are not able to bear as some of their Forefathers complained And to omit or shorten Preaching to enlarge the Church-Service they are ready to profess to be against their Consciences as a making voyd the Commandment of God by observing the Traditions of men 2. It is highly sinful to Assent and Consent unfeignedly to things Inexpedient purely Indifferent that is Idle or Useless Superstitious Doubtful or Significant Humane Ceremonies as against the Second and Third Commandments and because such things are sinful in Worship But to some such things yea many do they assent and consent who declare their assent and consent to all and every thing Contained in and Prescribed by that Book as hath clearly been proved ergo c. 3. It is highly Presumptuous Sacrilegious if not Blasphemous to make that Book equal to the Sacred Bible and the Powers Imposing it as infallible as those were that wrote the holy Scriptures as the Pope does the Apocrypha and the Traditions of the Church But this is done by all that in that manner make that Declaration For what can more be declared and asserted of the Holy Canonical Spirit inspired Scriptures then an unfeigned assent to the Truth and consent to the Goodness of all and every thing contained in those Books 4. To assent and consent to the Imposition of things unlawful in Worship is to make themselves twice guilty of sin once as they assent and consent to things unlawful and a second time as they confirm the Imposers in that sinful Imposition For when will they repent of or repeal these sinful Impositions when they are confirmed to be true and lawful by so many complying Ministers in so high a Declaration 5. To declare and profess so publickly before God and their People their unfeigned assent and consent to all and every thing in that Book believing that some things are Inconvenient and Inexpedient which they wish were removed is gross Dissimulation and desperate hypocrisie But many of the Complyers do believe and confess some such things to be contained in that Book either not true or not lawful and yet assent and consent to all and every thing contained in it Or suppose them so corrupted in their understanding and Judgments as to be perswaded of the Goodness and Truth of all and every thing therein it may easily be proved and hath been already that some things in it are not true as to matter of Doctrine and some things not lawful as to matter of Worship or Discipline if I might safely dispute against that Book having a Law to render it liable to a Premunire But Truth is Truth and to be acknowledged when we are called to give testimony to it This hath been done by many and not yet answered The Book containes the whole of English Religion in Doctrine Worship and Discipline and in every one of those Defects Imperfections and Corruptions manifested and yet without Reformation of many things imposed and pressed on us with more rigour then formerly See some Particulars 1. In Doctrine As 1. In the Articles of Religion Art 20. The Church hath power to decree Rites and Ceremonies which words being ambiguous taken either for meer Circumstances of Worship for Order Decency c. or for Sacred Rites and religious Ceremonies In the first sense they are true but doubtful To which no unfeigned assent can be given till the distinction be given In the last sense in which they are usually taken they are proved to be false above in this Discourse And some other principal points of Doctrine there are so doubtfully worded that as Papists and Arminians have glossed them to their Opinions so no tender Conscience can safely give so full assent to them as true till they be explained which was formerly denied and prohibited to be made by those that subscribed them 2. In the Liturgy some Doctrinals are delivered and prescribed to be assented to as first a false Translation of the Psalmes according to the errours of the Vulgar Latine still retained to be read not to speak of their leaving out of the Titles of many Psalmes which in Hebrew are Canonical Scripture And it is as unlawful to take from the word of God as to add to it unless they intend to make amends for their Substraction of some by Addition of other things and that is sufficiently done by addition of some Apocryphal Psalmes Te Deum Benedicite and a great many Chapters of the Bookes called Apocrypha to be read a most for two moneths together some whereof are false and as very lying Legends as those used in the Romish Churches and some newly added not in before as the History of Susanna Bell and the Dragon And what is this but as they at Rome a Canonizing in part of the Apocrypha making it equal to the Scripture in Divine Service as part of their Doctrine I might add that Assertion That all Children Baptized are really regenerated and want nothing necessary to their Salvation which drawes after it all or most of the Arminian and Popish Tenents 3. The Homilies are part of the Doctrine of the Church ratified by the 35 Canon and prescribed to be read by every Minister and now with the Articles enjoyned to be assented to unfeignedly as true In these have been observed some false Doctrines as to justifie plurality of Wives by the old Fathers Hom. Of the time and place of Prayer pag. 147. That Almes purgeth away all sins delivereth from death Hom. 2. Of Almes pag. 16. For proof whereof is cited as good Scripture Tobit 4.10 the Son of Syrach Dare any Orthodox Minister declare his unfeigned assent to the Truth of these Doctrines yet this is done by too many 2. In Worship There are some things not good that is unlawful to which yet an unfeigned consent is to be given For the Ceremonies they are largely discovered to be sinful and unlawful above To which may be added the Apocryphal Psalmes and Books made not only equal with the Divine Scriptures but also parts of Divine Service as fully as any part of the Word of God Add to these the Responds of the Clerk and People Women Boyes and Wenches clearly against the Apostles Rules of Decency Order Edification as may be easily manifested And more might be said concerning the Ministers change of places postures ridiculous gesticulations as if Divine Service were some Play or Comedy to be acted which causes the Name of God to be taken in vain against the third Commandment Can any pious devout Minister give his unfaigned consent to these as good 3. In Discipline The Book of Ordination is the Epitome thereof now joyned and established with the Articles and Liturgy But there are some things in them proved to be false As 1. That there are three kinds or Orders of Church Officers Bishops Priests and Deacons when Scripture knowes but two It being proved and confessed by Episcopal men that in Scripture a Bishop and a Presbyter are one and
men can cumber them with till they become stench in the Nostrils of all sober and stayd men and of God himself as with the Church of Rome This is enough to decide the Controversie in hand if justly appliable to our Ceremonies To the Consideration whereof we now proceed III. The Proof of the Negative in all the Particulars Hitherto following the steps of the Rev. Casuist I have proceeded only in Thesi concerning things Inexpedient or purely Indifferent whether they may be imposed or if imposed submitted to in worship and have gathered his Concessions into one view and shewed how far both Parties agree We are now come to the Application of these Concessions in Hypothesi to the Matters of our bitter Contentions at this day And much of my work is done already The Propositions being granted me and proved I shall need only to prove the Assumptions of all my Syllogismes For if our Ceremonies prove such things as the Concessions grant the Conclusions will easily follow that they are unlawful to be either Imposed in Worship or Submitted to I shall now therefore state the Question anew in our particular Case thus Whether our Ceremonies may lawfully by men be Imposed in the Worship of God or if Imposed may lawfully be Submitted Assented and Consented unto The Explication of the Terms is laid down in the beginning and the Probleme containes 3 questions viz. Of the Lawfulness 1. Of the Imposition of them in worship 2. Of the Submission to them 3. Of the Declaration of an unfeigned Assent and Consent unto them To the Particulars I. Of the Imposition of Ceremonies What we and most Learned Divines understand by a Ceremony imposed in worship was discoursed in the Explicatory part at the Entrance of this Dissertation viz. a Sacred Rite of worshipping God intended and instituted to the honouring God in worship whereby it is contra-distinguished to a meer Circumstance of Worship tending to Decency Order and Edification Now that such Ceremonies may not be Imposed the Rev. Casuist doth not explicitly assert that had been dangerous to himself but yet implicitly insinuates so much If Ceremonies significant of the Grace and Favour of God or to be a meanes of receiving any Blessing from God be imposed there is no doubt saies he much danger in it p 145. But what if meer Circumstances be imposed But of this more in that Head of Significancy That it is unlawful for the Church or Magistrate to impose our Ceremonies will appear by Application of all or most of the Concessions above given us by the Reverend Casuist himself In General thus No sinful unlawful thing may by any sort of men be imposed in worship This is yielded by all of any Religion as at Concession 2. But I assume our Ceremonies imposed are sinful and unlawful ergo they ought not to be imposed in Worship The Assumption is proved by the special Concessions 1. All things imposed or used in Worship are either necessary or unlawful and so either Good or Bad But our Ceremonies are not necessary ergo The Minor is constantly and frequently affirmed by the Advocates thereof God was is and may be well yea better served without them The Major is granted in the first Concession Necessary a commanded by God specially or generally Unlawful as forbidden by God either in special or in general If it be said but there are some things Indifferent neither commanded nor forbidden by God as the Division above was Tripartite I Answer There are three things in themselves abstractedly considered which are Indifferent neither morally good nor bad but in Worship nothing Imposed is Indifferent but it is either expedient for Decency and Order and so commanded and necessary or Inexpedient in the use and so forbidden and unlawful It is asserted by our Casuist Case 2. No one Action he might have added no Ceremony in Religious Exercises is of its own nature so Indifferent but that by the Circumstances it easily becomes good or evil Good if it be expedient in or useful to the Worship evil if any waies Inconvenient in its use that is Inexpedient or hurtful to the Worship Of this more in the next 2. Nothing Inexpedient may be imposed in Worship but such are our Ceremonies ergo c. The Major is fully conceded above and proved also by very good Reasons this for one All things indifferent and not expedient are not lawful but sinful If not expedient things that is not useful to the worship be sinful then much more things inexpedient that is hurtful to the worship are sinful In the Explication of this Term Inexpedient it was shewed that as Expedient imports something positive useful helpful to the worship so Inexpedient must in the just opposition signifie something prejudicious hurtful to it Not privatively only which may be taken for some things purely Indifferent but positively as hurtful troublesome burdensome c. The Minor that the Ceremonies in Controversie are inexpedient and hurtful to the worship or worshippers is abundantly proved by others and evident by Experience as violating most of his 7 Rules given for regulating the Imposition of Indifferent things in worship Case 8. Take the Particulars briefly 1. They break the Peace of the Church which ought primarily to be regarded in Imposition of such things The Casuist proceeds excellently and boldly in the Vindication of his second Rule for Publick Peace I wish the Imposers of our Ceremonies would read or hear his words and seriously lay them to heart God is the God of Peace and Order of Peace as well as Order And as the Order so the Peace of the Church without which there is no Order is precious with him and with all that have the Spirit of God and any care of his Church Should any thing give way to Peace and should not things Indifferent Are not these Indifferent Is not Peace necessary in many respects See the Place Who knows not that as the first Breach of the Publick Peace of the Church was about a Ceremony or thing Indifferent so these Ceremonies imposed have for many years broken the peace of our Church and now worst of all I shall add a few more of the Reverend Casuists words Who can think it wisdom to force any thing that is but indifferent to the endangering so necessary a thing as peace or the dividing of the Church of God or provoking any considerable part thereof to separate from us But I forbear 2. They are offensive to weak Brethren who as he well though weak are not to be thrown to the wals without any regard yea the Scripture reasons us to a greater tenderness to the weaker part of the Church And more to this purpose Things inexpedient of this nature are described by our Rev. Casuist to be such as are troublesom to good Consciences burdensom c. telling us Ceremonies of the Church ought not to be hurtful to the Church troublesom c. pag. 49. The Apostles had a special care of
into Errour and Superstition without any delay and with great Authority they may be destroyed by Posterity But Superstition being not in the things used or required but in the persons that superstitiously require or use them grounded in the false Doctrine and Superstitious Opinion which persons have of them how shall we come to know when things are superstitiously abused And then how can we charge our Ceremonies with Superstition Our Rev. Casuist hath given us some rules to try them by pag. 130 c. which we shall apply to the case in hand as we go Only premising these two things 1. That we limit not our Discourse only to the 3 Ceremonies Surplice Cross and Kneeling but enlarge it to any other Rites and Ceremonies Imposed and used in the Publick Worship even to the Liturgy it self which being the Form of divine Service as it is called may be stiled a Grand Ceremony 2. That it must not be expected that all the Rules of Discovery should be applied to every particular Ceremony to prove it superstitious but any one may suffice if rightly applied And now I proceed 1. The first way of Discovery of Superstition is by the 4 Characters thereof given by Learned Divines An Opinion of Merit of Worship of Perfection of Necessity Any one of these found in our Ceremonies will testifie the persons that so use them to be Superstitious 1. Of Merit When to take his own words we think God is bound to reward our Inventions and that by our Purses or Labours we purchase his favour this is Superstition And does not a great Rabbi of our Church whose Learning and Books are not only applauded and admired as Oracles but approved as Orthodox by our Rulers profess openly and confidently It is his Doctrine that Will-worship his Free-will-Offerings are more commendable more acceptable and more rewardable with God then commanded Duties Amongst which Free will Oblations the Liturgy is one great one the only Form of Divine Service as it is called by some and do not the vulgar and many higher persons esteem it to be most commendable most acceptable and consequently most rewardable Service of God and if not with their Purses yet by the labour of their Lips in bearing a part in that Service to purchase his Favour And is not this Superstition If it be rewardable it must be either by some Promise but there is none such in Scripture Or of due Debt Rom. 4. but that is plain Merit there 's no third way to ground the Reward on 2. Of Worship When things are required as parts or of the Essence of Divine Worship or so used this is Superstition But the Liturgy it self is by the Rulers made and called the Form of Divine Worship not a part only but the whole Essence and Substance thereof 2. Ceremonies are esteemed by all Religions Rites of Worship Ceremonial worship and so parts of worship as was proved above 3. They are made by the Imposers Religious not civil Ceremonies and so parts of Religion that is of Worship and so used by many Certainly Kneeling at Sacrament is a part of external worship and so esteemed and used by most 3. Of Perfection When we conceive the true Beauty of the Church and the Perfection of Christianity consisteth in things of humane Invention This is Superstition And do not some on this side Rome place the Perfection of Christianity and the beauty of Religion in Pompous Ceremonies Glorious Temples Sweet and melodious Musick Gawdy Priestly Garments a compleated Liturgy c. And do not many think the Service undecent without a Surplice the Baptism imperfect without the Cross the Sacrament irreverently received without Kneeling Is not this gross superstition 4. Of Necessity When such things are required and so used as simply necessary in their Nature being but things Indifferent This is also Superstition And I pray hath not a Learned Doctor a Late Bishop pleaded the Liturgy to be so necessary that without it there can be no Religion no honesty no Allegiance And do not the Late Commissioners plead a Precept of Scripture for their Ceremonies Not an Allowance only but a Command to institute Ceremonies And is not that necessary In a word does not the Late Act make them so necessary as far as they can that the commanded worship must rather be omitted then any of their humane divine Service omitted that men must not worship God without observation of their Ceremonies Wear a Surplice or pray not preach not Cross the Child or baptize not Kneel or receive not the other Sacrament And for the ordinary users of them it is observable that humane Inventions added to the Worship of God as they are more strictly observed then the prescribed Worship of God Micah 6. ult so after long continuance they are esteemed necessary as falsly supposed to be of Divine Original These are the ordinary Characters of Superstition which I could wish were not too visible spots in the face of our Church But I believe there are more and other waies to discover Superstition then these As 1. To put Holiness in things times places 2. To put vertue efficacy in things which they have not neither in their Natures nor by Divine Institution 3. To put significations upon Ceremonies in Divine Worship Of which more by and by 2. The next Rule is when upon evident and undeniable grounds of General Practise it appears to the sober and unbyassed sort of men that a thing is used superstitiously in any of the former Respects then no doubt there is an appearance of Superstition Now first the Cenerality of our Nation are proved afore to be superstitious in the use of our Liturgy and Ceremonies And for the Learned that conform to them some are known to be Popishly superstitious in Bowing Crossing c. Some are by assed by Profits or Preferments that are gotten or lost thereby Only some few Sober Learned and unbyassed persons are free from the guilt of Superstition sticking to the simplicity of Gospel-worship 3. A third Rule given and most undoubted is Look to the Doctrine of the Church whence the Grounds of Imposition and Practise are drawn If they be false and superstitious then there is an appearance of evil to be avoyded We joyn issue in this also and apply it to the Case in hand 1. The Doctrine of the Church though found in most of the 39 Articles hath yet been scrupled at by Nonconformists in the Institution of Ceremonies and the Doctrine and Power given questioned The Church hath power to Impose Ceremonies see the Article and this is asserted by that great Advocate of this Church cited above and more confidently by a Late Bishop Upon this Principle and bottom are all our Ceremonies and all those at Rome founded and is most certainly false as is proved elsewhere 2. They are held forth in practise as Moral means to excite Devotion and teach and provoke to Duty the Surplice to Purity the Cross to Constancy
Quest pag. 39 69 c. and makes them to us necessary by a necessity of Obedience though not so in their own natures by vertue of a Divine Commandment Obey them that have the Rule over you and submit your selves Indeed this pretence seems to put a demur to the Case and is the foundation of all his Discourse in the greatest part of it concerning submission to such Impositions But it is easily removed by a Distinction or two 1. Of the sense of the word Inconvenient which he substitutes for the word Inexpedient to moâ—lifie the harshness thereof as was noted in the Explication of Termes which having once presumed to do he then supposes unjustly also those things now called Inconvenient to be things lawful not only in their own nature and extracultum but also in their use and in Worship which is contradicted by himself when he makes things inconvenient in their use to be sinful p. 68. Of which afore 2. Of things inexpedient or inconvenient which may be conceived to be of two sorts 1. In regard of meer Circumstances of Worship as an inconvenient place or an unseasonable time thereof which must be taken or no other allowed for publick worship wherein the Authority may sin in Imposing as violating the Rules of Decency Order or Edification 1 Cor. 14. but the Subject sins not in submitting yea should sin in not submitting 2. With respect to humane Ceremonies which are inconvenient and inexpedient in their use that is hurtful to the Worship or Worshippers which are alwaies sinful in worship and may no more lawfully be submitted to then Imposed in worship as he hath often granted Now then our Ceremonies being proved to be so many waies inexpedient that is sinful in worship one Argument but a complicated one and so much the stronger will dispatch the business Thus. No sinful inexpedient unnecessary superstitious doubtful significant Ceremonies may be submitted to if Imposed in Worship But our Ceremonies are proved to be such ergo they may not be submitted to Against this Conclusion neither the Peace of the Church nor pretended Duty nor too much desired Safety his threefold Cord used to draw others to Conformity with himself can dispense till this Argument be enervated and made voyd I proceed to the last III. Of Assenting and Consenting to them This third and last Question is newly occasioned by the Late Act for Uniformity and the too general compliance of Ministers with it not only to submit to the Ceremenies and other things Imposed as to Practise which in some things might be tollerable but also to enslave their Judgments to a full approbation of all and every thing contained in and prescribed by it Which one would think should have stumbled many more till they had serioâ—sly considered both what the things are which are very many and also have sufficient ground for so large a Submission When it is evident that many of the Declarers and Subscribers never saw the Book nor considered the Reasons of so deep an Engagement but hastily swallowed down all with an Implicite Faith trusting to their Rulers Now if there be but one thing Inexpedient in it one thing false or evil that is sinful As submission to so universal a Practise of it is proved unlawful so the giving an unfeigned assent and consent to all and every thing contained in it can by no good Conscience be justified That Act takes in the whole Book as now it is Published and Established And containes the Epitome or rather Volume of the English Protestant Episcopal Religion 1. The Form of Doctrine or Confession of Faith in the 39 Articles 2. The Mode of Worship in the Liturgy 3. The Model of Discipline in the Book of Ordination or Consecration of Bishops Priests and Deacons All these to be at one Lump submitted subscribed assented consented to and that unfeignedly It was partly yielded above that in some cases it may be lawful not only for peace sake but also for Conscience sake to submit to some thing Inconvenient as an Inconvenient Circumstance if Imposed by a lawful Authority But now the Question is of declaring openly an unfeigned assent and consent to a thing any thing if any there be Inconvenient in the Book which to me imports an Approbation of it as shall be shewed ere long I shall only desire to remember the Explication of the Terms That Assent hath respect to the truth of a thing Consent to the Goodness Vnfeigned to the sincerity of both I now propound the Question the third time Whether it be lawful for Ministers to conform so far to the Late established Book for Vniformity as Publickly to declare an unfeigned Assent and Consent to all and every thing contained in and prescribed by it To the Decision of this great Question one would easily think little need be said considering what hath been said already against divers things contained in that Book any one whereof if proved sinful as I believe some are and more will be might be a sufficient bar to suspend either Assâ—nt or Consent to the truth or goodness much more the practise of them which yet is promised in the Subscription to them I shall argue first ex concessis probatis and then add some more special Reasons in some Particulars 1. In General thus I assault them If divers things Imposed and to be submitted to be sinful the Imposition and Submission to them being therefore sinful then it is much more sinful to declare an unfeigned Assent and Consent to them yea to all and every thing contained in and prescribed by that Book but the Antecedent is most true and asserted by themselves and where they are shut proved so to be the Consequence is made undeniable by the Apostles Logick and Divinity Rom 1 ult Who though they know that they that do such things are guilty or worthy of death not only do such things but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consent to or favour them that do them The Argument is taken a minore ad majus It is bad to do things sinful especially against Knowledge and Conscience but much worse to assent and consent unfeignedly to the truth and goodness of such things The reason is because a man may do a thing sinful either out of Ignorance or inadvertency or the violence of a Temptation but he cannot unfeignedly assent and consent to the doing of them or to them that do them without deliberation and knowingly against his clearly convinced Conscience And the more of Will is in a sin the higher is the aggravation of it Now this is observable that few Conforming Ministers there are which do not believe some things in that Book to be inconvenient burdensom troublesom and scarce Orthodox either in Doctrine Worship or Discipline And some in my hearing have already complained that the burden to read all prescribed and to preach when they have done as they ought to do being of Divine Institution is a Burden which they
things the Rev. Casuist and they are fully agreed 1. That a Covenant both illegally Imposed and illegally taken may bind the Takers That must be I suppose from the either necessity or lawfulness of the matter covenanted 2. That the Covenant in question doth not bind to an endeavour to alter or meddle with the State-Government No for it is as strong an establishment of it as can be made in the third Article 3. That if the Alteration or Extirpation of Church-Government be the main Business of the Covenant and this be lawful it doth so far bind the takers if not lawful they are so far discharged from the Obligation of it Now evident it is that the Anti-Covenanters as they do not except against any Article of it but the Second so not against any part or particle of this second Article but only this That Covenants to endeavour the extirpation of Prelacy that is the Hierarchy c. This this is the Helena for which they contend so vigorously This the eye-sore that so exasperates their Spirits They do not I think they dare not deny the Obligation of the other Articles nor of the other parts of the second as to the extirpation of Popery Superstition Heresie Schism Prophaness c. Much less will they deny the Obligation of the third Article to defend and preserve the Kings Majesties Person and Authority the Rights and Priviledges of Parliament c. They may say they were bound to those either by the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy or by the Law of Nature as Native Subjects I answer 1. How many took the Covenant that never took those Oaths This Oath was made at least in this Article to God only P. 114. 2. The other is true but then it must be granted that the Covenant though illegally imposed and taken the matter being necessary or lawful addes a new Obligation being made to God only And as the latter does not voyd the former so the former does not disoblige from the latter 3. I add we were bound before the Covenant was imposed or taken by the Law of Nature and our Covenant of Baptism and Scripture-Rules to endeavour the Reformation of Religion in Doctrine Worship and Discipline in our places and Callings and consequently to extirpate Popery Superstition c. though we had never taken the Covenant Hence I would infer supposing for Disputations sake not positively asserting it If the Episcopal Government as then it stood be equally unlawful with Popery Superstition and the rest we are by a former Obligation to God bound equally to endeavour the alteration and extirpation of it and the Covenant is but a new Cord added to strengthen that Obligation Hic labor hoc opus I know it is not safe for any wise man to say much in Defence of the Covenant there being an Act published to dissolve and annull it as unlawful in several respects I shall therefore assert nothing positively for it or against the present Church-Government but humbly crave leave to proceed suppositively as the Rev. Cas does For all his large Discourse to perswade to that part of the second Declaration is founded upon this Supposition not that the Government is Jure Divine and so necessary for upon supposal of that a Covenant or endeavour to alter or extirpate it were utterly unlawful but only Lawful or Indifferent And then I should for my part grant that it was unlawful to Covenant much more to endeavour to alter and extirpate it without the Supream Authority of the Nation And let me but have the like liberty to suppose let others that can make it good that the Government is by the Word of God unlawful and upon that Supposition and Perswasion as I may not own it by Assent Consent or Subscription so all his Arguments to prove the Lawfulness of making this Declaration are to me of no force till he prove it either necessary or at least Lawful which he goes not about to do but all along takes for granted which I think he ought not to do for their sakes who scruple the Lawfulness of it That he does suppose the Lawfulness for he waves to plead the Necessity of this Government as others begin to do both in the former and in these Cases appeares in several passages as p. 25. s 10. and p. 52. Admit that Episcopal Government was Res Indifferens Mutabilis when sworn against p. 80. If the Government sworn against be not unlawful And p. 138. I confess I took the Lawfulness of the Government c. in themselves for granted Importing as I think if the things were unlawful then the fault of the Covenant was not in the Matter it might be lawful to covenant and endeavour the extirpation of them but in the Manner that it was illegally imposed and taken without the King c. And now I shall see him state the Question It seemes some Covenanters granting that if the Matter of the Covenant was but in this Particular unlawful the Covenant it self was so far unlawful and lost its Obligation do call aloud for strong Reasons to prove the unlawfulness of the Matter in this particular The Learned Casuist now undertakes to give such as he hath but under favour quite besides the Question by them intended For they suppose not only the Government to be unlawful but also the Extirpation of it which is the Matter now in question to be lawful and require Reasons to prove it materially unlawful But his Case and Reasons respect the Takers whether they may Covenant and endeavour to extirpate the Government without the King for so he saies My work is in short to prove that the Covenant so far as it engageth the Takers of it against Church Government and for the change of it is unlawful and sinful in the Matter of it The Matter is one thing whether it be lawful for any to extirpate the Government supposed unlawful The Takers are another whether it be lawful for private men to undertake this without the King The former may be lawful when the latter is not so And here he slides secretly from the Matter to the Manner from the Thing to the Persons as will appear For mark his Distinction whereon he sayes he fixes the foot of all the Arguments following The things sworn to be done may be either such as is simply unlawful for any to do or quoad nos when though not sinful in the first Consideration yet to such persons it is sinful Mark this it is in true sense as if he had said the Matter may be lawful and laudable in it self and lawful to be done but not lawfully for Manner by some Persons For instance The Government being not necessary but Indifferent and mutable may lawfully be altered yea extirpated by the King and Parliament but not by single or private persons I doubt his Superiours will give him little thankes for this Intimation But now see how he applies this Distinction If the Extirpation
The XXIV Cases CONCERNING THINGS INDIFFERENT IN Religious Worship Considered OR THE RESOLVER Better Resolved by his own Principles AND NON-CONFORMISTS More Confirmed ALSO THE GRAND CASE Touching Ministers Conformity with the double Supplement thereunto Annexed Briefly Discussed Rom. 15.22 Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he Alloweth And Happy is he that alloweth not himself in that thing which he Condemneth LONDON Printed in the Year 1663. Question Whether Things Inexpedient or purely Indifferent such as our English Ceremonies are may be Imposed by men lawfully in the Worship of God Or if Imposed may lawfully be submitted assented and consented unto THis Grand Question hath three Heads of Dispute Of the Lawfulness 1. Of the Imposition of them in Worship 2. Of Submission to them as to Practise 3. Of the Declaration of an Vnfeigned Assent and Consent to all and every thing contained in and prescribed by the Book of Common Prayer or by the Late Act of Vniformity in Doctrine Worship Discipline The Probleme hath respect only or chiefly to Worship and to the Decision of it I shall do these three things 1. Explain the Terms 2. Shew how far the Dissenting Parties agree 3. Undertake to prove the Negative in all the Particulars upon the Casuists own Principles and Concessions I. Explication of the Terms 1. Ceremonies I begin with this partly to distinguish between Ceremonies and Circumstances of Worship which commonly in this Dispute are confounded and partly to draw down the Question a Thesi as discoursed in general under the Notion of Things Inexpedient and purely Indifferent as it is warily done by the Rev. Casuist and others which affords them some Creep holes and Liberty of Evasion ad Hypothesin in special to our Ceremonies of which the Controversie is And the Definition of a Ceremony will clearly difference it from a Circumstance of Worship Every Ceremony may be considered as a circumstance but every circumstance in or of Worship is not a Ceremony A Ceremony is a circumstance and something more And a circumstance may be made a Ceremony ex gr The colour of a Beast offered in Sacrifice was a circumstance in it self But in the Heiser of Expiation the colour was specified and required to be Red and no other Here a circumstance is made more then naturally it was a Ceremony Say the same of Time Place Habit c. abstractedly considered they were but circumstances of Worship but determined or instituted by God were made Ceremonies as were the Jewish Festivals Temple Ephod c. As for the Definition of a Ceremony for a circumstance is nothing but an Adjunct of any other thing substance or action it is variously given by divers Divines but all for the most part agree in this even Heathens also in any Religion That a Ceremony in Religion is a sacred Rite instâ—â—uted for the honouring of God in his Publick Worship and indeed a part of external Worship The Casuist cals them Sacred mystical Ceremonies significant symbolical Rites Pag. 145. Others call them Ritus colendi Deum not only circumstantial Rites to attend the Worship but Rites of Worship or Ceremonial Ritual Worship that is parts of Worship for worship is divided into Moral and Ceremonial which Distinction is idle and vain if Ceremonies be not worship or parts of worship The Learned Casuist and others fearing this may fall foul upon our Ceremonies have confounded Ceremonies with circumstances or at least have equivocally used the words For Pag. 6. He speaks of circumstances properly so called as time place habit purely indifferent in a general consideration abstractedly from Inconveniency But he knowes that those circumstances determined by God were made also Ceremonies Institution Divine made this alteration in or gave this addition to them And will not humane Institution also of Sacred mystical symbolical significant Rites do the same That shall be tried hereafter But in another place Pag. 145. speaking of such Ceremonies he confounds or darkens the sense by a Distinction To this effect Ceremonies may be appointed to signifie the Favour of God or the Grace of the Sacraments or to be a means of receiving any Blessing from God and this is very dangerous if corrupt and superstitious men at any time rule the Church c. But if by Rights and Ceremonies we mean only the circumstances of Divine worship and by significancy that they are fitted to commend the Exercise with Order and Decency to express the Gravity and Devotion of the worshippers I cannot discover so much danger But 1. Should not men speak Properly in such a controversie as this distinguishing Ceremonies from circumstances Do any that would be understood call meer circumstances of Order c. Ceremonies Are not natural and civil circumstances so far significant to express gravity and devotion and tend to Edification and yet no sacred Ceremonies 2. Though our Ceremonies do not signifie immediately the favour of God or the Grace of the Sacraments yet do they signifie Duties on our part Purity Constancy Humility and unless they be idle and vain and for that cause be cast out of Worship they are intended to be a means of receiving some Blessing from God by a moral operation of those Graces and Duties intended to be signified in their Institution And this will easily multiply their number and in his Judgment render them dangerous till as he saith they become stench in the Nostrils of God and of all sober and stayd men As in the Church of Rome More of this hereafter 2. Inexpedient things This word had need to be explained for it may have a double sense 1. Privatively it is as much as not expedient and so is the same almost with those things the Casuist cals purely Indifferent of which in the next place and often cals them Inconvenient 2. Positively as directly contrary to expedient which signifies things useful helpful in worship or to the worship He gives us this notion of them when he saies p. 49. Ceremonies of the Church ought to be expedient not hurtful to the Church not troublesom to good Consciences not burdensom Things inexpedient therefore in worship are such as are hurtful to the worship or worshippers troublesom burdensom in a word any things that violate those 7 Rules required in the Imposition of Indifferent things in worship Cas 8. p. 33. And in this sense I think the Rev. Casuist doth or should understand the word Inexpedient as a degree worse then purely-indifferent which also for their uselesseness in worship are unlawfully imposed by the Church or Magistrate as we shall hear him assert anon But yet which is observable in the process of his Discourse he confounds things inexpedient with things meerly or privatively inconvenient or unfit The Instances are many Pag. 80. Inconveniency and inexpediency Pag. 81. Any thing unfit and Inconvenient Pag. 89. Inconvenience only Pag. 91. An Inexpedient indifferent thing Pag. 109. Somewhat inexpedient barely inexpedient Pag. 105. But under
and Consent from the bottom of the heart The Terms of the question being thus explained we proceed to the Second thing propounded How far Parties agree II. Postulata sive Concessa 1. Things used or to be used in Worship are of three sorts Necessary Vnlawful or of a middle sort of themselves neither good nor bad but made so by circumstances called things Indifferent 1. Necessary as commanded by God and they are of two sorts In special as the particular Ordinances the word and Sacraments Or in general as the necessary circumstances tending to Decency Order and Edification 1 Cor. 14 40. This Distinction is given us by the Casuist in a little other terms Case 12. Pag. 67. A thing is necessary either properly as expresly commanded by God or occasionarily as expedient that is with respect to the Rule of circumstances and so generally commanded also Things expedient then are Necessary in Worship by an occasional or secondary Necessity let that be remembred 2. Vnlawful or sinful from some Prohibition from God and that as was said in the former either in special as forbidden by express words as Images in the Second Commandment or in general and by consequence as all Imaginations and Inventions of men added to divine worship which are prohibited in the negative part of the same Commandment and also such Circumstances as are indecent unorderly and against Edification in the Negative part of that Precept 1 Cor. 14.40 This Distinction is owned and given us also by the Casuist in the same place Pag. 68. A thing may be sinful either in it self that is in its own Nature as directly prohibited by God or by some inconvenience in its use that is when it is Inexpedient to be used in Worship Inexpedient as to the use as he expressed himself there pag. 66. Things Inexpedient then as violating Order Decency c. are unlawful in Worship Let this be remembred also against anon 3. Indifferent of a middle sort in themselves neither good nor bad as morally considered or in their own Nature but by circumstances they may become good or bad or to use his own words very apt by reason of Circumstances to tend unto to swerve unto to become or appear either good or bad Now what those Circumstances are that change them into good or bad he doth not thereby tell us as he ought to have done but yet we may collect his sense or meaning by what is already said and more hereafter viz. they then become good yea necessary when they are expedient for Decency Order c. and Bad i.e. sinful when they are inconvenient or inexpedient for those ends that is hurtful in their use For a Close of the first Concession I shall only take and give notice of the Method of the Casuist In the former part treating of the Imposition of things in Worship he only denies the power to impose things purely Indifferent and Inexpedient supposing indeed that as Necessary things are commanded by God and Imposed so sinful things may not be Imposed by man but saies nothing of things doubtful or significant c But in the latter part of Submission he instances in and puts five Cases what is to be done if such things be imposed viz. 1. Necessary things 2. Expedient 3. Purely Indifferent 4. Inexpedient 5. Sinful In which Proceeding this is further observable that he misleads himself and his Reader by this gradation as if all the 4 former were sinless and lawful and the last sort only sinful in Worship But it already appears by what hath already been said and will do more hereafter that as the two first sorts are only lawful in Worship So the three last are all unlawful there either in themselves as those he cals sinful or by the Inconvenience of their use as the third and fourth And so stealing in this Mist this Opinion that things purely Indifferent or Inexpedient without the former Distinction are lawful in Worship His Arguments for Submission seem so Rational and Plausible taken from Peace Duty Safety In a word as he mistakes so he mis-states the question disputing for Submission to things lawful in themselves when he should prove things Inconvenient in their use in Worship may lawfully be submitted to This Observation being remembred we thankfully accept this first Concession and proceed to the next 2. Nothing sinful or unlawful may be either Imposed or submitted unto in Divine Worship 1. Not Imposed This needs no Proof as confessed by all that know what Religion is and the Worship of God means But we have the Assent and Consent of our Rev. Casuist often attested in this Point For putting the Case what is to be done when things sinful are Imposed he deprecates any mistake of being an Advocate for sin or sinful Impositions And presently after resolves such Impositions are not to be obeyed and if not obeyed to what end are they Imposed Yea when he resolved before that things purely Indifferent and Inexpedient cannot lawfully be Imposed in Worship much more will he deny things sinful to be lawfully Imposed 2. Not Submitted to if Imposed This is the Resolution of the Case Pag. 119. peremptorily from the Authority of St. August and Bernard Things of themselves and materially evil as they cannot justly be commanded so they cannot lawfully be done Yea in another Case What if they seem sinful to us though lawful in themselves if after sincere and serious disquisition they seem still sinful to us He peremptorily concludes we must not obey pag. 126. Much less if it be sinful in it self But seeing some things are sinful not materially or in themselves but in their use what will he resolve in the latter case Whether may such things be Imposed in Worship or if Imposed be submitted to The Resolution of this sully and clearly would have put an end to the present Controversie But he either waves it or obscures it Yet something shall be said to it in the next Concession 3. No Inexpedient thing may lawfully be imposed in worship See pag. 69. Ther 's a pre-obligation upon Authority to Impose nothing but what is expedient in the Worship of God and p. 73. admits the exerting of power in requiring of things that are lawful but inexpedient to be unwarrantable as an abuse of Authority or submitted to 1. Not imposed this is fully yielded us pag. 36. Case 8. It being against the Rule of the Apostle all things are not expedient and indeed against common Reason it is not lawful in Church-Governours to impose any thing about Gods worship that is only Indifferent and lawful in its self but not expedient Had he given us his Reasons against Imposition of such things in worship as he doth in things purely Indifferent he had done noble service to the Church yet something he hinted in the words alledged Its against the Apostles Rule and common Reason to impose such things and more explicitly in the words afore these immediately All
Obedience in acting those Impositions which involves our assent and consent either unfeigned or hypocritical But I return to the Rev. Casuist And had he not in his Title Page limited his Discourse to Religious Matters that is Matters of Divine worship I should have suggested another Distinction between Civil and Sacred Affairs with respect to the power of Superiours in both of these It may give a little light to the business in hand and therefore I shall briefly touch it In civil affairs the supream Authority may impose some things inconvenient or inexpedient that is perhaps hurtful to the business and to the Subjects or Inferiours and must also be obeyed But in Religion and Worship as he may impose nothing inexpedient as is granted above so if he doth impose such things in worship with the Limitations and former Distinctions he is not to be obeyed And this I shall briefly make good against him by his own Principles and Concessions and other Reasons 1. No sinful or unlawful thing may be imposed or submitted to in worship but things inconvenient in their use are sinful See the first Concession Paragr 2. A thing may be sinful either in it self or by the inconvenience of its use p 68. Therefore they may not be submitted to 2 No inexpedient thing may be imposed or submitted to in worship This is yielded in the third Concession and the Reason is because they are sinful So he affirmed afore pag. 35 36. All things that are indifferent and not expedient are not lawful but sinful But things purely indifferent are inexpedient in worship This is also his own Expression now he is speaking of things purely indifferent to call them inconvenient not expedient And surely he will not deny but purely Indifferent things imposed in worship are inconvenient in their use and not expedient or inexpedient If he take these terms for the same therefore not to be submitted to 3. No things that cause the submitter to them to prophane the worship of God by taking his Name in vain against the Third Commandment are to be submitted to though they be imposed this cannot with any Reason be denied But purely indifferent things that is by his own Exposition such as are of no use in Service or worship but idle useless superfluous perhaps ridiculous do prophane the Worship of God therefore they are not to be submitted to 4. Nothing that violates the Rule of the Apostle concerning Order Dâ—cency and Edification 1 Cor. 14.40 ought to be imposed or if imposed submitted to That such things may not be imposed is asserted strongly pag. 43. Nothing that is disorderly indecent or against Edification in Gods Worship can warrantably be imposed upon the Church But things purely indifferent described as afore are indecent disorderly and unedifying in Worship ergo not to be imposed and for the same reason to be submitted to because they are sinful against the Apostles Precept Much more might be added but I forbear till we come to the Hypothesis in our Ceremonies I have been large in this I shall bâ— shorter in the next Concessions 5. Nothing really superstitious may be imposed in worship or if imposed submitted to 1. Not imposed For that 's a manifest injury to and violation as of the whole first Table of the Decalogue in general so of the Second Commandment thereof in special which forbids all superstitious Worship as false Our Rev. Casuist speaks not expresly of this Case in regard of the Imposition of such things but comprehends it as I suppose under the general of things sinful and unlawful and that is enough against the Imposition of them 2. And as for submission to them he seems to grant that if the things be proved to be really such as by some they are supposed to be they need not they ought not to be submitted to To discover his Judgment herein he puts a case wherein doth Superstition or the appearance thereof consist pag. 129. And he reduces all to 4 Heads 1. Merit 2. Worship 3. Perfection 4. Necessity Whether all the kinds of Superstition fall under these 4 heads I am not fully satisfied But he seems to me to grant that if they be truly and really superstitious we may lawfully disobey the Imposition of them But of this more in Hypothesi 6. Nothing doubtful or suspicious of sinfulness ought to be imposed in worship or if imposed submitted to For the Imposition of such things in the worship of God the Rev. Casuist saies nothing or but little directly as not making it a disputable Case only by consequence he saies something to it in another Case What is to be done when a thing seems sinful to us And he seems to resolve it negatively we ought not to submit unto it For pag. 124. He thus bespeakes his private person If thy disquisition for satisfaction hath brought thee to this that thou art in a doubt whether thou maist obey or no first I recommend thee to that excellent Casuist the Rev. B. of Lincolne But what if he satisfie him not then hear his own Resolution pag. 126. If the thing required appear sinful to thee still thou art bound by the Law thou art bound to the peace of thine own Conscience Thou maist not obey Thence would I infer if in doubtful things I am not bound to obey for if I doubt and do a thing especially in worship I sin the Magistrate seems pre-obliged not to command such things For to what end if the doubtful need not must not obey him But of this also more in Hypothesi 7. No part of worship may be imposed in Divine Service by men The Reason is given by the Rev. Casuist twice because it is superstitious once p. 4. and 130. Adding It 's Gods Prerogative alone to prescribe his own Worship Command 2. and forbidden to men in the Negative part thereof 8. No significant thing or Ceremony may by men be imposed in Worship The Rev. Casuist having propounded this case p. 144. Whether the imputing of significancy to things imposed render them superstitious Resolves the Case by a double or rather treble Distinction 1. Of Ceremonies from Circumstances of Worship 2. Of the Authors or Institutors of Worship God or Men. 3. Of Significancy to signifie either the Favour of God the Grace of the Sacraments or to be a meanes of receiving any Blessing from God or to intend only fitness to commend the exercise with Order and Decency and to express the gravity and devotion of the Worshippers c. The Result is this That Ceremonies not meer Circumstances instituted by men not God signifying the Favour of God c. not Order Decency Gravity are very dangerous if corrupt and superstitious men should at any time rule the Church and we may have quickly not 7 but 70 times 7 if not entire yet Semi-Sacraments the Church of God and his Service being thereby obnoxious to all the antick and conceited Crotchets that the vain imaginations of over-curious
the same Order and Office 2. That Ordination by Presbyters is null I add no more To all these either false or unlawful do they assent and consent which how they can do with a good Conscience I understand not but do admire 6. And Lastly besides the burdens they have laid upon their weak Brethren in a very considerable number and the hurt they have done to the Church in the loss of so many Able Ministers to the gratifying of Antichrist they have by their unfeigned assent and consent to all and every thing contained in and prescribed by that Book in Doctrine Worship and Discipline as precluded all future hopes of Reformation so also enslaved themselves and their Successors of the Clergy to the power and yoke of Episcopal Tyranny Just in the same manner if not measure as the Popish Clergy are enslaved to the Pope without all hope of freedom till either Antichrist be fallen or those strict Lawes for Conformity be repealed and broken This is one chief Character of Antichrist that he causeth all his Subject especially the Clergy to receive a Mark in their right hand and in their Forehead that none may buy or sell that want this Mark. How far this is appliable to our present condition any wise man will easily discern The Bishops have now obtained their long Desire and Design to subdue and enslave the Clergy to themselves and with them the People they having boared their Eares to their Door posts and received a mark in their Foreheads by their so Publick Declaration and in their Right Hand by their Subscription without which no Minister may buy or sell that is deal in any thing that concernes his Ministerial Office or as a Schollar to get a Livelihood And whether this be not the slaying of the Witnesses Natural or Civil spoken of in the Revelation or the Forerunner of it I leave to prudent men to determine And here I rest The Grand Case considered as to the double Supplement annexed thereunto I. Touching Things Inexpedient I Begin with this though it stand last in the Grand Case partly because it is intended to be a Support to uphold his former Tract which I have throughly ventilated and partly because it must be the Foundation of the Main Case of Conformity to the Declarations required in the Late Act. For if the things in question be not only Inconvenient or burdensom but also Inexpedient that is according to his own Exposition of the word Sinful In vain is the Net spread before the eyes of any Fowl No man of any good Conscience can or dare be taken with such Chaffe as he hath here scattered in stead of good Corn to beguile and mislead his Readers Before I consider what fresh Supply he hath brought I shall premise some few Observations as grounds to shake and frustrate all this second Undertaking 1. He here again as was complained of and manifested on his former cases confounds Inexpedient with Inconvenient Sometimes we hear of Things simply inexpedient p. 144. which he expounds by things Inconvenient p. 147. No small Inconvenience p. 150. For some Inconveniences imposed on us we ought not to quit our Ministry Which we profess we would not do and other the like Passages when yet he told us Things not Expedient in Worship ought not to be Imposed or if Imposed to be Submitted to as anon we shall hear 2. Inexpedient may be taken either negatively for a thing not Expedient or positively for something hurtful For as Expedient is taken for useful helpful to the business we are about So a thing Inexpedient in a flat opposition as was said may be taken either way for not-useful or hurtful to it 3. A thing inexpediently evil or hurtful in Worship may be taken either for malum poenae as troublesom or burdensom or for malum culpae a thing sinful The Rev. Casuist does not clearly distinguish these two senses and which he meanes and therefore seemes secretly to pass a genere in genus from one kind to another 4. A thing may be sinful either in it self or in its use in Worship from some Circumstance of time or place c. This Distinction is given us by the Casuist p. 68. of the former Tract and we shall make use of it hereafter 5. A thing may be Inexpedient in two Respects 1. In matters of Civil and common Affairs or in matters of Religion and Worship Some Assertions of his are true and allowable in the first but not in the second respect I needed not to have noted this but that he seems to have forgotten what he first intended that he is tied to speak to things Inexpedient in Worship 6. Things evil and Inexpedient in both senses as penally or sinfully such may be considered or compared 3 waies 1. One evil of punishment with another a lesser with a greater and here the Rule is e malis minimum chuse the least 2. An evil of punishment with an evil of sin and here the Rule is The greatest evil of punishment must be chosen rather then the least evil of sin as Heb. 11.25 3. One evil of sin with another lesser equal or greater and here the Rule is e malis neatrum vel nullum And now we come to the Case propounded Whether or how far things inexpedient not imposed in Worship for that is peremptorily denied by the Rev. Casuist in the former Tract but may be submitted to if imposed by Authority That was the Case before What is to be done when things Inexpedient are imposed viz. in Worship Now an Objection it seemes is lately flarted and an Argument enforced from his own Principles for the Negative in this manner Nothing sinful in Worship may be submitted to though imposed by Authority which is now proved by Scripture we may not do evil that good may come thereby But Inexpedient things imposed in Worship are sinful ergo not to be submitted to The Major as it is obvious to any Religious Conscience so it is often asserted in the other Tract The Minor is also granted in the very terms All Indifferent things not expedient are not lawful but finful p. 36. And p. 34. Things not expedient to be done ought not to be done What saies he now to it Both the Propositions being his own he must either yield the Cause and own the Conclusion or distinguish of one or both the Propositions which latter he attempts to do as followeth Things are evil or unlawful either in specie or in genere only either in themselves as prohibited by some special Law Natural or Positive or in respect to some Circumstance or Accident To which I reply in this manner desiring to know to which Proposition he will apply this Distinction 1. If to the Major it must be thus Things sinful against a special Commandment may not be submitted to in Worship but things forbidden by a general Commandment may if imposed by Authority For so he saies Things of the second kind