evidently appear that if either our Author's Logick or Charity had not been something defective he needed not so hastily to have concluded our Ceremonies to be Prophane because we place no holinâ—ss in them but might have found out some other appellation for them But since the pretended Popery and Idolatry of our Ceremonies has been so shamefully confuted it may perhaps be a pretty new hint to give those People who are disasfected to them to tell them that we do in effect own them to be Profane because we place no holiness in them But still says he they cannot be free from Superstition if they are superadded as parts of Worship But I have shewn that they are not superadded as parts of Worship And if he had but enquired into the true notion of a part of Worship as it is distinguished from the Circumstances of it he could not in modesty have insisted upon such a poor pretence In the remaining part of this paragraph he offers three things more by way of answer to what I had above affirmed The first is That tho' the nature of Ceremonies may yet the use of them cannot be indifferent because the end of using them must be either good evil or impertinent and our actions are specified by their ends Which is as much as to say that to use indifferent Ceremonies for a good end is a good action to use them for an evil end is an evil action and to use them for an impertinent end is an impertinent action All which things I freely grant and tho' something may be inferred thereout in favour of our Church yet what they here serve for except it be for amusement and perplexity I am not able to discover Secondly he tells us that things indifferent can make nothing decent or orderly seeing they have nothing of decency or order in them for if they had they would be really good and not indifferent To which I answer that things indifferent in their own nature may yet contribute to the decency and order of a good action not by any intrinsick goodness which is inherent in themselves but as they are signs of the good intention of the persons who prescribe and practise them in the performace of such an action Thus for Example to bow the body to kneel to sing and that in a stinted metre are things in their nature indifferent For neither are they any necessary part of the Law of Nature nor do we find that they were ever commanded by God until pious and good men took up those customs of themselves in the Worship of God And yet I believe our Author will not deny but that these things may conduce to the more decent and orderly Performance of such Worship where they are sincerely intended as outward marks of that inward Devotion and Reverence which men do truly pay to God And why may not the same thing be said of any other lawful Ceremonies or Ciâ—cumstances which are sincâ—â—â—ly intended and made use of to the very same purpose But thirdly he comes in with a dilemma If says he these Ceremonies are necessary means of decency and order then Christ and his Apostles who used them not baptized prayed and communicated undâ—cently If not necessary why is all this needless contention about them To the first part of which argument I Answer that our Church never pretended that these particular Ceremonies were absolutely necessary to order and decency But only as things stood at the time of the Reformation highly convenient to be â—etained and all things considered not so convenient to be altered But to the second I reply more distinctly First that to alter the whole frame of our Liturgy as some would have it would in my apprehension be a thing of very ill consequence as well upon the account of those plansible pretences is would give the Church of Rome against us who would be sure to make their advantage of it as of the â—candal it would give to a multitude of our own weaker members who either having heard the manner of our Worship so often decryed by the Non-conformiâ—â—s as Popiâ—h Superstitious and even Idolatâ—ous would be apt to think that all this accusation was true if all the things which were so â—ounâ—â—â—â—â—lt with should wholly be laid aside or else perhaps would be much dissaâ—â—sied to have those things abolished which to them do appear to be so ordeâ—ly and decent and such others sâ—bâ—â—tuted in the room thereof as would not be so well pleâ—â—â—â— to them But secondly as for some Alterations and improvements which miâ—ht I think be very well made in our consâ—iautions I am altogether of opinion that no sober and well meaning Man of our Church would be against them if it dâ—d but any way appear that the Nonconâ—oâ—misls or any member of them would thereby be won to our Communion But while they seem to demand all or else will be satisfied with nothing it is feared by many â—â—â—t even such alterations as are out inconsiderable in themselves would yet be oâ—â— iâ—coâ—venient conseqaâ—nce But if our Governours should be grâ—â—â—ted to be to blame in insisâ—ing â—â—o â—â—istly upon things which are not necessary Yet still I do not see how this con be pleâ—ded as a just excuse for refusing that obedience to them which the lâ—â—â— of the Land requires and the law of God does â—ot forbid For there are cases where tho' it may be a â—ault in Legiâ—â—â—ors or Parents too strictly to command yet still it would be the duty of the Subject or the Child to obey In the next paragraph he grants with me that Worship cannot be performâ—â— without Circumstances and that all outward Circumstances of Worship are not expressly prescribed by God From whence it demonstratively follows that same Circumstance of Worship may be used and therefore why not by lawful authority appointed and determined which God himself has not commanded What then can justly be said agaist our Ceremonies which â—â— have so evidently proved to be Circumstances only and not parts of 〈◊〉 Why this says our Author here that they are mysâ—â—cal Rites and Ceremâ—â—â—s and not Circumstances which things in his opinion are very different tho' craftily or ignorantly they be consounded Now whether it may be our Author's erasâ— or ignorance I know not but this I am sure of that to lay such a stress as he does upon hard words without distinctly explaining their signification is the way eternally to confound and perplex all and never to determine any Disputes or Controversies And therefore if he would have avoided that Censure which here obliquely he casts upon us he should have desined and carefully distinguished those things which in his opinion we consound and have told us particularly what was to be understood by a Mystical Rite and wherein it dissered from a Circumstance And what those same mysteries are which he supposes to be comprehended under any of our Ceremonies And lastly whether all such mysteries are absolutely
their complaint as he did without breaking the Unity of the Church or causing any Schism in it altho' I should think that there were no reason for their so complaining yet should I not â—erein accâ—se them as guilty of any sin But our Author tells us that if St. Austin had lived in some places of the world and complained of such a luâ—then there is a Canon called the tenth by which he had been Ipso faâ—â—â— shut out of the Church To which I Answer that neither are the wâ—â—â—â— Ipso fâ—cio upon which he lays such weight in the Tenth Canon of the Church of England nor is the Excommunication there threatned but upon a supposition that such a complaint is made and published for the abetting and justifying of such as make a Schism in the Church by taking to themselvâ—s the name of another Church not Established by Law which farther â—hews how disingenuous a man this is in quotations In the next place he demands how do I know that St. Ausâ—in did not separate But was ever such a Question askt Or is there the least intimation either in his own or any other of the Books of that Age that ever he did separate And if such a man as he had separated is it to be imagined that great notice would not have been taken of it Or lastly do I pretend to know positively that he did not separate or to say any more but that we never find that he did But our Author has a dilemma to prove St. Austin either to have separated or sinneâ— For if he refused to use those same Ceremonies of which he complained then he separated as well as the present Non-consormists but if he used them after his complaint of theâ—â— leâ—ng burthensome and too numerous it would be hard to excuse him from sin To this I Ansâ—er first that many Ceremonies in St. Austin's days being probably introduced by meer custom without any Law or Canon to establish and confirm them it was certainly lawful for him in his own Church and Diocess â—o reâ—râ—nâ—h the use of such Ceremonies as these as in prudence he might think sit because in strictness there lay no obligation upon him at all to make use of them But secondly if he had renounced and absolutely refused to communicate with any Christian Church whatsoever against which he had no other Objection but only that they required the use of some Ceremonies in the Worship of God which God had not commanded nor yet had any way forbidden altho' these Ceremonies might have been too numerous and upon that account troublesome yet iâ— he had no other jâ—sâ— plea to bring against them I cannot see how this alone could have justified him in breaking the Unity of the Church which every Christian is bâ—â—nd as far as in him lyes to preserve But that ever he did any thing like this does not in the least appear But Thirdly if St. Auslin for the sake of Peace and Unity was content to submit to the use of so many Ceremonies as in his opinion were too numerous and therefore burthensome I desire our Author to inform mâ— by what Law of God he can on this account be taxed or with any reason so much as suspected of sin â—â—â— tho' it is not lawful to do evil that â—â—â— may come Rom. 3. 8. Yet that â—â— shâ—uld bâ— any â—ay unlawful to do a thing which is not evil but only troublesome and uneasy when the â—â—â— a man has in doing it is really good is what no man I think of common sense will offer to say The last Objection of the Nonconformists which under this head I proposed in my Address was that Our Ceremonies are unnecessary and therefore ought not to be imposed To which I there returned a two fold Answer First That what some may think unnecessary others may judge Expedient Secondly supposing but not granting that our Governours were faulty in imposing some needless things upon us Yet that our Compliance even with such things for Peace and Unity's sake would rather be a Vertue than a Sin In return to which he tells me first that what I dâ—oiously suppose is a plain Truth and in effect conâ—est by us viz. That our Ceremonies are unnecessary because we declare them to be indisserent But will this Man never leave Trifling with the Ambiguity of Words If by unnecessary he mâ—ans not absolutely and perpetually necessary to Salvation I grant that every indifferent thing is in this Sense unnecessary But if by unnecessary he means altogether useless and insignificant to any good purpose I deny that what is in it's own nature indifferent is always thus to be judged unnecessary For there may be such Circumstances of things and Persons wherein such things may be Instruments and occasions of much good And accordingly it is very evident that the retaining of the use of some indifferent things in our Church did not a little contribute to the advancing of the Reformation amongst us and bringing over many thereto who otherwise would not probably have to easily forsaken Popery And I have already given my Reasons why it is not sit or proper as matters stand wholly now to lay all such things aside In the next place he tells me That he knows of no Command of Christ for complyâ—ng with Governours in their unnecessary impositions for the sake of Peace and Unity and therefore he will not own it to be a Vertue rather than a Sin I am sorry that he is so ignorant of the Laws of the Gospel But seriously has he never heard of a Command of Christ which the Apostle thus delivers to us If it be possible as much as lyeth in you live Peaceably with all Men Rom. 12. 18. If then a thing be otherwise never so unnecessary yet if it be possible and if no Law of God has forbidden it but that it lyeth in us and we are at liberty to do it we ought to comply with it if it be necessary in order to Peace Or has he never met with another Command which S. Paul thus sets down Rom. 13. 1. Iâ—â—t every Soul be subject to the higher Powers And S. Peter thus Submit your selves to every Ordinance of Man for the Lords sake 1 Pet. 2. 13. And to which there is no other exception made in the whole word of God but only this that we ought to obey God rather than Men Aâ—ts 5. 29. If then a thing be commanded by the higher Powers and Ordained by the Authority of those Men in whom the Legislature resides However unnecessary it may be thought to be yet still it is to be submitted to except it appears to be forbidden by some Law of Almighty God But our Author it seems would bring Government to a very Fine pass when he would make every private Man to be Judge not only whether the thing Commanded be agreeâ—ble to the Law of God but also whether there were any nâ—cessity for issuing such a Command
it is not Expedient or does not tend to Edification is what I cannot so readily approve of except I have some better Argument for it than our Author 's bare Assertion And I would fain be informed by him who in this Case is to be judge of the expediency and edification of the thing commanded If the Superiors then since our Legislators have judged our Constitutions to be expedient and edifying no Argument can be drawn from hence against our Conformity to them But if every Subject must herein be a Judge for himself since the Expediency and Edification of things cannot always be brought under certain and fixed Rules but are many times very variable in divers Cases and different circumstances And since the Apprehensions also of different Men are herein very various according to their divers Fancies Prejudices or Inclinations What is this but to set up not only the Conscience but even the sickle Imagination of every private Man to control Authority whensoever the Humour shall take him or any crafty Man who would gain him to his Party shall impose upon him Which is much more easy to do in relation to the Expediency or Edification of a thing than the lawfulness or possibility of it Having dispatch'd the Objection against our Communion which is drawn from the doubts and scruples which some men have entertain'd concerning the lawfulness of it I proceed in the next place in my Address to propose and answer that which is taken from the pretence of Christian Liberty And because our Author seems to have taken more than ordinary care to perplex this part of the Dispute I must crave the Readers patience while I take a little pains faiâ—ly to open and clear it As God Almighty had by Moses given a Written Law unto the Children of Israel so in process of time the Scribes and Pharisees had not only introduced divers Traditions of their own some of which might possibly in themselves have been innocent tho' unnecâ—ssary but also required the observation of these Traditions not only as immediate parts of the Law of God but also in some cases to be preferred even before the precepts of the written Law whenever they should come in competition one with the other of which we have a pretty full account in the former part of the 7th Chapter of St. Mark 's Gospel Now when many of the Jews began to receive the Christian Faith some there were who either out of a secret design to obstruct the progress of the Gospel or a profound veneration for that Institution under which they had been brought up taught this Doctrine in the Christian Church viz. that Circumcision and the Observation of the Law of Moses were absolutely necessary to Salvation notwithstanding that Christ was come into the World as we are informed Acts 15. 1. 24. And as they had generally received the above mention'd Traditions with an equal and in some cases a greater respect than what they had for the written Law so did they no less endeavour to obtrude the one than the other upon all those who had or should Embrace Christianity And notwithstanding that the Apostles and Elders upon the first broaching of this Doctrine endeavoured to suppress and put a stop to it Act. 15. 6 c. yet for all this we find that it took root and prevailed more or less in divers of the Christian Churches To ease the Consciences therefore of all the Faithful from such an unnecessary and unsupportable burden and also to free Christianity from such a clog as must needs very much retard the progress of it the Apostles of Christ wherever there was occasion took constant care to inform all who had received the Faith of that freedom which Christ had given them from the Ordinances of the Mosaick Law as well as from all other uncertain Traditions which some men without any other Authority but their own groundless fancies would impose upon them and also to exhort them to maintain and by no means betray that liberty which was thus vouchsafed unto them Of which I need not stand to produce any Instances because the thing is not only confest on all hands but also most notorious to all who do but read the Epistles of St. Paul and particularly those to the Galatians and Colossians Thus far then the Scripture does undoubtedly require every Christian to assert and stand fast in his liberty viz. Not to â—dâ—it or own any thing as an essential part of Religion and therefore necessary to Sâ—lvâ—â—ion which God has not directly required and prescribed as such For which the Reason I have given in my Address is unanswerable namely that if way be given to such sâ—rt of impositions so many things through pride or ignorance may be introduced into Christianity as to make it a yoke too heavy â—o be born Two things then I think there are which if fainly stated and cleared must one way or other put an end to the difference between our Author and me concerning this point Namely first whether the obligation which lies upon us to maintain our Christian Liberty ought to be extended any farther than those bounds which I have now set toit And if not then secondly whether this obligation even as I have stated it can either by the letter of Scripture or parity of Reason be-justly so construed as to restrain any man from yielding Conformity to any of the Constitutions of the Established Church upon which two things I desire the Reader still to have an eye whilst I am examining what our Author has said which may relate to either of them For I cannot so well handle them each a-part because I am confined to follow that path in which he has thought fit to lead me He tells me then pag. 107. that I have not faithfully framed the Non-Conformists Objection For their Notion it seems of Christian Liberty and the obligation to maintain it is some what different from mine and if things in their own nature indifferent are imposed tho not as essential parts of Religion or necessary to Salvation but only as parts or means of Worship or Conditions of Communion in it this according to him is an infringement of that Christian Liberty in which we are bound to stand fast To which I answer First That since the Worship of God is an essential part of Religion to impose any thing as a part of Worship would be to impose it as an essential part of Religion For as he has thought it necessary to inform me p. 102. quod est pars partis est pars totius As therefore he has thus far said no more than what I had said before him so have I already shewn that those indifferent things which by our Liturgy are required in the service of God are not imposed as parts of Worship and therefore there ought on this account to be no Controversie about them Secondly To submit to such indifferent things as are imposed expressly not as
parts of Worship but only as the means way or manner of performing it provided that such imposing proceed from Lawful Authority I have already shewn not to be unlawful and have answered all our Author's pretences to the contrary Nor can I upon his assertion believe that such a submission for peace and unities sake is any way a giving up of our Christian Liberty until I see some good proof for it either expressly contained in or evidently consequent from God's Words of which I believe he would not have been so sparing if the Bible would have afforded him any Texts upon which to have grounded an Argument Or if our Liturgy be on this account an infringement of Christian Liberty not only all other Churches are guilty of the same but even the Directory it self which imposes some things in themselves indifferent cannot be excused from it Which passage of my Address he has thought sit to slip over with a very lame and imperfect Answer Thirdly To impose any indifferent things as Conditions of Communion if it were done either with an express declaration or any evident implication or supposition that no Communion could lawfully be kept up in or held with any Church whatsoever without the use of those things which were so imposed this indeed would be to impose such things as essential and necessary parts of Worship and Religion and consequently on the imposers part an unlawful attempt upon Christian Liberty But as I have shewn that this is none of our Churches case who expressly owns such her Constitutions to be alterable as just cause shall require and neither rejects the Communion nor condemns the Practice of any other Church which differs from her in such things as these So if the matter were even thus it self yet if any private Christian should for Peace and Unity so far comply with the Church as to submit to what she had required and practise what she had thus Prescribed but yet with an Express Declaration and open Protestation that he did this not out of any necessity which was supposed to be in the things themselves which he still asserted to be in their own Nature indifferent but only for peace sake and as far as in him lay to prevent all Schisms or Divisions I cannot see how such a Man as this could be condemned as therein guilty of any Sin or any way a betrayer of his Christian Liberty And if in this my Opinion I am perhaps mistaken I shall be very glad to be better informed provided it be done with Clear and Solid Arguments from plain Scripture and Reason and not with such perplexed and trisling Suggestions as we have hitherto met with from our Author But Fourthly Since as our Author grants p. 103 without Circumstances Worship cannot be performed and all outward Circumstances of Worship are not prescribed by God It must follow either that some outward Circumstances of Worship may be determined and appointed by Man or else the Worship of God cannot possibly be performed Suppose then that the Church appoints and determines some indifferent things as Circumstances in Gods Worship and requires them to be observed by all her Members And yet that some are so Obstinate and Refractory as that they will not submit to her Authority in these things What is to be done in such a Case as this must every particular Mâ—n be left to his liberty to introduce what Circumstances he pleases into the Worship of God according to his own Fancy or Inclination This would be the direct way to confound that Order and destroy that Decency for which the Apostle particularly provides 1 Cor. 14. 40 as I have said in my Address And to exclude the Directory as well as the Liturgy Or must the Church from time to time alter and new modell her Constitutions concerning the Circumstances of God Worship until matters are so setled as that every one may be pleased and fully satisfied This I confess were a most excellent way if the thing were at all practicable or possible to be performed But when it is considered that in such matters as relate to Order and Decency only we have not always a fixed and certain Rule as to particulars but Men have different Opinions of such things according to the difference of their Customs Tempers and Educations I believe it will be found a very hard and perhaps an impossible thing so to frame all the Circumstances of Divine Worship as that all sorts of Men how different soever in their Temper or Education shall be well pleased and satisfied with them And if this be not to be done then it may be if any Church should go about to make alterations in such things to please and gratifie some People they might hereby displease and disgust many others and so in the end do more hurt than good by such Alterations What then remains but that every Church in such things as these must act according to the best of her prudence And if men will still be refractory and not submit to such Constitutions as lawful Authority enjoins and are no way contrary to the Law or Word of God I would gladly know what other course is at last to be taken with them but to exclude them from the Communion of the Society who thus obstinately refuse to conform to the Rules and Orders of it And if our Author judges this to be an infringement of Christian Liberty I desire he would not only say it but also clearly and solidly prove it But Christ has freed us from all parts and parcels of Worship which are not of his own Institution He has so But what is this to those Ceremonies which I have plainly proved to be no parts or parcels but only Circumstances of Worship He has freed us also from all Conditions of Communion but those of his own Prescribing very right But then we must remember that one Condition of Communion which Christ prescribes unto us is to obey them that have the rule over us and submit our selves Heb. 13. 17. To be subject to the higher powers Rom. 13. 1. And to submit our selves to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake 1 Pet. 2. 13. And whosoever obstinately refuses to perform this condition is justly to be excluded from the Communion of the Church as a disobeyer of Christ's Commands Now the Question is Wherein and in what sort of things is this obedience and subjection to be shewn Not in things immediately or directly commanded by the Law of God For in such things as those our obedience is paid to God alone and not to our Earthly Superiours And the obligation is the same if my Inferiour informs me that such is the Will of God as if my Superiour lays his commands therein upon me Nor yet in such things as are contrary to God's Law For if our Superiours should command any thing of that nature we ought to obey God rather than man Acts 5. 29. It remains then that things
in their own nature indifferent when required by lawful Authority are the proper and adequate matter wherein our obedience to our Superiours whether Ecclesiastical or Civil is to be shewn And as all Superiours ought to exercise their power of commanding with Prudence and Charity as they shall answer for the same before the Throne of God so are all inferiours most evidently obliged in Conscience to be conformable and obedient to such commands when the matter thereâ— is lawful in it self nor is such conformity any way inconsistent with our Christian Liberty But Christ says he hath allowed us the use of indifferent things indifferently as Christian Prudence and Charity shall determine I grant it But then I would know why the use of such things may not in some cases as well be determined by the Christian Prudence and Charity of the Church for the whole Society as in other cases by those of every private man for himself Except it be that some men have a very strong inclination to be guided by their own fancies rather than by the will of their Superiors But this says he would be so to determine our practice as to destroy its indifferency I Answer that this indeed would make it the duty of every private man to conform his practice in such indifferent things to the Law that is over him as long as that Law remains in force in which I see not the least inconvenience or absurdity but would not so far destroy the indifferency either of the thing or our practice but that upon the repeal of that Law which bound us we should be as much at liberty as ever we were But our Author tells us that the main violation of Christian Liberty lies in a fixt stated and perpetual compulsion to do what God hath permitted us to omit or a prohibition to do what he hath made lawful for us I Answer if 1. The subject matter of this Compulsion or Prohibition be in its own nature lawful or indifferent If 2. The Compulsion or Prohibition proceed from lawful Authority And if 3. It be by that Authority sufficiently declared that this same Compulsion or Prohibition is not to be esteemed as anexpress or immediate part of Gods Law but only as a humane constitution to which while it remains in force and no longer we are in Conscience obliged to give obedience on account of the general Commands of God which require us to be subject to our lawful Governours Such a Compulsion or Prohibition as this is no manner of violation of Christian Liberty But he will prove that it is and that by the Authority of St. Paul For thus says he the Apostle teacheth 1 Cor. 6. 12. All things are lawful for me but I will not be brought under the power of any person or thing in matters indifferent But I say the Apostle does not thus teach And it is not only a most disingenuous but even an impious presumption in this bold man thus to falsifie the Text of St. Paul and to add unto the Word of God whatever his design therein may be The words of St. Paul in the place quoted are neither more nor less than these All things are lawful unto me but all things are not expedient All things are lawful for me but I will not be brought under the power of any Where it is evident from the following verse that he speaks only concerning the eating or forbearing of such Meats as some indeed scrupled out of weakness but which were not commanded or enjoined by any Law or Constitution either of God or Man And our Author could not but see that it was impossible so far to extend St. Paul's own words as to bring them in the least to countenance Disobedience to lawful Authority and therefore that he must either add to them or else not be able to produce so much as one Text of Scripture to prove that which with so much assurance he had asserted But if he has a power given him to make Scripture where he has it not ready to serve his purpose I must confess it will be hard to dispute with him Nor can he here pretend that he sets down the last words of the above mentioned quotation not as a part of St. Paul's Text but only as his own Paraphrase upon it For besides that in the Apostles own words there is no manner of foundation for the inserting of the word person the whole Sentence as I have above recited it is all a-like printed in the Italick Character and all of it equally referred to those foregoing words thus the Apostle teacheth which I think most plainly shews that it was our Author's design that the whole Sentence should pass upon his unwary Readers as if it were every Syllable taken out of the place from whence he has quoted it But I ought not thus to bind up my self from opportunity of using my Christian Liberty for the Spiritual good of another I Answer that where a humane Law is made concerning any thing which otherwise were indifferent Obedience ordinarily and generally ought to be given to that Law Nor ought any man to swerve from it to gratifie the humour of such as only resolve to be perverse and obstinate But where a case arises to which the intention of the law-makers either did not or ought not to have extended and where by acting otherwise than the Law prescribes some great good may be done or evil avoided or remedied If all even seeming contempt of Authority be meekly and prudently avoided and just occasion of scandal carefully prevented and obviated I for my part should no way condemn that man who upon such an emergency in such a manner and with such caution as this should act otherwise than the letter of the humane Law should prescribe In which opinion the generality of Learned Casuists that I have happened to look into do unanimously concur with me And therefore what presently follows is spoken without any other ground but his own fancy viz. that by such imposing and determining in matters indiffirent more is attributed to the positive precepts of Men than to the moral Laws of God For I challenge our Author to produce me but one man of any repute of the Established Church who ever maintained that obedience to our Ecclesiastical or to any humane Laws may not pro hic nunc be suspended to give way to a greater good as well as obedience to the positive moral Laws of God And as for making that a sin which God has made lawful by not forbidding it which is another of his objections I have already answered it And it is enough to say that God has not made it lawful to disobey lawful Authority in such things as are indifferent From what I have hitherto been discoursing upon this subject I think it may clearly be gathered that notwithstanding all that our Author has said to the contrary the obligation of maintaining our Christian Liberty is no farther