attend the abolition of our Ceremonies are ballanced against the uncertain satisfaction which might be given to some mistaken men whose principles if they are followed must continually lead them into new scruples and exception against all humane establishments in matters of Religion and the Worship of God In the conclusion of this point of Christian Liberty I had said in my Address that if our Liturgy were an insringement of Christian Liberry not only all other Churches were guilty of the same but even the Directory which imposes some things which in themselves are indifferent cannot be excused from it To which all the Answer that our Author gives is p. 109. to deny and to demand proof from all who assert that the Directory requireth any Ceremonies of mystical signification or imposeth any indifferent thing save such Circumstances as nature and reason direct But is not this meer shuffling thus to take no notice of the thing which I had asserted and to require me to prove that which I had never affirm'd or so much as insinuated I had no occasion to speak of any such thing as mystical Ceremonies or improper Circumstances to be prescribed by the Directory Nor therefore should he have amused the Reader with the mention of them The whole force of my Argument lay plainly in this alone that if it be a violation of Christian