know not His last Argument is this Fear or Worship of God taught by the Commandments of Men is not only vain Matth. 15. 9. but brings Plagues on them who abuse their wisdom that way Is 29. 14. Where tho' he very crudely and indistinctly represents the meaning of the former of these two Texts which he alleges yet I freely grant the truth of what he asserts if the thing be rightly understood But where the fear of God proceeds from an awful sense of his Greatness and Majesty and the Worship of God is such as he himself has taught and prescribed consisting in Confession Prayer Thanksgiving and the Celebration of Baptism and the Lord's Supper without omitting any thing which is of divine institution And Men are taught and urged thus to Fear and Worship God because God himself has commanded them so to do And the Law of the Land which may be termed the Commandment of Alan interposes no farther but only to enforce and not to alter the Law of God and to settle and regulate the outward Circumstances of this Worship which the Law of God has not determined I cannot see what from either of these Texts can with any colour be objected against such a constitution of things as this except it be where prejudice and not sober and impartial reason is the Interpreter of them To strengthen these his proofs from Scripture which of themselves I am sure are very weak our Author adds that we are lately taught what he has asserted to be the Doctrine of the Established Church by the Bâ—shop of Derry in his Vanity of Humane Inventions And after having recited some of His Lordship's words out of the Introduction of the Book mentioned he concludes thus Now if Cross Ring c. be not exprâ—sly contained in Scripture or warranted by the Examples of holy Men therein they must according to the Bishop of Derry's reasoning be displeasing to God and so forbidden by him p. 101 102. But here sure our Author cannot but know that he is guilty in a most palpable manner of a double piece of disingenuity For neither does my Lord Bishop of Derry there teach us that what is contained in those words is the Doctrine of the established Church but only offers his own judgment of those things as being highly reasonable nor does our Author faithfully recite what his Lordship has said but omits part of the last Sentence without which it is not possible fully to understand the meaning and design of that Paragraph His Lordships Conclusion is this Sâ—nce God has vouchsasâ—d us a certain Direction or his Worship in the holy Scriptures it is to be supposed that all ways of Worship are displeasing to him that are not â—â—presâ—ly contained or warranted by Examples of holy Men mentioned therein OR MAY NOT BE DEDUCED BY PLAIN CONSEQUENCE OR BY PARTTY OF REASON FROM THEM which last words our Author has very unfairly left out so that altho' our Ceremonies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—xpâ—â—sly contained in the Scriptures or warranted in particular by the â—xampâ—â—â— of â—oly Men therein Yet still according to my Lord Bishop of 〈◊〉 in that very Paragraph which our Author quotes they may 〈◊〉 be 〈…〉 to God if they can be deduced by plain Consâ—â—â—â—rce or by 〈◊〉 of 〈…〉 And that all our Forms and Ceremonies are justified by plain 〈◊〉 or an evident congruity and parity of Reason either from the Rules or â—â—amples of holy Men in Scripture is what his Lordship has partly proved in the Seqâ—â—l of that Book and may very eâ—â—ectually be made good touching those other things of which he has not there had â—ccasion to speak From what our Author has hitherto been discoursiâ—â— he p. 1â—2 insâ—rs an Answer to this Question which I had put viz. Can aâ—y thing be called a Sin which God has not sorbid And he tells me It may 〈◊〉 â—aâ—s he uncommanded Worship is Sin Now see how an ill cause runs a man into Perplexities and Contradictions He had just before been proving that uncommanded Worship is â—â—rbidden and yet almost in the same breath he gives it as an Instance of a thing that is a Sin altho' it be not 〈◊〉 But altho' I have already granted that the use of any uncommanded thing 〈…〉 part of God's Worship is unlawful and the only reason why it is so is because it is forbidden yet neither does it follow from hence nor has our Author proved that uncommanded Circumstances of Worship are sinful And upon a Supposition that they were sinful yet upon what other account they could be so besides their being forbidden I should be very glad to learn from him But he gives another Instance To Baptize says he without the Sign of the Cross Communicate without Kneeling c. are not forbidden of God and yet the Established Church account these Sins To which the Answer is very easy viz. That the Established Church accounts these things to be no farther Sins than as they are forbidden by God Disobedience to lawful Authority in such things as are in themselves lawful is most certainly forbidden since then the Cross after Baptism Kneeling at the Communion c. are in themselves lawful and commanded by lawful Authority For any man wilfully to omit any of these Circumstances in the performance of these Offices as long as the Laws for them do stand in force is an Act of Disobedience to the higher Powers and upon this account and no other is reckoned as a Sin by us But Nonconformity with us is punished more severely than some gross Immoralities I answer that tho' this were true yet makes it nothing to our present Controversy nor can it any way be proved from thence that Conformity is unlawful and therefore for what purpose this is here mentioned except it be to raise the passion and thereby more effectually to cloud the reason of his own Party I cannot imagine What ever errors there may be in the Discipline of a Church as no Humane Constitution perhaps was ever throughly perfect if some part of it be too strict and other too loose or whatever else the fault may be I think it is the Duty of every good Christian fairly to represent such things to those who are in Authority that they may in a due manner be rectisied But as such defects as these are no just ground to refuse the Communion of any Church whatsoever so to upbraid her with them upon an improper occasion and when such a reproach makes nothing to the Argument in hand in my apprehension seems not altogether agreeable to the true Christian spirit of meekness and Charity That this hint then which he here gives is not to the direct purpose of our present Dispute is most plain But what if after he has affirmed it so positively and that too with an Asseveration it should not appear to be so clear and evident a truth as he supposes it He tells us that for Nonconformity Men are to be Excommunicated Ipso
in their own nature indifferent when required by lawful Authority are the proper and adequate matter wherein our obedience to our Superiours whether Ecclesiastical or Civil is to be shewn And as all Superiours ought to exercise their power of commanding with Prudence and Charity as they shall answer for the same before the Throne of God so are all inferiours most evidently obliged in Conscience to be conformable and obedient to such commands when the matter thereâ— is lawful in it self nor is such conformity any way inconsistent with our Christian Liberty But Christ says he hath allowed us the use of indifferent things indifferently as Christian Prudence and Charity shall determine I grant it But then I would know why the use of such things may not in some cases as well be determined by the Christian Prudence and Charity of the Church for the whole Society as in other cases by those of every private man for himself Except it be that some men have a very strong inclination to be guided by their own fancies rather than by the will of their Superiors But this says he would be so to determine our practice as to destroy its indifferency I Answer that this indeed would make it the duty of every private man to conform his practice in such indifferent things to the Law that is over him as long as that Law remains in force in which I see not the least inconvenience or absurdity but would not so far destroy the indifferency either of the thing or our practice but that upon the repeal of that Law which bound us we should be as much at liberty as ever we were But our Author tells us that the main violation of Christian Liberty lies in a fixt stated and perpetual compulsion to do what God hath permitted us to omit or a prohibition to do what he hath made lawful for us I Answer if 1. The subject matter of this Compulsion or Prohibition be in its own nature lawful or indifferent If 2. The Compulsion or Prohibition proceed from lawful Authority And if 3. It be by that Authority sufficiently declared that this same Compulsion or Prohibition is not to be esteemed as anexpress or immediate part of Gods Law but only as a humane constitution to which while it remains in force and no longer we are in Conscience obliged to give obedience on account of the general Commands of God which require us to be subject to our lawful Governours Such a Compulsion or Prohibition as this is no manner of violation of Christian Liberty But he will prove that it is and that by the Authority of St. Paul For thus says he the Apostle teacheth 1 Cor. 6. 12. All things are lawful for me but I will not be brought under the power of any person or thing in matters indifferent But I say the Apostle does not thus teach And it is not only a most disingenuous but even an impious presumption in this bold man thus to falsifie the Text of St. Paul and to add unto the Word of God whatever his design therein may be The words of St. Paul in the place quoted are neither more nor less than these All things are lawful unto me but all things are not expedient All things are lawful for me but I will not be brought under the power of any Where it is evident from the following verse that he speaks only concerning the eating or forbearing of such Meats as some indeed scrupled out of weakness but which were not commanded or enjoined by any Law or Constitution either of God or Man And our Author could not but see that it was impossible so far to extend St. Paul's own words as to bring them in the least to countenance Disobedience to lawful Authority and therefore that he must either add to them or else not be able to produce so much as one Text of Scripture to prove that which with so much assurance he had asserted But if he has a power given him to make Scripture where he has it not ready to serve his purpose I must confess it will be hard to dispute with him Nor can he here pretend that he sets down the last words of the above mentioned quotation not as a part of St. Paul's Text but only as his own Paraphrase upon it For besides that in the Apostles own words there is no manner of foundation for the inserting of the word person the whole Sentence as I have above recited it is all a-like printed in the Italick Character and all of it equally referred to those foregoing words thus the Apostle teacheth which I think most plainly shews that it was our Author's design that the whole Sentence should pass upon his unwary Readers as if it were every Syllable taken out of the place from whence he has quoted it But I ought not thus to bind up my self from opportunity of using my Christian Liberty for the Spiritual good of another I Answer that where a humane Law is made concerning any thing which otherwise were indifferent Obedience ordinarily and generally ought to be given to that Law Nor ought any man to swerve from it to gratifie the humour of such as only resolve to be perverse and obstinate But where a case arises to which the intention of the law-makers either did not or ought not to have extended and where by acting otherwise than the Law prescribes some great good may be done or evil avoided or remedied If all even seeming contempt of Authority be meekly and prudently avoided and just occasion of scandal carefully prevented and obviated I for my part should no way condemn that man who upon such an emergency in such a manner and with such caution as this should act otherwise than the letter of the humane Law should prescribe In which opinion the generality of Learned Casuists that I have happened to look into do unanimously concur with me And therefore what presently follows is spoken without any other ground but his own fancy viz. that by such imposing and determining in matters indiffirent more is attributed to the positive precepts of Men than to the moral Laws of God For I challenge our Author to produce me but one man of any repute of the Established Church who ever maintained that obedience to our Ecclesiastical or to any humane Laws may not pro hic nunc be suspended to give way to a greater good as well as obedience to the positive moral Laws of God And as for making that a sin which God has made lawful by not forbidding it which is another of his objections I have already answered it And it is enough to say that God has not made it lawful to disobey lawful Authority in such things as are indifferent From what I have hitherto been discoursing upon this subject I think it may clearly be gathered that notwithstanding all that our Author has said to the contrary the obligation of maintaining our Christian Liberty is no farther
at all before he shall lye under any Obligation to give Obedience to it But Church-Governours says he are obliged to teach us to observe no more than what Christ Commanded them Mat. 28. 20. Acts 10. 33. I grant it But what can be more plain than that the Apostles who were the first Governors appointed by Christ to his Church did teach all men to observe the Lawful Commands of Lawful Authority And will our Author say that they had no Command from Christ for doing this But says he again they have no Power to impose things needless I answer that they who have the Power of making Laws ought not indeed to enact such Laws as impose things altogether useless to any good purpose Nor are there any of our Church Constitutions but what if they were duly respected and observed would tend very much to Order and Decency and also to keep out unnecessary Innovatious and therefore they cannot justly be termed needless things But if I should Judge them to be altogether needless Yet as long as they are innocent this would be no good Reason why I should refuse Obedience to them as well because I have no Warrant from Gods word for so doing as that the Government in their Wisdom may have very good reason for Commanding such things altho' it may be I am not able throughly to comprehend it And that such a modest compliance as this should be judged no less than a Conspiracy with Men usurping Power is such an imagination as no Man of Reason or Charity could ever entertain Well! But did not Paul withstand Peter to the Face in his imposing unnecessary things on the Jews Gal. 2. 11. But will this Man never make any Conscience of imposing not only impertinent but false Allegations of the Holy Scripture upon his unwary Reader S. Paul in the place mention'd did indeed withstand S. Peter But not on account of his Imposing any thing on the Jews of which there is not there the least shadow of a suggestion But purely for his Dissimulation in that by withdrawing and separating himself from the Gentiles for fear of them which were of the Circumcision he laid a stumbling Block before the Gentiles And tho' not by his Doctrine yet by his Example seemed to put a sort of Compulsion upon them to live as did the Jews to which no Law either of God or Man did oblige them And as to what he immediately Adds I grant with him that the Authority which the Lord hath given unto the Church is for Edification 2 Cor. 10. 8. To which I must tell him that a setled Decency and Order in the Circumstances of Worship does not a little conduce I grant also that where a Church ceases to follow Christ we ought not therein to follow that Church according to the Apostles Doctrine 1 Cor. 11. 1. But where the Church is careful to follow Christ in all manner of things that are nâ—cessary and therein to the utmost to promote the Edification of all her Members why it should be a Sin to Comply with that Church for Peace and Unity's sake in such things as are indifferent and therefore Lawful or why a Man should Renounce the Communion of such a Church on account of such things even in case they were needless I cannot in the least gather from either of those places And whereas he tells us that the Synod of Jerusilem Acts 15 thought fit to impose nothing but necessary things Verse 28. I desire to know in what Sense was the abstaining from Meats offered to Idols and from blood and from things strangled at that time necessary If they were absolutely necessary as essential parts of Gods Law how comes S. Paul to teach the lawfulness of eating that which had been offered to an Idol provided it were done without any Worship to the Idol or Scandal given to weak Brethren 1 Cor. chap 8. and chap 10. And how came our Saviour so expressly to assure us and in such general Terms that not that which goeth into the Mouth desilâ—th a Man Matt. 15. 11. But if they were in themselves indifferent and necessary only in order to reconcile the Jews who laid great Weight upon these things and to bring them to a more favourable opinion of the Gentile Christians which I believe our Author will not deny how can the Example of this Synod be alledged to Condemn and not rather to justifie the practise of the Established Church which has retained and kept up the use of some things in themselves likewise indifferent because they conceived them necessary and proper to reconcile those of the Church of Rome who by long custom had entertained a great respect for them and to beget in them a better opinion of the Reformation And lastly as to what he quotes out of my Lord Primate Bramhall's Vindication I freely grant that no man ought to suffer an Erroneous Opinion to be imposed upon him because as it is impossible for him to believe what he judges to be Erroneous so to prosess what he does not believe would be a lye and a sin But the consequence which he would suggest from a supposed parity between an Erroncous Opinion and an Indifferent and therefore innocent Ceremony or Circumstance is altogether weak and groundless The fourth main Proposition which I have insisted on in my Address is that since the Communion of our Church is lawful and innocent in it â—â—â— which I hope I have now abundantly proved against all that our Author â—â—s Objected to the contrary there cannot be any just reason why the Noncâ—â— sormists should refuse to join with us in it And altho' our Author nibbles a little aâ— some of those things which I have touched under this head of my Discourse yet since every thing which he there says is either not to the purpose or else proceeds upon a supposition that our Communion is not lawful and innocent in it self which clearly alters the state of the case and the contrary whereto I have hitherto been asserting against all his weak and trifling Objections I will not give either my self or the Reader the trouble of making any Remarks upon the particulars of what he offers on this occasion only as to that passage of Dr. Holden's which he cites out of my Lord Primate Bramhall p 113. I think it enough to say that altho' it may be less criminal for one National Church upon account of some doubtful Opinions or such 〈◊〉 things to refuse the Communion of such another Church the obligation of whose particular Laws or Canons can only extend to its own members than for subjects to disobey those Laws which are Enacted by their own lawful superiors and thereby to make a Schism in the very body of that National Church of which they are or ought to be members Yet since the obligation to Ecclesiastical Union and Communion is universal and extends unto all Christians and Churches whatsoever wherever there is any separation or
parts of Worship but only as the means way or manner of performing it provided that such imposing proceed from Lawful Authority I have already shewn not to be unlawful and have answered all our Author's pretences to the contrary Nor can I upon his assertion believe that such a submission for peace and unities sake is any way a giving up of our Christian Liberty until I see some good proof for it either expressly contained in or evidently consequent from God's Words of which I believe he would not have been so sparing if the Bible would have afforded him any Texts upon which to have grounded an Argument Or if our Liturgy be on this account an infringement of Christian Liberty not only all other Churches are guilty of the same but even the Directory it self which imposes some things in themselves indifferent cannot be excused from it Which passage of my Address he has thought sit to slip over with a very lame and imperfect Answer Thirdly To impose any indifferent things as Conditions of Communion if it were done either with an express declaration or any evident implication or supposition that no Communion could lawfully be kept up in or held with any Church whatsoever without the use of those things which were so imposed this indeed would be to impose such things as essential and necessary parts of Worship and Religion and consequently on the imposers part an unlawful attempt upon Christian Liberty But as I have shewn that this is none of our Churches case who expressly owns such her Constitutions to be alterable as just cause shall require and neither rejects the Communion nor condemns the Practice of any other Church which differs from her in such things as these So if the matter were even thus it self yet if any private Christian should for Peace and Unity so far comply with the Church as to submit to what she had required and practise what she had thus Prescribed but yet with an Express Declaration and open Protestation that he did this not out of any necessity which was supposed to be in the things themselves which he still asserted to be in their own Nature indifferent but only for peace sake and as far as in him lay to prevent all Schisms or Divisions I cannot see how such a Man as this could be condemned as therein guilty of any Sin or any way a betrayer of his Christian Liberty And if in this my Opinion I am perhaps mistaken I shall be very glad to be better informed provided it be done with Clear and Solid Arguments from plain Scripture and Reason and not with such perplexed and trisling Suggestions as we have hitherto met with from our Author But Fourthly Since as our Author grants p. 103 without Circumstances Worship cannot be performed and all outward Circumstances of Worship are not prescribed by God It must follow either that some outward Circumstances of Worship may be determined and appointed by Man or else the Worship of God cannot possibly be performed Suppose then that the Church appoints and determines some indifferent things as Circumstances in Gods Worship and requires them to be observed by all her Members And yet that some are so Obstinate and Refractory as that they will not submit to her Authority in these things What is to be done in such a Case as this must every particular Mâ—n be left to his liberty to introduce what Circumstances he pleases into the Worship of God according to his own Fancy or Inclination This would be the direct way to confound that Order and destroy that Decency for which the Apostle particularly provides 1 Cor. 14. 40 as I have said in my Address And to exclude the Directory as well as the Liturgy Or must the Church from time to time alter and new modell her Constitutions concerning the Circumstances of God Worship until matters are so setled as that every one may be pleased and fully satisfied This I confess were a most excellent way if the thing were at all practicable or possible to be performed But when it is considered that in such matters as relate to Order and Decency only we have not always a fixed and certain Rule as to particulars but Men have different Opinions of such things according to the difference of their Customs Tempers and Educations I believe it will be found a very hard and perhaps an impossible thing so to frame all the Circumstances of Divine Worship as that all sorts of Men how different soever in their Temper or Education shall be well pleased and satisfied with them And if this be not to be done then it may be if any Church should go about to make alterations in such things to please and gratifie some People they might hereby displease and disgust many others and so in the end do more hurt than good by such Alterations What then remains but that every Church in such things as these must act according to the best of her prudence And if men will still be refractory and not submit to such Constitutions as lawful Authority enjoins and are no way contrary to the Law or Word of God I would gladly know what other course is at last to be taken with them but to exclude them from the Communion of the Society who thus obstinately refuse to conform to the Rules and Orders of it And if our Author judges this to be an infringement of Christian Liberty I desire he would not only say it but also clearly and solidly prove it But Christ has freed us from all parts and parcels of Worship which are not of his own Institution He has so But what is this to those Ceremonies which I have plainly proved to be no parts or parcels but only Circumstances of Worship He has freed us also from all Conditions of Communion but those of his own Prescribing very right But then we must remember that one Condition of Communion which Christ prescribes unto us is to obey them that have the rule over us and submit our selves Heb. 13. 17. To be subject to the higher powers Rom. 13. 1. And to submit our selves to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake 1 Pet. 2. 13. And whosoever obstinately refuses to perform this condition is justly to be excluded from the Communion of the Church as a disobeyer of Christ's Commands Now the Question is Wherein and in what sort of things is this obedience and subjection to be shewn Not in things immediately or directly commanded by the Law of God For in such things as those our obedience is paid to God alone and not to our Earthly Superiours And the obligation is the same if my Inferiour informs me that such is the Will of God as if my Superiour lays his commands therein upon me Nor yet in such things as are contrary to God's Law For if our Superiours should command any thing of that nature we ought to obey God rather than man Acts 5. 29. It remains then that things