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
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
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
their complaint as he did without breaking the Unity of the Church or causing any Schism in it altho' I should think that there were no reason for their so complaining yet should I not â—erein accâ—se them as guilty of any sin But our Author tells us that if St. Austin had lived in some places of the world and complained of such a luâ—then there is a Canon called the tenth by which he had been Ipso faâ—â—â— shut out of the Church To which I Answer that neither are the wâ—â—â—â— Ipso fâ—cio upon which he lays such weight in the Tenth Canon of the Church of England nor is the Excommunication there threatned but upon a supposition that such a complaint is made and published for the abetting and justifying of such as make a Schism in the Church by taking to themselvâ—s the name of another Church not Established by Law which farther â—hews how disingenuous a man this is in quotations In the next place he demands how do I know that St. Ausâ—in did not separate But was ever such a Question askt Or is there the least intimation either in his own or any other of the Books of that Age that ever he did separate And if such a man as he had separated is it to be imagined that great notice would not have been taken of it Or lastly do I pretend to know positively that he did not separate or to say any more but that we never find that he did But our Author has a dilemma to prove St. Austin either to have separated or sinneâ— For if he refused to use those same Ceremonies of which he complained then he separated as well as the present Non-consormists but if he used them after his complaint of theâ—â— leâ—ng burthensome and too numerous it would be hard to excuse him from sin To this I Ansâ—er first that many Ceremonies in St. Austin's days being probably introduced by meer custom without any Law or Canon to establish and confirm them it was certainly lawful for him in his own Church and Diocess â—o reâ—râ—nâ—h the use of such Ceremonies as these as in prudence he might think sit because in strictness there lay no obligation upon him at all to make use of them But secondly if he had renounced and absolutely refused to communicate with any Christian Church whatsoever against which he had no other Objection but only that they required the use of some Ceremonies in the Worship of God which God had not commanded nor yet had any way forbidden altho' these Ceremonies might have been too numerous and upon that account troublesome yet iâ— he had no other jâ—sâ— plea to bring against them I cannot see how this alone could have justified him in breaking the Unity of the Church which every Christian is bâ—â—nd as far as in him lyes to preserve But that ever he did any thing like this does not in the least appear But Thirdly if St. Auslin for the sake of Peace and Unity was content to submit to the use of so many Ceremonies as in his opinion were too numerous and therefore burthensome I desire our Author to inform mâ— by what Law of God he can on this account be taxed or with any reason so much as suspected of sin â—â—â— tho' it is not lawful to do evil that â—â—â— may come Rom. 3. 8. Yet that â—â— shâ—uld bâ— any â—ay unlawful to do a thing which is not evil but only troublesome and uneasy when the â—â—â— a man has in doing it is really good is what no man I think of common sense will offer to say The last Objection of the Nonconformists which under this head I proposed in my Address was that Our Ceremonies are unnecessary and therefore ought not to be imposed To which I there returned a two fold Answer First That what some may think unnecessary others may judge Expedient Secondly supposing but not granting that our Governours were faulty in imposing some needless things upon us Yet that our Compliance even with such things for Peace and Unity's sake would rather be a Vertue than a Sin In return to which he tells me first that what I dâ—oiously suppose is a plain Truth and in effect conâ—est by us viz. That our Ceremonies are unnecessary because we declare them to be indisserent But will this Man never leave Trifling with the Ambiguity of Words If by unnecessary he mâ—ans not absolutely and perpetually necessary to Salvation I grant that every indifferent thing is in this Sense unnecessary But if by unnecessary he means altogether useless and insignificant to any good purpose I deny that what is in it's own nature indifferent is always thus to be judged unnecessary For there may be such Circumstances of things and Persons wherein such things may be Instruments and occasions of much good And accordingly it is very evident that the retaining of the use of some indifferent things in our Church did not a little contribute to the advancing of the Reformation amongst us and bringing over many thereto who otherwise would not probably have to easily forsaken Popery And I have already given my Reasons why it is not sit or proper as matters stand wholly now to lay all such things aside In the next place he tells me That he knows of no Command of Christ for complyâ—ng with Governours in their unnecessary impositions for the sake of Peace and Unity and therefore he will not own it to be a Vertue rather than a Sin I am sorry that he is so ignorant of the Laws of the Gospel But seriously has he never heard of a Command of Christ which the Apostle thus delivers to us If it be possible as much as lyeth in you live Peaceably with all Men Rom. 12. 18. If then a thing be otherwise never so unnecessary yet if it be possible and if no Law of God has forbidden it but that it lyeth in us and we are at liberty to do it we ought to comply with it if it be necessary in order to Peace Or has he never met with another Command which S. Paul thus sets down Rom. 13. 1. Iâ—â—t every Soul be subject to the higher Powers And S. Peter thus Submit your selves to every Ordinance of Man for the Lords sake 1 Pet. 2. 13. And to which there is no other exception made in the whole word of God but only this that we ought to obey God rather than Men Aâ—ts 5. 29. If then a thing be commanded by the higher Powers and Ordained by the Authority of those Men in whom the Legislature resides However unnecessary it may be thought to be yet still it is to be submitted to except it appears to be forbidden by some Law of Almighty God But our Author it seems would bring Government to a very Fine pass when he would make every private Man to be Judge not only whether the thing Commanded be agreeâ—ble to the Law of God but also whether there were any nâ—cessity for issuing such a Command