Service were many yet they were sufficiently describ'd in their Law and it was but consulting that or Those whose Office and Employment it was to be well versed in it and they might be presently inform'd and as soon see it as the Book was laid open This they all agreed in But it is not so under the Gospel and there is no greater proof of it than the several schemes drawn up for Discipline and Order by those that have been of that Opinion and made some attemps to discribe them And then when things are thus dark and obscure so hard to trace and discover that it has thus perplexed and baffled those that have made it their business to bring these things within Scripture Rules how perplexed must they be that are not skilled in it And as I have above shewed must all their Days live in the Communion it 's likely of no Church since though a Church should have nothing in it but what is prescribed yet it would take up a great deal of time to examine and more to be satisfied that all in it is prescribed 3. I shall consider How we may know what things are Indifferent in the Worship of God I may answer to this that we may know what is Indifferent in the Worship of God by the same Rule that we may know what is Indifferent out of Worship that is if the thing to be enquired after be neither required nor Forbidden For the Nature of Indifferency is always the same and what it is in one kind or instance it is in all and if the want of a Law to Require or Forbid doth make a thing Indifferent in Nature or Civil matters it doth also the same in Religious And in things Forbidden by Humane Authority the not being required in Scripture and in things required by Humane Authority the not being Forbidden in Scripture is a Rule we may safely determine the case and judg of the Lawfulness and Indifferency of things in Divine Worship by But I confess the Question requires a more parcicular Answer because things in their Nature Lawful and Indifferent may yet in their use and application become unlawful As it is in Civil cases and Secular matters to be Covered or Uncovered is a thing in it self Indifferent but to be Covered in the presence of such of our Betters as Custom and Law have made it our Duty to stand bare before would be unlawful and it would be no excuse for such an Omission and Contempt that the thing is in it self Indifferent And then much more will this hold where the case is of an higher Nature as it is in the Worship of God where things in themselves Indifferent may become Ridiculous Absurd and Profane and argue rather contempt of God than reverence for him in the Persons using them Again the things may though Grave and Pertinent yet be so numerous that they may obscure and oppress the Service and confound and distract the Mind that should attend to the Observation of them and so for one reason or another are not to be allowed in the Solemnities of Religion Therefore in Answer to the Question I shall add 1. That things Indifferent are so called from their general Nature and not as if in practice and use and all manner of cases they always were so and never unlawful for that they may be by Accident and Circumstance being lawful or unlawful expedient or inexpedient as they are used and applied 2. I observe that there are several Laws which things Indifferent do respect and that may be Required or Forbidden by one Law which is not Forbidden or Required by another and that may be Indifferent in one State which is Unlawful in another and by passing out of one into the other may cease to be Indifferent and therefore when we say things are Indifferent we must understand of what Rank they are and what Law they do respect As for example Humane Conversation and Religious Worship are different Ranks to which things are referred and therefore what may be Indifferent in Conversation may be unlawful in Worship Thus to Enterchange Discourse about Common Affairs is a thing lawful in it self and useful in its place but when practised in the Church and in the midst of Religious Solemnities is Criminal This distinction of Ranks and States of things is useful and necessary to be observed and which if observed would have prevented the objection made by some that if a Church or Authority may Command Indifferent things then they may require us to Pray Standing upon the head c. for that though Indifferent in another case is not in that as being unsutable to it 3. Therefore we must come to some Rules in Divine Worship by which we may know what things in their Nature Indifferent are therein also Indifferent and may be lawfully used It being not enough to plead they are Indifferent in themselves as some unwarily do and therefore presently they may be used For by the same reason a Person may Spit in anothers Face may keep on his Hat before the King c. the Spitting and being Covered being in their Nature Indifferent But now as there are certain Rules which we are to respect in Common and Civil Conversation and which even in that case do tye us up in the use of things otherwise Indifferent So it is as reasonable and must be much more allowed that there are some Rules of the like Nature which we must have a regard to in the Administration of Divine Worship And as in Common matters the Nature of the thing in Actions the end in Conversation the circumstances are to be heeded viz. Time Place Persons as when where before whom we are Covered or Uncovered c. So in Sacred matters the Nature of the thing in the Decency and Solemnity of the Worship the end for which it was appointed in the Edification of the Church and the Peace Glory Security of that in its Order are to be respected And according to these Rules and the circumstances of things are we to judg of the Indifferency Lawfulness or expediency of things used in the Service of God and as they do make for or against and do approach to or recede from these Characters so they are to be rejected or observed and the more or less esteemed But yet we are not come to a conclusion for 1. These are general Rules and so the particulars are nor so easily pointed to 2. Decency and Edification and Order are as was observed before Variable and Uncertain and depend upon Circumstances and so in their Nature not easily determined And 3. Persons have very different Opinions about what is Decent Edifying and Orderly as in the Apostles time in the Church of Rome some were for and others against the Observation of Days and in the Church of Corinth some doubtless were for being Covered others for being Uncovered in Divine Worship And therefore there is somewhat further requisite to give Satisfaction
one and the other If We state the case we say the Rules we are to guide our selves by are those of the Apostle of Decency Order and Edification And we trouble not our selves nicely to consider whether the Decency arise from the nature of the thing or from common usage or prescription or institution since we think that decency may arise from any and it matters not from what cause the thing proceeds nor how it came to be Decent when it 's now thought and found to be so And as little curious arewe about the first reasons of Order and Edification for we are so little speculative in matters of practice that we think the peace of the Church and Unity amongst Christians are much more fit to determine us in these cases than all the accuracy in Metaphysicks So that if a thing be found to be decent orderly and for Edification though we were assur'd it did Spring from Humane Institution we think it to be lawful and that Humane Institution cannot make that unlawful which is found by use and experience to be for Decency and Order Again we think that those things which in kind are necessary to Humane Acts in all cases and comely and grave in Worship as well as out of it may be appropriated to Worship and that the appropriation of Places Time and Habit to Worship doth not therefore make such Places Times and Habits unlawful to be used And if things indifferent in themselves are unlawful in Worship we conclude it must be when Divine Institution is pretended for what is Humane and when the things sute not the Nature or defeat the ends Case of indifferent things p. 24 c. of Divine Worship or for the like reasons which I in the controverted Tract did insist upon But now on the contrary by what may be Collected from him it appears to be the Sence of his position 1. That nothing of Humane Institution is to be admitted or may lawfully be used in Divine Worship For thus he saith they must be things necessary to all Humane Acts or convenient for them as Humane Acts or comely for all Humane Acts c. 2. That nothing though necessary or convenient or comely ought to be used in and much less be appropriated to the Worship of God for they are to be considered in Worship only as they have a reference to such Humane Acts. In the consideration of these I shall 1. Consider how he attempts to prove it 2. Endeavour to discover the mistake and vindicate the arguments and instances produced in the case of Indifferent things to the contrary from his Exceptions These are the chief things that all his discourse is founded upon and that are scattered through it But though they are rather supposed than proved by him and therefore to use his own Words I may lightly pass them over and expect till he hath justified them yet because I would make somewhat of it I shall collect from the Hints he gives what it is that he doth think may be said for them As for the first of these that nothing is to be used iâ— Prop. 1. Divine Worship that is meerly of Humane Institution his arguments are fetched from the Nature of thâ— things pleaded for them viz. Decency order edification As saith he 1. We cannot apprehend it in the power of Man tâ— Pag 11. Create a Decency The greatest Emperors wearing aâ— Antick Habit would not make it Decent till it coulâ— prescribe or had obtained a common consent This â— the rather mention because it is an argument much iâ— vogue amongst those that would artificially handlâ— this matter But here let me ask them what it is creates a Decency He saith the Law of Nature and prescription common consent and the guise of Countries But how began that Prescription whence arose that consent whether from chance or institution Or what is it whence iâ— ariseth if it be found to be decent Certainly if it began in one of these institution is the more noble of thâ— two and the less disputable And then it would be harâ— to conceive how that which came by chance should be sawful and that which came by Institution should be unlawful But 2. If Prescription and Common Consent and the Guise of Countreys be the measure of Decency may not these things also be the measure of it in the Church and in things relating to Divine Worship And is not the custom of the Churches of God a reason as sufficient to conclude us in this matter as the grave and Civil customs of a Nation Or 3. Is there any Church on this side Rome that by a Sic volo doth stamp a decency upon its Institutions without respect to prescription and the custom of Churches Or that can do it By his way of expressing himself he would make the Argument great as if to Create a Decency was an invasion of God's Prerogative We cannot apprehend it in the Power of man to Create a Decency The greatest Emperor c. But if a Decency arise from the Guise of Countrys and Prescription and Common Consent it might be questioned whether according to him God himself can then Create a Decency and by his authority make that to be at once which requires time and Custom as he saith to produce and form it So high doth the power of a little School-subtilty and Imagination sometimes transport men that their Arguments vanish out of fight and are lost to all those that converse with what is gross and tangible But supposing it is not in the power of man to Create a Decency yet Order may be Order without those dilatory reasons of Custom and Prescription and therefore what holds against establishing Decency by institution will not hinder but that order may be thereby established Therefore 2. He further argues from the Nature of Decency and Order that things of meer Humane Institution are not capable of that plea. We can understand saith he nothing Ibid. by orderly and according to order but without confusion By Decency we can understand nothing but what is opposed to sordidly nor can we think of any action that is not Decent if the contrary to it be not indecent So then nothing ought to be done in the Worship of God but what may be done without Confusion c. of which Nature can nothing be that is idle and superfluous c. I was at a great loss at first to find out the drift of all this but upon consideration I think it contains these things 1. That it is unlawful to ordain or use any thing superfluous in the Worship of God 2. That whatsoever is not for Order Decency and Edification is superfluous 3. That nothing is Decent if the contrary to it be not indecent It 's the last of these we are now concerned in which by the help of the great managers of this Argument may be better understood Ames 's Fresh Suit answer to Bp. Morton
the Ecclesiastical Laws A Humane Law grounded upon a Divine or to speak more properly a Divine Law modify'd or Clothed with several Circumstances of Mans Appointment doth Create another kind of Obligation upon every Subject than a Law that is purely Humane that is to say a Law the matter of which is neither Good nor Evil in it self but perfectly indifferent In the former Case we must yield Obedience to the Law as to the Law of God however it comes Clothed with Circumstances of Mans Appointment In the other Case we only yield Obedience as to the Command of Man and for no other reason than that God in general hath Obliged us to Obey our Superiors To make this a little plainer let us for Instance take the business of Paying Tribute and Custom in this Nation in which Case there is a Complication of a Divine Law with a Humane as it is in the Case we are now upon That every Subject should Pay Tribute to whom Tribute is due Custom to whom Custom is due is a Law of God as being a branch both of Natural and Christian Justice But out of what goods we should Pay Tribute or Custom or what Proportion of those Goods should be Paid this is not defined either by the Law of Nature or the Law of the Gospel but is left to the Determination of the Municipal Laws of every Kingdom But now because Humane Authority doth interpose in this Affair and settles what every Man is to Pay to the King and out of what Commodities doth it therefore follow that if a Man can by Fraud or Concealment detain the Kings Right from him that he incurs no other guilt for this but only the Transgressing of an Act of Parliament and the being Obnoxious to the Penalties in Case he be detected No certainly for all that the Customs in that manner and form be settled upon the King by Humane Law only yet the matter of that Law being a point of Natural Justice between Man and Man the Man that is thus Guilty ought to look upon himself as an Offender against the Divine Law as an unjust Person before God And his willingness to Submit to the Forfeiture of his Goods will not render him less unjust or more excuseable The Case is much the same as to the matter we have now before us It is not a meer Humane Law or Act of Parliament that Obligeth us to keep the Unity of the Church to bring our Châ—ldren to be made Christians by Baptisme to meet together at Solemn times for the Profession of our Faith for the Worshipping God for the Commemorating the Death of our Saviour in the Sacrament of his Supper All this is tyed upon us by the Laws of Christ These things are as much required of us by God as Christians as it is required that we should Pay the King and every Man what is due to them if we would not be dishonest unjust It is true that the particular Forms and Modes and Circumstances of doing these things are not Commanded nor Prescribed by the Laws of Christ in this Instance of Church Communion no more than they are prescribed by the Laws of God in the other Instance I gave But they are left intirely to the Prudence and Discretion of the Governours that God hath set over us in Ecclesiastical matters just as they are in the other But in the mean time these things thus Clothed by Humane Authority as to their Circumstances Yet being for the Matter of them bound upon us by Christ himself we can no more deny our Obedience to the Publick Laws about them than we can in the other Instance I have named And that Man may as well for Instance purge himself from the Imputation of Knavery before God that will contrive a way of his own for the Paying his just Debts contrary to what the Law of the Land hath declared to be Just and Honest As any Man can acquit himself from the Sin of Schism before God that will chuse a way of his own for the Publick Worship different from and in Opposition to what the Laws of the Church have prescribed always supposing that the Worship Established be Commanded by just Authority and there be nothing required in it as a Condition of Communion that is against the Laws of Jesus Christ The Sum of all this is that it is every Mans Duty by the Laws of Christ as well as the Laws of Man to Worship God in the way of the Church so long as there is nothing required in that Worship that can justly offend the Conscience of a Wise and Good Christian And therefore there is more in departing from the Communion of the Church when we can Lawfully hold it than meerly the Violation of a Statute or a Humane Law for we cannot do it without breaking the Law of God Nay so much is it against the Law of God to do this that I think no Authority upon Earth can warrant it So that even if there was a Law made which should Ordain that wilful causless Separation from the Established Church should be allowed and tolerated and no Man should be called to an Account for it Yet nevertheless such a Separation would still be a Schism would still be a Sin against God for no Humane Law can make that Lawful which Gods Law hath forbid There now only remains our last general Head about Conscience to be spoken to and then we have done with our Preliminary Points And that is concerning the Authority of Conscience or how far a Man is Obliged to follow or be guided by his Conscience in his Actions When we speak of the Obligation of Conscience or of being bound in Conscience to do or not to do an Action it sufficiently appears from what hath been said that we can mean no more by these Phrases than this that we are convinced in our Judgment that it is our Duty to do this or the other Action because we believe that God hath Commanded it Or we are perswaded in our Judgment that we ought to forbear this or the other Action because we believe that God hath forbidden it This now being that which we mean by the Obligation of Conscience here we come to inquire how far this Perswasion or Judgment of ours concerning what is our Duty and what is Sinful hath Authority over us how far it doth Oblige us to Act or not Act according to it Now in Order to the resolving of this we must take Notice that our Judgment concernâ—ng what God hath Commanded or Forbidden or left Indifferent is either true or false We either make a right Judgment of our Duty or we make a wrong one In the former Case we call our Judgment a Right Conscience in the latter we call it an Erroneous Conscience As for those Cases where we doubt and hesitate and know not well how to make any Judgment at all which is that we call a Doubting Conscience but indeed
from thence on supposition you can make good proof of it It is plain your design in all this talk is to justifie if not a total yet a partial Separation You do indeed to conceal nothing of your Candour after all acknowledge * * * p. 7. That you are very far from thinking that there are not multitudes of Holy and Learned men in our Ecclesia Loquens that in these things are of another mind And therefore I hope you will not excuse Separation from their Churches Nay you say †††p. 9. That hundreds of the Speaking Church are as we believe as far from symbolizing with the Church of Rome you mean in Doctrine as the Articles And that in this thing a Separation from the Silent as well as this part of the Speaking Church must needs be highly Sinfull And in thus declaring you condemn the generality of those that Separate it being well known that Communion with those whom you will acknowledge to be Orthodox Divines and those which you account Heterodox is much alike boggled at But I fear when all is done you condemn onely separation in Heart from these Orthodox men your Undertaking in your 8th Page makes me fear this viz. That all the Valuable persons in Presbyterian and Independent Congregations shall give any reasonable assurance that they are not in Heart divided from a Single Person in the Church of England that speaketh in matters concerning Doctrine as our Church doth in her Articles But if you think that all the Communion you are obliged to hold with these Divâ—nes is onely that of the Heart that is thinking them Orthodox and loving them as such but allow it to be lawfull to refuse to worship God with them nay and not so much as to hear them we thank you for nothing This is such Church Communion as will well consist with rending and tearing the Church in pieces But I pray do not think that all this while I take it for granted that 't is lawfull to separate from the Congregations of those Divines whom we take to be in some points Heterodox Nay upon supposition that your Ecclesia Loquens did as generally depart from the Doctrine of our Church as the Pharisees in our Saviour's time did from the Law of Moses I shall be far from granting that Separation from their Congregations is lawfull except there be a constraint laid upon us to subscribe to their Heterodox Opinions till you can prove that our Saviour allowed of the Jews Separation from the Pharisees which you never can but the contrary who cannot shew He bad his Disciples indeed to beware of the Leaven of the Pharisees and so are we to beware of the Leaven of such Heterodox Teachers but not so to beware of it as not to come within their Churches for that that caution of our Saviour is not to be so interpreted appears not onely from his own practice who was far from being a Separatist from the Jewish Temple or Synagogues and by what he saith Mat. 23. 2 3. In the last Paragraph of your 9th Page you return to speak more directly to our Author And first you reflect upon these words in his Book p. 24. But I am so far from taking it for granted that a Church is guilty of Sin in agreeing in some indifferent things with the Church of Rome that I must needs profess I have often wondered how this should become a Question Seeing whatsoever is of an indifferent nature as it is not commanded so neither is it forbidden by any Moral or Positive Law and where there is no Law there is no Transgression c. To this you say that it is an obvious begging the Question And it might be so if our Author stopt here but he thus proceeds And whereas certain circumstances will make things that in themselves are neither Duties nor Sins to be either Duties or Sins and to fall by Consequence under some Divine Command or Prohibition I have admired how this Circumstance of an indifferent thing 's being used by the Church of Rome can be thought to alter the nature of that thing and make it cease to be indifferent and become sinfull So that this is the Obvious meaning of our Author's words that he hath wondered how it should become a Question whether a Church may lawfully agree in some things with the Church of Rome which the Law of God hath not forbidden And whereas some things that are not forbidden by the Law of God directly are notwithstanding forbidden thereby Consequentially he hath admired how the mere Circumstance of a thing 's being practised by the Church of Rome can speak it to be forbidden by God's Law Consequentially And then he immediately betakes himself to the consideration of some of those Laws given to the Israelites that prohibit their imitating the Doings of the Egyptians and Canaanites which are urged by Nonconformists to prove it unlawfull to imitate the Church of Rome in things of a mere indifferent nature and that that circumstance of their being practised by that Church makes them cease to be indifferent and to become Sinfull And endeavours to shew that this cannot with any shew of reason be gathered from these Laws And how I pray is this an Obvious begging of the Question which is Whether a Church's symbolizing or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome be a warrant for separatian from the Church so agreeing This I say is the Question which our Author handles But you next make a Question for him and say it is this * * * p. 10. Whether a thing in its own nature indifferent be still indifferent as to Christians use in God's worship when it hath been once used in Idolatrous Services if the use of it be neither Naturally necessary to the worship of God as it is an humane Act nor suitable to the Ends of it nor such without which it cannot in common judgment be decently performed But our Author much more wonders how this should become a Question than how that of his own propounding should For First There are three apparent Contradictions in it It being a contradiction to say concerning the same thing that it is in its own nature indifferent and yet naturally necessary to the Worship of God as it is an humane Act. It being so too to say of the same thing that 't is in its own nature indifferent and yet Vnsuitable to the Ends of Divine Worship It being a contradiction again to say of the same thing that 't is in its own nature indifferent and yet such as without which the Worship of God cannot in common judgment be decently performed For you must mean by things in their own nature indifferent things that are so in Divine Worship for otherwise you trifle egregiously in putting this Question or make your Nonconformists so to doe for whom you put it But you abuse them if you do so for that which divers of them do
of Christ and no member of his Body which is the Church 4. That no Church-state can depend upon human Contracts and Covenants for then a Church would be a human Creature and a human Constitution whereas a Church can be founded only upon a Divine Covenant It is true no man who is at age can be admitted to Baptism till he profess his Faith in Christ and voluntarily undertake the Baptismal Vow but the Independent Church-Covenant betwixt Pastor and People is of a very different Nature from this unless any man will say that the voluntary contract and Covenant which the Independents exact from their members and wherein they place a Church-state be part of the Baptismal Vow If it be not then they found the Church upon a human Covenant for Christ hath made but one Covenant with Mankind which is contained in the Vow of Baptism If it be then no Man is a Christian but an Independent and then they would do well to shew how the Baptismal Vow which is but one and the same for all Mankind determines one Man to be a fixt member of Dr. Owens Church another of Mr. Griffiths or any other Independent Pastors and if they could get over this difficulty there is another still why they exact this Church-Covenant of Baptized Christians before they will admit them to their Communion if Baptism makes them members of their Church This I think makes it plain that the Independent Church-Covenant is no part of the Baptismal Vow and then it is no part of the Christian Covenant and if there be no true Church-state but what depends on such human Contracts then the Church owes its being to the will of Men not to the Covenant of God 5. I observe farther how absurd it is to gather Churches out of Churches which already consist of Baptized Christians Christianity indeed separates us from the rest of the World but surely it does not separate Christians from each other The Apostles only undertook to Convert Jews and Heathens to the Christian Faith and to make them members of the Christian Church which is a state of separation from the World but these Men Convert Christians from Common Christianity and the Communion of the universal Church to Independency If the Church be founded on a divine Covenant we know no Church but what all Christians are made members of by Baptism which is the universal Church the one Body and Spouse of Christ And to argue from the Apostles gathering Churches from among Jews and Heathens to prove the gathering Churches out of a Christian and National Church must either conclude that a Church and Church-state is a very indifferent and Arbitrary thing and that Men may be very good Christians and in a safe condition without it or that Baptized Christians who are not members of a particular Independent Church are no better than Jews and Heathens that is that Baptism it self though a Divine Sacrament and Seal of the Covenant is of no value till it be confirmed and ratified by a human Independent Covenant 6. I observe that if the Christian Church be founded on a Divine Covenant on that new Covenant which God hath made with Mankind in Christ then there is but one Church of which all Christians are members as there is but one Covenant into which we are all admitted by Baptism For the Church and the Covenant must be of an equal extent There can be but one Church founded upon one Covenant and all who have an interest in the same Covenant are members of the same Church And therefore tho the distance of place and the necessities and conveniences of Worship and Discipline may and has divided the Church into several parts and members and particular Churches yet the Church cannot be divided into two or more distinct and separate Churches for that destroys the unity of the Church and unless they could divide the Covenant also two Churches which are not members of each other cannot partake in the same Covenant but the guilty Divider forfeits his interest in the Covenant without a new grant A Prince indeed may grant the same Charter to several distinct Cities and Corporations but then tho the matter of the Charter be the same their right to it depends upon distinct Grants But if he grant a Charter for the Erecting of such a Corporation and confine his Charter to the members of that Corporation those who wilfully separate themselves from this Corporation to which this Charter was granted forfeit their interest in the Charter and must not think to Erect a new distinct Corporation by the same Charter Thus it is here God hath made a Covenant oâ— grace with Mankind in Christ and declares that by this one Covenant he unites all the Disciples of Christ into one Body and Christian Church who shall all partake of the Blessings of this Covenant By Baptism we are all received into this Covenant and admitted members of this one Church now while we continue in the Unity of this Body it is evident that we have a right to all the Blessings of the Covenant which are promised to this Body and to every member of it But if we divide our selves from this Body and set up distinct and separate Societies which we call Churches but which are not members nor live in Communion with the one Catholick Church we cannot carry our Right and Title to the Covenant out of the Church with us The Gospel-Covenant is the common Charter of the Christian-Church and if we are not contented to enjoy these Blessings in common with other Christians we must be contented to go without them For it is not a particular Covenant which God makes with particular Separate Churches but a general Covenant made with the whole Body of Christians as United in one Communion and therefore that which no particular Church has any interest in but as it is a member of the universal Church God hath not made any Covenant in particular with the Church of Geneva of France or England but with the one Body and Church of Christ all the World over and therefore the only thing that can give us in particular a right to the Blessings of the Covenant is that we observe the conditions of this Covenant and live in Unity and Communion with all true Christian Churches in the World which makes us members of the Catholick Church to whom the Promises are made Secondly The next thing to be explained is what is meant by Church-Communion Now Church-Communion signifies no more then Church-Fellowship and Society and to be in Communion with the Church is to be a member of the Church and this is called Communion because all Church members have a common right to Church Priviledges and a common Obligation to all those Duties and Offices which a Church relation Exacts from them I know this word Communion is commonly used to signifie a Personal and presential Communion in Religious Offices as when Men pray and hear and receive
in that place and where I am only occasionally there I can only Communicate occasionally also But to meet with the distempers of this Age and to remove those Apologies some Men make for their Schism it is necessary to make this a question For in this divided state of the Church there are a great many among us who think they cannot maintain constant Communion with the Church of England as constant and fixt Members who yet upon some occasions think they may Communicate with us in all parts of Worship and Actually do so Now when these Men who are fixt Members as they call it of Separate Churches think fit sometimes to Communicate in all parts of Worship with the Church of England we charitably suppose that Men who pretend to so much tenderness of Conscience and care of their Souls will do nothing not so much as once which they believe or suspect to be sinful at the time when they do it and therefore we conclude that those who Communicate occasionally with the Church of England do thereby declare that they believe there is nothing sinful in our Communion and we thank them for this good opinion they express of our Church and earnestly desire to know how they can justifie their ordinary Separation from such a Church as requires no sinful terms of Communion If any thing less than sinful terms of Communion can justifie a Separation then there can be no end of Separations and Catholick-Communion is an Impossible and Impracticable notion that is the Church of Christ neither is one Body nor ever can be For if Men are not bound to Communicate with a Church which observes our Saviours Insttutions without any such corrupt mixtures as make its Communion sinful then there is no bounds to be set to the Fancies of Men but they may new model Churches and divide and subdivide without any end Is that a sound and Orthodox part of the Catholick-Church which has nothing sinful in its Communion If it be not Pray what is it that makes any Church Sound and Orthodox If it be upon what account is it Lawful to Separate from a Sound and Orthodox Church And may we not by the same reason Separate from the whole Catholick Church as from any Sound part of it Nay does not that Man Separate from the whole Catholick Church who Separates from any Sound part of it For the Communion of the Church is but one and he that divides and breaks this union Separates himself from the whole Body Excepting the Independency of Churches which I have proved above to be Schism in the very notion of it the great Pleas for Separation from a Church which has nothing sinful in its Communion are the pretence of greater Edification and purer Ordinances But these are such Pleas as must expose the Church to Eternal Schisms because there are no certain Rules to judge of these matters but the various and uncertain fancies of Men. What they like best that shall be most for their Edification and these shall be purer Ordinances and till Men can agree these matters among themselves which they are never likely to do till they can all agree in the same Diet or in their judgment and opinion about beauty decency fitness convenience they may and will divide without end and if the Peace and Unity of the Church be so necessary a duty it is certain these Principles which are so destructive to Peace and Unity must be false as to consider these things particularly but very briefly What purer Administrations and Ordinances would Men have than those of our Saviours own Institution without any Corrupt and sinful mixtures to spoil their vertue and efficacy as we suppose is acknowledged by those who occasionally Communicate in all parts of our Worship that there is nothing sinful in it the purity of divine Administrations must consist in their agreement with the Institution that there is neither any such defect or addition as alters their Nature and destroys their Vertue For the Efficacy of Gospel Ordinances depends upon their Institution not upon particular modes of Administration which are not expresly Commanded in the Gospel and he who desires greater purity of Ordinances than their conformity to their Institution who thinks that Baptism and the Lords Supper lose their Efficacy unless they be administred in that way which they themselves best like are guilty of gross Superstition and attribute the vertue of Sacraments to the manner of their administration not to their Divine Institution And what Men talk of greater Edification is generally as little understood as the other for Edification is building up and is applied to the Church considered as Gods House and Temple and it is an odd way of building up the Temple of God by dividing and Separating the parts of it from each other This one thing well considered viz. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Edification or Building according to the Scripture notion of it does always primarily refer to or at least include Church-unity and Communion is sufficient to convince any Man what an ill way it is to seek for greater Edification in breaking the Communion of the Church by Schism and Separation and therefore I shall make it plainly appear that this is the true Scripture notion of Edification and to that end shall consider the most material places where this word is used Now the most proper signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which our Translators render by Edification is a House or Building and this is the proper Sense wherein it belongs to the Christian Church Ye are Gods Husbandry ye are Gods Building that is the Church is 1 Cor. 3. 9. Gods House or Building 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus the same Apostle tells us that in Christ the whole Building Eph. 2. 21. i. e. the whole Christian Church fitly framed together groweth unto an holy Temple in the Lord. Matth. 21. 42. Hence the Governours of the Church are called Builders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Apostles are called Labourers Acts 4. 11. together with God in erecting this Spiritual Building and St. Paul calls himself a Master Builder Hence 1 Cor. 3. 9. the increase growth and advances towards perfection 10. in the Church is called the Building or Edification of it For this reason St. Paul commends Prophesie or Expounding the Scriptures before speaking in unknown Tongues without an Interpreter because 1 Cor. 14. 5. by this the Church receives Building or Edification All these Spiritual gifts which were bestowed v. 12. on the Christians were for the Building and Edifying of the Church The Apostolical power in Church censures was for Edification not for Destruction 2 Cor. 10. 8. 12. 19. 13. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Build and not to pull down that is to preserve the Unity of the Church intire and its Communion pure And we may observe that this Edification is primarily applied to the Church That the Church
to obey him in it and though such a Bishop should do any Schismatical Act the Church is not Schismatical because he did not pursue the Laws of the Church in what he did but gratified his own Humour and Passion If the Church indeed Unites upon Schismatical Principles as the Novatians and Donatists did whatever the Bishops do in pursuance of such Principles is the Act of the Church and if the Bishops be Schismaticks the Church is so too but when there is nothing Schismatical in the Constitution of the Church the personal Schism of Bishops cannot make their Churches Schismatical And though the Primitive Churches before the Empire turned Christian had not such a Firm and Legal Constitution as the Church of England now has yet a Constitution they had which consisted either of Apostolical Rules handed down by Tradition and confirmed by long custom and usage or the Canons of particular Councils which in ordinary cases made standing Laws of Discipline and Government and in extraordinary cases provided for new Emergent difficulties and antecedently to all these positive Constitutions they were all under the obligation of that great Law of Catholick Communion So that the Government of the Church since the Apostles days was never so intirely in the Bishops Breast that what he did should be thought the Act of the Church any farther than as he complied with those Laws by which the Church was to be Governed and therefore there was reason in those days to distinguish between the Act of the Bishop and the Act of the Church As to shew you this particularly in the case before us The Church of Rome from the time of the Apostles had observed Easter on the day of the Resurrection which is the first day of the week or the Lords day the Asian Churches on the 14th day of the Month and therefore the Bishop of Rome according to the Laws of that Church might require all the Members of his Church to observe Easter according to the usage of the Church of Rome and might regularly inflict Church-Censures upon the obstinate and refractory and this would be accounted the Act of the Church because it was in pursuance of the Laws and Constitutions of it But there was no Canon nor Custom in the Church of Rome to deny Communion to Foreign Churches who observed their own Customs in this matter and would not conform to the Custom of the Church of Rome Nay there was the Practise and Example of Former Times against it for Anicetus Bishop of Rome received Polycarp an Asian Bishop to Communion though they could not agree about this matter And therefore when Victor Schismatically Excommunicated the Asian Churches for this different observation of Easter it was his Personal Act not the Act of the Church of Rome which had no such Law and owned no such Custom and therefore though this might make Pope Victor a Schismatick it could not make the Church of Rome Schismatical the guilt went no farther than Victors Person unless other Persons voluntarily made themselves guilty by abetting and espousing the Quarrel So that had Victor persisted in his Excommunication of the Asiatick Churches none had been guilty of Schism but himself and such as approved and consented to it but the Body of the Clergy and People who had not consented unto it had been Innocent and therefore any Catholick peaceable Christian who lived in Rome in those Days might have Communicated with the Church of Rome without Schism The like may be said of the Quarrels and Controversies of particular Bishops which have sometimes ended in formal Schisms and denouncing Excommunication against each other which cannot make their Churches Schismatical any further than they take part with their respective Bishops For this is rather a Personal Schism and Separation than a Church Schism neither of them Separate from the Communion of the Church under the Notion of such a Church though they Separate from each others Communion upon some personal Quarrels This was the Case of St. Chrysostom and Epiphanius and some other Bishops in those days which were Catholick Bishops and maintained Communion with the Catholick Church but yet Separated from each other which is a very great fault as all Contentions and Divisions in the Church are but has not the Evil and Destructive Nature of a Church Schism But you will say can we Communicate with a Church without Communicating with its Bishop or can we Communicate with a Schismatical Bishop without Communicating in his Schism I Answer Yes we may Communicate with a Schismatical Bishop without Communicating in his Schism When Schism is his personal fault our Communion with him makes us no more guilty of it than of any other Personal fault our Bishop is guilty of While we take care to Communicate with him in no Schismatical Act no Man is bound to forsake the Communion of the Church for the Personal faults of his Bishop So that the Roman Christians might Communicate with the Church of Rome without Schism notwithstanding Pope Victors Schismatical Excommunication of the Asian Churches And now the only difficulty that remains is whether the Christians of Rome might have Communicated with the Asiatick Churches notwithstanding Victor had Excommunicated them for if they could not then they must inevitably partake in Victors Schism if his sentence obliged them to deny Communion to the Asian Churches And in answer to this we may consider 2. That those who Condemned the Excommunication of the Asian Churches did in so doing own their Communion which is one way and the Principal way of maintaining Communion between Churches at a Distance who cannot actually Communicate with each other 3. That Victor being the Bishop of Rome who had the supreme Authority of receiving in or shutting out of the Communion of that Church if any Persons of the Asian Communion had come to Rome private Christians could not receive them into the Communion of the Church without the Bishops Authority and therefore could not actually Communicate with them in the publick Offices of Religion though they owned their Communion but this is no more their fault than the Excommunication of the Asian Churches was they Communicate with their own Church and would be very glad that the Asians that are among them might be received into Communion but they have no Authority to do it and therefore the fault is not theirs for this is not to Renounce the Communion of the Asian Christians but is only a forc't Suspension of Communion 4. If the Christians of Rome should Travel into Asia I doubt not but that they might very lawfully Communicate with the Asian Churches notwithstanding they were Excommunicated by the Bishop of Rome For the Bishop of Rome had no just cause to Excommunicate the Bishops and Churches of Asia and therefore the Sentence is void of it self and the Roman Christians when they are in Asia are not under the Authority and Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome and therefore must not forbear
Religion but make nothing at all of his Priesthood and Sacrifice If Christ be our great High Priest and we must hope for Salvation only in vertue of his Sacrifice There must be some way appointed to apply his Merits and Salvation to us and this will convince us of the necessity of Church-Communion and a visible Confederation by Sacraments See Vindic. of the Def. cap. 3. of divine appointment But if Christ came only as a great Prophet to instruct us more perfectly in the Rules of Vertue and to give us more certain Hopes of a future State there can be no more necessity of a Church now than there was in a State of Nature Christians may associate if they please for Acts of publick worship and they may break Company when they please without any danger and the Evangelical Sacraments can be only significant Ceremonies which may be used or let alone as every one likes best At this Rate you every where discourse and I believe so well of our Dissenters that though they would be glad to be excused from the guilt of Schism yet they will not thank you for excusing them upon such Principles as tend to undermine Christianity and I believe so well of you that though you affect to talk in the modish way yet you do not understand whither it tends and I hope this timely Caution may prevent your embracing those Principles whereon your Conclusions are Naturally Built Another thing I would warn you of is that these loose Principles of Church-Communion do not tempt you to Schism and State-Factions which usually go together You pretend indeed to be in constant Communion with the Church of England but according to the Principles of your Letters no Church in the World can have any hold of you every Man is a Communicant at his own pleasure who thinks he may part without Sin And it is much to be suspected that no Man who is a hearty lover of the Church of England can make such a Zealous Defence for Dissenters who has not some private reasons for his Zeal and when Men are not Endeared to each other by one Communion it is to be feared they are linked together by some other Common Interest Now should you prove a Schismatick to say no worse it will not excuse you how many Fine Questions soever you can ask about it And that which will greatly endanger you is that great Opinion you have of your self for some men are so wanton as to espouse a Schism or Faction only to shew their Wit in Defending it and to make themselves considerable by espousing a Party I will not so much wrong you as to say that you have shewn any great Wit or Judgment in this Cause but it is evident to every impartial Man who reads your Letters that you have betrayed too great a conceit of both and that is a great deal the more dangerous of the two for true Wit and Judgment will secure Men from those mischiefs which a vain conceit of it betrays them to And now Sir all that I shall add concerns your way of Writing which neither becomes a wise Man nor a fair Disputant you have not offered any Argument to disprove any one thing I have said you have no where shewn the weakness of my Arguments to prove what I undertook but have at all Adventures askt a great many Questions and generally nothing to the purpose Now it had been easie to have askt you as many cross Questions which had been as good an Answer to your Questions as your Questions are to my Discourse and thus People might have gazed on us and have been never the wiser For to raise a great many difficulties onely tends to Scepticism and will never end a Dispute I am loth to mind you of the Proverb because I do not think the application belongs to you but yet it should make any Man of Wit ashamed of such Methods of Dispute wherein he may be out-done by a Man of no Wit I confess I have with some regret stole time from better Employment to answer your Letters but do not think my self bound to do so as often as you think fit to give a publick Challenge This Controversie if you had pleased might have been ended more privately which had been less trouble to me though it may be you thought it might have been less glorious to your self which I presume was your reason of first spreading your Letter in Writing and then of Printing it I shall not envy your Glory I had rather continue mean and obscure in a humble Obedience to Church and State than to raise the most Glorious Triumphs and Trophees to my memory by giving the least disturbance to either And that you and all sober Christians may be of the same mind is the hearty Prayer of SIR Your very Humble Servant W. S. FINIS BOOKS Printed for FINCHAM GARDINER A Continuation and Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stilling fleet 's Unreasonableness of Separation in Answer to Mr. Baxter and Mr. Lob c. Considerations of present use considering the Danger resulting from the change of our Church-Government 1. A Perswasive to Communion with the Church of England 2. A Resolution of some Cases of Conscience which respect Church-Communion 3. The Case of Indifferent things used in the Worship of God proposed and Stated by considering these Questions c. 4. A Discourse about Edification 5. The Resolution of this Case of Conscience Whether the Church of Englands Symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome makes it unlawful to hold Communion with the Church of England 6. A Letter to Anonymus in answer to his three Letters to Dr. Sherlock about Church-Communion 7. Certain Cases of Conscience resolved concerning the Lawfulness of joyning with Forms of Prayer in Publick Worship In two Parts 8. The Case of mixt Communion Whether it be Lawful to Separate from a Church upon the account of promiscuous Congregations and mixt Communions 9. An Answer to the Dissenters Objections against the Common Prayers and some other parts of Divine Service prescribed in the Liturgy of the Church of England 10. The Case of Kneeling at the Holy Sacrament stated and resolved c. The first Part. 11. Certain Cases of Conscience c. The second Part. 12. A Discourse of Profiting by Sermons and of going to hear where men think they can profit most 13. A serious Exhortation with some important Advices relating to the late Cases about Conformity recommended to the present Dissenters from the Church of England 14. An Argument for Union taken from the true interest of those Dissenters in England who profess and call themselves Protestants 16. Some Considerations about the Case of Scandal or giving Offence to Weak Brethren 17. The Case of Infant-Baptism in Five Questions c. 1. A Discourse about the charge of Novelty upon the Reformed Church of England made by the Papists asking of us the Question Where was our Religion
the Protestant Religion amongst us at Home and that according to the noted saying of Mr. Egerton The withdrawing totally from it would more effectually introduce Popery than all the Works of Bellarmine It becomes them when this is the Bulwark of it abroad and all the Reformed Churches in the World Brinsley's Healing of Israel's Breaches p. 62. have a Venture in this Bottom which if compar'd to a Fleet the Church of England must be acknowledged to be the Admiral And if it go ill with this Church so as that miscarry there is none of the Churches of Christ this day under Heaven but are like to feel it as Mr. Brinsley discourses Lastly It becomes them when Divisions and Separations draw down the Displeasure of God and lay us open to his Judgments Therefore Dr. Bryan after Dwelling with God Serm. 6. p. 313. 314. he hath largely insisted upon the Argument and the present Case amongst us doth thus apply himself O that I could prevail with you to lay sadly to heart the greatness of the Sin of Divisions and grievousness of the Punishment threatned against it and hath been executed for it and that the Leaders and Encouragers of private Christians to make this sinful Separation would read oft and meditate upon St. Jude's Epistle to vers 20. and that the Multitudes that are willing to be led by them would follow the prescription of the means here to preserve or recover themselves from this Seduction vers 20 21. And that both would leave off their reviling the Government Ecclesiastical and the Ministers that conform and submissively behave themselves by the Example of Michael c. I shall conclude the whole with the peaceable and On the Ephes c. 2. p. 297 298. pious Advice of Mr. Baines Let every Man walk within the compass of his Calling Whatsoever lieth not in us to reform it shall be our Zeal and Piety to tolerate and with Patience to forbear especially in things of this nature which concern not so much the outward Communion with God or Man essentially required in a visible state as the due ordering of Business in the said Communion wherein there be many Superfluities and Defects salvâ tamen Ecclesiâ yea and such a Church notwithstanding as wherein the best and truest Members Circumstances considered may have more cause to rejoice than to grieve FINIS THE CASE OF Mixt Communion Whether it be lawful to Seperate from a Church upon the Account of promiscuous Congregations and mixt Communions They are not all Israel that are of Israel Rom. 9. 6. Many are call'd but few chosen Matth. 20. 16. The Second Edition LONDON Printed for T. Basset at the George in Fleetstreet B. Tooke at the Ship in St. Paul's Church-Yard and F. Gardiner at the White Horse in Ludgate-street 1684. THE CASE OF Mixt Communion Whether it be lawful to Separate from a Church upon the Account of promiscuous Congregations and mixt Communions THE Foundation of this Pretence seems to be the great mistake of some Men concerning the matter whereof the Church of Christ is to be composed which they will have to be only real Saints and persons endowed with inherent and substantial holiness Accordingly finding in the Communion of our Church many corrupt Members who lived not answerable to their Holy Vocation they for that reason amongst some others alledg'd by them cry her down as no true Church or which is all one deal by her as if she was so totally separating from her Communion and setting up Churches of their own consisting wholly of Persons in their Judgment far more pure that is really holy and Sanctified Into this most false and dangerous conceit concerning the matter of the Christian Church I cannot tell what it is that should mislead them unless it be The not rightly understanding the notion of that holiness that so often in Scripture is applied to the visible Church of God There is a twofold holiness in Scripture Inherent and Relative Inherent holiness and that can be in none properly but God Angels and Men In God essentially and originally as he is the most perfect Being in whom all excellencies do possess infinite perfection As it 's applied to God it does not only signifie a perfect freedom in him from all those sinful impureties wherewith the sons of men are tainted but all the excellencies of the Divine nature as wisdom goodness and power and a super-eminent and incommunicable greatness in them all hence he is call'd the holy One of Israel the Psalm 89. 18. excellency of Jacob said to swear by his holiness that is Amos 8. 7. by himself and there is none holy as the Lord said Psalm 89. 35. Hannah for there is none besides thee none holy besides 1 Sam. 2. 2. thee as the Septuagint renders it none comparable to thee in the heighth and greatness of all thy excellencies In Angels and Men by way of participation and as far as their natures are capable hence there are holy Angels and holy Men. Relative holiness which when it 's applied to persons may be more properly call'd faederal and this is founded in the relation persons and things have to God and the nature of it consists in a separation of them from common uses and in appropriating of them to the peculiar use and service of God hence the Sabbath is call'd an holy day Judea an holy Land Jerusalem an holy City and the Church and People of God an holy Church that is a Body or Society of men call'd and separated from the rest of the World to God to worship him in a way distinguish'd from the rest of the World having Laws and Promises and Rites of Worship peculiar and appropriate to themselves This account God himself gives of it I have separated you Levit. 20. 24. says he to the Israelites from other people that you should be mine and ye shall be an holy people unto me For the same reason do we find that whole â—hurch of the Jews even then when its members had generally Deut. 9. 12. Deut. 9. 7. Deut. 32. 5. very much corrupted themselves were a rebellious people a crooked generation yet upon the account of their being separated to God and in covenant with him stil'd by Moses and other inspir'd men his saints his Deut. 7. 6. Psalm 135. 4. holy people his peculiar treasure For the same reason also did the Apostles dignifie those Churches to whom they wrote with those great and glorious titles of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saints the sanctified the call'd and chosen in Christ Jesus because they as of old the Jews had entertain'd the profession of a Religion distinct from others of the World whereby they might be excited to the attainment of those excellencies which in the object of their Worship they did admire and adore and those Names being of as large a meaning as that of Christian shew rather what they ought to have been than assure
meant by external Priviledges 2 What kind of Offenders those are that forfeit their right to them and ought by the Censures of the Church to be excluded from them 3. Upon what the right of those Members that have not so offended is grounded 1. What 's meant by external Priviledges As there are two sorts of Members in Christ's visible Church so there are two sorts of Priviledges that belong to them each sort having those that are proper and peculiar to it according to the nature of that relation they bear to the Head and their fellow Members 1. There are Members only by foederal or covenant-holiness such as are only born of water when by Baptism they were united to Christ and the Church and took upon them the Profession and Practice of the Christian Religion Now the Priviledges that belong to these are of the same make with their Church-membership external and consisting only in an outward and publick Communion with the Church in the Word and Ordinances 2. There are Members by real and inherent holiness such as are not only born of Water but of the Spirit also when by the inward operations of the Holy Ghost their Souls are renew'd after the Image of God and made partakers of a Divine Nature And the Priviledges that belong to these are not only the forementioned ones but together with them others that are sutable to their more spiritual relation inward and such as consist in the especial and particular care and protection of God the pardon and remission of their sins by the Blood of Christ and the gracious influences and comforts of the Holy Ghost All comprehended in that Prayer of the Apostle for his Corinthians The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the communion of the Holy Ghost be 2 Cor. 13. 14. with you all Amen Now t is of the first sort of Members and that sort of Priviledges that belong to them that the Proposition is to be understood 2. What kind of Offenders those are that have forfeited their right to and ought by the Censures of the Church to be excluded from those Priviledges This the Apostle hath plainly told us and our own Church in its Exhortation to the Sacrament fairly intimates I have wrote unto you says St. Paul not no keep company 1 Cor. 5. 11. if any Man that is call'd a Brother be a Fornicator or Covetous or an Idolater or a Railer or a Drunkard or an Extortioner no not to eat Not only as much as can be to have no familier conversation with ver 10. him in civil matters tho' some must be had whilst we are in this World but also and more especially to avoid communion with him in religious exercises and how that is to be done the Apostle tells us viz. not by forsaking the Church our selves but by doing our utmost endeavours to have him cast out of it So it follows Therefore put away from among your selves that wicked ver 13. person And In the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ when ye are gathered together and my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ to deliver such an one ver 4 5. unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may bo sav'd in the day of the Lord Jesus Agreeable hereunto are the words of the Exhortation If any of you be a blasphemer of God a hinderer and slanderer of his Word an Adulterer or be in malice or envy or in any other greivous Crime repent you of your sins or come not to that holy Table Such sinners as these have in a manner undone and made void what was done in their behalf in Baptism They by not performing what was then promis'd for them but living directly contrary to it do virtually renounce that Covenant they then entred into with God in Christ and fall back again into the state of Pagans and Infidels Their Sureties engag'd for them that they should believe the Christian Faith keep God's Commandments and renounce the World the Flesh and the Devil But such habitual notorious Offenders as these say by their Practice what had they to do to undertake such things for us we will stand to no such engagements but we will be at large to believe what we please and to practice what we fancy and to worship whom we think fit And thus as it were breaking off from being in Covenant with God and virtually renouncing their Church-membership they at the same time lose all right and title to those Blessings and Priviledges that were due to them upon the account thereof and in this sad state and condition did the Primitive Christians reckon all that had hâ—ghly and notorâ—ously sinn'd amongst whom especially were the lapsed that had offer'd Sacrifice they staid not for a formal Sentence to be pronounc'd against them by the Church but lookt upon them as ipso facto excommunicate and tho' till that was past they could not actually be shut out yet they began before to avoid their Company and to forbear all religious commerce towards them But so long as Men keep in Covenant with God and abide in his Church which may be done by holding that profession of Faith that they made at their first entrance into it their right to the external franchises of it remains inviolable and their title without question As may appear from these particulars 1. From the Tenour of that Covenant they in their Baptism enter'd into with God which consists of Promises on God's part as well as Conditions on Mans. The Promises on God's part are exprest in these general 2 Cor. 6. 61. words I will be their God The Conditions on Mans in those and they shall be my People Now so far as Men perform the Conditions so far will God make good his Promises In what sense they are a People to God in the same he 'll be a God unto them If a bare faederal holiness can give Men a relation to God and God upon that account owns them to be a People unto him the same gives them some kind of interest in God and a claim to the blessings that belong to that relation Not that such Members as these are to expect those special and particular favours that are the portion of those that are more nearly and by a kind of spiritual consanguinity allied to God in Christ but yet being of God's houshould are to be allowed the liberty to partake of those external blessings which he in common bestows upon the whole Family 2. From the nature of Church-membership Church-membership necessarily implies Church-Communion or else it signifies nothing for to be admitted a Member of the Church and not to have a right in common with the rest to Church-Priviledges is to be taken in with one hand and to be thrown out with the other 't is to be put back into the state of those that are no Members and virtually to be cut off from
to lay down our sins and instead of blocking up the way againgst any by scandalous living invite and allure them all in by exemplary Holiness and Purity and this I am sure how short soever my Discourse comes of would be a full Answer to and a perfect Confutation of this Objection FINIS THE CASE OF Indifferent Things Used in the WORSHIP of GOD Proposed and Stated by considering these QUESTIONS Qu. I. Whether things Indifferent though not Prescribed may be Lawfully used in Divine Worship or Whether there be any things Indifferent in the Worship of God Qu. II. Whether a Restraint of our Liberty in the use of such Indifferent things be a Violation of it LONDON Printed by T. Moore J. Ashburne for Fincham Gardiner at the White-Horse in Ludgate-street 1683. Books Printed for FINCHAM GARDINER A Continuation and Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation in Anâ—wer to Mr. Baxter and Mr. Lob c. Considerations of present use considering the Danger Resulting from the Change of our Church-Government 1. A Perswasive to Communion with the Church of England 2. A Resolution of some Cases of Conscience which Respect Church-Communion 3. The Case of Indifferent things used in the Worship of God Proposed and Stated by considering these Questions c. 4. A Discourse about Edification 5. The Resolution of this Case of Conscience Whether the Church of England's Symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome makes it unlawful to hold Communion with the Church of England 6. A Letter to Anonymus in Answer to his Three Letters to Dr Sherlock about Church-Communion 7. Certain Cases of Conscience resolved concerning the Lawfulness of joyning with Forms of Prayer in Publick Worship In two Parts 8. The Case of mixt Communion Whether it be Lawful to separate from a Church upon the Account of promiscuous Congregations and Mixt Communion 9. An Answer to the Dissenters Objections against the Common Prayers and some other Parts of Divine Service Prescribed in the Liturgy of the Church of England 10. The Case of Kneeling at the Holy Sacrament Stated and Resolved c. The first Part. 11. Certain Cases of Conscience c The Second Part. 12. A Discourse of Profiting by Sermons and going to hear where Men think they can profit most 13. A Serious Exhortation with some Important Advices Relating to the late Cases about Conformity Recommended to the present Dissenters from the Church of England 14. An Argument for Union c. 15. The Case Kneeling at the Sacrament The Second Part 16. Some Considerations about the Case of Scandals or giving Offence to Weak-Bretheren 17. The Case of Infant-Baptism in five Questions c. 1. A Discourse about the charge of Novelty upon the Reformed Church of England made by the Papists asking of us the Question Where was our Religion before Luther 2. A Discourse about Tradition shewing what is meant by it and what Tradition is to be Received and what Tradition is to be Rejected 3. The Difference of the Case between the Separation of Protestants from the Church of Rome and the Separation of Dissenters from the Church of England 4. The Protestant Resolution of Faith c. Question Q. Whether things not prescribed in the Word of God may be Lawfully used in Divine Worship BEfore I proceed to the Case it self it will be fit to consider what the things are which the Question more immediately respects For the better understanding of which we may observe 1. That there are Essential parts of Divine Worship and which are either by Nature or Revelation so determined that they are in all Ages necessary In Natural Religion such are the Objects of it which must be Divine such are the acknowledgment of Honour and Reverence due and peculiar to those Objects as Prayer c. And in the Christian Religion such are the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords Supper These are always to be the same in the Church 2. There are other things relating to Divine Worship which are arbitrary and variable and determined according to Circumstances as Gesture Place c. As to the former i'ts granted by the contending Parties that they are all already prescribed and that nothing in that kind can be added to what is already prescribed nor can any thing so prescribed be altered or abolished Nothing now can be made necessary and binding to all Persons Places and Ages that was not so from the beginning of Christianity and nothing that was once made so by Divine Authority can be rendred void or unnecessary by any other Therefore the Question is to be applied to the latter and then i'ts no other than Whether things in their own nature Indifferent though not prescribed in the Word of God may be lawfully used in Divine Worship Or Whether there be any thing Indifferent in the Worship of God Toward the Resolution of which I shall 1. Enquire into the Nature and state the Notion of things Indifferent 2. Shew that things Indifferent may be Lawfully used in Divine Worship 3. Consider how we may know what things are Indifferent in the VVorship of God 4. How we are to Determine our selves in the use of Indifferent things so applied 5. Shew that there is nothing required in the Worship of God in our Church but what is either Necessary in it self and so binding to all Christians or what is Indifferent and so may be Lawfully used by them 1. I shall enquire into the Nature and state the Notion of things Indifferent In doing of which we are to observe that all things with reference to Practice are reducible to these three Heads First Duty Secondly Sin Thirdly Neither Duty nor Sin Duty is either so Morally and in its own Nature or made so by Divine and Positive Command Sin is so in its own Nature or made and declared to be such by Divine and Positive Prohibition Neither Duty nor Sin is that which no Law either of Nature or Revelation hath determined and is usually known by the Name of Indifferent that is it 's of a middle Nature partaking in it self of neither extremes and may be indifferently used or forborn as in Reason and Prudence shall be thought meet Things of this kind the Apostle calls Lawfal 1 Cor. 10. 23 c. because they are the subject of no Law and what are therefore Lawful to us and which without Sin we may either chuse or refuse Thus the Apostle doth determine Rom. 4. 15. Where no Law is there is no Transgression that is it can be no transgression to omit that which the Law doth not in-joyn nor to do that which it doth not forbid for else that would be a Duty which the Law doth not in-joyn and that would be a Sin which it doth not forbid which is in effect to say there is a Law where there is none or that Duty and Sin are so without respect to any Law But now if Duty be Duty because it's in-joyned and
Sin be Sin because it s fordidden then Indifferent is Indifferent because its neither injoyed nor forbidden For as to make it a Duty there needs a Command and to make it a Sin there needs a Prohibition so where there is neither Command nor Prohibition it s neither Duty nor Sin and must be therefore Indifferent Lawful and Free So that we may as well know by the Silence of the Law what is Indifferent as we may know by its Authority what is a Duty or a Sin And I have no more Reason to think that a Duty or a Sin which it takes no notice of since all Obligation ariseth from a Law than that not to be a Duty or a Sin which it doth The Nature of Lawful things being as much determined so to be by the want of such Authority as that of Necessary is determined by it And he that shall say that 's a Duty or a Sin which is not so made and declared by any Law may as well say that 's no Duty or Sin which there is a Law about To conclude there must be a Law to make it a Transgression and the want of a Law doth necessarily suppose it to be none and what there is no Law for or against remains Indifferent in it self and Lawful to us As for instance suppose there should be a Dispute concerning Days set apart for the Service and Worship of God how must this be determined but by the Law of Nature or Revelation and how shall we be resolved in the case but by considering what the Law injoyns or forbids in it If we find it not injoyned it can be of it self no Duty if we find it not forbidden it can be of it self no Sin and consequently it 's Lawful and Indifferent and in what we neither Sin by omitting nor observing So the Apostle concludes Rom. 14. 6. He that regardeth a day regardeth it unto the Lord and he that regardeth not the day unto the Lord he doth not regard it that is there was no Law requiring it and so making the observation of it Necessary and no Law forbidding it and so making the observation of it Sinful and therefore Christians were at Liberty to observe or not to observe it as they pleased and in both they did well if so be they had a regard to the Lord in it 2. I shall shew that there are things Indifferent in the Worship of God and that such things though not prescribed may be lawfully used in it T is allowed by all that there is no Command to be expected about the Natural Circumstances of Action and which the Service cannot be celebrated without such as Time and Place and that these are left to humane Prudence to fix and determine But what those Natural Circumstances are is not so universally agreed to And if they be such as aforesaid that is such as the action cannot be performed without then it will very much serve to justify most of the things in dispute and defend our Church in the use and practice of them For what is there almost in that kind amongst us which is not Naturally or Morally necessary to the Action and if Time and Place fall under humane determination because they are naturally necessary then why not also Gesture and Habit which Worship can no more Naturally be celebrated without than the former and consequently a Surplice or Kneeling and Standing may be alike lawfully determined and used as Time for assembling together and a Church to assemble and Officiate in And what Natural Circumstances are to a Natural Action that are Moral Circumstances to a Moral Action and there are Moral as necessary to a Moral Action as there are Natural necessary to a Natural Action As for example what Time and Place are to Natural that are Method and Order to Moral and Religious Acts and can no more be separated from these than the other can be separated from the former and therefore the Method and Order of Administration in Divine Worship where not otherwise determined and appointed by God may as well be determined by Men as Time and Place with respect to the nature end and use of the Service So that the exception made against humane Appointments in Divine Worship viz. that all but natural circumstances must have a Divine Command to legitimate their use and that whatever is not prescribed is therefore prohibited is of no service to them that plead it and it remains good so far notwithstanding that there are things Indifferent in the Worship of God and that the outward Order and Administration of it is left to Christian Prudence And this I shall more particularly prove 1. From the consideration of the Rules laid down in the Gospel relating to the Administration of Divine Worship which except what refer to the Elements c. in the Sacraments are taken from the Nature of the thing and so always were obliging to all Ages under the several variations and forms of Divine Worship and will be always so to all Christians in the World viz. such as respect Order Decency and Edification insisted upon 1 Cor. 14. 26 40. So that we are no otherwise bound than as bound by these measures and where not bound by them vve are free For as in former Ages from the beginning of the World vvhere Revelation did not interpose as it did under the Mosaical Dispensation all persons vvere left at liberty and if so be they had a respect to those natural rules might choose vvhat vvays they pleased for the regulation of Divine Worship So vvhen under the Gospel vve have no other than those Natural rules except as above excepted the particular Circumstrnces are as much novv the matter of our free choice as they vvere then and this or that may be used and observed as the Case requireth and Occasion serves So that if ever there vvere things Indifferent in Gods Worship and the Administration of it was left to the Consideration and Prudence of Mankind it is so still since the Gospel keeps to those eternal Rules which even the Nature of the Thing hath invariably established and which if it ever was sufficient for the guiding of the Church of God in those particulars is certainly so when the Nature of Man is improved by new helps and so he is more capable of judging what may be sutable to that Essential VVorship which God hath prescribed under the Gospel and to Him whom that VVorship is directed to But then that which confirms this is that those Rules are also general and such as will in their use and end respect all People in the VVorld The Apostles in all their Discourses upon this subject rarely do descend to particulars and in what they do shew how far Custom and Charity and the Reason of the thing ought to govern us as in the case of mens being Uncovered in the VVorship of God for which the Apostle doth argue not from Institution but the Nature and Decency
are for a Form This do they urge that are for Sitting at the Lord's Supper and this they say that are for Kneeling so that these and the like Adjuncts do further Devotion and are for Edification is an argument used by both Now if Adjuncts are not part of VVorship and may be yet used to further Devotion then the furthering Devotion by any Rite doth not in it self make that Rite so used to be VVorship I acknowledg there is False VVorship as well as True True VVorship is of Divine Institution and False VVorship is of Humane Appointment and becomes Worship when either Divine Institution is pretended for it or it s used for the same special ends that Gods VVorship is instituted for that is as necessary to acceptance or as a means of Grace And so I confess Adjuncts may be made parts of False VVorship as many Ceremonies are in the Church of Rome but this is not the case with any things used in the Administration of VVorship in our Church we plead nothing of Divine Authority to enforce them use them not as necessary nor as means of Grace after the manner we do the VVord of God and the Sacraments 2. It s another mistake that its charged as a fault upon Rites in VVorship that They are used to further Devotion VVithout this end surely they are not to be used or at least not to be encouraged for Divine VVorship being the acknowledgment of God and a giving Honour to Him should have all things about it Grave and Solemn that may best sute it and promote the ends for which it s used But if Rites are used in it that have no respect to such ends they become Vain and Trifling neither worthy of that nor our Defence And therefore we justly blame the Church of Rome for the Multitude of Ceremonies used in their VVorship and for such that either have no signification or whose signification is so obscure as is not easie to be observed or traced and that rather hinder than further Devotion Surely it would not so well answer the end if the Hand in Swearing was laid upon another Book as when on the Gospel nor if the Love-feasts at the Lords Supper had been only as a Common Meal without respect to Charity signified by it 3. It s another mistake that External Rites taken up by Men and used for the furthering Devotion are made to be of the same Nature with Images This there is no foundation for for the Religious use of Images is expresly contrary to the Command of God and Forbidden because it tends to debase God in the thoughts of those that VVorship him by such mediums But there is nothing in the use of such External Ries as are before spoken of that fall under the censure of either of these but that we may lawfully use them and the use of which is not therefore at all Forbidden in the Second Commandment If there be not a Rule for all things belonging to the VVorship of God the Gospel would be less perfect than Object IV the Law and Christ would not be so Faithful as Moses in the care of his Church Heb. 3. 2. which is not to be supposed The sufficiency of Scripture and Faithfulness of Christ Answer are not to be judged of by what we fancy they should have determined but by what they have It s a plausiable Plea made by the Church of Rome for an Infallible Judge in matters of Faith that by an Appeal to him all controversies would be decided and the Peace of the Church secured But notwithstanding all the advantages which they so hugely amplify there is not one Word in Scripture which in a matter of that importance is absolutely necessary that doth shew that it is necessary or were it so who the Person or Persons are that should have this Power or Commission And in this case we must be content to leave things as the Wisdom of God hath thought fit to leave them and to go on in the old way of sober and amicable debate and fair reasoning to bring debates to a conclusion Thus it is in the matter before us the pretence is very Popular and Plausible that Who can better determine things Relating to the Worship of God than God whose Worship it is And where may we expect to find them better determined than in his Word which is sufficient to all the ends it was writ for But when we come to enquire into the case we find no such thing done no such care taken no such particular directions as they had under the Law and therefore its certain that neither the sufficiency of Scripture nor Faithfulness of Christ stand upon that foundation And if we do not find the like particular prescriptions in Baptism as Circumcision nor in the Lord's Supper as in the Passover nor in Prayers as in Sacrifices its plain that the sufficiency of Scripture and Faithfulness of Christ do respect somewhat else and that they are not the less for the want of them Christ was Faithful as Moses To him that appointed him in performing what belonged to him as a Mediator in which respect Moses was a Type of him and discovering to Mankind in Scripture the method and means by which they might be Sav'd and the sufficiency of Scripture is in being a sufficient means to that end and putting Men into such State as will render them capable of attaining to it And as for modes and circumstances of things they are left to the prudence of those who by the Grace and the Word of God hath been converted to the Truth and have received it in the Love of it I have been the larger in the consideration of this principle viz. that Nothing but what is prescribed may be lawfully used in Divine Worship that I might relieve the consciences of those that are insnared by it and that cannot be so without subjecting themselves to great inconveniences For if nothing but what is of that Nature may be used or joyned with and that the second Commandment doth with as much Authority Forbid the use of any thing not Commanded as the Worshipping of Images If Nadab's and Abihu's Strange Fire and Vzzah's touching of the Ark be examples Recorded for caution to us and that every thing Uncommanded is of the like Nature attended with the like Aggravations and alike do expose to God's Displeasure If the use of any thing not prescribed be such an addition to the VVord of God as leaves us under the Penalty of that Text If any Man shall add unto these things Rev. 22. 18. God shall add unto him the Plagues that are Written in this Book we cannot be too cautious in the Examination of what is or what is not prescribed But withall if this be our case it would be more intollerable than that of the Jews For amongst them every thing for the most part was plainly laid down and though the particular Rites and Circumstances prescribed in their
Palaces Amen THE END A VINDICATION OF THE CASE OF Indifferent Things USED In the Worship of God IN ANSWER TO A BOOK INTITULED The Case of Indifferent things used in the Worship of God Examined Stated on the behalf of the Dissenters and calmly argued LONDON Printed by H. Hills for Fincham Gardner at the White-Horse in Ludgate-Street 1684. A VINDICATION OF THE CASE OF Indifferent Things USED In the Worship of God AMONGST some Tracts published within the year for the resolution of such doubts as the Dissenters from our Church plead for refusing Communion with it there was one that respected the use of Indifferent things in the Worship of God This some one of our Brethren chose to examine and to begin his debate Case examined p. 2. with in the management of which whether he hath dealt closely and ingenuously to use his own words p. 16. I shall take the liberty to enquire and must leave others to judge I confess I was not alittle surprized that before he had set one foot forward he should thus assault me If that R. person had been pleased to have determined pag 2. who is to be Judge of things Indifferent as to a man's practice whether his own conscience or his Superior c. he would in our opinion have made the matter in dispute much fitter for an argument whereas the most Dissenters judge that as he hath stated it he hath but beg'd the Question If the dispute had been betwixt Protestant and Papist there might have been some colour to have â—â—ent 4 pages in 40 upon this Argument though even betwixt such there may be 20 cases controverted in which this Demand would be impertinent But to put it upon this issue when both sides are in the main agreed as it is betwixt Protestant and Protestant is a running the Question out of its wits and an hearty begging it before he puts it It s to posâ—ess the unwary Reader with prejudice to puzle the cause and is the way to make every little Tract a Volume In matters of Controversy there are always some principles supposed and to put an Adversary upon the proof of them shews a design rather to cavil then to end the dispute and is a shrewd sign that the person so doing is either diffident of his cause or his own ability to defend it but to return his own complement we will not presume any thing so absurd or disingenuous of so worthy a person p. 10. But how remote soever this Question is to the business in hand yet because our Author asks it with some kind of seriousness I shall direct him where he may have satisfaction and that in a Judicious Tract lately published (a) (a) (a) The difference of the Case between the separation of Protestants from Rome c. p. 42 c. or if he hath the patience to compare the things as I have done he may find it resolved by himself in his Case examined (b) (b) (b) p. 36 37. n. 4. 38. But in my mind there is a much nearer way to end controversies which is not by disputing who shall be Judge But by enabling men to judge for themselves in a clear stating of the case and setting forth the nature of the things disputed As in the case before us the ready way one should think is to shew what is the nature of Things Indifferent and that things thus Indifferent may be lawfully used in Divine Worship and because they may be abused to enquire how we are to apply them This was the way I took and if I did manage it as it should I am pretty confident that the Question was not beg'd though I never thought of coming near his Question who shall be the Judge But that is the thing to be disputed Whether the case was rightly stated and proved and this brings me to the consideration of what he hath offer'd against it Before I enter upon which I shall only remind the Case of Indifferent things Reader that in the little Tract concerned in the present dispute the Question undertaken was Q. Whether things in their own nature Indifferent though not prescribed in the Word of God may be lawfully used in Divine Worship In answer to which 1. I enquired into the Nature and stated the Notion of Indifferent Things 2. Shew'd that Things Indifferent may be lawfully used in Divine Worship 3. Considered how we might know what things are Indifferent in the Worship of God 4. How we are to determine our selves in the use of them To most of these our Author hath somewhat to say to some more to some less but to the First he saith There is none of the Dissenters but agreeth with this Author in his Notion of Things Indifferent that they are such p. 3. things as by the Divine Law are neither injoyned nor forbidden Now before I proceed I shall observe that this concession of his will bereave them of some of the common and most considerable arguments that they use in this controversie As If Things Indifferent are such as are neither injoyned Conclus 1 nor forbidden it must follow that things are not unlawful in Divine Worship because they are not commanded The consequence is plain and undeniable For if the Nature of Things Indifferent be as abovesaid what are neither commanded nor forbidden there is nothing can make this or that to be unlawful but the being forbidden But now if the being not Commanded is the same with the being Forbidden then the notion of Indifferent Things cannot consist in this that they are neither Commanded nor Forbidden So that either they must quit the Argument and grant that the being not Commanded doth not make a thing unlawful in Divine Worship or they must alter the notion of Indifferent things and indeed utterly exterminate them and leave no such middle things in nature and say that there is nothing else but Duty or Sin Now after our Reverend Author hath so frankly granted this I cannot understand how he can say that the doing of a thing in Gods Worship not Commanded is guilt enough nor why he should take such pains to p. 25. oppose what I have offered in confutation of that principle For what can he plead for the unlawfulness of things not Commanded who hath granted that the being not Commanded is a branch of such things as are Indifferent And if he will maintain it he must do it upon no less absurdity than the saying a thing Indifferent is forbidden or which is the same that Indifferent things are such as are either forbidden or not forbidden But let us abstract the Case of things not Commanded from this consequence and take it as it is in the Tract Case of Indifferent Thingâ—s p. 20. aforesaid an Objection and Answer and yet then we shall see what an imperfect account our Author gives of it He saith What our Author saith is no more than hath Case Examined p.
2. Therefore we have a further notion of Natural given us and that is when any thing is suted to the Nature or State of the thing or person Thus Ames and others tell us of Natural Ceremonies as lifting up Fresh Suit p. 1. c. 4. 5. the eyes to Heaven in Sign of Devotion which by the way is not so Natural but that casting them down Luke 18. 13. in Worship is a sign of it too as in the publicans And so habit is Natural to man as belonging and suted to his present condition But saith he it is not Natural for a person may Pray naked and so he may pray blindfold and yet will any one say sight is not natural to man But how may he pray naked in Regious assemblies for we are speaking of publick Worship can he say it 's sutable to the Solemnity And so going naked is as little sutable to the nature of man 3. Again that 's natural which is the effect of Nature though not born with us And I am apt to think that did our Author live within the Circle of the Frigid Zone he would without any Tutor without the knowledge of what is the custom of Civilized Nations without any moral reason have thought upon the benefit of Frieze or somewhat of the like use with that But suppose I am mistaken how hath he mended the matter He tells us that by the custom of Civilized Nations some habit is necessary But then what becomes Gen. 3. 21. of the Fig-leaves what of the coats of Skins God clothed Adam with Now to say it came from custom before custom was for it was in the beginning I think is much more absurd than to say that Habit was natural But it 's time to pass on to a more profitable argument 2. It was proved that all things which in general and for kind are morally necessary are also lawful in their particulars This was made evident from a parity of reason 'twixt what is naturally and what is morally necessary and therefore he that grants the particulars of what is naturally necessary to be indifferent must also grant the particulars of what is morally necessary to be indifferent And as it follows this Time or that this Place or that this Habit or that is lawful and indifferent because Time Place and Habit are necessary So it also follows this Method or that this Form or that this Order or that is lawful and may be used because Method Form and Order are necessary And therefore we need look no more for an institution for a Form than as he saith for a Case examined pag. 18. Bell to call to Worship or for a Gown or Cloak to preach in c. For what Naturally necessary is to the particulars of its kind that is Morally necessary to its particulars And one is no more unlawful for want of an institution or command than the other This our Author also yields to We saith he having agreed Pag. 14. that there are some circumstances of Humane actions in Gods Worship not only Natural common to all actions but of a Moral nature too relating to them as such actions which God having neither commanded nor forbidden may be used are not much concerned in what our Author saith upon his second Head 3. It was further shewed in the aforesaid Treatise that such things in Divine Worship as were agreeable to the Rules of the Apostle and served for Order Decency and Edification were also lawful though they were neither Naturally nor Morally necessary nor did necessarily arise from the nature of the Thing as Method and Form c. do that is that there are a certain sort of things that are ambulatory and contingent that Case of indifferent things p. 8 12 13. vary with circumstances ages places and conditions c. As the being cover'd or uncover'd in Worship such and such fixed hours of Prayer The Love-feasts and Holy-kiss and besides several Civil usages transferr'd from secular affairs into the Service of Religion which were used therein not as meer Civil Rites as I there shewed This argument taken from Civil usages our Author endeavours to avoid several ways 1. He saith If we do not mistake the reason why Case examined pag. 18. Dr. Ames and others do think that Civil usages may be used in Acts of Worship is because they are either necessary to the action as Humane or convenient comely or grave c. And because I had said * * * Case of indifferent things pag. 14. that if the being Civil usages did make them lawful in Divine Worship then there is nothing in Civil cases but may be introduced into the Church though never so absurd he saith he cannot apprehend the consequence because Case examined pag. 19. what is granted about Civil usages is to be applied to grave actions and none other But to this I answer Grant they are thus to be understood of such Civil usages as are grave yet then it is not so much because they are Civil as because they are grave that they may be used and provided that they were grave they might be used if they were not Civil as well as if they were and are not the sooner to be used because they are Civil And then what becomes of their argument for such and such practices and customs that they were Civil And what have they got when to avoid the force of what we say from the Love-Feasts c. plead as he doth that they are Civil usages So that when he and his brethren grant that such usages which may ordinarily Pag. 18. be used in other Humane actions of a grave nature may be used in Acts of Worship which is more than we dare say for then standing crosses may be introduced into Worship which are used to very grave purposes in Civil matters as to distinguish Christian from Heathenish or Turkish Dominions c. I know not what they can deny 2. He gives a very partial account of Civil usages when he tells us of Orators Pulpits and Seats and Bells Gowns and Cloaks But in the mean while forgets that there are Civil usages that are of a Ceremonial Nature and that are used by way of signification distinction c. As now a garment is I may still say Naturally or as he will have it Morally necessary but when in a particular case it 's required that it be White or Purple it 's a Civil usage and is by way of signification and so the signification is transferr'd with it from a civil to a sacred use which how consistent it is with their principles I leave it to his consideration 3. He takes no notice of the Argument used by me that if civil usages without institution may be lawfully used in Divine Worship this with his concessions before about Natural and Moral circumstances will justifie most I had almost said all the practices of our Church as I instanced in the
Surplice since White was used as a badge of Royalty and Dignity of joy and innocency in Civil cases and so may be used by V. Brightman in Ames Fresh Suit part 2. p. 505 510. way of signification in Religious and so of the rest All that he hath to say about the Surplice is that it 's tied to Worship which is remote from the case in hand and shall afterward be considered To this I may also add the Cross which he saith they Pag. 15. do not stumble of making upon a pack of Cloth or Stuff or upon a Sheep for note of distinction and may be and is used for graver purposes in the like way of signification in Civil matters as I have observ'd and so may be by this Argument transfer'd into the Service of Religion 4. It was further maintain'd in the stating of the Case Case of Indiff Things p. 5 6. that the ordering and administration of the things relating to Divine Worship was left to Christian prudence To this our Author saith It is very true these must be determined Case examined p. 7. by human prudence but that they must necessarily be determined by the prudence of the Superiour and may not be determined by the prudence of the agents is another Question Who ever affirmed it That they are left to human prudence to fix and determin is all that I maintain'd but how far Superiours may determin and how far Inferiours must submit to things so determin'd is another Question and belongs to another place From what hath been said it may appear whether no man ever doubted of the truth of the Case as I have stated it when he himself speaks so dubiously and uncertainly about it But because I have not stated it to his mind and that it 's not the Dissenters position pag. 19. but only a position which their adversaries have imposed upon them without any ground as he saith let us see how he states the Question which is thus Q. Whether things the doing or not doing of which Ibid. God hath not prescribed being neither necessary to the action as an human action nor convenient for it with reference to those that perform it for the ends of it nor naturally nor in common judgment such without which it cannot be done decently may be lawfully used in the Worship of God by all persons or by any persons who judge that God hath forbidden the part to which they are by men determined either in the letter or by the just reason and consequence of Holy Writ as forbidding all useless and superfluous things in so sacred actions or things not necessary and used ordinarily in Idolatrous and Superstitious services or judging that in Worship every man is sui juris and ought not to be deprived of the liberty God hath left him may be universally and lawfully used This he hath elsewhere formed into a position and pag. 23 24. from thence doth declare that it lies upon his Adversary to prove that those things which he would have all Dissenters conform to are 1. Things naturally necessary to all human Acts. Or 2. Things convenient for them as human acts Or with reference to the true end of such acts Or 3. Such as Nature shews to be comely for all human acts or such grave acts at least or which common judgment so judgeth Or 4. That men may do what they reasonably judge sinful Or 5. That there is no reason to judge useless and superfluous actions in the Worship of God sinful Or 6. No reason so to judge of the things not necessary to be used in Gods Worship and which have been and are ordinarily used in Idolatrous Worship Or 7. That there is no reason to judge that Christians in matters of Worship ought to be left at liberty in things when God hath so left them Whether this be indeed the Dissenters position he best pag. 19. understands as I should think but whether it be their position explained as he saith or confounded I leave pag. 24. to the judgment of others This only I am sure of that for as much as I can understand of it I may turn his own words upon him and whereas he saith of the Case as I have stated it None in his wits did ever deny it I can say as it 's stated by him None in his wits did ever affirm it For who in his wits will ever affirm that it 's lawful to use such things in the Worship of God that are sordid and indecent disorderly and confused idle useless and superfluous hurtful and pernicious And yet according to him this must he do that will undertake to prove that things that are not comely convenient or edifying may be admitted thereinto For this Author tells us that by Decency we can understand pag. 11. nothing but what is oppos'd to sordidly c. And if it be not decent by his rule it must be sordid And so of the rest Again Who in his wits will affirm that men may do what they reasonably judge sinful And yet these things must they affirm that will attack this position of our Authors By which stating of the Question and mingling things of a different nature together he hath provided well for his own security and may without fear of being conquer'd or so much as oppos'd fling down the Gantlet with If our R. Author hath taken the pag. 25. position as here stated and argued it we shall consider what he hath said if not we shall lightly pass over what he hath said c. and expect till he hath justified all or any of the last Seven mentioned particulars But I shall not so lightly pass over what he hath said without clearing what may be cleared and reducing the Case into its proper principles though it be what he hath taken no care to explain or prove If we review his seven particulars we shall find that the (a) (a) (a) V. case of a scrupulous Conscience Dr. Calamy's Sermon on that subject 4th and 6th (b) (b) (b) the case of Symbolizing and the defence belong not to this case and are otherwhere resolved And of the Five remaining Four of them are reducible to one argument which come now to be considered and the last of Christian Liberty I shall treat upon in the close of this Discourse In treating upon the Four that belong to one argument and have for their subject Human Acts I think it may be done by putting and resolving the following Question Q. What is it that doth make things in themselves lawful and indifferent to be unlawful in Divine Worship This is the main seat of the controversie it being agreed that there are indifferent things in the Worship of God But since we afterward divide upon it and say that notwithstanding this there are some things of that nature that are by circumstance unlawful it is fit to understand how this Question is resolved by
§. 3. know what things are indifferent in the Worship of God The main things he herein objects against respect Edification In handling of which he thus sums up my sense of it Our Author would not have us judge of Edification from what most improveth Christians in Case examined Pag. 33. knowledg and grace but from what tendeth most to publick Order as if I spoke of Order in opposition to and as exclusive of a Christians improvement whereas I plainly say and he acknowledgeth it that we are not so much to judge of them asunder as together The meaning and design of what I said was to shew that Christians are to consider themselves as members of a Church and so to have a tender regard to Communion with it and not to think their own Edification a sufficient reason to break the Peace and Order of it To this he saith several things In Answer to which it will be convenient to give a clear representation and state of the Case which I shall do in these Propositions 1. We must consider that Edification is not the laying a Foundation but a building upon it and so there is not the same reason for the breaking Order for the sake of Edification as there is for the sake of things absolutly necessary to Salvation and that which will warrant and doth oblige to the one will not warrant nor oblige to the other This will serve to shew the little force there is in what this Reverend Author confidently asserts We know and are assured that no man to keep up any such human Pag. 34. bounds of Order ought to omit means by which he may improve his own Soul in the knowledge of Christ or the exercise of his habits of Grace by which assertion of his he makes Edification and improvement in knowledge c. as necessary as the knowledge of the Fundamentals of Religion 2. We must consider as I then observed that Order is a means of Edification and therefore if there happens Case of Indifferent things P. 36. a dispute betwixt observing Order and improvement in knowledg or grace it 's 'twixt means and means 'twixt what is for Edification in one way and what is for it in another and not betwixt what is for and what Case examined Pag. 35. is against Edification as he would have it understood 3. We must observe that when there is a dispute betwixt means and means the less is to give place to the greater and what is most for Edification is to yield to that which is least 4. That for that reason the Edification of the Church and the welfare of the whole is to be prefer'd before the spiritual advantage of any particular member for what the less is to the greater that is a member to the Church and if a person cannot serve and improve himself without damage to the Publick he is rather to sit down without that improvement than to do mischief to the Community for the obtaining it And as long as he is not without means sufficient for Salvation he is in that Case to recede from some further attainments in doing which for so good an end he is acceptable to God and approved of men So that however our Author may Rom. 14. 18. seem to shelter himself under the phrase of Human Order yet as long as no Church can subsist without it and he Case Examined p. 34. 35. that takes away Order takes away the Church and he that saith a person ought to throw it down to improve his Soul takes away Order he must pardon me if I think that he talks without consideration for he that talks of Edification of particular Souls in a distinct notion from the building them up as members of a Church or of members of a Church without being united as a Church or of a Church without any means to unite it doth to return him his own words but discourse of building Castles in the Air and what he would be loth his own Congregation if he hath one should at every turn put into practice Of all which if this will not Case of Indifferent things p. 41 42. Case of Lay-Commun p 39. c. convince him I shall desire him impartially to view the places of Scripture quoted by himself from the Apostle as also what was said before in the controverted Tract and he hath not yet answered or has been since discoursed of in another Case The 4th enquiry in the Tract aforesaid was How §. 4. we are to determine our selves in the use of Indifferent Things in the Worship of God Under which head I shewed what respect is to be given to Authority whether Ecclestiastical or Civil In Answer to which our Author takes up the Case of Case Examined p. 39. Imposition and propounds Two Questions which in effect are these Q. 1. Whether there be any Authority in Church or State to determine the things which God hath left Indifferent to his people Q. 2. Whether in Case they make any such Law the people may without sin obey them As for the First he saith there and elsewhere We Pag. 5. 9. 17. 32. 40. cannot conceive how it is possible that in things of Divine Worship things of an Indifferent nature should be the matter of any human determination and again that in matters of Worship no Superiours may restrain what God hath left at liberty We are not immediately concerned in this First Question for our business was to consider not so much the extent of our Superiours power in what Cases they may lawfully command as in what we may lawfully obey But yet because he hath herein offered somewhat like an Argument and because the clearing of this will make way for the Second I shall take it into consideration To render his Argument the more compleat I shall repair to a foregoing part of his Book and make use of that in conjunction with what he saith here and he thus represents it We cannot be fully of our Brothers mind that in the Pag. 9. Worship of God Superiours may determine circumstances which God hath left at liberty God left it at liberty to the Jews to take a Lamb or a Kid Turtle-Doves or Young-Pigeons c. We offer it to the judgment of the whole reasonable World whether Moses after this might have made a Law commanding the Jews to use none but Kids and only Turtle-Doves c. for it had been a controulment of the Divine Wisdom If not let not our B. think it strange if we judge the same of words in Prayer which God hath left at liberty c. This is an Argument I find offered long since by Dr. Ames (a) (a) (a) Fresh suit part 2. p. 300. and which is so considerable in our Authors opinion that he often repeats it elsewhere (b) (b) (b) Pag. 17. 30. 32. 39. 41. In Answer to this 1st I shall consider the Case under the Law
and how far what he hath said will hold good 2ly I shall shew that there is not that parity betwixt the Case Then and the Case Now as to render that unlawful Now which would have been unlawful Then 1st I shall consider the Case Then and I doubt not to affirm it would have been no controulment of the Divine Wisdom for Moses and Aaron to have injoyn'd the Jews in some circumstances to have taken a Kid or a Turtle only As when it was for a publick convenience and necessity There was somewhat of this kind of Equity in the first establishment of it So the poor was to bring such of these as he could get And Mr. Lev. 14. 30. Pool saith These Birds were appointed for the relief of On Lev. 1. 14. the poor who could bring no better And certainly he that grants it was to be left to the discretion and convenience Pag. 30. of the offerer which to determine as our Author doth should not deny the like power to Superiours for a publick convenience and benefit nor can this be to blot out as his phrase is what God has written as Pag. 17. long as they do it not in opposition to his Authority 2ly Supposing that where God had wrote Or 's as he saith and that to command the use of one of them alone had in that Case been a controulment of his wisdom yet the Case Then is not parallel to ours For 1. The Case was then determined it was indeed a Lamb or a Kid but so as no other Beast a Turtle or a Pigeon but so as no other bird was to be used instead of them But now though there is the Or under the Gospel yet it is without such restraint for ours is free through the whole kind and nothing determines us but a consonancy to the general rules It 's so an Or and an Aliàs that nothing of the kind is excepted So saith our Author himself In Prayer God hath left standing sitting or Pag. 30. kneeling to our choice and conveniency c. He hath left us at liberty what words to use what method or order to observe c. 2. As the disjunction was then determined so the very disjunction it self was of Divine institution and the liberty they had to choose one of the two as well as the restraint of not choosing any but one of the two was from the special Law of God And then for Authority to have determined what God had left free had some shew of controulment of the Divine Wisdom especially if it had been required as our Author somewhere supposeth that they should never have Pag. 9. offer'd any other but one sort of them But under the Gospel it is otherwise for the disjunction the Or and the Aliàs doth not proceed from Divine Institution but from the nature of things and sometimes from human Art and Contrivance As when Washing is commanded for I shall not contend about it all the particulars are comprehended and the person might be dipped or sprinkled or have water poured on him as he observes so in receiving the Sacrament the posture Pag. 22. of the Primitive Church not of meer standing as he mistakes me but of standing as I said by way Pag. 35. of incurvation or sitting or kneeling are all comprehended under the general species of posture Again sometimes this Or and Aliàs proceeds from human Art and Contrivance hence the diversity of habits as a Gown Cloak Surplice Now when this disjunction doth proceed not from Divine Institution but from the reasons aforesaid and that there is no special Command of God to interpose determine restrain or disjoyn it can be no controulment of the Wisdom or Authority of God for a Church to interpose restrain or determine these matters in his Worship This is plain in the Case of Meats and Drinks in which under the Law there was a restraint an Or and Aliàs This and not That and there is still an Or arising from the nature of these things and yet a determination or restraint herein is no controulment of the divine Wisdom as it might have been under the Law because there is no Institution that doth interpose And the Case must be the same in Divine Worship in which since there is no Institution about these matters it 's no sin to Act in the same way that is it 's no sin for Authority to limit and determin and for others to be limited and determined which brings me to the next Question Q. 2. Whether in Case such things are determined people may without sin obey Upon this our Author speaks very variously sometimes determining for Authority against the Principle (a) (a) (a) P. 7. 38. sometimes for the Principle against Authority (b) (b) (b) P. 9. 30. And at last leaves it problematical and saith they are divided upon it amongst themselves (c) (c) (c) P. 39 40. I think not my self at present concern'd to shew the absurdity of this Principle as how if this be true the same things must be lawful and unlawful according as they are required or forbidden by our Superiours c. But shall only consider what he offers on its behalf 1. He saith they may not in this Case obey without sin because nature teacheth us not to part with all our natural liberty 2. Because we have a command to stand fast in the liberty c. As to the former I only say and that 's enough that Nature teacheth us and doth oblige us to part with some of our liberty in Communities And they are far from being required to part with all in ours and so if his argument have any thing in it it hath nothing in it as to our Case For the Second I leave him to what was said by way Case of Indiff Things p. 46. of prevention in the Tract he opposeth and which he should have Answered before he had made use of this as an Argument All that he hath excepted against upon that subject is the notion I laid down of Christian Liberty which I said was no other than the Liberty which mankind had before it was restrained by particular Institution and he gives this reason against it For in that viz. Natural Case Exam. p. 40. Liberty we must not stand fast because Divine Institution hath restrained us in it c. neither hath Christ restored us to any such Liberty In Answer to this I shall consider what Natural Liberty is and then what Liberty it is that the Apostle did treat of As to the Former it 's no other but the free use or disuse of things Indifferent whether out of or in the Worship of God As to the Latter it was no other than a freedom from the Jewish yoke of bondage and that Law that gendred to it as the whole current of the Apostles discourse doth shew And therefore it could be with respect to no other condition than
upon which he Acts for according as this is so will his Guilt in Acting according to it be either greater or less or none at all We do not say that a Man is always Guilty of a Sin before God when upon a misinformation of Judgment he Omits that which Gods Law hath Commanded or doth that which Gods Law hath Forbidden No though these Omissions or Actions may be said to be Sins in themselves that is as to the Matter of them as being Transgressions of Gods Law Yet before we affirm that they will be imputed to a Man as such that is prove formally Sins to him we first consider the Nature of the Action and the Circumstances of the Man If we find upon Examination that the instance wherein Gods Law is Transgressed is such an instance as even an Honest minded Man may well be supposed to mistake in And if we find likewise that the Man had not sufficient means for the informing himself aright as to this matter and that he hath done all that he could do in his Circumstances to understand his Duty If in such a Case as this he be mistaken in his Duty and Act upon that mistake yet we do not say that the Man is properly Guilty of any Sin in that Action however that Action is indeed contrary to the Law of God On the contrary we believe him to be Innocent as to this matter nor will God ever call him to an Account for what he hath done or omitted in these Circumstances And the Reasons and Grounds upon which we affirm this are plain and Evident at the first hearing No Man can be Obliged to do more then what is in his Power to do And what ever a Man is not Obliged to do it is no Sin in him if he do it not So that if a Man do all that one in his Circumstances can or should do for the right understanding of his Duty If he happens to be mistaken that mistake cannot be imputed to him as a Sin because he was not Obliged to understand better And if his mistake be no Sin it is certain to Act according to that mistake can be no Sin neither So that the whole point of Sinning or not Sinning in following an Erroneous Conscience lies here Whether the Man that is thus mispersuaded is to be blamed or not blamed for his Mispersuasion If the Error he hath taken up do not proceed from his own Fault and Negligence but was the pure unavoidable Effects of the Circumstances in which he is placed which Circumstances we suppose he contributed nothing to but he was put into them by the disposition of Divine Providence Then of what Nature soever the Error be he doth not contract any guilt by any Action which he doth in pursuance of that Error But if it was in his power to Rectifie that Error if he had Means and Opportunities to inform his Conscience better and the nature of the Action was such that it was his Duty so to do So that he must be accounted guilty of a Gross and Criminal Neglect in not doing it In this Case the Man is a Transgressor and accountable unto God as such for all the Actions that he doth or omits contrary to Gods Law while he Acts under that mistake or in pursuance of it And accordingly as this Neglect or Carelesness is greater or less so is the Sinfulness of the Action which he doth in pursuance of it greater or less likewise And this is a plain account of this matter So that we see there is no Fatal unavoidable necessity laid upon any Man to commit a Sin by Acting according to his Conscience But if at any time he be brought under those sad Circumstances he brings that necessity upon himself God never put any Man into such a Condition but that he might do that Duty which was required of him and be able to give a good account of his Actions But here is the thing Men by their Vice and Wickedness by neglecting the Means of Instruction that are afforded them and not using their Reason and Understanding as they should do may suffer themselves to be brought under the Bondage of such False and Evil Principles that they shall so long as they hold those Principles fall into Sin whether they Act according to their Conscience or Act against it I have done with the general Points concerning Conscience which I thought needful to be premised as the Grounds and Principles of our following Discourse I now come to that which I at first proposed and for the sake of which all this is intended that is to speak to the Case of those that Separate from the Communion of the Church of England upon this pretence That it is against their Conscience to join with us in it Now all that I conceive needful to be done in order to a full discussion of this Case and giving satisfaction about it are these Two things First To Separate the pretences of Conscience that are truly and justly made in this matter from the false ones Or to shew who those are that can rightly plead Conscience for their Nonconformity and who those are that cannot Secondly To inquire how far this Plea of Conscience when it is truly made will Justifie any Dissenter that continnes in Separation from the Church as Established among us and what is to be done by such a Person in order to his Acting with a safe and good Conscience in this affair Our first inquiry is what is required in order to any Mans truly pleading Conscience for his refusing to joyn in Communion with the Established Church Or who those Persons are that can with justice make that Plea for themselves I think it very convenient to begin my Disquisition here because by removing all the false Pretences to Conscience the Controversy will be brought into a much less compass and the difficulties that arise will be more easily untyed The truth is if the thing be examined I believe it will be found that the pretence to Conscience in the matter we are talking of is as in many other Cases extended much farther than it ought to be My meaning is that of all those who think fit to withdraw from our Communion and to live in Disobedience to the known Laws of the Church and pretend Conscience for so doing in a great many of them it is not Conscience but some other thing mistaken for Conscience which is the Principle they Act upon So that if the true Plea of Conscience be separated from those counterfeit ones which usually usurp that Name we shall not find either the Persons to be so many that refuse Communion with us upon the Account of Conscience truly so called nor the Cases to be so many in which they do refuse it upon that Account Now in Order to the making such a Separation or Distinction between Conscience truly so called and the several Pretences to it in this business of not conforming to
of his and God Almighty who is the Judge of all mens Hearts and Circumstances doth know he had not means and opportunities to understand better FINIS ERRATA PAg. 27. l. 7. for annot cavoid r. cannot avoid p. 35. l. 3. for this last r. the least p. 43. l. 28. after Spiritual add by doing the Former p. 61. l. 1. r. because p. 62. l. penult r. Chrysostome p. 66. l. 9. r. no wise p. 94. l. 19. r. Probability ADVERTISEMENT 1. A Discourse concerning Conscience the first Part. Wherein an Account is given of the Nature and Rule and Obligation of it And the Case of those who Separate from the Communion of the Church of England as by Law Estalished upon this Pretence That it is against their Conscience tojoyn in it is stated and discussed 2. A Resolution of this Case viz. Whether it be Lawful to Separate from the Publick Worship of God in the Parochial Assemblies of England upon that New Pretence which some Men make of the Case being much altered now from what it was when the Puritans wrote against the Brownists and the Presbyterians against the Independent 3. Resolution of two Cases of Conscience in two Discourses The First Of the Lawfulness of Compliance with all the Ceremonies of the Church of England The Second Of the necessity of the use of Common-Prayer in Publick A DISCOURSE ABOUT A SCRVPVLOVS CONSCIENCE Containing some PLAIN DIRECTIONS For the CURE of it LONDON Printed for T. Basset at the George in Fleet-street and B. Tooke at the Ship in St. Paul's Church-yard 1684. A DISCOURSE ABOUT A Scrupulous Conscience c. IT is not my Design in the following Discourse to expose or upbraid the Weakness of any of our Dissenting Brethren but rather charitably to contribute what I can towards the healing and curing of it and this I take for granted That we cannot do greater Service either to the Church of Christ or Souls of Men than by all prudent Means to root those needless Scruples out of their Minds which have been the Occasion of such unchristian Separations and dangerous Divisions amongst us at first begun and still maintained generally upon the Account of such Things as I verily believe a well-instructed Conscience need not be concerned or disturbed about Here I shall first shew what I understand by a Scrupulous Conscience then observe some few things concerning it and lastly offer some plain Rules and Means by which we may best get rid of it First What is a Scrupulous Conscience Now Conscience as it is a Rule of our Actions is nothing else but a Man's Mind or Judgment concerning the moral Goodness or Evil Lawfulness or Unlawfulness of Things and as this Judgment is either true or false so is our Conscience either good and well-grounded or erroneous The Divine Law made known to us either by the light of Nature or plain Scripture or direct consequence from it such as any honest man may understand is the Rule of Conscience or of that Judgment we make of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of things so that our Conscience is a safe Rule and Guide of Actions no further than as it self is directed and warranted by the Law of God 1. A good and well grounded Conscience is when we carefully abstain from whatever God hath forbidden don't neglect doing any thing which he hath commanded and as for other Mattes left indifferent and at liberty we do them or forbea doing of them according as the Rules of obedience to Superiours Prudence and Charity do require This is the Health and sound State of the Mind 2. An erroneous Conscience is when we judge that to be evil or unnecessary which God hath expresly commanded and is our Duty or that to be good and necessary which he hath plainly forbid and is really sinful Now our Consciences cannot alter the nature of things that which is our Duty remaineth so and we sin by omitting it notwithstanding we in our Consciences think it unlawful to be done and what is really Evil continueth such and is Sin in us however our Consciences tell us it is our duty to do it and the fault is more or less compassionable and pardonable as the causes of the Error are more or less voluntary and avoidable This is a grievous Disease and deadly Sickness of the Mind when we thus grosly err in our Judgments and act according to our mistaken Opinion of Things 3. A scrupulous Conscience is conversant about things in their own Nature indifferent and it consists Either in strictly tying up our selves to some things which God hath no where commanded as the Pharisees made great conscience of washing before they did eat and abundance of other unnecessary Rites and Usages they had of Mens own inventing and devising which they as religiously nay more carefully observed than the indisputable Commands of God himself Or in a conscientious abstaining from somethings which are not forbid nor any ways unlawful Touch not taste not handle not doubting and fearing where no Fear is thinking that they should as much offend God by eating some kind of Meats wearing some Garments as they should do were they guilty of Murder and Adultery Which is the Case of many amongst us who by such Scrupulosity about little matters seem more precise and austere than other good and honest Christians are or themselves need or ought to be Far be it from me by any thing I shall now say to discourage the greatest and tenderest care any Christian can take to keep himself from all Sin from all Occasions and Temptations to it from the least appearance of Evil of what is really such and to do any thing that is in it self sinful out of confidence that it is lawful is far worse and a more grievous Offence than to abstain from many things which are truly lawful out of an Opinion that they are sinful Notwithstanding this I cannot but reckon it the chief Policy of the Devil the grand Enemy of all that is good when he cannot persuade us that there is nothing at all sinful or unlawful than to make us suspect every thing for such or at least that there is great danger of displeasing God by the most indifferent and innocent Actions by these means ensnaring and entangling Mens Consciences and rendring Religion a most troublesome Burden to them A scrupulous Conscience therefore starts and boggles where there is no real Evil or Mischief is afraid of omitting or doing what may be omitted or done without Sin Which I know not how better to illustrate than by those unaccountable Antipathies or Prejudices that some men have against some sort of Meats or living Creatures which have not the least harm or hurt in them yet are so offensive and dreadful to such Persons that they fly from them as they would from a Tyger or Bear and avoid them as they would do the Plague or Poyson Just thus do some Men run out of the Church at the sight of a
or leave out of it till all Parties amongst us are satisfied which indeed can never be effected as it doth consist in our becoming more truly Christian in our Lives and Tempers They are our vicious Dispositions more than our different Apprehensions that keep us at such a distance Let the terms of Communion with the Church be what they will yet as long as Men retain the same quarrelsom Mind and industriously seek for Doubts and Scruples and are glad to find them and prefer their own private Opinion and Judgment before the Wisdom and Authority of all their Governours whether Civil or Ecclesiastical it is plain our Divisions and Animosities will not cannot cease But this leads me to the last thing I design'd to discourse of which was to propound to you the best ways and means by which men may get rid of and ease their Minds of such Scruples where I shall especially consider those that relate to our communicating with our Parish-Churches You must not expect that I should descend to and answer the particular Exceptions which hinder men from constant Communion with us but only in general I shall crave leave to advise some few things which would mightily tend to the removing those Doubts and Scruples that yet detain so many in a state of utter Separation from us or at least discourage their total and hearty joyning with us Which charitable Design and Attempt however unsuccessful I may be in it yet cannot I hope be unacceptable to any whose Consciences are pester'd with such Scruples since I endeavour only to deliver them from those Mistakes which beside the disservice they do to Religion and the Protestant Interest do also expose them to trouble and danger from the Publick Laws and Civil Magistrate Of many Rules that might be given in this case I shall insist only on these following 1. We should take great care to beget and cherish in our Minds the most high and worthy and honourable Thoughts of God Almighty This is the Foundation of all Religion and as our Apprehensions of God are such for the most part will be his Worship and Service Accordingly as we conceive of his Nature so shall we judge what things are most pleasing to him as also what they are that are most offensive and distastful to him Now consider I beseech you Can that Man have becoming and excellent Thoughts of the Divine Nature who imagines that God regards any particular Gestures Habits and Postures so far as that the acceptance of our Service and Worship should depend upon such Circumstances of our Religious Actions When with all Humility and true devotion of Heart a sincere Christian prostrates himself at the Throne of God's Grace and with earnest Desire and Affections begs those good things that are according to Gods Mind and Will can we believe that the Father of our Spirits shall refuse and reject his Petition because it is delivered in a certain prescribed form of Words Shall his importunate renewed Requests fail of Success because he still useth the same Expressions and reads his Prayers out of a Book Is God pleased with variety of Words or the copiousness of our Invention or the elegancy of our Phrase and Stile Is it not the Heart and inward frame of Spirit that God principally respects in all our Prayers Or can we think so meanly of God that he should shut his ears against the united Prayers of his People because offended at the colour of the Garment in which the Minister officiates Suppose two Persons both with equal Preparation with true Repentance and Faith to approach the Lord's Table one of them out of a deep sense of his Unworthiness to receive so great Blessings and out of a grateful acknowledgment of the Benefits therein conferr'd upon him takes the Sacrament upon his Knees in the humblest Posture the other sitting or standing can you think that the Sacrament is effectual or beneficial or that God blesses it only to him that sits or that it would not have been of the same advantage to him if he also had received it kneeling To surmise any such thing is surely to dishonour God as if he were a low poor humoursome Being like a Father that should disinherit his Child tho in all Respects most dutiful to him and every way deserving his greatest Kindness only because he did not like his Complexion or the colour of his Hair The wiser and greater any Person is to whom we address our selves the less he will stand upon little Punctilio's Under the Jewish Law the minutest circumstances of Worship were exactly described and determined by God himself and it was not ordinarily lawful for the Priests at all to vary from them But it was necessary then that it should be thus because the Jewish Worship was typical of what was to come hereafter and those many nice Observances that were appointed were not commanded for themselves as if there were any Excellency in them but they were shadows of things to come which are all now done away by the Gospel and the bringing in of everlasting Righteousness the only thing always pleasing to God and agreeable to his Nature It is a spiritual rational Service God now expects from us and delights in and he must look upon God as a very fond and captious Being who can perswade himself that our Prayers and Thanksgivings and other Acts of Worship tho we be most hearty and devout in them yet shall be rejected by him only because of some particular Habits or Gestures we used which were neither dishonourable to God nor unsutable to the nature of those religious Performances Such mean Thoughts of God are the true ground of all Superstition when we think to court and please him by making great Conscience about little things and so it hath been truly observed that there is far more Superstition in conscientious abstaining from that which God hath no where forbid than there is in doing that which God hath not commanded A man may certainly do what God hath not commanded and yet never think to flatter God by it nor place any Religion in it but he may do it only out of obedience to his Superiours for outward Order and Decency for which end our Ceremonies are appointed and so there is no Superstition in them But now a Man cannot out of Conscience refuse to do what God hath not forbid and is by lawful Authority required of him but he must think to please God by such abstaining and in this conceit of pleasing or humouring God by indifferent things consists the true Spirit of Superstition 2. Lay out your great care and zeal about the necessary and substantial duties of Religion and this will make you less concerned about things of an inferiour and indifferent nature As on the one hand our fierce Disputes and Debates about little things and circumstances are apt to eat out the Heart and Life of Religion so on the other side minding those things most in
Leen offered in Sacrifice by the Gentiles to their Daemons which I shall have occasion to explain at large hereafter to you But it is equally applicable to all things of the like Indifferent nature And there are two Rules laid down by him there which men ought to govern themselves by in the use of such things 1. The First is the Glory of God v. 31. Whatsoever therefore ye do whether ye eat or drink do all to the glory of God i. e. whatever ye do in these things be sure you have respect to the Law and Will of God and take heed that you violate none of the divine Commandments either by what you do or what you refuse to do in things of this nature For this is the true notion and meaning of doing all to the glory of God i. e. Keeping us close to the observance of those Laws and Rules that he hath commanded us For then God is most truly glorified by us when we express a great sense of his Soveraignty and Laws in all that we do But this by the way The 2d Rule is Charity and respect to the benefit and advantage of those we converse with and live among that we neither grieve nor injure them by any thing that we do or neglect to do and this is the meaning of these words so often quoted by our dissenting Brethren Give none offence neither to the Jews nor to the Gentiles nor to the Church of God This is that Rule of our actions in all indifferent things which I have chosen to consider in this discourse and the rather because we have some contest with our dissenting Brethren about it There hath been great talk about Scandal and giving Offence to weak and tender Consciences by Conformty and Compliance with all those things which the Church of England requires in her Liturgie and amongst all the other Arguments and Pretences against it this hath been prest to serve in the Cause either to add some real weight to the rest or at least to add to their number Though to tell you plainly I think it is onely to make a shew and to render the bulk of their Exceptions the bigger that this is summoned to the Muster and not for any real weight that there is in it to serve the Cause However whatever there is in it a great noise is made with it and as a mighty noise hath been made about Scandal and great pains used to wrest the notion of it to serve mens purposes in these things so great art hath been employed to accommodate it to the present purpose and to fright men with the guilt and danger of it from complying with the Institutions of the Church which as is pretended are so very great a Scandal and Offence to weak Consciences Two great and popular Pleas against the Liturgie of the Church of England and the Ceremonies retained by it have been these tenderness and scruples of Conscience in some and fear of Scandal and giving Offence to such in others Some men have pleaded their own Scruples and want of sufficient Conviction and Information and excused their omission of these things from that saying of the Apostle Rom. 14. 23. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin And some have alledged their fear of Scandal and offending others and pleaded that in bar of their compliance from these words of the same Apostle Give none offence c. How much the sence of the first place is mistaken and how false the consequence that is made from it is I am not now obliged to shew My Province at this time is about the second this place that I have now quoted in order to which I intend to do these two things 1. Shew that this place is not at all concerned in our present Question nor will serve that purpose that the Dissenters from our Church alledge it for 2. That if it were it would conclude against them and their practice in the present Case betwixt us 1. I begin with the first which is to shew that this place is not concerned in our present Case nor pertinently urged by our Brethren against their Conformity to the present Rites and Usages of the Church And this I might do from two things mistaken greatly in the application of this Text. 1. The true notion of Scandal and Offence here mentioned 2. The nature of the things to which it is applied which is vastly different from what men scruple or forbear in our Case 1. From the true notion of Scandal and Offence that is mentioned in this place and in many other places in the New Testament I do not intend here a large Discourse of the nature of Scandal in the general or a removing and rectifying those many common mistakes in the world about it but only to observe so much as will be sufficient to my present purpose 1. Then I observe that as there are onely two notions of Scandal in the New Testament so there are only two Cases in which men are properly and primarily capable of being guilty of it I mean in giving it to others 1. The first notion of Scandal is That it is a Snare or a Gin by which men are intrapped and drawn into some plain sin and wickedness In which sence it is used in many places and particularly in that famous Speech of our Saviours Matth. 18. 6. to 10. And men do then give offence or scandalize others when they do that which directly and in its own nature tends to induce others either to do that which God hath forbidden and is a sin or omit that which he hath commanded and is a plain Duty both which men may do several ways which it is not now so very needful to reckon up singly 2. The second notion of Scandalâ—is That it is some just cause of grief or trouble to others in their Christian course and that which hinders them from walking in it with that chearfulness and security that they otherwise would According to which sence it is rendred Offence in this and many other Texts of Scripture i. e. some just cause of offence of trouble or grief given to another by something that he sees us either omit or do In this sence it is used in many places of the New Testament not for that which is a direct occasion of another mans sin but a just cause of his grief and sorrow and discouragement in the way of Duty So it is used particularly Joh. 16. 1. and Rom. 14. 15. it is expressed by grieving And in this sence men give offence to others when either by doing or neglecting something themselves they give just cause of sorrow or grief to others and discourage them in their Christian course and occasion to them some trouble and grief of mind that otherwise might be free from 2. Having observed this therefore I proceed in the second place to observe that neither of these notions of Scandal can be accommodated to our present case nor can
Canon and not be expunged utterly by those men that truly would not be much more injurious to it in this instance than they are in some others But were there no Scripture for it I suppose we should not need to dispute it with any men that ever are in Authority There are few of these that will permit their own Authority to be disputed or Conscience pleaded against it by their Children or Servants or those that they have the conduct of And we are beholding to our Brethren for letting us know their minds in this For no men have been more rigorous in exacting obedience to all their Ordinances and reproaching and punishing all that dissented from them as Enemies to God and Christ than they know who in times past were Never were Institutions of men magnified more for promoting the honour of God exalting the Kingdom and Scepter of Christ nor men charged more strictly in point of Conscience with obedience to them So that the crying out against becoming the servants of men is but an artifice to pull down Government which when men have once leaped into they will by no means endure to be used against themselves 5. But that which I am more directly concerned here to shew is that the things related to in this Text were not onely indifferent but undetermined too I mean no Law had been made by the Church about them one way or other The truth of which it concerns me to make out not onely to serve my present purpose but because it may be something questioned from what we read Acts 17. 29. where among the Canons of that Apostolick Council this is the first That ye abstain from meats offered to Idols which seems to be the very thing that the Apostle is discoursing of in this place And first it cannot be denied that in the beginning of the Apostles Discourse upon these things from v. 14. to v. 25. the same things are related unto that are prohibited by that Canon of the Council i. e. the eating in the Idolatrous Feasts of the Heathen and of those meats which they knew were by that Rite offered in Sacrifice unto their Idols For the Heathen Sacrifices were not finished onely at their Altar but the Solemnity was continued and compleated by their eating and drinking together upon the remainders of what they had actually offered and consumed in Sacrifice Just as some of the Jewish Sacrifices we know were from whom the Heathen transcribed many of their practices aping them in almost all their Institutions 2. But then secondly that which he takes occasion to discourse of afterwards and to which this Speech immediately relates seems to be very different from what he had been speaking of before and which is the thing prohibited by the Council of the Apostles Which will appear sufficiently from these two Considerations 1. That the Apostle here takes upon him a liberty to indulge a Latitude in these things which be sure he would never have done had it been in that very Case that the Apostles had determined before And this we may be the more certain of by considering the circumstances of that whole affair which so much as concerns our present business was briefly thus The Jewish Converts retained a great veneration for the Ceremonial Law to which they had been inured and educated in the observation of these being interspersed abroad in many places where many of the Heathens were converted to Christianity were greatly offended with that liberty which they saw the others took in the use of those meats which their Law prohibited as unclean This caused hot Contests and sharp Disputes between the two Parties to the breach of Christian Communion and the great Scandal of their Religion The Apostles therefore are consulted in this great affair and having maturely considered and canvassed the matter determine onely to restrain the liberty that the Gentile-Converts took in these three instances To abstain from things offered to Idols and from things Strangled and from Blood St. Paul as he was the Apostle of the Gentiles so he was the great Agent for them in this business and the chief person that carried these Constitutions of the Apostles unto their Churches of which at this time the Church of Corinth was one principal and most considerable Now it is not to be supposed that the Apostle would carry this Constitution and Order to them which they so joyfully and thankfully embraced saith St. Luke and afterwards presently would take upon him to dispense with the strict observation of and to grant a great Indulgence and Latitude in This would be the ready way to expose himself and his Doctrine too to contempt and censure and to give cause for a sharper reproof of himself than he gave to St. Peter for a lesser matter than this was So that we may be sure the particular matter here related unto was not the Case which the Canon of the Apostles had regulated but that it was some other thing which had not been determined by them 2. And this we may collect also from the Phrase in which he discourseth this matter here in this Text Whatsoever is sold in the shambles that eat asking no question for Conscience sake v. 25. and If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 invite you to an entertainment for there is no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek and ye be disposed to go whatsoever is set before you eat asking no question for conscience sake v. 27. By both which expressions it is plain that the Apostle here is discoursing of another matter than what was enjoyned by the Canon or at least of the same thing under a very different denomination and circumstance from that it is considered in there For meat bought in the Shambles and eating in the common entertainments of their Heathen Neighbours are plainly different from the notion of things offered to Idols taken notice of by the Canon And this whole matter will be made plain by giving an account of it and shewing wherein the things offered to Idols intended by the Apostles and those discoursed of by the Apostle in this place do differ The things offered to Idols forbidden by that Council were such part whereof was not onely offered in Sacrifice but was solemnly eaten afterwards as the Idols meat and the whole Feast continued as a solemn act of Religion and Sacrifice as we know it was and performed not onely as a Rite of confederating with the Idol but of being more closely united unto him and receiving a divine afflatus and influence from him And although the Idol to which this was done was really nothing and the whole performance a meer vanity having no real foundation at all in nature and so possibly these meats might have been safely partaken of by those that were well instructed and knew these things Yet the Apostles thought fit to forbid them for the forementioned reason of giving offence to
at the Consecration of the Eucharist make use of the Lords Prayer By these and sundry other Testimonies which are quoted by learned men upon this argument it 's evident that the Church of Christ in all Ages look'd upon the Lords Prayer as a standing Form given by our Saviour to be perpetually used by Christians and to be sure they who believed the institution of it to be perpetually obliging could not make the least doubt but that it was constantly used in the Apostolick Age. And my thinks 't is very strange that had the institution been temporary the Church of Christ for fifteen hundred years should never be wise enough to discover it and it seems to me a very high presumption for us to determine against the constant belief and practice of the Church in all Ages without the least warrant so to do either from our Saviour or his Apostles By all this therefore it 's abundantly evident that both in the Old and New Testament there have been Forms of Prayer instituted and appointed by God himself so that were that true which our Brethren affirm that nothing ought to be admitted into the Worship of God which he hath not commanded yet this will not conclude against the admission of Forms of Prayer since there are Forms which God himself hath commanded But they object yet farther That all that this proves is that Forms of Prayer of Gods appointment may and ought to be admitted into his Worship which no body doubts of but from hence it doth by no means follow that men may appoint Forms of humane composure for those Forms of Prayer which God prescribed were immediately dictated by him to those inspired persons who delivered 'em and therefore we may as well pretend to appoint new Scripture for publick instruction because those inspired persons did so as to appoint new Forms for publick Worship Now because I perceive this Objection is very much insisted on by our Brethren I shall endeavour to return a full and clear answer to it in these following Propositions First That this Objection allows the prescribing of Forms of Prayer to be lawful in its own nature Secondly That it must allow the prescribing of publick Forms to be not onely lawful but good and useful Thirdly It must also allow that Gods prescribing Forms of Prayer by inspired persons is so far forth a Warrant for our imitation as the thing it self is good and useful and lawfully imitable by us Fourthly That though it follows that because God by inspired persons hath prescribed Forms of Prayer therefore the Church may prescribe them upon Gods reasons yet it doth by no means follow that therefore it may prescribe them as Scripture or divine Inspirations First That this Objection allows the prescribing of Forms of Prayer to be lawful of its own nature that is to be void of all intrinsick evil and to have no contrariety in the nature of it to the eternal Rules and Dictates of right reason for this Objection granting as it doth that God hath prescribed Forms of Prayer must either admit that God may do and hath done that which is intrinsically evil and repugnant to right reason or grant that the prescribing of Forms hath no intrinsick evil in it And in particular it is to be considered that our Saviours prescribing his Form was a tacit approbation of other Forms that were prescribed before and that not onely by God but by men too for though besides those Forms which were prescribed by God for the publick Worship of the Jews their Doctors tell us of sundry Forms of humane Composure that were used in their Temple and Synagogues in our Saviour's time yet he was so far from disapproving either them or that which John Baptist taught his Disciples that in conformity to the later he prescribed a Form to his own Disciples which Form of his as our Learned Gregory hath proved he collected out of Forms of Prayer which were then used among the Jews in whose Books the several parts and clauses of it are extant almost verbatim to this day and certainly had he disapproved their Forms as evil and sinful he would never have collected his own Prayer out of ' em Since therefore our Saviour hath not onely given us a Form but hath also given it under such circumstances as do plainly signifie his approbation of other Forms it necessarily follows that either he hath approved that which is evil or that Forms of Prayer are not evil Secondly That this Objection must allow the prescribing of publick Forms to be not onely lawful in it self but also good and useful for whatsoever God doth he is directed to do by his own infallible Wisdom which always proceeds upon the best reasons and proposes the best ends of action to him and the most effectual means to compass and obtain 'em when therefore we grant that God hath done such or such a thing we must either allow the thing to be good and useful to some excellent end and purpose or suppose that he did not consult his Wisdom in it or that his Wisdom was mistaken He therefore who allows that God hath prescribed Forms of Prayer must either blaspheme his Wisdom or grant the prescribing 'em to be good and useful But it is objected that the prescribing 'em was good and useful onely at that time and under those circumstances wherein they were prescribed as for instance in the times of the Old Testament it may be allowed that the prescribing of Forms might be good and useful the Jews to whom they were prescribed being a carnal dull and stupid People and yet under the times and circumstances of the Gospel-state which is so vastly different the prescribing 'em may not onely cease to be good but become hurtful and injurious To which in short I answer 1st That supposing it were the Carnality Dulness and Stupidity of the Jews that render'd Forms so useful to 'em I doubt that as to those particulars the case is not so much alter'd with the generality of Christians but that they may be useful still and though 't is to be hoped we are not altogether so very dull and carnal as they were yet as it hath been made appear in the former part of this Treatise we are not so perfectly refin'd from Dulness and Carnality but that Forms of Prayer may still be very useful to us But 2ly this Objection allows not onely that there were Forms of Prayer prescribed in the Old Testament but that our Saviour himself hath also prescribed one in the New for all successive Ages to pray by and if so then we must either blaspheme the Wisdom of our Saviour for prescribing what is vain and useless or grant the prescription of Forms to be good and useful not onely for the Jewish but also for the Gospel-state Thirdly This Objection must also allow that Gods prescribing Forms of Prayer by inspired persons is so far forth a Warrant for our imitation as the
Subscription that is required to the 39 Articles it is very Consistent with Our Churches giving all Men Liberty to Judge for themselves and not Exercising Authority as the Romish Church doth over our Faith for she requires no Man to believe those Articles but at worst only thinks it Convenient that none should receive Orders or be admitted to Benefices c. but such as do believe them not all as Articles of our Faith but many as inferiour truths and requires Subscription to them as a Test whereby to Judge who doth so believe them But the Church of Rome requires all under Pain of Damnation to believe all her long Bed-roul of Doctrines which have only the Stamp of her Authority and to believe them too as Articles of Faith or to believe them with the same Divine Faith that we do the indisputable Doctrines of our Saviour and his Apostles For a proof hereof the Reader may consult the Bull of Pope Pius the Fourth which is to be found at the End of the Council of Trent Herein it is Ordained that Profession of Faith shall be made and sworn by all Dignitaries Prebendaries and such as have Benefices with Cure Military Officers c. in the Form following IN. Do believe with a firm Faith and do profess all and every thing contained in the Confession of Faith which is used by the Holy Roman Church viz. I believe in one God the Father Almighty and so to the end of the Nicene Creed I most firmly admit and embrace the Apostolical and Ecclesiastical Traditions and the other Observances and Constitutions of the said Church Also the Holy Scriptures according to the Sense which our Holy Mother the Church hath held and doth hold c. I profess also that there are truly and properly Seven Sacraments of the New Law instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord and necessary to the Salvation of Mankind although all are not necessary to every individual Person c. I also admit and receive the Received and approved Rites of the Catholick Church in the Solemn Administration of all the foresaid Sacraments of which I have given the Reader a taste I Embrace and Receive all and every thing which hath been declared and defined concerning Original Sin and Justification in the Holy Synod of Trent I likewise profess that in the Mass a True Proper and Propitiatory Sacrifice is Offered to God for the quick and dead And that the Body and Blood of Christ is truly really and substantially in the most Holy Eucharist c. I also Confess that whole and intire Christ and the true Sacrament is received under one of the kinds only I constantly hold that there is a Purgatory and that the Souls there detained are relieved by the Prayers of the Faithful And in like manner that the Saints Reigning with Christ are to be Worshipped and Invoked c. And that their Relicks are to be Worshipped I most firmly assert that the Images of Christ and of the Mother of God always a Virgin and of the other Saints are to be had and kept and that due Honour and Worship is to be given to them I Affirm also that the power of Indulgences is left by Christ in his Church and that the use of them is very Salutiferous to Christian People I acknowledge the Holy Catholick and Apostolick Roman Church the Mother and Mistress of all Churches and I Profess and Swear Obedience to the Bishop of Rome the Successor of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles and the Vicar of Jesus Christ Also all the other things delivered decreed and declared by the Holy Canons and Oecumenical Councils and especially by the Holy Synod of Trent I undoubtedly receive and profess As also all things contrary to these and all Heresies Condemned Rejected and Anathematized by the Church I in like manner Condemns Reject and Anathematize This true Catholick Faith viz. all this Stuff of their own together with the Articles of the Creed without which no Man can be Saved which at this present I truly profess and sincerely hold I will God Assisting me most constantly Retain and Confess intire and inviolate and as much as in me lies will take Care that it be held taught and declared by those that are under me or the Care of whom shall be committed to me I the same N. do Profess Vow and Swear So help me God and the Holy Gospels of God Who when he Reads this can forbear pronouncing the Reformation of the Church of England a most Glorious Reformation 2. As to the Motives our Church proposeth for our belief of the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures viz. that that Doctrine is of Divine Revelation they are no other than such as are found in the Scriptures themselves viz. the Excellency thereof which consists in its being wholly adapted to the reforming of mens Lives and renewing their Natures after the Image of God and the Miracles by which it is confirmed And as to the Evidence of the truth of the matters of Fact viz. that there were such Persons as the Scriptures declare to have revealed Gods will to the World such as Moses our Saviour Christ and his Apostles and that these Persons delivered such Doctrine and Confirmed it by such Miracles and that the Books of Scripture were written by those whose Names they bear I say as to the Evidence of the truth of these matters of Fact our Church placeth it not in her own Testimony or in the Testimony of any Particular Church and much less that of Rome but in the Testimony of the whole Catholick Church down to us from the time of the Apostles and of Vniversal Tradition taking in that of Strangers and Enemies as well as Friends of Jews and Pagans as well as Christians Secondly We proceed to shew that a Churches Symbolizing or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome is no Warrant for Separation from the Church so agreeing Agreement with the Church of Rome in things either in their own nature good or made so by a Divine Precept none of our Dissenting Brethren could ever imagine not to be an indispensable duty Agreement with her in what is in its own nature Evil or made so by a Divine Prohibition none of us are so forsaken of all Modesty as to deny it to be an inexcusable sin The Question therefore is whether to agree with this Apostate Church in some things of an indifferent nature be a Sin and therefore a just ground for Separation from the Church so agreeing But by the way if we should suppose that a Churches agreeing with the Church of Rome in some indifferent things is sinful I cannot think that any of the more Sober Sort of Dissenters and I despair of success in arguing with any but such will thence infer that Separation from the Church so agreeing is otherwise warrantable than upon the account of those things being imposed as necessary terms of Communion But I am so far from taking it for granted
that a Church is guilty of Sin in agreeing in some indifferent things with the Church of Rome that I must needs profess I have often wondred how this should become a Question Seeing whatsoever is of an indifferent nature as it is not Commanded so neither is it Forbidden by any Moral or Positive Law and where there is no Law the Apostle saith there is no transgression Sin being according to his definition the transgression of the Law And whereas certain Circumstances will make things that in themselves are neither duties nor sins to be either duties or sins and to fall by Consequence under some Divine Command or Prohibition I have admired how this Circumstance of an indifferent thing 's being used by the Church of Rome can be thought to alter the Nature of that thing and make it cease to be indifferent and become sinful But that it doth so is endeavoured to be proved by that general Prohibition to the Israelites of imitating the doings of the Aegyptians and Canaanites in those Words Lev. 18. 2. After the doings of the Land of Aegypt wherein ye dwell shall ye not do and after the doings of the Land of Canaan whither I bring you shall ye not do neither shall ye walk in their Ordinances This place divers of the Defenders of Nonconformity have laid great weight upon as a proof of the Sinfulness of Symbolizing with the Church of Rome Even in indifferent things But I chuse to forbear the Naming of any whose Arguings I purpose to inquire into because I would prevent if it be possible the least suspition in the Readers that I design in this Performance to expose any Mans weakness in particular or that I am therein Acted by any Personal Piques Now then as to the Text now Cited not to insist upon the Fallaciousness of Arguing without mighty caution from Laws given by Moses to the Israelites so as to infer the Obligation of Christians who are under a dispensation so different from theirs and in Circumstances so vastly differing from those they were in I say not to insist upon the Fallaciousness of this way of Arguing which all considering Persons must needs be aware of if this general Prohibition be not at all to be limited then it will follow from thence that the Israelites might have no usages whatsoever in common with the Aegyptians or Canaanites and therefore in as general terms as the Prohibition runs our Brethren must needs acknowledge that there is a restriction therein intended it being the most absurd thing to imagine that the Israelites were so bound up by God as to be Obliged to an unlikeness to those People in all their Actions For as the Apostles said of the Christians if they were never to Company with Wicked Men they must needs go out of the World we may say of the Israelites in reference to this Case of theirs they then must needs have gone out of the World Now if this general Prohibition After their doings ye shall not do be to be limited and restrained what way have we to do it but by considering the Context and confining the restriction to those Particulars Prohibited in the following verses But I need not shew that the particulars forbidden in all these viz. from v. 5th to the 24th were not things of an indifferent Nature but Incestuous Copulations and other abominable Acts of Vncleanness And God doth Expresly enough thus restrain that general Prohibition in the 24th v. in these Words Defile not your selves in any of these things for in all these the Nations are Defiled which I cast out before you But those that alledge this Text to the foresaid purpose will not hear of the general Proposition's being thus limited by the Context as apparent as it is that it necessarily must because say they we find that God forbids the Israelites in other places to imitate Heathens in things of an Indifferent and Innocent Nature To this I Answer First That supposing this were so it doth not from thence follow that God intended to forbid such imitations in this place the contrary being so manifest as we have seen But Secondly That God hath any where prohibited the Israelites to Symbolize with Heathens in things of a meer Indifferent and Innocent Nature I mean that he hath made it unlawful to them to observe any such Customs of the Heathens meerly upon the account of their being like them is a very great mistake Which will appear by considering those places which are produced for it One is Deut. 14. 1. You shall not Cut your selves nor make any baldness between your Eyes for the dead Now as to the former of these prohibited things who seeth not that 't is Vnnatural and therefore not indifferent And as to the latter viz. the disfiguring of themselves by Cutting off their Eyebrows this was not meerly an indifferent thing neither It being a Custom at Funerals much disbecoming the People of God which would make them look as if they sorrowed for the dead as Men without hope Another place insisted upon for the same purpose is Lev. 19. 19. Thou shalt not let thy Cattle-Gender with a divers kind thou shalt not sow thy ground with mingled seed nor shall a Garment of Linnen and Woollen come upon thee Now these three 't is said are things of so indifferent a Nature that none can be more indifferent I answer 'T is readily granted But where is it said that these things were forbidden because the Heathens used them Maimonides indeed as I learn from Grotius saith that the Aegyptians used these mixtures of Seeds and of Linnen and Woollen in many of their Magical Exploits but 't is universally acknowledged that these things among many other were forbidden to the Jews as Mystical instructions in Moral Duties I have found no other Text made use of to prove meer indifferent things to have been forbidden the Israelites only in regard of Heathens using them which make more for this purpose than these two do nor hardly another that makes so much But if there were never so many it is not worth our while to concern ourselves now with them because though we should suppose a great number of instances of such things as were forbidden those People for no other reason but because the Egyptians or Canaanites used them yet this would signifie nothing to the proving Our Churches Symbolizing with that of Rome in indifferent things to be Unlawful because there is not the like reason why in such things we may not Symbolize with Papists that there was why the Jews should be forbidden to Symbolize in such with those Heathens For there could not be too great a distance and unlikeness between those People and these in their usages in regard of their strangely Vehement inclination to their Superstitious and Idolatrous Practices And upon this account the distance was made wider as our Brethren themselves will acknowledge between the Jews and the Pagans than it ought to be between
could allot any more time for a solemn preparation for it than they did for any other part of divine worship And consequently that the Apostle when he bids the Corinthians examine themselves could mean no more than that considering the nature and ends of this Institution they should come to it with great reverence and reflecting upon their former miscarriages in this matter should be carefull upon this admonition to avoid them for the future and to amend what had been amiss which to doe requires rather resolution and care than any long time of preparation I speak this that devout persons may not be entangled in an apprehension of a greater necessity than really there is of a long and solemn preparation every time they receive the Sacrament The great necessity that lies upon men is to live as becomes Christians and then they can never be absolutely unprepared Nay I think this to be a very good preparation and I see not why men should not be very well satisfied with it unless they intend to make the same use of the Sacrament that many of the Papists do of Confession and Absolution which is to quit with God once or twice a year that so they may begin to sin again upon a new score But because the Examination of our selves is a thing so very usefull and the time which men are wont to set apart for their preparation for the Sacrament is so advantageous an opportunity for the practice of it therefore I cannot but very much commend those who take this occasion to search and try their ways and to call themselves to a more solemn account of their actions Because this ought to be done sometime and I know no fitter time for it than this And perhaps some would never find time to recollect themselves and to take the condition of their souls into serious consideration were it not upon this solemn occasion The sum of what I have said is this that supposing a person to be habitually prepared by a religious disposition of mind and the general course of a good life this more solemn actual preparation is not always necessary And it is better when there is an opportunity to receive without it than not to receive at all But the greater our actual preparation is the better For no man can examine himself too often and understand the state of his soul too well and exercise repentance and renew the resolutions of a good life too frequently And there is perhaps no fitter opportunity for the doing of all this than when we approach the Lord's table there to commemorate his death and to renew our Covenant with him to live as becomes the Gospel All the Reflexion I shall now make upon this Discourse shall be from the consideration of what hath been said earnestly to excite all that profess and call themselves Christians to a due preparation of themselves for this holy Sacrament and a frequent participation of it according to the intention of our Lord and Saviour in the institution of it and the undoubted practice of Christians in the primitive and best times when men had more devotion and fewer scruples about their duty If we do in good earnest believe that this Sacrament was instituted by our Lord in remembrance of his dying love we cannot but have a very high value and esteem for it upon that account Methinks so often as we reade in the institution of it those words of our dear Lord doe this in remembrance of me and consider what he who said them did for us this dying charge of our best friend should stick with us and make a strong impression upon our minds Especially if we add to these those other words of his not long before his death Greater love than this hath no man that a man lay down his life for his friend ye are my friends if ye doe whatsoever I command you It is a wonderfull love which he hath expressed to us and worthy to be had in perpetual remembrance And all that he expects from us by way of thankfull acknowledgment is to celebrate the remembrance of it by the frequent participation of this blessed Sacrament And shall this charge laid upon us by him who laid down his life for us lay no obligation upon us to the solemn remembrance of that unparallel'd kindness which is the fountain of so many blessings and benefits to us It is a sign we have no great sense of the benefit when we are so unmindfull of our benefactour as to forget him days without number The Obligation he hath laid upon us is so vastly great not onely beyond all requital but beyond all expression that if he had commanded us some very grievous thing we ought with all the readiness and chearfulness in the world to have done it how much more when he hath imposed upon us so easie a commandment a thing of no burthen but of immense benefit when he hath onely said to us Eat O friends and drink O beloved when he onely invites us to his table to the best and most delicious Feast that we can partake of on this side heaven If we seriously believe the great blessings which are there exhibited to us and ready to be conferred upon us we should be so far from neglecting them that we should heartily thank God for every opportunity he offers to us of being made partakers of such benefits When such a price is put into our hands shall we want hearts to make use of it Methinks we should long with David who saw but the shadow of these blessings to be satisfied with the good things of God's house and to draw near his altar and should cry out with him O when shall I come and appear before thee My soul longeth ye even fainteth for the courts of the Lord and my flesh cryeth out for the living God And if we had a just esteem of things we should account it the greatest infelicity and judgment in the world to be debarred of this privilege which yet we do deliberately and frequently deprive our selves of We exclaim against the Church of Rome with great impatience and with a very just indignation for robbing the People of half of this blessed Sacrament and taking from them the cup of blessing the cup of salvation and yet we can patiently endure for some months nay years to exclude our selves wholly from it If no such great benefits and blessings belong to it why do we complain of them for hindring us of any part of it But if there do why do we by our own neglect deprive our selves of the whole In vain do we bemoan the decay of our graces and our slow progress and improvement in Christianity whilst we wilfully despise the best means of our growth in goodness Well do we deserve that God should send leanness into our souls and make them to consume and pine away in perpetual doubting and trouble if when God himself doth spread so bountifull
have been lessen'd with the character of dull honest and moral Men fit onely for Catechists and Christians of the lowest Form Tickle but their imaginations with conjectural Discourses about the Situation of Paradise of old or Hell now and you are a sounder Divine than he that onely draws wholsom Conclusions from Adam's prevarication to caution you against sin of the like nature or how to avoid those dismal flames where ever they are And others have been silly and phantastick in admiring those who have pratled about the length of the Sword that guarded Paradise or how the Spirits above pass Eternity away and scorn'd him who in plain methods chalkt them out the way that will lead them to Heaven The ancient Gnosticks because they 1 Tim. 1. 4. made a mixture of the Jewish Fables and Genealogies of their Lilith and Behemoth and fetcht in the Stories of the Gods out of Orpheus and Philistion two great Divines in the Pagan Religion into plain Christianity thought themselves the most knowing Men of the Secrets of God and Heaven and wondred how onely Faith upon Jesus and keeping of the Commands could be knowing of God or Wisdom from above The wranglings of the Schools with their fine distinctions and barbarous terms fitter for Magick than Christianity by their Disciples have been priz'd for great and precious Truths And Enthusiastick Raptures and slights making once the Brain to swim have snatcht the hearers beyond themselves and then thought them the Dictates of the Spirit and the Teachings of God and the more dark and obscure the Doctrine hath been the greater illumination it was esteem'd and call'd a noon-day Thought which was a mid-night Dream Such things as these pass with too many for saving Truths a great part of Mankind being ignorant in their Heads and corrupt in their Practice espous'd to Parties and Interests having Constitutions and Passions fit for these they readily swallow them down The Apostle confirms the truth of this telling 2 Tim. 4. 3. us the time will come when they will not endure sound Doctrine but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves Teachers having itching Ears caus'd by some disease of Vice within which is not to be cured by good Physick but onely scratch'd and gratifi'd and if the Food though wholsom and good be not to their Palate and Fancy they complain of hunger and starving These and many more are the Instances of a weak and sickly nature craving onely nice and curious things for Spiritual Meat and kecking at the sincere Milk of the Word plain and substantial Truths that it may grow thereby To give therefore a liberty to every Man to run from an established Church upon the account of better Edification which is so often and easily mistaken is to direct Men into temptation and a snare and is dangerous and sinful and when once the gap is open where will especially the Vulgar stop May we not add that this pretence of better Edification is very fit to disguise and colour other Vices When Controversies have unhappily risen from an unjust denial of the Ministers Rights and Dues or the accidents of civil conversation they make the Ministry that was spiritual and good before to be call'd dull and mean and better must be sought elsewhere while onely Revenge or Covetousness is at the bottom Wandring Reports or their own lavish Tongue and censorious Temper have call'd some Pastours Covetous or Intemperate or branded them with other Vices and then cry out they cannot Edifie in such a Church and so make one fault help out another and Defamation must excuse their Schism 2. In taking the Opinions of Parties for undoubted Truths essential to salvation When men have once wedded a Party and the Opinions peculiar to it they magnifie and propagate them grow furious for their defence and call them the best part of Religion and if these be not abetted and cry'd up by the Pastours of our Church or they differ from them in explications and distinctions of them the way of salvation is not taught they do not improve their Spiritual condition and therefore is a just cause of their Separation Because the Notion or Explication of Faith and Spirit Church and Grace Justification Regeneration Conversion Adoption and other things of the like nature are generally different in our Church from those of the Separation they therefore cry we destroy the saving Truths of the Gospel and instead of being Edifi'd they find themselves weakned in their Christian Faith Though 't is plain to all impartial judgments that their sense and interpretation of them by natural consequences lessen the Grace of the Gospel and give security to lazy Sinners a strange sort of Edification For though our Charity is not so narrow as to think every man a vicious person who is thus mistaken in his conclusions yet however this alters not the nature of these Opinions and their consequences and who knows how far men of ill Principles do improve them Such is the perverse and angry temper of many about their own Opinions no way necessary to salvation wherein wise men and good men may differ which are not stated by Authority and may not be determin'd till Elias come yet if these be not insisted on and press'd with vehemency the great things of the Gospel are omitted and truths are wanting to their perfection And if once the People are possess'd with Opinions and Notions they grow fierce about them and call them salvation-truths and run head-long into a Sea of disorder and tumult for their defence The Disciples of the fifth Monarchy the Pretenders to the Spirit the Enemies of Childrens Baptism think themselves wrong'd and the Gospel hidden if casually they hear you making Interpretations of the Kingdom of Jesus the Operations of the Spirit and that divine Institution different from their lewd sense And many Questions when determin'd after a great deal of labour and passion and expence of time may improve our Knowledge but not Faith and a good Life the onely Edification The early and best Christians thought themselves mighty Saints and secure of Heaven if they onely knew Jesus and the Resurrection in their full extent and the World being such ill Judges about any other Edification it would be well if they return'd to this good old way and rest satisfi'd there lest they take the Inventions of Men Rhetorick or subtlety secular interest or conjectures for the Pillars of the Temple to support their Faith and so upon the score of Edification break the Peace and Unity of the Church and Obedience to our Governours the great things of Religion 3. In taking sudden heats and warmth for true Edification When melting tones affectionate expressions solemn looks and behaviour passion and vehemency and other Arts have play'd upon the fancy and put their constitutions into different motions some have though themselves so strangely Edifi'd as though it was the impulse and powerful acting of the Divine Spirit which
must with all our Old Churches c. or we are guilty of an inexcusable violation of the Divine Law And to except such things as these after they have Evinced from such Scriptures our obligation to destroy all things notoriously polluted in grosly Superstitious and Idolatrous Services seems to be making too too bold with the express Laws of God which make no such exceptions nor doth the forementioned reason of them imply any such And therefore they have been highly condemned for making such like exceptions by others of their Brethren who have Attained to a higher dispensation And considering this Concession that such things as the fore-named may still be lawfully used as also the Concessions of a nameless Author in his famous Book call'd Nehushtan that no Creature of God is to be refused nor any necessary or profitable devices of men need be sent packing upon the account of their having been much abused to the foresaid ends I appeal to their own more sedate thoughts whether all that can be concluded from such Scriptures is any more than this that things so abused ought to be destroyed or abolished by all who have power to do it in some certain case or cases and not merely for this reason because they have been so abused This I presume none of us will deny and if they will acknowledge it as they must do if they will stand to those their Concessions they will be Constrained to give up this Cause I will conclude the Argument in hand with the judgment of that Eminent Reformer Mr. Calvin whose Authority goes farther with the generality of our Brethren than I think any Mans next to the Apostles Saith he upon the Second Commandment I know that the Jews throughout the time of their Paedagogy were Commanded to destroy the Groves and Altars of Idolaters not by vertue of the Moral Law but by an Appendix in the Judicial or Politick Law which did oblige that People for a time only but it binds not Christians And therefore we do not in the least scruple whether we may Lawfully use those Temples Fonts and other Materials which have been heretofore abused to Idolatrous and Superstitious uses I acknowledge indeed that we ought to remove such things as seem to nourish Idolatry upon supposition that we our selves in opposing too violently things in their own Nature indifferent be not too Superstitious It is equally Superstitious to Condemn things indifferent as Vnholy and to Command them as if they were Holy Thus you see Mr. Calvins sense agreeth exactly with Ours touching this Point of Controversie between us and many of our Dissenting Brethren Secondly They endeavour also to make out this Doctrine of theirs by Scripture Examples There are four or five of these Examples insisted upon but I will trouble the Reader with considering only one of them both because it is the Principal Example and that which they lay most stress on and because the Reply I shall make to this will be as satisfactory in reference to the rest It is that of Hezekiah his breaking in pieces the Brazen Serpent that Moses had made because the Children of Israel burnt Incense to it 2 Kings 18. 4. Now saith a certain Noted Author What Example is more considerable than that of Hezekiah who not only abolished such Monuments of Idolatry as at their first Institution were but Men's inventions but brake down also the Brazen Serpent though Originally set up at Gods Command when once he saw it abused to Idolatry And he adds that this deed of Hezekiah Pope Stephen doth greatly Praise citing Wolphius for it and professeth that it is set before us for our imitation that when our Predecessors have wrought some things which might have been without fault in their time and afterwards they are converted into Error and Superstition they may be quickly destroyed by us who come after them Which soever of the Stephens this was he was a strangely Honest Pope especially had he Practised according to this his Profession and his Infallibility-ship had judg'd Impartially of Errors and Superstitions And he cites Farellus out of an Epistle of Calvins for this saying That Princes and Magistrates should learn by this Example of Hezekiah what they should do with those significant Rites of Mens devising which have turned to Superstition And he farther adds that the Bishop of Winchester in his Sermon on Phil. 2. 10. acknowledgeth that whatsoever is taken up at the injunction of Men when it is drawn to Superstition cometh under the Compass of the Brazen Serpent and is to be abolished And he saith he Excepteth nothing from this Example but only things of Gods own Prescribing But 't is strange if a Bishop should not except Churches and some other things besides which are of an humane make and as strange if there be nothing going before or coming after this acknowledgment to lead us to a better understanding of it We will not question our Authors faithfulness in Transcribing it but wish he had told us which Bishop of Winchester this is and in what page of his Sermon we might find this Acknowledgment But that this Fact of King Hezekiah will not prove that whatsoever hath been notoriously defiled in Idolatrous or grosly Superstitious Services ought to be abolished and much less that the not abolishing some such things is a good ground for Separation from the Church that neglects so to do will I presume sufficiently appear by these following Considerations First The Brazen Serpent was not only a thing defiled in Idolatrous Services but it was made an Idol it self Secondly It was not only a thing that had once been made an Idol or Object of Religious Worship but it was Actually so at that time when it was destroyed Nay it was at that instant an Object of the most gross kind of Idolatry It being not only bowed down to but had likewise Incense burnt to it this being a Rite which is never used in meer Civil Worship like bowing the Knee c. but so proper and peculiar to Divine Worship that no Rite is more so Nay farther Thirdly It was not thus notoriously Idolized by some few of the People but the People were generally lapsed into this Idolatry As the Text plainly sheweth Nay Fourthly There was as little hope as could be of the Peoples being reclaimed from this Idolatry while the Idol was in being Seeing that of a long time they had been accustomed thereunto For 't is said that unto those days the Children of Israel burnt Incense to it which speaks it to have been not only a Custom but a Custom also of a long standing Fifthly Although it had been only a thing defiled in Idolatrous Services yet we freely grant that it ought to have been destroyed or removed from the Peoples sight if the continuance of it in their View were like to be a Snare to them and a Temptation to Idolatry Since now the use of it was ceased for which by Divine
appointment it was first Erected But there was no necessity for this upon supposition that it had ceased to be abused for any considerable time and there were no appearance of an inclination in the People to abuse it again And no doubt all things of an indifferent Nature that have formerly been abused to Idolatry or Superstition ought to be taken away by the Governours whensoever they find their People again inclined so to abuse them at least if such abuse cannot probably be prevented by other means Sixthly But had Hezekiah suffered the Brazen Serpent still to stand no doubt private Persons who have no authority to make publick Reformations might Lawfully have made use of it to put them in mind of and affect them with the wonderful mercy of God expressed by it to their Fore-Fathers notwithstanding that many had not only formerly but did at that very nick of time make an Idol of it And much more might they have Lawfully continued in the Communion of the Church so long as there was no constraint laid upon them to joyn with them in their Idolatry As we do not read of any that Separated from the Church while the Brazen Serpent was permitted to stand as wofully abused as it was by the generality I will also conclude this Head with the sense of Mr. Calvin concerning Rites used and consequently superstitiously abused by the Papists expressed in these Words Let not any think me so austere or bound up Calv. de vitandâ Superstitione c. as to forbid a Christian without any exception to accommodate himself to the Papists in any Ceremony or Observance for it is not my purpose to Condemn any thing but what is clearly Evil and openly Vitious To which may be added many other such like sayings of this Learned Person And thus much shall suffice to be discoursed upon our second general Head viz. That a Church's Symbolizing in some things with the Church of Rome is no Warrant for Separation from the Church so Symbolizing We now proceed in the Third and last place to shew That the Agreement which is between the Church of England and the Church of Rome is in no wise such as will make Communion with the Church of England unlawful We have shewed what a vastly wide Distance and Disagreement there is between the Church of England and that of Rome And we have sufficiently though with the greatest brevity made it apparent that a Church's Symbolizing or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome and those such too as she hath abused in Idolatrous and grosly Superstitious Services is no just ground for Separation from the Church so agreeing And we have answered the Chief of those Arguments which have been brought for the Confirmation of the contrary Doctrine And now from what hath been discoursed it may with the greatest ease be prov'd that those things wherein our own Church particularly agreeth with the Romish Church do none of them speak such an Agreement therewith as will justifie Separation from our Church's Communion Now the particulars wherein our Church Symbolizeth with that of Rome which our Dissenters take offence at and make a pretence for Separation though all Dissenters are not offended at all of them and much less so offended as to make them all a pretence for Separation are principally these following First The Government of our Church by Bishops Secondly Our Churches prescribing a Liturgy or Set-Forms of Prayer and Administration of Sacraments and other Publick Offices Thirdly A Liturgy so contrived as that of our Church is Fourthly Certain Rites of our Church Particularly the Surplice the Cross in Baptism the Gesture of Kneeling at the Communion the Ring in Marriage and the Observation of certain Holy-days And to all these I shall speak very succinctly the limits I am confined to not permitting me to enlarge much upon any of them But I must first premise concerning them all in the general these following things First That I take it for granted that they are all indifferent in their own nature That there is nothing of Viciousness or Immorality in any of them to make them unlawful I know no body so unreasonable as not to grant this Secondly That there is no Express positive Law of God against any of these things I do not know of any such Law objected against any one of them And therefore if all or any of them are unlawful they must be made so either by Consequences drawn from Divine Laws or certain Circumstances attending them Thirdly That I am concerned in this Discourse to vindicate them from being unlawful upon the account onely of this one Circumstance viz. Our Symbolizing with the Church of Rome in them Now then First As to the Government of our Church by Bishops This is so far from being an Vnlawful Symbolizing with the Church of Rome that we have most clear Evidence of its being a Symbolizing with her in an Apostolical Institution And what Eminent Divines of the Presbyterial Party have acknowledg'd and is too evident to be denied or doubted by any who are not wholly ignorant of Church-History is sufficient I should think to satisfie unprejudiced persons concerning the truth of this And that is that this was the Government of all Churches in the World from the Apostles times for about 1500 years together Beza in his Treatise of a Threefold kind of Episcopacy Divine Humane and Satanical asserts concerning the second which is that which we call Apostolical that of this kind is to be understood whatsoever we read concerning the Authority of Bishops in Ignatius and other more Antient Writers And the famous Peter Du Moulin in his Book of the Pastoral Office written in defence of the Presbyterial Government acknowledgeth that presently after the Apostles times or even in their time as Ecclesiastical story witnesseth it was ordained that in every City one of the Presbytery should be called a Bishop who should have preheminence over his Collegues to avoid Confusion which oft times ariseth out of Equality And truly saith he this Form of Government all Churches every where received Mr. Calvin saith in his Institution of Christian Religion Quibus docendi munus injunctum erat c. Those to whom was committed the Office of Teaching they called them all Presbyters These Elected out of their number in L. 4. cap. 4. §. 2. each City one to whom in a special manner they gave the Title of Bishop lest Strife and Contention as it commonly happeneth should arise out of Equality And in his Epistle to Arch-bishop Cranmer he thus accosts him Illustrissime Domine Ornatissime Praesul c. Most Illustrious Sir and most Honourable Prelate and by me heartily Reverenced And tells him that if he might be serviceable to the Church of England he would not think much of passing over ten Seas for that purpose Again in his Epistle to the King of Poland he thus speaks of Patriarchs and Arch-bishops The Ancient Church did