Laws of the Land To this purpose the Covenant it self in the beginning thereof declareth that after other means of supplication remonstrance protestation c. now at last they enter into a League wherein Art 1. and 2. they engaged themselves to this endeavour Wherefore that endeavour cannot include such means as supplication to the King c. Which are called other means than what they then designed And according to this sense the Assembly Pref. to the Directory notwithstanding the Kings prohibitive Declaration declared that to give publick testimony of their endeavour for Vniformity in divine worship which they promised in the Covenant they resolved to lay aside the former Liturgy and agreed on the directory Ordin Jan. 3. 1644. And the then two Houses without the Kings consent and against his Declaration proceeding as themselves there expressed according to their Covenant to reform Religion did undertake by their ordinance to abolish the Book of Common-Prayer and to repeal all statutes which enjoined it and to establish the directory and in like manner they proceeded in their other Ordinances of Oct. 9th 1646. for abolishing the name title Ordin Oct. 9. 1646. stile and dignity of Archbishop and Bishop Nov. 16. 1648. and of Aug. 29. 1648. for establishing a new way of discipline and ordination And in the two several ordinances for abolishing Bishops and selling their lands there is a special provision to this purpose To save and preserve all other rights titles and interests other than the King 's and his Heirs and Successors the Archbishops and Bishops c. Which words carry an appearing indication of some conviction that those endeavours against Episcopacy were not every way lawful and according to right 7. The matter of the Covenant was also Unlawful as it designed the extirpation of Church-government by Archbishops and Bishops For to engage the rooting out of all Episcopacy which ever since the Apostles times hath been established in the Church and under which our own Nation received its reformation is to Covenant to abolish that which after all Books of controversie hitherto written may fairly plead for a divine institution and no man how confident soever can be sufficiently secure that he doth not act against the will of Christ while he designeth to reject it and therefore an Oath to this end and purpose cannot be a lawful Oath Conc. Chalc. c. 18 Con. Trull c. 34. Aurel. 3. c. 21. C. 11. q. 1. Conspirationum With what indignation such actings would have been looked upon by the Primitive Christians may appear by the Canons of the ancient general and Provincial Councils wherein all combinations by Oath though they were not so high as this of the Covenant whether by Clergy or Laity against their Bishops were in the highest manner and with the greatest severity condemned and censured 8. I know that some have written that the Covenant did not intend wholly to abolish but to regulate Episcopacy Surveigh of the Grand Case p. 44. But other Covenanters have earnestly opposed this and tell us that the Government is to be extirpated not by mutation mutilation limitation or regulation but utter abolition una cum stirpe evellere And that Parliament by whose ordinance the Covenant was taken when they set upon this extirpation did design the taking away even the title stile name and dignity of Arch bishop and Bishop And as this restrained interpretation which was the sense of divers particular persons maketh somewhat a violent exposition of the extirpation expressed in the second Article so it directly clasheth with the first Article whereby the Church of Scotland over-looking the Bishops there under its Presbitery which professed a great opposition to every little appearance of any fixed Episcopacy was made the Idea according to which the Church of England must be reformed Bishop Spotswood Hist of Ch. of Scotl. l. 3. p. 159 160. Now in Scotland according to their form of Church Policy 1560. they had Superintendents or Bishops who were to use Episcopal power in many things were chosen and approved by the Ministers and were subject to the censures of the Ministers and Elders and were not required to have Episcopal Ordination and yet even these Superintendents Ibid. lib. 6. p. 311. in the modelling their Presbitery after the new form of policy was introduced 1578. were rejected and disclaimed and exploded in the Assembly at Dundee 1580. as having neither foundation ground nor warrant in the word of God 9. And thus having taken a short plain and direct view of divers things in the Covenant in must needs seem exceeding strange unless the interest of parties or prejudices have the chief and principal influence upon some mens scruples that divers persons who profess themselves extreamly scrupulous concerning the lawfulness of other things which are very justifiable should be as far in the other extream confident asserters of the lawfulness of this Oath without any scruple and even to impatience of all contradiction SECT II. That no man is obliged by this Oath to endeavour any alteration fo the Government 1. Though some phrases in the Covenant which had respect to the King were truly declared by himself to be dubious and dangerous and were to such purposes made use of by some violent Spirits yet I shall presume it now granted that no man is by that Oath obliged to endeavour any alteration of the Government in the State But I shall here undertake to manifest that there lyeth no obligation from the Covenant upon any person who took it to endeavour any alteration of the Government in the Church though he might intend this in his entring upon that Oath And this I shall evidence by propounding four Rules 2. The first Rule is That Superiours just rights may not be violated But if the voluntary Vows or Oaths of Inferiours made against the consent and command of their Superiours concerning things belonging to their Government which is the present case did bind them to prosecute what they did so undertake then must it be acknowledged lawful that the Superiours right and authority be taken away without his own consent and that the duties of Obedience the divine Ordinances of Rule and Dominion and together therewith all peace may be rooted out of the World This will be manifest by considering the Oath of a Servant that he will not do such business as he thinketh his Master intendeth for him of a Child that he will have none of those orders nor servants in his Fathers family which his Father approveth or of an Army that they will not engage in a Battel or undertakeany march though they be thereto commanded And like to these is the Oath of a Subject to determine matters of publick Government against the law and the mind of his Soveraign And if other inferiours should in the like case as forwardly make contrary vows if these should also be supposed to necessary obligation against their superiours
Schism or sinful breach of Vnity only because he is void of charity and wanting in due Christian care 23. Nor can it possibly be true that if some thing be enjoined which divers persons who appear to be Religious and are supposed to have considerable abilities of judgment do upon professed enquiry both suspect and condemn that they may lawfully separate and not be guilty of Schism if their judgments herein be erroneous and ungrounded For though diligent enquiry where it is impartially made is in this case an excuse from the degree of the sin or from the precipitant or designed breach of Charity or Vnity yet where it is so ill managed as to take up with an errour and practice upon it it can not render that practice allowable For this would justifie almost every party which in judgment holdeth an errour for separating from that Church who either in her open practice or in her publick service requireth a profession of that truth which they oppose and they must be excused from Schism only because they acknowledge not the right rules of Religion and neither Donatists Novatians or Anabaptists could then be blamed for their distance from the Church provided it be founded in their distance from and disowning of the truth Yea if any persons be Arians Futychians or Nestorians Vbi supra p. 9 10. in opinion all which the author of this notion over-officiously excuseth from all Heresie and saith they were at the worst but Schisms they must also according to his notion stand excused from Schism in separating from the Church which holdeth the true doctrine and openly in her service requireth a profession of it concerning the person of the Mediator 24. This would set up the power of an erring judgment above the will of God to discharge persons from what is Gods command and would else have been their duty viz. Communion and to give them authority to do that as a lawful action which to others who err not is a grievous sin viz. separation from that Church which holdeth the truth meerly because it doth profess it as if the crrour of man could render necessary duties and divine commands to be of no obligation For though their errour may till it be removed entangle them in sin in joining with the Church because this encludeth a practising what they judge unlawful it can not justifie them from sin in separating from it but this errour as all other erroneous judgments do where good and evil are mistaken for each other doth in their practice every way ensnare them under sin until it be cured Lib. 2. c. 2 Sect. 3. But of the principal design of this notion I shall give a further account in considering things under scruples 25. From what hath been hitherto discoursed it appeareth that the consideration of Schism will make it necessary for him who undertaketh separation to be sure that he acteth upon unerring grounds and not upon mistakes because to make separation from a Church which however it be misunderstood and causelesly censured requireth nothing in it self absolutely unlawful to be believed professed practised or joined in is to be guilty of the great sin of Schism SECT V. Of the duty of obedience to Rulers and Governours and the due exercise of the Ministerial function which is in this case concerned 1. The opposing Conformity if managed upon insufficient grounds hath ordinarily involved the person opposing under the sin of disobedience and want of subjection in things lawful to Christian Governours and Rulers and their Laws and Constitutions which ought to be obeyed not only for wrath but for Conscience sake It is their duty in their places to shew themselves the servants of God and to promote his glory and to that end by their power and authoritative commands to take care for the promoting and preserving the Order Peace and Vnity of the Church of God and towards both Ecclesiastical and secular Rulers the divine Precepts do very plainly require our obedience Indeed if any thing any time commanded be really sinful the instructions given in the Church of England will direct us to believe undoubtedly Hom. of Obedience Part. 2. that we may not obey Kings Magistrates or any other though they be our own Fathers if they would command us to do any thing contrary to Gods Commandment But if the things be lawful which they command as in this case I hope to make appear to men of unprejudiced minds it is a sin of no low degree to disobey and the duty of obedience is so considerable that the Compilers of the Strasburgh Confession of Faith Conf. Argent c. 23. expressed it to be Inter primi crdinis bona opera in the highest rank and order of good works 2. Nor can this obedience be thought a matter inconsiderable which was enjoined of old in the first Commandment of the second table Phil. de Leg. Spepiailb and as Philo observed encludeth part of the first table and part of the second having directly a respect both to God in his Vice-gerent and also to man And this is earnestly pressed upon us in the Gospel doctrine as a means whereby we may bring honour to Religion and Christianity by S. Peter 1 Pet. 2.12 15. and as a necessary practice to express true conversion from the state of sin to the life of God by S. Paul Tit. 3.1 5. who also warneth against this sin with respect to the danger of damnation thereby Rom. 13.2 And this obedience to them who are over us in things lawful and under their authority is of so high and necessary a consequence that without it there can be no peace nor any regular and unconfused state in any Family City Realm or Church this being the practice of the grand Maxim for the upholding order in all Societies of the World which is evident by its own light and is a principle of the law of nature 3. Another effect of these disagreements about the established order of our Church hath been this that divers Ministers have declined the orderly regular and publick exercise of their Ministerial sunctions And considering the weightiness of their Commission with the greatness of their charge and account and the exceeding advantage to the Church yea to the honour of Christ and the salvation of men by their labours where they obtain success together with other their own concernments it becometh them to be well assured that they have had a warrantable plea to justifie those proceedings It was not without cause accounted a great miscarriage and default in Novatus Eus Hist Eccless l. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that before he openly became the head of a dividing party he was over-forward for want of a due zeal to Religion to have relinquished the office of Presbyter to which he was ordained and to betake himself to another kind of life 4. The ancient Church shewed its great dislike and distast of any Ministers declining the orderly execution
the institutions of Christ which is the first consideration I propound 4. Cons 2. The necessity of being duly qualified for the right receiving the Lords Supper doth not leave men at all excusable in their ordinary forbearing for the danger of performing any Religious duty carelesly is expressed in the holy Scriptures to quicken men unto the greater piety in their attendance upon those services but not to give them any liberty of neglecting them That slothful and wicked servant who hid his talent in a Napkin had at last no comfort by his pretended excuse for his neglect that he looked upon his Lord as an hard man whom he could not please Mat. 25.24 30. but was cast into outer darkness It was no way lawful for the Aaronical Priests to forbear to offer the Sacrifices which God had commanded because he had declared that he would be sanctified in them that come nigh him and had destroyed Nadab and Abihu for their undue approach Though God upbraided the Jews that they did steal and murder and commit adultery c. and come and stand before him in his House which was called by his name yet it was still the duty of every male among them religiously to present themselves there before the Lord three times in the year Deut. 16.16 and they were all enjoined to keep the Passover which encluded a yielding themselves to the Lord. 2. Chr. 30.8 and a preparing their heart to seek God v. 19. And when S. Paul had said 1 Cor 11.27 28 29. that whosoever shall eat his bread and drink this Cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord this giveth no allowance to any to neglect this Ordinance but the next verse directeth but let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that Cup and the following words For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself not discerning the Lords body are laid down as an argument to shew that men ought to examine themselves and so to eat and drink 5. He that heareth or readeth the word of God or knoweth his will or professeth the name of Christ without obedience yielded thereunto doth encrease his sin and condemnation and yet hearing reading knowledge and profession of Christianity are necessary duties but that which it here only available and is every mans indispensable duty is to join the life of Christianity with its knowledge and profession So it is a duty to receive this Sacrament and to be careful not to receive it unworthily or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unsuitably to its nature and institution Wherefore this Ordinance encluding under the Elements of Bread and Wine an Heavenly Communion of the body and blood of Christ whose death is here represented as he offered up himself to God for us and established the New Testament with the assurance of all the blessings and promises thereof the worthy receiving this Sacrament will require that Communion with Christ be both heartily desired and piously embraced that the death and mediation of Christ be acknowledged as the only way of atonement and remission of sins that the Christian Religion established in the New Testament or Covenant be owned as the only true Religion and all others rejected that the promises of eternal life pardon and grace be valued and sought after as the chief objects of desire and hope and that the Christian practice which the New Testament requireth be undertaken and resolved upon with a circumspect care of repentance and amendment of what is amiss and with a peculiar respect to peace and love by reason of this Sacrament of Unity it being noted by S. Augustine De Consecr dist 2. c. Qui manducant that he who receiveth the Sacrament of Vnity and doth not hold the bond of peace doth not receive the Sacrament for his good but as a testimony against himself which was also the Doctrine of S. Paul 1 Cor. 11.17 18. And though there be too many who do not practise according to the necessary rules of Christianity it is absolutely and indispensably necessary for them that their lives be changed and amended that they may not only be fit to receive this holy Sacrament but that they may be fit to partake of the blessing of God and to avoid the dreadful miseries of everlasting torments and to live answerable to their Baptismal Covenant that they may be advantaged by their profession of Christianity And let any man consider whether it be not as unreasonable a Plea in the sight of God for any man to avoid the holy Communion because he is not willing to live according to the Christian rules when both these things are his duty as it would be in the sight of a Prince for a Subject to refuse to take the Oath of Allegiance upon pretence that he is enclined to undertake practices of Rebellion 6. Cons 3. The Doctrine of our Church and its Rules for Communion do not allow that any persons should come to the holy Sacrament otherwise than in a suitable and Religious manner but it jointly urgeth as the holy Scriptures do also the duty of coming and the necessity of coming preparedly Amongst our Writers Bishop Cranmer declared that we ought not unreverently and unadvisedly to approach to the Lords Table but we ought to come to that Board of the Lord with all reverence Def. of Cath. Doctr. of the Sacr. l. 3. c. 14. faith love and charity fear and dread Both Bishop Whitgift and Mr. Hocker in their defence of the Order for the Communion against T. C. allow that there may be cause of present forbearance from this Sacrament because of unfitness but this ought to be amended B. Whitg Tr. 9. c. 6. Tr. 15. c. 2. and that it is not desirable that men persisting in wickedness should be constrained to come to the Lords Supper Eccles Pol. l 5. c. 68. But it is needless to add other testimonies when the Communion Book it self in the first exhortation saith If any of you be a blasphemer of God an hinderer or slanderer of his word an adulterer or be in malice or envy or in any other grievous crime repent you of your sins or else come not to that holy Table lest after the taking of that holy Sacrament the Devil enter into you as he entred into Judas and fill you full of all iniquities and bring you to destruction both of Body and Soul Wherefore it is acknowledged in our Church that the receiving the Holy Communion is not a right Christian action where it is not performed with a Christian spirit and disposition and partly upon this account and partly for the disciplinary discountenancing of wickedness both the twenty sixth Canon and the Rubrick before the Communion do require that no notorious evil liver or malicious man before their amendment be suffered to come to the Lords Table and consistently herewith must that
to build a Temple contrary to any command of God but was only a determination of 2omewhat external relating to the Service of God to express his higher honour and reverence of God and Religion which was therefore approved of God though it was not particularly commanded by him Seder Olam Rab. c. 11. And if we may herein credit the Jewish Chronicle when the house of God was set up at Shiloh there was a soundation laid of stone which God had not enjoyned nor forbidden upon which the Tabernacle made of Boards Curtains and Skins was erected 7. I know that the Jewish Writers do assert that the Law of Moses did command the building the Temple by which I here understand a house of stone and Cedar as distinguished from the Tabernacle this seemeth to be affirmed by Maimonides Maim in Praec affirm 20. Gemar in San. hedr. c. 2. Sect. 6. Joseph Ant. Jud. l. 7. c. 4. and is asserted by the Talmud and Josephus saith David designed to build a Temple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Moses had foretold But this is not agreeable to what God himself declareth to the contrary 2 Sam. 7.7 Spake I a word with any of the Judges of Israel whom I commanded to feed my people Israel saying Why build ye not me an house of Cedar and the ground upon which these Jewish Writers build is mistaken For 1. that place which the Gemara insisteth upon Deut. 12.10 11. concerning the place which God should chuse only enjoyneth a fixed place for the Tabernacle of God and his Service where he should chuse it after he had placed them in Canaan as may appear by comparing Deut. 12.1 5 11 12. Josh 18.1 Jer. 7.12 and the Tabernacle is expresly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the house of choice in the Seder Olam Seder Olam Rab. ubysupra And those words Exod. 15.2 I will prepare him an habitation being spoken before the building of the Tabernacle do refer thereto and the Tabernacle is expresly called his habitation 1 Sam. 2.29 2 Sam. 15.25 and in divers other places as it was also very frequently called by the name of the Temple both in the Psalms and in the Books of Samuel and the Sanctuary in the place produced by Maimonides Exod. 25.8 and in many others 8. Thus I have now shewed that even in the Temple Worship of the Jews some external Rites not appointed by God were lawfully practised and amongst others a Sacramental gesture which was not used in the institution of the Sacrament a decent Vesture of white Linen for them who attended the Service of God therein and a memorative and ingaging sign of the Altar of Witness or the Altar Ed. and the Reader will easily conceive how nearly the nature of these three things resemble and justifie our gesture at the Communion the use of the Surpless and the Cross at Baptism 9. Secondly I shall consider the Synagogue Worship of the Jews which hath a nearer alliance to the Christian Worship In their Synagogues they assembled to profess and owne God and his Law to hear his Word to praise his Name and call upon him and to perform other such like Duties And this was not chiefly a Ceremonial Worship as that of the Temple was but a Moral Worship or such a Worship as consisted of Duties which in the general nature of them are perpetually obligatory upon all the Servants of God in this World and not upon the Jews only nor were they peculiar to the Mosaical Constitutions And concerning this which was their ordinary weekly and indeed a principal Worship of God it is truly observed by Mr. Thorndike Of Religious Assemblies c. 2. that there was very little established by God in the Book of the Law And they were also in some particulars left to their own prudential determinations where the Christian Church is not 10. A first instance I here give of the liberty of the Jewish Church making determinations concerning things external velating to Religion is touching the Ordination of the Ecclesiastical Officers of the Synagogal Assemblies by Imposition of Hands The Officers Ecclesiastical in these Assemblies were those who were anciently called the Sons of the Prophets or their Elders Scribes Rabbins and Doctors of the Law Neither the nature of their Office and Authority nor especially the manner of their Admission thereto is any where determined in the Law of God but depended upon the Churches Constitutions for the preserving order and authority in its Assemblies And yet that all who were the Synagogal Officers or who were admitted to teach there except the extraordinary case of Prophets were ordained thereto by Imposition of Hands and what their different manners of Ordination were according as they committed to them different power or authority of teaching or judging is sufficiently from the Jewish Forms declared by Mr. Selden De Syned l. 1. c. 7. Sect. 2 4. And this authority of Ordination was so far approved by our Blessed Saviour that he declared concerning the Scribes and Pharisees Mat. 23.2 3. That they sit in Moses seat all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe that observe and do But though this Ordination of Elders or Rabbies among the Jews was founded upon no Divine Institution as is truly asserted by Mr. Selden Seld. ibidem the state of the Christian Church is herein under the determination of Divine and Apostolical Constitutions 11. A second instance is concerning the Habit of the Prophets and the Sons of the Prophets That the Prophets used a rough or hairy garment or Mantle which was peculiar to them may be collected by the practice of Elijah who was known by his hairy garment and whose Mantle fell from him when he was taken into Heaven 1 King 1.8 Chap. 2.13 and from the appearance of Samuel in his Mantle 1 Sam. 28 14. And even the Annotations composed by the Members of the Assembly do probably assert that when Isaiah is said to go naked Annot. in Is 20.2 Isa 20.2 no more is intended but that he put off his Prophetical Robe or Mantle such as fell from Elias It is also generally acknowledged that the Prophet Zechary speaking of wearing a rough garment to deceive Zech. 13.4 doth thereby intend the ordinary Prophetical garment so Munster Vatablus Castalio Clarius Drusius and Grotius do assert and Calvin calleth that garment habitum Propheticum Junius stileth it communem amictum prophetarum and Bochartus thinketh that it was vestis prophetarum propria Bochart Hieroz l. 1. c. 2. That the Sons of the Prophets used a particular habit by which they were easily discernable from other men may be probably collected from 2. Kin. 9.5 6 11 12. and is more manifest from 1. Kin. 20.35 41. And besides these habits which were of ordinary use in their converse there may some particular evidence be given of garments peculiarly used in their Synagogal Assemblies that such was their practice about our Saviours time may appear
their superiours who are over them in the Church in the things they command or the truths they recommend rather than by the opinions of any other persons whomsoever 1. Because God hath appointed them to be teachers leaders and guides to us and therefore it is against the duty of our relation to them and of the due submission we owe to them and inconsistent with the duty of honouring our Rulers to censure their appointments or instructions as evil meerly upon the credit of any other persons contrary opinion 2. Because they who disobey the Constitutions of their Superiours only out of respect to the contrary judgment of any other persons do not disobey out of Conscience but out of prejudice and disaffection because no principle of Conscience can ordinarily bind men who are not able to judge fully of the Case to conclude their superiours or Ecclesiastical Governours to be in the wrong and those who oppose them to be in the right and Gods command to obey them who have the rule over us cannot safely be overlooked out of respect to mens own prejudices and disaffections Disp of Cerem c. 15. Sect. 3. In this case it was well declared by Mr. Baxter that the duty of obeying being certain and the sinfulness of the thing commanded being uncertain and only suspected we must go on the surer side with much more to the same purpose Now the observing these rules abovementioned See Dr. Ferne's Considerations of concernment c. 1. will both preserve the true freedom of judgment and Conscience which when it proceedeth upon unerring evidence is to be preferred before any humane authority and it will also provide for the establishing of Truth Vnity and Peace in the Church and will be the best security to the Souls and Consciences of men because they who hold fast the Fundamentals of Christian Faith and Life though in matters of a lesser nature they should mistake where they sincerely design to practise their duty so far as they can understand of themselves or are instructed by their teachers without any willing neglect of duty towards God or Man such mistakes or errors are not destructive to Salvation 12. Indeed S. Paul telleth his Romans Rom. 14.23 that he that doubteth is domned or condemned which some expound self condemned if he eat and that whatsoever is not of Faith is sin But as the Rules above-expressed are means for the satisfying doubts so this Apostolical Rule requiring a full and well satisfied perswasion of a mans own judgment and knowledge in what he acteth must be applyed to the special case intended which is this That wheresoever the omitting any action is certainly free from sin and the practice of it appeareth to any person doubtful there to do that action is a very dangerous and evil practice because it containeth in it a chusing to run the hazard of sin which choice is always a sin in such a Case the Apostle alloweth no man to engage upon any such action until he be certainly perswaded by an undoubting knowledge of the lawfulness thereof And the same rule must take place when the practice of any thing is manifestly lawful and the omission doubtful But the Case is very much different when both acting and forhearing may be doubted of where the one of them is a duty and it is impossible that both should be forborn and such to some persons is the question above-mentioned concerning Infant Baptism obedience to Rulers c. Nor doth the Apostle in this place design in general that no Servant Child or Subject may eat any thing observe any time religiously obey any command or perform any other action till he hath obtained so much knowledge as to discern by an undoubting judgment how these actions in their particular circumstances are allowable by the rules of Christianity for then the ignorant person should be directed till he becometh knowing to be idle and do nothing and to be disobedient and under no command but would scarce be allowed to live so long as to obtain knowledge But God having commanded Superiours to rule and Inferiours to obey to suspend all action here is to perform an inward moral action of choice about a matter of duty which if it be not regularly managed is a sin And in this case so far as concerneth the obedience of a Child Servant or Subject they ought to account their superiours command to lay such an obligation upon them to duty that they must be guided thereby unless they be able to prove themselves bound to act the contrary 13. Assert 4. It is neither necessary nor possible that Ecclesiastical Constitutions should not be liable to be scrupled or suspected where those suspicions and scruples are admitted without sufficient evidence of evil in the things themselves Mr. H. Tract of Schism I know that some have asserted that the Church and its Officers are guilty of Schism if they appoint any thing not necessary or indifferent which is by others suspected But that things in themselves lawful and expedient may lawfully be commanded though they be groundlesly suspected or scrupled appeareth I. Because otherwise all rules of Ecclesiastical order would be unlawful where people are needlesly suspitious and scrupulous and a great part of the authority of Princes Parents and Masters would be abridged if it must be limited by all the unnecessary suspitions of inferiours 14. Arg. 2. From the Apostolical practice When S. Paul had directed his Corinthians that the men should pray uncovered and the women covered adding 1 Cor. 11.16 that if any man will be contentious we have no such Custom nor the Churches of God he doth plainly enough express that what is duly and orderly established in the Church must take place notwithstanding contentions and oppositions And when the Apostolical Synod required the Gentiles to abstain from bloud and things strangled even that constitution might have been scrupled and opposed especially considering that many Primitive Christians were not presently satisfied by the Declaration of the Apostles concerning Christian liberty as is manifest from Rom. 14.2 14 20. Had not Christians then been of another temper than many now are and made up more of Vnity humility meekness and peace than of heats parties and controversies they might have objected that this was an encroachment upon Christian liberty whereby they were free from the whole Yoke of Mosaical Ceremonies that it might seem to countenance the distinction of things clean and unclean and to give occasion to the Gentile Christians to Judaize as the Galatians did It might also have been said that that Decree had an appearance of establishing Christianity upon Judaism because the Jews had a sort of Proselytes called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Proselytes of converse Gemar Sanhedr c. 7. Sect. 5. Cocceius ibidem Buxt Lexic Rab. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who were not circumcised but only enjoined to observe the seven Precepts of the Sons of Noah to whom bloud was prohibited And