by Creatures as the Sun c. for that is to consider him as Finite nor by Images and External Representations for that is to consider him as Corporeal Agreeable to his Will and so we are Forbidden all other Worship of him than what he hath appointed It s in the last of these we are concerned for I believe there will be no attempt to prove that there is any thing in our Worship that doth derogate from the perfections of God and is unsutable to his Nature further than the defects that must arise from all Worship given by Creatures to a Creator And if we come to consider it as to what he hath revealed there can be nothing deduced thence to prove Rites instituted by Men for the Solemnity of God's service to be Forbidden and which for ought I see is not attempted to be proved from this Commandment or from Scripture else where but by crowding such Rites into and representing them as a part of Divine Worship This way goes one of the most industrious in this cause Ceremonies saith he are External Rites of Religious Worship as used to further Devotion and therefore being invented by Man are of the same Nature with Images by which and at which God is Worshipped In which are no less than three mistakes As 1. he makes whatever is used to further Devotion to be Religious Worship 2. he makes it a fault in External Rites in Religious Worship that they are used to further Devotion 3. he makes External Rites taken up by Men and used for that end to be of the same Nature with Images If I shew that these are really mistakes I think that in doing so the whole argument taken from the 2. Commandment falls with it 1. He mistakes in that he makes whatever is used to further Devotion to be Religious Worship The error of which will appear from this confideration that all things relating to Divine Worship are either Parts or Adjuncts of it Parts as Prayer and the Lord's Supper Adjuncts as Form and Posture Now Adjuncts are not Parts because the Worship is intire and invariable in all the Parts of it and remains the same though the Adjuncts vary Prayer is Worship whether with a Form or without and the Lord's Supper is Worship whether Persons Kneel Sit or Stand in the receiving of it And yet though the Adjuncts are no part of Worship they further Devotion in it This those that are for conceived Prayer plead for Their Practice and this also is pleaded by those that 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 Worship 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 Worship I acknowledge there is False Worship as well as True True Worship is of Divine Institution and False Worship 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 God's Worship 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 Worship as many Ceremonies are in the Church of Rome but this is not the case with any things used in the Administration of Worship 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 Word of God and the Sacraments 2. It s another mistake that its charged as a fault upon Rites in Worship that They are used to further Devotion Without this end surely they are not to be used or at least not to be encouraged for Divine Worship 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 Worship 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 Lord's 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 Worship him by such mediums But there is nothing in the use of such External Rites 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 2. Commandment If there be not a Rule for all things belonging to the Worship of God the Gospel would be less perfect than 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 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
prudential consideration Such I account was the Washing the Disciples Feet which was done by our Saviour in token of the Humility he was to be a president of and would have them follow him in and which it seems was obferved amongst them 1 Tim. 5. 10. and for a long time after continued in a sort in some Churches Such also were the Love-feasts at the Administration of the Lords Supper and the Holy-kiss used then amongst Christians if not as a constant attendant upon all publick Worship yet to be sure at Prayer Which and the like usages however taken up yet were in the Opinion of the Church no other than Indifferent and accordingly were upon the abuse of them as I observed before discarded From all which it appears that there was no such thing as Prescription expected before any Rite should be introduced into the Church or before it would be lawful for Christians to use it but that where it was not forbidden the Practice of the Church was to determine them and if Prescription had been thought necessary for every thing used in Divine Worship which was not Natural then certainly our Saviour and his Apostles would never have used or encouraged others to use any thing that wanted such Authority and that was not of Divine Institution Now if it should be objected that these usages of the Christian Church were Civil observances and used as well out of God's Worship as in it and therefore what there needed no institution for and might be lawfully used without I answer 1. That this doth justify most of the usages contended for and there would be nothing unlawful in using a White Garment c. in Divine Service since that as a sign of Royalty and Dignity was used in Civil as well as Religious cases and according to this Argument may therefore lawfully be used in Religious because it was in Civil Secondly They must say that either a Civil observance when used in Religious Worship remains Civil notwithstanding its being so applied or that it 's Religious whilst so applied if the former then Kneeling or Standing in the Worship of God would be no acts of Adoration and not be Religious because those postures are used in Civil matters if the latter then it must be granted that there may be Rites used in the Worship of God and to a Religious end which there is no Divine Prescription for Nay Thirdly It 's evident that these and the like were not used by the Christians as meer Civil Rites this I think is made evident as to Washing the Feet by a Learned Person and not only was the kiss of Charity called the Holy-kiss in Scripture but by the Fathers notwithstanding what is objected the Seal of Prayer and the Seal of Reconciliation and both consistent the one as it was an attendant upon that office the other as it was a testimony of their Charity and Reconciliation to each other in it Fourthly If the being Civil usages did make them which were originally so to be lawful in or at Divine Worship then there is nothing that is used out of Worship in Civil cases and affairs but may be introduced into the Church since if it be for that reason that any usages of that kind are defended the reason will as well defend all as one And then the Histrionical Practices of the Church of Rome might warantably be introduced as the rocking of a Babe in a Cradle at night at the Nativity time the Harrowing of Hell at Easter c. Then a Maypole may be brought into the Church for Children to Dance-about and Climb up on in sign of their desire to seek the things above and a stiff Straw put into the Childs Hand for a sign of Fighting against Spiritual Enemies as with a Spear And all the absurdities of that Nature charged injuriously upon our Proceedings would return with success upon themselves Since all these are fetched from Customs and Practices in Secular matters Fifthly If this be a reason to Defend the Use of Rites in the Christian Church because they are used out of it and in Civil cases then what will become of that position before spoken of and generally asserted by those who oppose us that nothing is to be used in the Worship of God without Prescription except the Natural Circumstances of Action for though Civil and Natural are sometimes coincident yet they may be and often are Separated for Feasting and Salutation are Civil usages but are no Natural Circumstances in Divine Worship and which that cannot be performed without And if these and the like were used in the Church and applied and annexed to Divine Worship then the reason upon which they were introduced and used doth wherever that reason is justify the like Practice and we are left still to choose and act according to the Permission and Allowance that is given us that is all such things that are not forbidden are just matter of our Christian Liberty and there is no Sin in a Prudent exercise of it 3. I shall further prove and strengthen the Proposition that things Indifferent though not prescribed may be lawfully used in Divine Worship from the ill consequences attending the contrary one of which is that if we hold all things not commanded to be prohibited we shall find no Church or Religious Society in the World but are Guilty and if the doing so makes Communion with a Church unlawful there is no Church we can hold Communion with There are some Churches that do maintain and use such things as the Scripture expresly condemns and do lay aside such as the Scripture requires as the Church of Rome in its Worshipping Saints and Angels and denying the Cup to the Laity c. And these things make it necessary for those to quit its Communion that are of it and for those to avoid it that are not in it But other Churches there are that are Guilty of no such Fundamental Errors and fatal miscarriages and may so far lawfully be Communicated with But even none of these are there but what either wittingly or unwittingly do take the liberty of using what the Scripture hath no where required It was notoriously so in the Ancient Church when some Customs did universally obtain amongst them as the Anniversary Solemnities of the Passion Resurrection and Ascension of Christ and Descent of the Holy-Ghost the receiving of the Lords Supper Fasting the Praying toward the East the Standing in their Devotions on the Lords Days especially from Easter to Whitsuntide the Dipping the Baptized thrice in Water c.. Now whatever some of the Fathers might plead for any of these from Scriptures misunderstood yet it 's plain that none of these are required in Scripture and if so a Person that holds it unlawful to use any thing uncommanded and to hold Communion with a Church so using must have separated from the Catholick Church since if there be Credit
to be given to the Fathers so reporting they all agreed in the use and practice of the things above recited And he that held all fixed Holy-Days of Ecclesiastical Institution unlawful and all Ceremonies not instituted by God to be prohibited must not have Worshipped with them who did not only thus do but thought it unlawful when universally Practised to do otherwise But again as there were some Rites universally held in estimation so there were others that were peculiar to some Churches and that were not thought to be obliging out of that Particular Communion as when in the Church of Rome it was the Custom to Fast on the Saturday and of most others to make no such distinction betwixt that and other days In the Church of Milain they Washed the Feet of those that were to be Baptized but in the Church of Rome they used it not Now if persons did believe such things unlawful they could have no Communion with any particular Church because no Church was without such Uncommanded Rites or if they could be so fond as to think the Rites of their own Church to be of Divine Institution yet how could they have Communion with a Church where the contrary Custom did prevail as in the cases abovesaid And as it was then so it is now with all stated and settled Churches in the World who do Practise against this Principle and either expect not or are not able to find a Command for every thing established amongst them and that Practise with as much contrariety to each other as the Church of Rome and Milain once did So in some Churches they receive the Lord's Supper Kneeling in some Standing in others Sitting In some they Sprinkle the Child in Baptism but once and in others thrice Now there would be no reconciling of these one to another and no possibility of holding Communion with them under these circumstances or of being a Member of any Church if we must have an institution for every thing done in the Worship of God and that we must joyn in nothing which has it not As for Instance what Church is there in the World which has not some form or forms of Prayer and whose Service for the most part generally speaking is not made up of them especially that doth not use them in the Administration of the Sacraments But now if a Person holds that whatever is not prescribed is unlawful and that forms of Prayer are no where prescribed then he cannot joyn with the Church so using but while in the body of the Church by residence he must be no Member of that Body in Communion Nay further if this be true then none must hold Communion with them who are of this Opinion since those that pretend most to it and urge it as a reason against Communion with us live in contradiction to it and do Practise and Use things which they have no more Authority nor can give more reason for than we do for the things they condemn and that is that they are lawful expedient and convenient As for Example let us consider the Sacraments in which if any thing we might expect particular Prescription because they are meer Institutions where do they find that the Baptized Person is necessarily to be Sprinkled What Command or Example have they for it or what reason more than the reason of the thing taken from expedience and the general Practice of the Church of God in colder Climates And yet this is as much used amongst them that pretend to keep exactly to the Rule of Scripture as it is amongst us that take a liberty in things Uncommanded but with this difference that they do it upon the supposition of a Command and so make it necessary and our Church leaves it as it is Indifferent Again where do they find a Command for Sitting at the Lord's Supper or so much as an Example For the Posture of our Saviour is left very uncertain Where again do they find a Command for the necessary use of conceived Prayer and that that and no other should be used in the publick Worship of God And that they must prove that maintain publick Forms unlawful Where again do they find it required that an Oath is to be taken by laying the Hand on the Gospel and Kissing the Book which is both a Natural and Instituted part of Worship being a Solemn Invocation of God and an Appeal to him with an acknowledgment of his Omniscience and Omnipresence his Providence and Government of the World his Truth and Justice to Right the Innocent and Punish the Guilty all which is owned and testified by Kissing that Book that God has declared this more especially in And if we more particularly descend to those that differ from us in this point Where do those of the Congregational way find that ever Christians were otherwise divided from Christians than by place or that they did combine into particular Churches so as not to be all the while reputed Members of another and might be admitted upon removal of place upon the same terms that they were of that they removed from or indeed that they were so Members of a particular as not to be Members of any or the whole Church of Christ upon their being Baptized Where do they find that Christians were gathered out of Christians and did combine into a Society Excluding those from it that would not make a Profession of their Faith and Conversion distinct from that at Baptism Where do we ever read that he that was a Minister of one Church was not a Minister all the World over as well as he that was Baptized in one was reputed a Christian and Church-Member wherever he came Again where do we read that its necessary that Ministers should be alike in Authority Power and Jurisdiction and that there is to be no difference in point of Order and Superiority amongst them Or that there are to be Elders for Governing the Church who are not Ordained to it and are in no other State after than they were before that Service both of which are held by the Presbyterians strictly so called And if it be said these respect Government but not Worship I answer the case is the same for if we are to do nothing but what is prescribed in the Worship of God because as they say it derogates from the Priestly Office of Christ and doth detract from the Sufficiency of Scripture then I say upon the like reason there must be nothing used in Church Government but what is prescribed since the Kingly Office is as much concerned in this as the Priestly in the other and the Sufficiency of Scripture in both Lastly Where do any of them find that position in Scripture that there is nothing lawful in Divine Worship but what is prescribed and that what is not Commanded is Forbidden And if there be no such position in Scripture then that can no more be true than the want of such a
are call'd things not Commanded and not with respect to the latter 2. Indeed the Phrase not Commanded is only a Meiosis or Softer way of speaking when more is understood than express'd A Figure usual in all Authors and Languages that I know of and what is frequently to be met with in Scripture Thus it s given as a Character of an Hypocritical People they chose that in which I Delighted not which is but another Word for what was said in the verse before their Soul Delighted in their Abominations or Idolatries And when the Apostle would Describe the evil state of the Gentile World by the most Hainous and Flagitious Crimes such as Fornication Covetousness Maliciousness Envy Murder and what not he saith of these that they were things not convenient And it is as evident that the Phrase not Commanded is of the like kind when the things its applied to are alike Notorious and Abominable But it s further Objected that it s said in Scripture ye shall not add unto the Word which I Command you neither shall ye diminish ought from it And that our Saviour condemning the Practices of the Scribes in this kind concludes In Vain do they Worship me Teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men. From whence it may be collected 1. That all things not Commanded by God in his Word are additions to it 2. That such additions are altogether unlawful To this I reply 1. If they mean by adding to the Word the doing what that Forbids and by diminishing the neglecting of what that requires as the next Words do intimate and is plainly the sense otherwhere when it s no sooner said What thing soever I Command you Observe to do it but it immediately follows thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish from it it s what we willingly condemn according to that of our Saviour Whosoever shall break one of these least Commandments and shall teach Men so he shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven 2. If they mean by adding the appointing somewhat else instead of what God hath appointed as Jeroboam did the Feast of the Eighth Month and by diminishing the taking away what God hath Commanded as Ahaz did the Altar and Laver c. This is what we condemn also and do blame in the Church of Rome whilst they feed the People with Legends instead of Scripture and take away both that and the Cup from the Laity 3. If they mean by adding the adding insolent expositions to the Command by which the end of it is frustrated This our Saviour condemn'd in the Pharisees Why do ye Transgress the Command of God by your tradition For God Commanded saying Honour thy Father c. but ye say whosoever shall say to his Father it is a gift c. Thus ye have made the Commandment of God of none effect by your tradition And this we condemn in the Church of Rome who do defeat the Commands of God by their Doctrines of Attrition and Purgatory c. 4. If they mean by adding the making of that which is not the Word of God to be of equal Authority with it This our Saviour condemn'd in the Pharisees when they Taught for Doctrines the Commandments of Men and esteem'd them as necessary to be obeyed and to be of equal force with what was Authorized by him nay it seems they had more regard to the Tradition of the Elders than the Commandment of God as our Saviour Insinuates verse 2 3. and has been observed from their own Authors This we also condemn in the Church of Rome which decrees that the Apocrypha and Traditions should be received with the like Pious regard as the Sacred Writ 5. If by adding they mean the giving the same Efficacy to humane Institutions as God doth to his by making them to confer Grace upon the rightly disposed and by diminishing that the Service is not complete without it This our Saviour condemn'd in the Pharisees when they maintained that to eat with unwashen Hands defiled a Man verse 20. And this we condemn in the Church of Rome in their use of Holy-Water and Reliques and Ceremonies Thus far we agree but if they proceed and will conclude that the doing any thing not Commanded in the Worship of God is a Sin though it have none of the ingredients in it before spoken of we therein differ from them and upon very good reason For therein they differ from our Saviour and his Apostles and all Churches as I have shewed Therein also they depart from the notion and reason of the thing For adding is adding to the substance and making the thing added of the Nature of the thing it s added to and diminishing is diminishing from the substance and taking away from the Nature of it but when the substance remains intire as much after this humane appointment as it was before it without Loss and Prejudice without Debasement or Corruption it cannot be called an addition to it in the sence that the Scripture takes that Word in Nay so far are we from admitting this charge that we return it upon them and do bring them in Criminals upon it For those that do Forbid what the Gospel Forbids not do as much add to it as those that Command what the Gospel doth not Command And if it be a Crime to Command what that Commands not it must be so to Forbid what it Forbids not And this is what they are Guilty of that do hold that nothing is to be used in the Worship of God but what is prescribed for if that be not a Scripture Proposition and Truth as certain it is not then what an addition is this A greater surely than what they charge upon us for all that is Commanded amongst us is look'd upon not as necessary but expedient but what is Forbid by them is Forbid as absolutely unlawful the latter of which alters the Nature whereas the other only affects the circumstances of things The second Commandment Thou shalt not make unto thee any Graven Image c. is frequently made use of to prove that we must apply nothing to a Religious Use but what is Commanded and we are told that the sence of it is that We must Worship God in no other way and by no other means or Religious Rites than what he hath prescribed The best way to answer this is 1. To consider what is Forbidden in this Commandment and 2. To shew that we are not concern'd in the Prohibition As to the former 1. In this Command it is provided that there be no act of Adoration given to any besides God By this the Heathens are condemned in their Plurality of Gods and the Church of Rome in the Veneration they give to Saints and Angels 2. That the Honour we give to God be sutable to his Nature and agreeable to his Will Sutable to his Nature and so we are not to Worship him
the Governours and the permitting them to choose and determine in things of that kind as they shall see meet It s pleaded That there should be a Liberty left to Christians in things Vndetermined in Scripture and such things indeed there are that Christians may have a Liberty in and yet hold Communion as in Posture c. though Decency would plead for Uniformity in those things also but there are other things which they must agree in or else there can be no publick Worship or Christian Communion which yet they differ in as much as the other As now whether Worship is to be celebrated with or without a Form whether the Lord's Supper is to be received in the Morning or Evening whether Prayers should be long or short c. Now unless one of these disagreeing Parties doth Yield to the other or there be a Power in Superiours and Guides to determine for them and they are to submit to them in it there will be nothing but confusion And why Superiours may not then Command and why Inferiours are not to obey in all things of the like kind In Posture or Habit as well as the time above specified and Forms I understand not To conclude this if we find any thing required or generally practised in a Church that is not Forbidden in Scripture or any thing Omitted or Forbidden in a Church that is not required in Scripture we may and ought to act or to forbear as they that are of its Communion do generally act or forbear or the Laws of that Communion require and in such things are to be determined by the publick Voice of the Communion that is Authority Custom or the Majority But to this it will be said If we are thus to be determined in our Practice then where is our Christian Liberty which being only in different things if we are restrained in the use of them we are also restrained in our Liberty which yet the Apostle exhorts Christians to stand fast in 1. This is no argument to those that say there is nothing Indifferent in the Worship of God for then there is nothing in it matter of Christian Liberty 2. A restraint of our Liberty or receding from it is of it self no violation of it All persons grant this in the latter and the most scrupulous are apt to plead that the Strong ought to bear with the Weak and to give no Offence to them by indulging themselves in that Liberty which others are afraid to take But now if a Person may recede from his Liberty and is bound so to do in the case of Scandal and yet his Liberty be not thereby infringed why may it not be also little infringed when restrained by others How can it be supposed that there should be so vast a difference betwixt restraint and restraint and that he that is restrained by Authority should have his Liberty prejudiced and yet he that is restrained By anothers Conscience as the Apostle saith should keep it intire And if it should be said this is Occasional but the other is perpetuated by the Order perhaps of a Church I answer that all Orders about Indifferent things are but temporary and are only intended to bind so long as they are for the good of the Community And if they are for continuance that alters not the case For though the Apostle knew his own Liberty and where there was Just Reason could insist upon it yet he did not suppose that could be damnified though for his whole life it was restrain'd For thus he resolves If meat make my Brother to offend I will eat no flesh while the World standeth which certainly he would not have condescended to if such a practice was not reconcileable to his Exhortation of standing fast in that Liberty c. 3. Therefore to find out the tendency of his Exhortation its fit to understand what Christian Liberty is and that is truly no other than the Liberty which Mankind naturally had before it was restrain'd by particular Institution and which is call'd Christian Liberty in opposition to the Jews which had it not under their Law but were restrain'd from the practice and use of things otherwise and in themselves Lawful by severe Prohibitions Now as all the World was then divided into Jews and Gentiles so the Liberty which the Jews were before denied was call'd Christian because by the coming of Christ all these former restraints were taken off and all the World both Jews and Gentiles did enjoy it And therefore when the Apostle doth exhort them to stand fast in it it was as the Scope of the Epistle doth shew to warn them against returning to that Jewish state and against those who held it necessary for both Jew and Gentile still to observe all the Rites and Orders of it Now if the Usages of a Church were of the same kind or had the same tendency or were alike necessarily impos'd as those of the Mosaical Law then Christians would be concerned in the Apostles Exhortation but where these reasons are not our Liberty is not at all prejudiced by compliance with them As long I say as they are neither peccant in their Nature nor End nor Number they are not unlawful to us nor is our Liberty injured in the use of them And so I am brought to the last General which is V. That there is nothing required in our Church which is not either a duty in it self and so necessary to all Christians or else what is indifferent and so may be lawfully used by them By things required I mean such as are used in the Communion and Service of our Church and imposed upon the Lay-members of it for these are the things my Subject doth more especially respect This is a Subject too Copious for me to follow through all the particulars of it and indeed it will be needless for me to enlarge upon it if the foundation I have laid be good and the Rules before given are fit measures for us to Judge of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of things by for by these we shall soon bring the Cause to an Issue I think there is nothing to be charged upon our Church for being defective in any Essential part of Divine Worshipâ— as the Church of Rome is in its Half-Communion nor of any practice that is apparently inconsistent with or that doth defeat the ends of any Institution as the same Church doth offend by having its Service in an unknown Tongue and in the multitude of its Ceremonies I think it will be acknowledged that the Word of God is sincerely and freely Preached the Sacraments intirely and truly Administred the Prayers for matter inoffensive and good And therefore the matter in dispute is about the Ministration of our Worship and the manner of its performance and I think the things of that kind Objected against refer either to Time or Forms or Gesture To Times such are Festivals or Days set apart for