God in it self imperfect or defective then and not till then he may truly lay it to her charge that she requires these Ceremonies as a part of God's Worship But the Liturgy says he is a paâ—t of the Worship of God and these Ceremonies are a part of the Liturgy therefore c. I answer that the substance and purport of our Liturgy viz. Consession Prayer Thanksgiving c. are indeed parts of the Worship of God for without any one of them the Worship would be imperfect But the particular words in which these Devotions are there exprest and the concomitant Ceremonies which are prescribed to be used are not nor ever were by our Church esteemed as parts of Worship but only as the Modes Regulations and Method of it alterable in themselves by humane authority and variable in divers particular Churches without making thereby any alteration or variation in the substance of the Worship Altho' therefore our Author's proofs as he has managed them are but very lame yet because the thing is true I freelâ— grant that to require any thing as a part of God's Worship which he himself has not commanded is utterly unlawful But then it is most evident from what I have said that our Liturgy or Ceremonies are no way concerned herein Well but if they are not to be esteemed as parts yet he will prove that they are required as means of the Worship of God which is altogether as bad Let us therefore enquire into the sense and signification of this word also To explain this word means he adds p. 102 the word ways to it and tells us that our Liturgy and Ceremonies are reputed ways and means of the Worship of God Now the way of doing a thing always denotes not directly the action it self but the method and manner of performing it one and the same action for substance being often capable of being performed after divers ways or manners I agree with him therefore that our Liturgy and Ceremonies are to us as the Directory to him the way means or method of our publick Worship of God But yet the premisses out of which he infers this conclusion are so crude and confused that they are by no means to be admitted into discourse much less granted as truth until their meaning be distinctly cleared viz. because says he no solemn publick Worship can be performed nor Sacraments administred without them By which if he means that our Church has such an opinion of her Liturgy and Ceremonies as to think it impossible in it self rightly to Worship God or administer the Sacraments without them it is notoriously false But if he means no more than this namely that we judge that every man who is subject to the authority of the law of the Land is bound in Conscience always to perform the publick Worship of God and Celebration of the Sacraments according to that manner prescribed in our Liturgy this obligation arising not from the nature of the particular Forms and Ceremonies there enjoyned nor from any particular command of God appointing them but only from the general Law of God which requires Obedience to be paid to our lawful Superiors and from the Laws of the Land consequent thereto and therefore lasting no longer than such Laws of the Land shall remain in force If this I say be all he means we grant it and are ready to justifie our Judgment in this matter But here he presses me with a great absurdity as he thinks If all Ministers says he should refuse to say Common-Prayer or administer the Sacraments with all these Ceremonies then according to the Act of Vniformity it would be unlawful to Woship God publickly in this Kingdom Now if he would infer from hence that therefore our Liturgy ought to be abolished by the same reason it will follow that no Law whatsoever must any where be made for the Regulating the Worship of God or administration oâ— thâ— Saâ—raments For if â—ll Ministers should refuse to celebrate the publick Worship and administer the Sacraments according to that Law then according to that Law it would be unlawful to Worship God publickly in that Kingdom or Common-wealth where any such Law should be Enacted A consequence fit only for such wild Sectaries as would reject all rules of order and decency and follow their own extravagant fancies only in maettrs of Religion and the Worship of God But let us for once put this mad supposition with him that all Ministers should refuse to officiate according to our Liturgy What would be the consequence or what must be done in such a case I answer if such a refusal should proceed from wilfulness it would be a great sin in the Ministers that refused but if from want of information or due apprehension it would only be a sin of Ignorance and therefore more easily pardonable before God But in such an extraordinary case the necessity of things would probably put the Government upon some speedy Resolution either of providing other Ministers if all those lately in office should on a suddain lose their Wits or else of altering their Ecclesiastical Laws in condescension to the infirmity of their Ministers rather than the publick Worship of God and administration of the Sacraments should cease among them But because I call the Ceremonies prescribed by our Liturgy circumstances in the worship of God which he will not allow that they are it will not be amiss to explain what is meant by the word circumstance Whatsoever then is a means or concomitant of any action but no part of the action it self that I call and so I thing do all People a circumstance of it Thus for example To travel from Dublâ—n to Drogâ—eda is an action but to go either on foot or on horseback or in a coach to wear a cloak and bâ—â—â—◠〈…〉 wear them and the like are only circumstances of this Journey for a 〈◊〉 is said never the more or the less to travel whatever convenienciâ—s he 〈◊〉 have or want for the performance of his Journey Thus also to Worship God is an action but to perform this Service either by a Printed Form of Words or by no set Form at all to wear a black or a white garment to kneel or to stand at the time of doing it and such like things are no more but circumstances of this Worship because a man may truly and acceptably Worship God in any of these ways if the substance of his Worship be right and his heart be rightly disposed altho' for decency sake it is very sit that in a Congregation there should be some settled Uniformity in these things and an aggregate of these circumstances taken together is what is usually called the way of doing a thing Thus if it be asked which way I do not mean by what road but in what manner did such a man travel to Drogheda It may properly be answered he went on foot with a coat to keep him from the rain and cold
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
to be extended than as I had set the bounds and limits of it But what follows in the next Paragraph is designed to shew that allowing my notion of Christian Liberty to be just and good yet still our Ceremonies are destructive of it because they are made essential parts of Religion and necessary to Salvation which if he can but prove as clearly as he has confidently affirmed it then indeed and not otherwise he might have reason to say that my Answer is not sufficient to the Objection even as I my self had framed it Now here I must desire the Reader to take notice what a poor and disingenuous piece of Sophistry our Author endeavours to put upon the world To convince the Non-Conformists that our Ceremonies were no infringement of Christian Liberty I gave them to understand in my Address that our Church did not impose them as essential parts of Religion and necessary to Salvation In opposition to which he undertakes to prove that they are by us made essential parts of Religion and necessary to Salvation and therefore destructive of Christian Liberty But when he comes to produce his Arguments he cunningly conceals the main and fundamental part of the conclusion which he was to prove and as for the other part of it which was but an appendage to or superstructure upon the former he perverts and plainly alters the sense and meaning of it The fundamental part of the conclusion which he undertakes to prove is that our Ceremonies are by us made essential parts of Religion But in order to make this good he does not so much as offer the least word or syllable The other part is that we make them necessary to Salvation which indeed he attempts to prove but in a clear different sense from that in which I denied it My meaning was plainly this that our Church did not pretend that her Ceremonies were immediately derived from the essence of Religion or upon that account necessary to be observed which I grant would be an encroachment upon Christian Liberty But all that his Arguments can pretend to prove is that our Ceremonies being imposed by the Laws of the Church the use of them is esteemed necessary to Salvation not as being essential parts of Religion or so reputed by us but only as they are the matter wherein we ought to shew our conformity and obedience to the commands of lawful Authority In Answer therefore to all his Arguments at once I shall only tell him that obedience to the lawful commands of lawful Authority is one of those Duties which God has made necessary to Salvation And as far as any Ceremony is the matter of such obedience so far it is by consequence in its proper degree also necessary altho' it be no essential part of Religion Nor is there any thing herein which is any way destructiue of Christian Liberty But that which he should have proved was that we esteem our Ceremonies to be necessary to Salvation even antecedently to the commands of the Church and the Law That therefore our Author's Arguments which he here urges are all of them wide from the point in Controversie is as evident as may be But because in some of them he has a sly design not so much to prove what he had just before undertaken as to render the Established Church as black and odious as may be in the eyes of his Party It will be necessary before I proceed to wipe off that dirt which here he rakes together to throw at her In the first place then I must tell him that what I have hitherto read of his Book has not begot in me such an opinion of his veracity as upon his bare word to make me give credit to what he supposes viz. that the bare omission of Ceremonies tho' out of tenderness of Conscience is by us judged Schism Sedition and Rebellion and made worthy of Fining Imprisonment and Excommunication Nor have I any reason to think his good nature towards us to be so abundant as that he would have omitted to quote some passages of our Laws or Canons if any such there had been to make good this charge to the utmost which he thus aggravates against us That Consciences which are truly tender ought ever to be used with the greatest gentleness is the unanimous opinion of all sober and good men that ever I remember to have met with either of our own or any other of the Reformed Churches And altho' in the Letter of Humane Laws an exception or dispensation for tender Consciences is no way proper to be expressly inserted because every man being able to make this pretence and none but God who knows the hearts of men being able to confute it where it is falsely but craftily made this would be the way wholly to enervate the sanction and force of all such Laws and so to leave it at every mans pleasure whether he would observe them or not yet in the execution of them at least of all such as concern Religion and the Worship of God I freely grant that a due regard ought to be had to the invincible mistakes of all such as appear to be well-meaning men because it ought ever to be presumed that the intention of the Law-makers was not or ought not to have been that such sort of men as they should be severely dealt with And if any particular men have ever prest the Execution of our Ecclesiastical Laws beyond this Let them answer for themselves for I am sure I shall never appear in their defence But where there are most strong presumptions that it is not real tenderness of Conscience but some other principle which prompts a man not only himself to refuse obedience to lawful Authority but also to perswade as many as he can to join with him therein Where a man can without remorse or scuple break some of the most known Laws of God can confidently vent such slanders and calumnies as are not only contrary to charity but also to truth it self and can pervert and misquote not only the Writings of a Man but even the Word of God and yet all this while shall refuse to obey such commands of Authority as he cannot shew to be either expressly or by good consequence contrary to any Law or Command of God which I have plainly shewn to be our Authors case If such a Man as this shall yet plead the tenderness of his Conscience for refusing conformity to the Laws of the Land which yet it seems is tough enough to dispense with the violation of the above mentioned Laws of God I would gladly know whether such a plea and in such a case is to be admitted And if the penalty of the Law be not put in execution against a man who plainly appears to be of this temper I think he has more reason to thank the mildness of the Government than to attribute it to any justice which he may pretend to be on his side or