fact it is true that more may and sometimes is made the condition of Communion than is necessary And when it is so it usually becomes a temptation to more or less to run into Schism and it likewise furnisheth such with some pretence to draw Disciples to themselves who are ambitions of Heading a Party In which respects it may be matter of great Prudence in order to the Churches Peace and Unity to make no more than is necessary the condition of Communion But although more should be imposed as the condition of Communion than is necessary yet if it be not so much more as makes it sinful to hold Communion on those terms Then they must needs be guilty of the sin of Schism who separate upon account of such an imposition And the reason is because such a Schism is without sufficient cause or just ground which just ground is when one cannot do otherwise than separate without a necessity of sining Things may be ill imposed as when they are inadequate to their end and yet well observed by them on whom they are imposed as when not sinful in themselves and when by that means they and the Church suffer less in point of inconvenience and enjoy a greater benefit in preserving Peace in the Church than could be obtained in a way of opposition If we should allow a liberty much more if we hold it a duty for inferiours under Government to oppose and withstand the Commands of their Superiours as oft as they think they Command things inconvenient though they should think right so long as they do not Command things which they know to be unlawful for them to observe we should soon bring intolerable confusion into Church and Common-wealth into Families and all Communities of men where Government is exercised Inconveniencies in such cases must be yielded to rather than greater mischiefs drawn on us and on the Community by not yielding But you at least many of you think that it is an infringing of your Christian liberty for men to determine and impose upon you where God hath not determined and imposed and that in such cases it would be a betraying of that liberty should you not withstand such impositions To which I answer that thus far 't is true that when any thing is imposed by men under the notion of being commanded of God of Divine Institution or of necessity to Salvation which is not so as this would be a teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of men so a yielding to them so imposed would be a betraying of our Christian liberty and more than so it would be a betraying of the Prerogative of our Lord unto the usurpation of men and a making to our selves other Masters than Christ and our selves servants of men in the prohibited sense and all contrary to the express Doctrine of our Saviour and his Apostles But though this be the case in the Church of Rome in many things and in some respects among your selves also yet this is not the case touching the things in dispute between you and the Church of England The things imposed at which you most stick are not at all imposed under the notion of Divine right but only upon a prudential account being things mutable in their nature and alterable at the pleasure of them who impose them and are so declared in the Preface before the Book of Common Prayer So that your Conscience is not imposed upon to take the things themselves for any other than they are in their own nature things left undetermined by God one way or other But then there is a sense in which it is not true that our Christian liberty is unduly infringed by the imposition of men although we were at liberty to do or not to do the things enjoined us before such an imposition was laid upon us Our Christian liberty does not exempt us from the duty of obedience to our Superiors in things which in their own nature are but indifferent and out of such circumstances might be done or let alone The same Divine authority which enjoins us to call no man on Earth Master nor to be servants of men enjoins Children also to obey their Parents Servants their Masters Church-members their Spiritual Guides and Governours and Subjects their Princes and that in all things in which they shall not disobey God in doing contrary to his Commands So that when things indifferent or undetermined by God are imposed by our Governours Domestick Politick or Ecclesiastick only as their Commands our Christian liberty is no bar nor plea against them And whoever pretends that it is draws too near the wicked Gnosticks who pretended exemption from being commanded and governed by men by their being Christs freemen Against which abuse of Christian liberty St. Peter cautioned the Christians then For after he had exhorted them to submit themselves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake 1 Pet. 2.13 14. he presently adds in ver 16. as free and not using your liberty as a cloke of maliciousness not to pretend Christian liberty to cover their disaffection to Government as the Gnosticks did Our Christian liberty is so far from being a bar to our Obedience to our Governours in all things not otherwise ordered by God as that it is a great accommodation to us in yielding obedience to them without scruple of Conscience For when circumstances in the external administration of holy things are left so much undetermined by God as they are we are at the greater liberty to yield obedience to the prudential determinations of our Governours either one way or other so long as they do not determine any thing against what God hath determined In things even of this nature we are to be subject to our Governours for Conscience sake Rom. 13.5 that is out of Conscience to God who commands our obedience to our Governours but not out of Conscience to the things commanded by them as if by any inherent holiness in them our Consciences were ingaged unto them And here lies the difference between superstition and lawful obedience to authority In the Case of Superstition the act is done out of Conscience to the thing done as if sacred though but indifferent in its own nature But in the case of lawful obedience in indifferent things the same act is done out of Conscience to God not as commanding the thing but as commanding my obedience to him in all lawful things who commands me to do it and commands it under no other notion but as a thing indifferent in its own nature and not made sacred by any command or institution of God Let me say this further to you There is more of real Religion and true Christianity in thus obeying the lawful Commands of our Governours out of Conscience to God who would have it so than I fear is well considered and more of Irreligion Profaness and Hypocrisie in slighting Gods express command in this while we seem so very fearful and scrupulous to
of many Zech. 2.11 Many Nations shall be joined to the Lord in that day and shall be my people As the Nation of the Jews were Nationally Gods people and God was the God of Israel so here it 's foretold that many Nations nationally should be joined to him and be his people also and consequently he must be the God of those Nations in the same sense in which they are his people Thus far the matter is so evident that one would think that nothing but an inveterate prejudice and prepossession of a contrary opinion unduly taken up and an averseness to confess your selves to have been mistaken should hinder you from accepting of a conviction in this matter and of yielding up your judgments as conquered by the truth To proceed then yet farther If Nations professing the true Religion are in a more general sense Abrahams spiritual Seed and a people joined to the Lord so as to be his people Then it is as well the duty of the people of such Nations to associate and knit together in Christian Congregations for publick worship in the places where they reside as it was for the Primitive Christians who lived in Rome in Corinth in Cenchrea by Corinth c. to associate as they did in the same places for the same end and accordingly those Churches were called by the names of the places where they did reside And our Parochial distribution is no more a cause of quarrel than that was that the Church of Corinth and the Church at Cenchrea were distinct upon the only account that the members of each lived in distinct places And as the distribution of the whole Nation of Professors of Christianity into particular Parochial Assemblies best answers the Primitive pattern so it best answers the ends of Church association such as are the watching over conferring with admonishing exhorting and comforting one another and the assembling together for publick worship And when the Christians in a Nation are thus disposed of into Congregations in the places where they live weak and strong together it is no ways agreeable to primitive practice nor to the general ends of Church association nor to the common good of particular Churches or of the whole body of Christians in a Nation for the stronger the wiser the better the more spiritual in those Parish Churches to withdraw themselves from the more ignorant weak and carnal Christians residing in the same place with them into distinct and separate Communities so long as they can hold Communion with them without sinning in so doing This the Primitive Christians did not and if no such thing had been done in our Nation the Church of God amongst us would doubtless have been in no such bad circumstances as now it is As God hath placed in the natural body members some more necessary and useful than others to be helpful and serviceable to the meaner more helpless and less useful for the good of the whole body so it is in Ecclesiastical bodies God saith St. Paul hath tempered the body together having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked that there should be no Schism in the body 1 Cor. 12.24 25. That there should be no Schism in the body as to be sure there will and needs must when that part is most neglected which lacketh most care and pains and withdrawn from as if it were no part of the body This becomes a sore temptation to those who are despised to set against those who despise them and that again tempts them on the other side to oppose their opposers and so the breach grows wider and wider and spreads it self through the whole body of a Nation And as the withdrawing live coals from those that are but a little kindled is the way to put out the fire so is the withdrawing of the better Christians from the worse not in a way of Church Discipline but into distinct bodies the direct way to ruine the Church and to extinguish the life and heat of Religion in those places where this is practised I nothing doubt but that those who have taken this course let the provocation to it be what it will might have consulted the real and true interest of Religion in the main much better in another way This way savours too much of self-satisfaction and neglect of others to be of Christ who would have the strong to bear the infirmities of the weak and not to please themselves after his own example Rom. 15. New ways many times take much for a while which do not end so well at last Enquire for the old way and stand in the good way that in which the primitive Christians walked if ye would find rest and satisfaction in your own minds rest to your Souls And if it be matter of duty in it self and according to primitive practice for all Christian Professors in a Nation thus to unite in particular Congregations in the places where they reside and not to make any Schism after by one part withdrawing from the other into separate Communities so long as they can continue their Communion without a necessity of sinning Then if the Higher Powers in such a Nation do exercise their authority in commanding them to do this which is of it self their duty though they had not commanded it and do likewise forbid and restrain their making of Schisms by separating when they have no sufficient or warrantable cause to do it this cannot make it less their duty than it was of it self before and still would be were there no such Command or restraint from the Higher Powers No man sure can imagine that if Nero had used his authority in commanding the Primitive Christian Churches to do the same things which they were obliged to do though he had not commanded it as he did not that Nero's Command in that Case would have made it any whit less their duty but the more It is not unbecoming but very laudable no doubt for the Higher Powers to concern themselves and their authority in promoting the Christian Religion in their Dominions by taking order that God be publickly and solemnly worshipped by the Christians in the use of Gospel Ordinances That places for publick worship be provided for that end That Officers competently qualified be appointed to administer those Ordinances That fitting maintenance be appointed and provided them that they may attend that work without distraction That the people be required and commanded to attend the publick worship and that care be taken that they may not be disturbed in it and finally that Discipline be duly exercised for the purging of the Churches and for the keeping them pure Supposing the Higher Powers and the people of a Nation to be Christian the very light of nature and their love to the Religion they profess will dictate such things as these in the one to Command and the other to obey and to use all due means to prevent divisions amongst them as being most destructive
to all Communities of men and to the flourishing of Religion I do not find that in the Law of Moses there was any direction or command in particular that when that people should chuse them a King that he should use his authority in causing both Priests and people to do their Duty in the several parts of Gods Worship enjoined by Moses his Law any more than Kings now under the New Testament are in particular appointed and required to see that the Christians under them both Ministers and People do their duty in matters relating to Gods publick Worship And yet when Hezekiah for instance to restore Religion after a decay of it in his Dominions commanded the Priests and Levites to do the duty of their places according to the Law of Moses and with advice of the Princes summon'd the People of the Land to come and keep the Passover and the like in the Conclusion it is said thus of him Thus did Hezekiah throughout all Judah and wrought that which was right and good and true before the Lord his God and in every work which he began in the service of the house of God and in the Law and in the commandments to seek his God he did it with all his heart and prospered 2 Chro. 31.20 21. And if this and the like in other good Kings was highly acceptable to God as we see it was then we have little reason to think it should be displeasing to him when Kings now do any thing like it He is the minister of God to thee for good saith St. Paul Rom. 13.4 and so long as he promotes the publick good in things temporal or spiritual Civil or Ecclesiastical he is not out of his way If it were a thing so well pleasing to God for Abraham to command his Children and his great Houshold to keep the way of the Lord as that God himself applauded him for it Gen. 18.19 it cannot certainly be an offence to him for Kings to command their Subjects to do likewise It was no small blessing that God promised to the Church when he said that Kings should be their nursing Fathers and Queens their nursing mothers and it would be great ingratitude not to acknowledge it to be so when they use their power and authority not only to protect and incourage them in the profession of the Christian Religion but also in making provision as Nursing Fathers for their spiritual nourishment Isa 49. And the truth is the more the Higher Powers concern themselves in due ways to promote Religion in their Dominions the more usually it flourisheth as we see not only by examples in the Scriptures and other History but experience teacheth us that there is generally the least face of Religion in such places as have been most neglected in the publick provision I would advise those among you who are most tender in this point touching the Magistrates Power in matters of Religion to hear what is said in answer to a Question of this Nature by J. O. in some Sheets intituled Two Questions concerning the power of the supream Magistrate about Religion and the worship of God with one about Tythes proposed and resolved Whose words I know they will more regard than anothers The Question is Whether the Supream Magistrate in a Nation or Common-wealth of men professing the Religion of Jesus Christ may or ought to exert his power Legislative and Executive for the supportment preservation and furtherance of the profession of the faith and worship of God and whether he may and ought to forbid coerce or restrain such principles and practices as are contrary to them and destructive of them The Answer to which is managed under ten Heads of Arguments The affirmative saith he of both parts of this Question is proved 1. From the light and Law of Nature 2. From the Law of Nations 3. From Gods Institution in and by Laws positive upon Doctrines of faith and ways of worship of pure Revelation 4. From the example of all godly Magistrates accepted with God from the foundation of the World 5. From the promise of Gospel times 6. From the equity of Gospel rules 7. From the confession of all the Protestant Churches in the World 8. From the confession of those in particular who suffer in the World on account of the largeness of their Principles as to toleration and forbearance 9. From the spiritual sense of the generality of godly men in the World 10. From the pernicious consequences of the contrary assertion This was good Doctrine in 1659. And if upon apprehension and experience such Higher Powers do judge that all the Christian Ministers and People in their Dominions are never like to prove so wise and sober as not to abuse an absolute liberty by making different parties in the Church by chusing different ways of administration and if to prevent this and to preserve Peace and Unity in the Church as of great concernment for their edification and comfort and for the honour and reputation of the Christian Religion and for the better propagation of it they have thought it best to prescribe some method and form to be used by all it is to be seriously considered by you That if nothing in that method and form be enjoined you as a condition of Communion which is not sinful for you to submit to Then which is most eligible whether to separate or to submit to that method and form though it should not in your apprehension be so useful beneficial and grateful to you as a liberty for you and your Ministers would be to use what way you liked best If you say to separate is most eligible and fittest to be chosen in this case Then you must prove that which no man will ever I think be able to do to wit That it is lawful to break Churches to pieces upon the account only of some conveniencies you desire and inconveniencies which in your apprehension you suffer when otherwise you might lawfully and without defiling your selves with sin continue and maintain your Communion in those Churches to your own and their edification with whom you were united No doubt but the great differences that were on foot between the Judaising and Gentile Christians in the Apostles times did somewhat burden their Communion together in the same Church with some considerable inconvenience and so did the scandalous opinions and practices of many in the seven Churches of Asia and other Churches make the Communion which those had with them who had not defiled their garments the less pleasant and comfortable and in some respect burdensome to them But we hear nothing of separation and breaking of Churches in pieces upon that account nor of any encouragement given thereto by the Apostles but the quite contrary To bring this business down from above let us try it a little in your own Court Suppose the Higher Powers should not have concerned themselves in prescribing any Common form to be used in all particular
Apostle unless you could shew that those undetermined circumstances in the administration of holy things the use of which you scruple had been expresly forbidden by some Law of God the abrogation whereof you question which you will never be able to do And therefore this Text is altogether impertinently alledged to justifie you in your practice as many more have been If you say though these words whatsoever is not of faith is sin be brought to confirm a particular proposition yet they contain in themselves an universal one Admit this for I will not deny it yet they will not prove the contrary that whatsoever is of faith in this sense of faith is no sin that is it does not prove that whatsoever a man is perswaded is no sin is therefore no sin And if it does not prove this it will not prove that the act by which you make a Schism sinful in it self does not do any such thing though you are perswaded it does not Though a mans doubtfulness of the lawfulness of an action so long as the reasons of it preponderate and weigh down the reasons that tend to his satisfaction make it unlawful for him to do it under those circumstances yet this will not free him from sin in case he be in an error in being so perswaded but he remains guilty of that error and consequently is accessary also unto the evil that is caused thereby If mens ignorance and unresolvedness in what is their duty were a protection to them from sin-guiltiness though in error it would be an inducement to them to indulge themselves in their ignorance and irresolution But when a man does not know but that he is in such a dilemma as that he sins whether he act or forbear to act either in acting against his Conscience or in neglecting his duty through error of Conscience it will then awaken a man that desires to keep a good Conscience both towards God and towards men to use both diligence and impartiality in his enquiry after what is his duty indeed It is I think but needful upon this occasion to caution many among you against an affected scrupulosity I call that an affected scrupulosity when people love to be scrupulous about some things when they are far from it in other things wherein they have more reason to be scrupulous As when they are nice curious and squeamish about undetermined circumstances in forms of administration of holy things but do not at all or nothing so much scruple the laying waste the peace of the Church and the grieving and hurting others thereby nor to lay Government it self low nor to speak evil freely enough of them that differ from them and the like not to mention what is of more private concern That such things are abroad is too apparent to be denied but whence they proceed is not perhaps so easily perceived Only this is visible that persons scrupulousness about conforming to publick Orders hath obtained them among many the reputation of the stricter sort of professors And from thence it 's possible they may fansie themselves to be of more tender Consciences than others and think it may be a good sign of the truth of grace in them and upon that account and of being thought to be such by others they may affect such a scrupulosity But such as are thus unequal in their scrupling of things may do well to consider that such scrupulosity is a more sure sign of hypocrisie than of a tender Conscience or of the truth of grace in whomsoever it is found as symbolizing with the Pharisees who strained at gnats and yet could swallow Camels Whereas a tenderness of Conscience of the right kind will make a man as much afraid of erring on the right hand as on the left which temper is in Scripture given as the Character of a good man a man that turns not aside to the right hand nor to the left but is the upright man Though tenderness of Conscience is a right good thing if you understand thereby a fear of transgressing any known rule of duty in one thing as well as another in conjunction with a careful endeavour to know his rule in every thing yet scrupulosity which is a fear of offending in that which a man does not know is forbidden is not such a commendable thing as that men should be in love with it or indulge it in themselves but is rather proper to those who are superstitious than to the truly religious Because it proceeds generally from the false Doctrine of men and from a wrong notion of things rather than from the obscurity of the rule of duty I'ts no marvel if there be no end of scruples with them who believe that nothing can be done in faith especially in the external administration of Gods worship but what they can bring a Divine Command or Institution for there being none of them that so teach but practise otherwise as you may soon perceive if you try all particular circumstances in their worship or administration of holy things and must do so unless they will confine themselves to the very words of the Lords Prayer and to the form of words prescribed in baptism and the Lords Supper There are but two ways of knowing Gods mind concerning our duty Natural light and supernatural Revelation And whatever we are not confined to by Divine determination or restrained from by Divine prohibition in one of these ways we may securely and without any scruple do when we are thereunto called by Parents Masters Magistrates or Ecclesiastical Governours That which is not against us is for us in this case as our Saviour also said in another case The Rule of that which is our duty indeed is doubtless very plain and it would be a reproach to the wisdom and goodness of God to think otherwise He hath shewed thee O man what is good saith the Prophet It is mens additions to Gods word and their teaching that as commanded or forbidden by God which he hath not commanded and which he hath not forbidden that is the true cause of our distractions If men would but keep close to what God hath plainly determined and follow the reason of their Governours in other things which are undetermined and their own best reason where they are at liberty to do it there would be little room for mens scrupulosity or occasion of divisions in point of practice And yet this is nothing but what the Scripture calls for when it directs and enjoins Children to obey their Parents Servants their Masters Subjects their Princes and that in all things only in the Lord or wherein they are not countermanded by him Now concerning that other Position wherein is asserted That when that is imposed as a condition of Communion which ought not to be made a condition if Schism be occasioned thereby the guilt of it lies only on the imposers and not on them upon whom it is imposed I answer As to matter of