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
Believing or Professing of Errors Now if by Practising an Error be meant the doing any thing which is contrary to God's Law such as praying to Saints or worshipping the Host or Images to which and such like things undoubtedly he had an Eye In that Expression I grant that it is a cause abundantly sufficient to refuse the Communion of any Church if she requires any such Practice as a Condition of it But then it must be shewn that some such Practice is so required by our Church or else this Clause will be as little to the purpose as the former But if by Practising an Error be meant the doing of a thing which is not Sinful but yet is apprehended to be improper oâ— inconvenient and therefore may be accounted an Error in Point not oâ— lawfulness but of prudence decency or the like If any Church requires the practice only of such an Error as this however it may be proper to desire and with a modest earnestness to press for an alteration in such things for the better yet I cannot see how upon this ground it can be justified to renounce or refuse the Communion of such a Church But of this anon As to Mr. Chillingworth's Proposal to the Papists that he was ready to join with them in any such Form of Worshipping God as should be wholly taken out of the Scriptures If the same be made to us I Answer that if by a Form of Worship wholly taken out of the Scriptures be meant such an one every of whose Words and Expressions are immediately and in terms contained in the Scriptures the thing is hardly practicable For as it is possible that the very Words and Phrases of Scripture may be so joined and put together as to wrest and pervert the sense and meaning thereof which might easily occasion new Disputes So I believe will it be very difficult nor certainly is it necessary for any Church so to contrive all her Forms of Worship as to use no word or action in any of them but what is expressly contained in or prescribed by the Scripture But if such a Form be meant which for substance is wholly taken from the Scripture and has nothing either in its concomitant actions or expressions which is contrary to the Scripture which I believe was all that Learned man intended I accept the proposal and offer our Liturgy as such a Form of worship as undoubtedly Mr. Chillingworth judged it to be or else he would not have conformed to it And if then our Author cannot shew that there is something therein contained and thereby required which is contrary to the holy Scriptures he must I think by his own Confession be judged guilty of Schism for refusing to join with us in the use of it The second proposition which in my Address I offer and that also couched under a Question is that nothing which is Sinful is required by us from those who communicate with us For which I there offer this as my reason namely because none of our constitutions are forbidden by the Law of God and nothing can be a Sin but what is so forbidden To this he Answers pag. 100. that there are such things required by our Church as to them are sinful and some of our constitutions which to them do appear to be contrary to God's Law For the proof of which he lays down p. 101 a distinction rational indeed in it self but here I think not rightly applyed namely that things are forbidden either expressly or by iust and necessary consequence That some of our constitutions then tho' not expressly are yet by good consequence forbidden he endeavours to prove because beâ—ng not commanded by God they are yet required by men as parts or means of the Worship of God Which as he pretends is contrary to the Word of God and for the proof of what he says he produces some Texts of Scripture and then confirms all by the Authority of my Lord Bishop of Derry in his late Discourse of Humane Inventions c. In that Paragraph of my Address now under consideration I had called those Rites and Ceremonies which by Authority are appointed to be used by the name of Circumstances of God's Worship and as such asserted the lawfulness of them Now whereas he would prove the unlawfulness of these things as being required not as Circumstances but as parts and means of the Worship of God He ought very clearly and distinctly to have told us what he meant by a Circumstance what by a Part and what by the Means of Worship and how these are distinguished one from another For as long as these terms in which he seems to place the knot of the Controversy remain obscure it is not possible to clear the Dispute or rightly to apply the proofs which he brings And yet without any explication oâ— these terms or shewing wherein the things signified by them do differ one from another he proceeds to prove pag. 102 that our Rites and Ceremonies are with us both Parts and Means of God's Worship But that we may not be like men who are scuffling in the dark and not distinctly knowing what it is we contend about I must as I proceed endeavour to do what he has thought fit to leave undone I mean to state the signification of these words that thereby we may know the difference of the things one from another It being then premised what all I suppose will grant that the true Worship of God consists in those things and in those only which he himself has commanded That and nothing else but that is properly to be called a Part of any thing without which the thing would be in it self imperfect and defective Thus every Limb of a Man is a Part of him because the want of any of them would be a defect in the Man himself But his garment tho' a decent ornament is yet no part of him because if he were stript stark naked or cloathed in an undecent garb tho' this might perhaps expose him to the scorn of some men yet would he in himself be never the less a perfect and compleat man upon that account Thus also Prayer Thanksgiving Consession the Susception of Baptism and the receiving the Lord's-Supper are each of them Parts of God's Worship because he who omits any one of them in its proper season thereby renders his Worship in it self defective and imperfect But the outward Modes or Ceremonies which may be annexed to this Worship or any part of it are not themselves any part of the Worship altho' they may be a decent ornament of it because the absence of them altho' it might perhaps in some mens eyes render the Worship mean and contemptible yet would not make it in it self to be ever the less compleat perfect or acceptable to Almighty God If then our Author can prove that it is the Judgment of our Church that the laying aside of any of her Ceremonies would render the Worship of
evidently appear that if either our Author's Logick or Charity had not been something defective he needed not so hastily to have concluded our Ceremonies to be Prophane because we place no holinâ—ss in them but might have found out some other appellation for them But since the pretended Popery and Idolatry of our Ceremonies has been so shamefully confuted it may perhaps be a pretty new hint to give those People who are disasfected to them to tell them that we do in effect own them to be Profane because we place no holiness in them But still says he they cannot be free from Superstition if they are superadded as parts of Worship But I have shewn that they are not superadded as parts of Worship And if he had but enquired into the true notion of a part of Worship as it is distinguished from the Circumstances of it he could not in modesty have insisted upon such a poor pretence In the remaining part of this paragraph he offers three things more by way of answer to what I had above affirmed The first is That tho' the nature of Ceremonies may yet the use of them cannot be indifferent because the end of using them must be either good evil or impertinent and our actions are specified by their ends Which is as much as to say that to use indifferent Ceremonies for a good end is a good action to use them for an evil end is an evil action and to use them for an impertinent end is an impertinent action All which things I freely grant and tho' something may be inferred thereout in favour of our Church yet what they here serve for except it be for amusement and perplexity I am not able to discover Secondly he tells us that things indifferent can make nothing decent or orderly seeing they have nothing of decency or order in them for if they had they would be really good and not indifferent To which I answer that things indifferent in their own nature may yet contribute to the decency and order of a good action not by any intrinsick goodness which is inherent in themselves but as they are signs of the good intention of the persons who prescribe and practise them in the performace of such an action Thus for Example to bow the body to kneel to sing and that in a stinted metre are things in their nature indifferent For neither are they any necessary part of the Law of Nature nor do we find that they were ever commanded by God until pious and good men took up those customs of themselves in the Worship of God And yet I believe our Author will not deny but that these things may conduce to the more decent and orderly Performance of such Worship where they are sincerely intended as outward marks of that inward Devotion and Reverence which men do truly pay to God And why may not the same thing be said of any other lawful Ceremonies or Ciâ—cumstances which are sincâ—â—â—ly intended and made use of to the very same purpose But thirdly he comes in with a dilemma If says he these Ceremonies are necessary means of decency and order then Christ and his Apostles who used them not baptized prayed and communicated undâ—cently If not necessary why is all this needless contention about them To the first part of which argument I Answer that our Church never pretended that these particular Ceremonies were absolutely necessary to order and decency But only as things stood at the time of the Reformation highly convenient to be â—etained and all things considered not so convenient to be altered But to the second I reply more distinctly First that to alter the whole frame of our Liturgy as some would have it would in my apprehension be a thing of very ill consequence as well upon the account of those plansible pretences is would give the Church of Rome against us who would be sure to make their advantage of it as of the â—candal it would give to a multitude of our own weaker members who either having heard the manner of our Worship so often decryed by the Non-conformiâ—â—s as Popiâ—h Superstitious and even Idolatâ—ous would be apt to think that all this accusation was true if all the things which were so â—ounâ—â—â—â—â—lt with should wholly be laid aside or else perhaps would be much dissaâ—â—sied to have those things abolished which to them do appear to be so ordeâ—ly and decent and such others sâ—bâ—â—tuted in the room thereof as would not be so well pleâ—â—â—â— to them But secondly as for some Alterations and improvements which miâ—ht I think be very well made in our consâ—iautions I am altogether of opinion that no sober and well meaning Man of our Church would be against them if it dâ—d but any way appear that the Nonconâ—oâ—misls or any member of them would thereby be won to our Communion But while they seem to demand all or else will be satisfied with nothing it is feared by many â—â—â—t even such alterations as are out inconsiderable in themselves would yet be oâ—â— iâ—coâ—venient conseqaâ—nce But if our Governours should be grâ—â—â—ted to be to blame in insisâ—ing â—â—o â—â—istly upon things which are not necessary Yet still I do not see how this con be pleâ—ded as a just excuse for refusing that obedience to them which the lâ—â—â— of the Land requires and the law of God does â—ot forbid For there are cases where tho' it may be a â—ault in Legiâ—â—â—ors or Parents too strictly to command yet still it would be the duty of the Subject or the Child to obey In the next paragraph he grants with me that Worship cannot be performâ—â— without Circumstances and that all outward Circumstances of Worship are not expressly prescribed by God From whence it demonstratively follows that same Circumstance of Worship may be used and therefore why not by lawful authority appointed and determined which God himself has not commanded What then can justly be said agaist our Ceremonies which â—â— have so evidently proved to be Circumstances only and not parts of 〈◊〉 Why this says our Author here that they are mysâ—â—cal Rites and Ceremâ—â—â—s and not Circumstances which things in his opinion are very different tho' craftily or ignorantly they be consounded Now whether it may be our Author's erasâ— or ignorance I know not but this I am sure of that to lay such a stress as he does upon hard words without distinctly explaining their signification is the way eternally to confound and perplex all and never to determine any Disputes or Controversies And therefore if he would have avoided that Censure which here obliquely he casts upon us he should have desined and carefully distinguished those things which in his opinion we consound and have told us particularly what was to be understood by a Mystical Rite and wherein it dissered from a Circumstance And what those same mysteries are which he supposes to be comprehended under any of our Ceremonies And lastly whether all such mysteries are absolutely
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
in their own nature indifferent when required by lawful Authority are the proper and adequate matter wherein our obedience to our Superiours whether Ecclesiastical or Civil is to be shewn And as all Superiours ought to exercise their power of commanding with Prudence and Charity as they shall answer for the same before the Throne of God so are all inferiours most evidently obliged in Conscience to be conformable and obedient to such commands when the matter thereâ— is lawful in it self nor is such conformity any way inconsistent with our Christian Liberty But Christ says he hath allowed us the use of indifferent things indifferently as Christian Prudence and Charity shall determine I grant it But then I would know why the use of such things may not in some cases as well be determined by the Christian Prudence and Charity of the Church for the whole Society as in other cases by those of every private man for himself Except it be that some men have a very strong inclination to be guided by their own fancies rather than by the will of their Superiors But this says he would be so to determine our practice as to destroy its indifferency I Answer that this indeed would make it the duty of every private man to conform his practice in such indifferent things to the Law that is over him as long as that Law remains in force in which I see not the least inconvenience or absurdity but would not so far destroy the indifferency either of the thing or our practice but that upon the repeal of that Law which bound us we should be as much at liberty as ever we were But our Author tells us that the main violation of Christian Liberty lies in a fixt stated and perpetual compulsion to do what God hath permitted us to omit or a prohibition to do what he hath made lawful for us I Answer if 1. The subject matter of this Compulsion or Prohibition be in its own nature lawful or indifferent If 2. The Compulsion or Prohibition proceed from lawful Authority And if 3. It be by that Authority sufficiently declared that this same Compulsion or Prohibition is not to be esteemed as anexpress or immediate part of Gods Law but only as a humane constitution to which while it remains in force and no longer we are in Conscience obliged to give obedience on account of the general Commands of God which require us to be subject to our lawful Governours Such a Compulsion or Prohibition as this is no manner of violation of Christian Liberty But he will prove that it is and that by the Authority of St. Paul For thus says he the Apostle teacheth 1 Cor. 6. 12. All things are lawful for me but I will not be brought under the power of any person or thing in matters indifferent But I say the Apostle does not thus teach And it is not only a most disingenuous but even an impious presumption in this bold man thus to falsifie the Text of St. Paul and to add unto the Word of God whatever his design therein may be The words of St. Paul in the place quoted are neither more nor less than these All things are lawful unto me but all things are not expedient All things are lawful for me but I will not be brought under the power of any Where it is evident from the following verse that he speaks only concerning the eating or forbearing of such Meats as some indeed scrupled out of weakness but which were not commanded or enjoined by any Law or Constitution either of God or Man And our Author could not but see that it was impossible so far to extend St. Paul's own words as to bring them in the least to countenance Disobedience to lawful Authority and therefore that he must either add to them or else not be able to produce so much as one Text of Scripture to prove that which with so much assurance he had asserted But if he has a power given him to make Scripture where he has it not ready to serve his purpose I must confess it will be hard to dispute with him Nor can he here pretend that he sets down the last words of the above mentioned quotation not as a part of St. Paul's Text but only as his own Paraphrase upon it For besides that in the Apostles own words there is no manner of foundation for the inserting of the word person the whole Sentence as I have above recited it is all a-like printed in the Italick Character and all of it equally referred to those foregoing words thus the Apostle teacheth which I think most plainly shews that it was our Author's design that the whole Sentence should pass upon his unwary Readers as if it were every Syllable taken out of the place from whence he has quoted it But I ought not thus to bind up my self from opportunity of using my Christian Liberty for the Spiritual good of another I Answer that where a humane Law is made concerning any thing which otherwise were indifferent Obedience ordinarily and generally ought to be given to that Law Nor ought any man to swerve from it to gratifie the humour of such as only resolve to be perverse and obstinate But where a case arises to which the intention of the law-makers either did not or ought not to have extended and where by acting otherwise than the Law prescribes some great good may be done or evil avoided or remedied If all even seeming contempt of Authority be meekly and prudently avoided and just occasion of scandal carefully prevented and obviated I for my part should no way condemn that man who upon such an emergency in such a manner and with such caution as this should act otherwise than the letter of the humane Law should prescribe In which opinion the generality of Learned Casuists that I have happened to look into do unanimously concur with me And therefore what presently follows is spoken without any other ground but his own fancy viz. that by such imposing and determining in matters indiffirent more is attributed to the positive precepts of Men than to the moral Laws of God For I challenge our Author to produce me but one man of any repute of the Established Church who ever maintained that obedience to our Ecclesiastical or to any humane Laws may not pro hic nunc be suspended to give way to a greater good as well as obedience to the positive moral Laws of God And as for making that a sin which God has made lawful by not forbidding it which is another of his objections I have already answered it And it is enough to say that God has not made it lawful to disobey lawful Authority in such things as are indifferent From what I have hitherto been discoursing upon this subject I think it may clearly be gathered that notwithstanding all that our Author has said to the contrary the obligation of maintaining our Christian Liberty is no farther