to be extended than as I had set the bounds and limits of it But what follows in the next Paragraph is designed to shew that allowing my notion of Christian Liberty to be just and good yet still our Ceremonies are destructive of it because they are made essential parts of Religion and necessary to Salvation which if he can but prove as clearly as he has confidently affirmed it then indeed and not otherwise he might have reason to say that my Answer is not sufficient to the Objection even as I my self had framed it Now here I must desire the Reader to take notice what a poor and disingenuous piece of Sophistry our Author endeavours to put upon the world To convince the Non-Conformists that our Ceremonies were no infringement of Christian Liberty I gave them to understand in my Address that our Church did not impose them as essential parts of Religion and necessary to Salvation In opposition to which he undertakes to prove that they are by us made essential parts of Religion and necessary to Salvation and therefore destructive of Christian Liberty But when he comes to produce his Arguments he cunningly conceals the main and fundamental part of the conclusion which he was to prove and as for the other part of it which was but an appendage to or superstructure upon the former he perverts and plainly alters the sense and meaning of it The fundamental part of the conclusion which he undertakes to prove is that our Ceremonies are by us made essential parts of Religion But in order to make this good he does not so much as offer the least word or syllable The other part is that we make them necessary to Salvation which indeed he attempts to prove but in a clear different sense from that in which I denied it My meaning was plainly this that our Church did not pretend that her Ceremonies were immediately derived from the essence of Religion or upon that account necessary to be observed which I grant would be an encroachment upon Christian Liberty But all that his Arguments can pretend to prove is that our Ceremonies being imposed by the Laws of the Church the use of them is esteemed necessary to Salvation not as being essential parts of Religion or so reputed by us but only as they are the matter wherein we ought to shew our conformity and obedience to the commands of lawful Authority In Answer therefore to all his Arguments at once I shall only tell him that obedience to the lawful commands of lawful Authority is one of those Duties which God has made necessary to Salvation And as far as any Ceremony is the matter of such obedience so far it is by consequence in its proper degree also necessary altho' it be no essential part of Religion Nor is there any thing herein which is any way destructiue of Christian Liberty But that which he should have proved was that we esteem our Ceremonies to be necessary to Salvation even antecedently to the commands of the Church and the Law That therefore our Author's Arguments which he here urges are all of them wide from the point in Controversie is as evident as may be But because in some of them he has a sly design not so much to prove what he had just before undertaken as to render the Established Church as black and odious as may be in the eyes of his Party It will be necessary before I proceed to wipe off that dirt which here he rakes together to throw at her In the first place then I must tell him that what I have hitherto read of his Book has not begot in me such an opinion of his veracity as upon his bare word to make me give credit to what he supposes viz. that the bare omission of Ceremonies tho' out of tenderness of Conscience is by us judged Schism Sedition and Rebellion and made worthy of Fining Imprisonment and Excommunication Nor have I any reason to think his good nature towards us to be so abundant as that he would have omitted to quote some passages of our Laws or Canons if any such there had been to make good this charge to the utmost which he thus aggravates against us That Consciences which are truly tender ought ever to be used with the greatest gentleness is the unanimous opinion of all sober and good men that ever I remember to have met with either of our own or any other of the Reformed Churches And altho' in the Letter of Humane Laws an exception or dispensation for tender Consciences is no way proper to be expressly inserted because every man being able to make this pretence and none but God who knows the hearts of men being able to confute it where it is falsely but craftily made this would be the way wholly to enervate the sanction and force of all such Laws and so to leave it at every mans pleasure whether he would observe them or not yet in the execution of them at least of all such as concern Religion and the Worship of God I freely grant that a due regard ought to be had to the invincible mistakes of all such as appear to be well-meaning men because it ought ever to be presumed that the intention of the Law-makers was not or ought not to have been that such sort of men as they should be severely dealt with And if any particular men have ever prest the Execution of our Ecclesiastical Laws beyond this Let them answer for themselves for I am sure I shall never appear in their defence But where there are most strong presumptions that it is not real tenderness of Conscience but some other principle which prompts a man not only himself to refuse obedience to lawful Authority but also to perswade as many as he can to join with him therein Where a man can without remorse or scuple break some of the most known Laws of God can confidently vent such slanders and calumnies as are not only contrary to charity but also to truth it self and can pervert and misquote not only the Writings of a Man but even the Word of God and yet all this while shall refuse to obey such commands of Authority as he cannot shew to be either expressly or by good consequence contrary to any Law or Command of God which I have plainly shewn to be our Authors case If such a Man as this shall yet plead the tenderness of his Conscience for refusing conformity to the Laws of the Land which yet it seems is tough enough to dispense with the violation of the above mentioned Laws of God I would gladly know whether such a plea and in such a case is to be admitted And if the penalty of the Law be not put in execution against a man who plainly appears to be of this temper I think he has more reason to thank the mildness of the Government than to attribute it to any justice which he may pretend to be on his side or
sacto But not for some gross Immoralities Now besides that the Ipso sacto upon which he lays such a Stress is wanting in these Canons of the Church of Ireland which are made concerning this matter which is enough to render his Allegation false because our present controversy is confined within the bounds of this Kingdom Let him but consult the second and third Paragraphs of the Rubrick which is placed immediately before our Communion Service and there he shall find that notorious evil livers who are the same with those who are guilty of gross immoralities are to be excluded from the Holy Communion and an account of them to be forthwith given to the Ordiâ—ary who is to proceed against such Persons according to Canon which I think is much the same thing with an Excommunication ipso facto But it may be I shall be told that tho' our Ecclesiastical Laws may perhaps be found to be equally severe against immorality and Nonconformity yet we do not find that the former has been so strictly punished amongst us as the latter To which I answer that if this were true it may be indeed justly accounted as a great fault in those whose Office it was to put those Laws in Execution but ought not to be charged upon the Constitution of the Church it self And besides this it is not so easy a matter legally to punish many immoralities as at the first one would be apt to think For without sufficient proof punishment ought not to be inflicted and not only are People generally very unwilling to appear as witnesses against others in such cases as these But Men also do commonly take care so far to hide their Act of wickedness as to make it very difficult to produce any legal proof of such things against them altho' at the same time they may labour under great suspicion 〈◊〉 much Scandal upon that account Which I take to be the great cause why sometimes the best of Men when they have been in Authority have not been able with all their care and diligence to suppress vice as both the Laws have empowered and thâ—ir own inclinations led them To conclude this digression As every honest Man ought sincerely to desire and heartily to 〈◊〉 his endeavours thâ—t true piety may be promoted and all wickedness suppressed soâ— for my part am fully of opiâ—ion that no sober and peaceable Man should at all be punished on account of the mistakes of his Conscience â—or which reâ—son I am altogether â—or having the penalty of our Laws against Non-conformity wholly relaxed Which yet I think ought to be done with that â—â—utions prudence as that all publick disturbances both now and hereafter may as much as is possible be prevented And under the pretence of 〈◊〉 tender Consciences a frâ—e liberty ought not to be given to every one at pleasure who want only to insult and trample upon a legal 〈◊〉 â—â—shment Our Author procâ—eds and tells us that Oâ—le Salt Câ—riâ—m Spâ—â—le c. are no more forbidden than the Sâ—â—n of the Cross Why then says he hath the Church rejected them To which the Church has long since given a clear and sâ—tisfactory answer in a short discourse prâ—fixt to the Book of Common Prayer which bears this Title Of Ceremoâ—â—â—â— why some be abolished and â—eme retaâ—ned with which if he were not satisfied he ought to have made his exceptions against it before he had again renewed the Question But the same Arguments are used by the Papists for all their Ceremonies I answer if the Arguments are bad let him refuse them But if not why are they the worse because the Papists make use of them And as the Papists to run down Protestancy do not scruple vigorously to plead the Cause of the Socinians by racking their Wits to shew that the Doctrine of the blessed Trinity is liable to as many and as great seeming absurdities as that of Transubstantiation so it seems some Nonconformists in order to gain their point against the Established Church do perform no mean picce of Service for the Church of Rome in endeavouring to perswade the World that the case of that Church and that of our Established one are very near of kin But as I have already shewn that what our Author has quoted out of Mr. Chillingworth against them is no way to be applyed to us so between their Ceremonies and ours both as to the excessive number and great abuse of them there is such extraordinary difference as our Church takes notice in the place but now quoted that I wonder how any Ingenuous Man could offer to make a Paralâ—el between them And as for what he adds in the Conclusion of this Paragraph that selling Doves and changing Money were not forbidden yet Christ drove all out of the Temple I answer that thus to make a Market of that place which was dedicated and appropriated to the service of God was if not in express words yet by very good consequence forbidden As our Saviour shews Matth. 21 13. Or if it were not forbidden I desire to know upon what account were they to be blamed who there sold Doves and changed Money And let him but prove that any of our Ceremonies are equally forbidden and I will renounce them Or if he cannot do this to what purpose is this instance given except it be to keep up an unreasonable prejudice against our way of Worship To vindicate our selves from the imputation of Superstition in the use of Ceremonies as well as our Ceremonies themselves from that of unlawfulness I took notice in my Address that we have sufficiently declared that we place no holiness in them but only use them as things in themselves indifferent ordained by authority for decency and order and alterable at any time by the same authority From whence our Author smartly as he thinks infers upon me pag. 103. that if our Ceremonies be not holy they are not civil nor natural ones and therefore must be prophaâ—e But is not this meer trifling thus to perplex a dispute with variety of terms without explaining and determining the sense of them For had he but laid down the definitions and distinctions of and belonging to these things this pretence would immediately appear to be vain and ridiculous Whatever Ceremony is comâ—anded by God to be used as long as the obligation of that command lasts may properly be called holy whatsoever such is commanded by the Law of the Land only altho' to be used in the exercise of Religion may yet if you please be called a civil Ceremony And where the Christian Religion is not upheld by the Civil Authority whatsoever is appointed by the Church it self may reasonably be termed by the name of Ecclesiastical And to give no more instances where bare custom without any other institution has introduced the practice of any such thing if there be nothing therein which is sinful why may it not bear the name of customary From whence it will
unlawful or if not for what reason ours are so For my part I know no other mysticalness in any or our Ceremonles save only that we use them as apt and proper marks of what we inwardly intend We uncover our heads and kneel on our knees in the Worship of God for no other reason but to denote that profound Reverence which we ought always to have for his Majesty and something of the like nature we design in all the rest of our Ceremonies And if he will call this a Mystery yet I think he ought câ— early to prove the thing to be unlawful And not take it for a sufficient contutation of us that he has improperly applyed a hard word upon this occasion without any distinct explication of its meaning But time place person c. which are Circumstances of humane actions cannot says he be called Rites or Ceremonies I pray why so were not the time of the Jewish Sabbath and other Festivals the place Jerusalem and the â—eâ—â—â—â— where they kept their Feasts and performed much of their Worship And the persons of the particular Tribe of â—evi who were immediately appointed to minister to God in their publick Service were not the observation of all these I say parts of the Ceremonial Law of Moses And if they were why may not the particular 〈◊〉 plâ—â—e and peâ—â—â— appointed â—or the performance of an action be called Ceremonies of it as well as the pâ—â—iâ—â— Iâ—â—dy or the 〈◊〉 in which the same is to be doâ—â— But if Ceremony and Circumstance do thus in a manner signifie the same thing Ceremonies should be necessary and not indifferent seeing it is impossible to do any thing without Circumstances I Answer That tho' to do an action without all Circumstances be impossible yet this or that particular Circumstance may bâ— indifferent and not necessary because it may be changed for another â—nd if we will be nice in distinguishing these words Ceremony and Circumstance one from the other all the difference that I know between them â—â—â—â—is viz. That as every thing which is a concomitant of an action is ordiâ—â—â—ily called a Circumstance of it so those Circumstances which by any Law or Custom generally observed are particularly determined and aâ—â—exed to the performance of that action are usually termed the 〈◊〉 of it And accordingly there may be Ceremonies of Divine Civil Ecclesiastical or bâ—re customary Determination and Appointment as I have but now said But if a Ceremony in Worship which I aâ—â—rm to be but a Circumstance be not natural and necessary for a decent performance of the action nor comprehended in any general Law of Christ it must be an addition to his Institutions and contrary to that precept Deut. 12. 32. But here again is a great stress laid upon doubtful expressions without so much as one word offered toward â—â—eaâ—ing the meaning and removing the ambiguity of them For neither has he told us what he means by these words Natural and Necessary which sometimes are taken in a strict Sense to denote such things as are absolutely and indispensably required or dictated by the meer instinct â—◠〈◊〉 and sometimes in a larger Sense to signifie such things as are only very proper and convenient Nor has he informed us what 〈…〉 by bâ—ing Comprehended â—n a General Law of Christ For â— thâ—â—g may be thus comprehended in a general Law either immediately and 〈◊〉 as every direâ—t Act of Sin is comprehended under some geâ—â—â—â— pâ—â—hilition and every positive and direct Act of Duty under some of the General Commands or else more remotely and reductively as the means of performing a Duty or resisting a Temptation and also some of the most Congruous and proper Circumstances of Action which tho' variable in themselves according to the various cases which fall out yet according â—â— the rules of Prudence and Congruity are often Reducible tho' more â—â—motâ—ly and not so directly to some of the general rules of Duty because from such things as these the goodness of Actions may be enhansâ—◠〈…〉 aggravated Nor lastly has he fixed the signification of this 〈…〉 An Addition to Christ's Institutions By which if he 〈◊〉 the doing any thing more in the performance of a Duty than what strictly and exâ—â—â—ly Christ has Commanded Either he must prove that Christ has Commâ—nded every Puncâ—â—â—â—â— of what is prescribed in the Directory or else he must condemn that as well as the Liturgy as an Addition to Christ's Institutions But if by this Expression he means the enjoyning and enacting an uncommanded thing as if God himself had immediately Commanded it and so counterfeiting and stamping the Divine Authority upon that which is no more but a humane Tradition or Institution which to me seems the very utmost intent of that part of the Precept which he quotes Deut. 12. 32. He cannot but know that no manner of guilt can be fastned on our Church upon this account Because she plainly and fully distinguishes between the unalterable Commands of God and her own Ecclesiastical institutions which she acknowledges to be alterable and not of Eternal Obligation Towards the end of that Paragraph oâ— my Address which we are still upon I had desired to know since Ceremâ—â—â—s might be used without Superstition how we could more effectually dâ—scl◠〈…〉 the use of them than we already do To which he returns me thâ—◠〈…〉 more effectual way is to disclaim all use of them Which is just as if 〈…〉 said that the best way to use Ceremonies without Superstition is 〈…〉 at all And if that be not a Contradiction I know not what is But here I must tell him that as there is no manner of Superstition either in prescribing or practising a thing which God has leâ—t in it selâ— indifferent as long as we retain and profess the true Opinion of its indifferency so to disclaim wholly the use of any thing which in it self is lawful as if it were forbidden by God when really it is not so is in my apprehension a gross piece of Superstition And therefore to disclaim all use of Ceremonies is not so effectual a way to avoid Superstition as our Author would have us believe but rather the quite contrary For to lay any Weight upon and to be guided by groundless imaginations of our own in matters relating either to God's Providence or Religion is what I take to be the proper and true notion of Superstâ—â—â—â—n And as this Practise of disclaiming all our Ceremonies in the Worship of God would Evidently be Superstition so the Principle upon which our Author presses it is as plainly as can be no less than the Addition of a Negative Precept to the Law of God For he tells us that whatever iâ— not Commanded by God and is required by Men as a means of the Worshâ—p of God is forbidden by God Upon which he would have us lay all our Ceremonies aside But no such Prohibition as this appears in the Law of God either
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