Ordinances as I delivered them to you doth thus express his sence about this matter Saith He we know that every Church it left free to appoint a Form of Polity for it self because our Lord hath prescribed nothing certain And he speaks this you see not as his own sense only but as the sense and that undoubted too of his other Brethren of the Reformation Whose Judgment were it needful we might largely produce to the same purpose But there is no need of it those very persons who have been most zealous for the contrary Opinion being forced to contradict it in their practice And for Orders sake to determine such things in their several Church administrations as are left perfectly undetermined in Scripture of which might be given very many instances notwithstanding their Clamours against the Church of England upon this as modest as she is in her impositions Secondly This Notion of Christian Liberty is so great an infringment of the Liberty Christ hath left to Ecclesiastical Governours as not to leave them so much as it is certain the Governours of the Jewish Church were invested with who yet were bound up and determined in a very great number of Particulars Over and above the Multitude of Rites and Ceremonies which God himself did annex to the substance of his Worship we read of not a few others that were added by Men. We have a large Account of such in Maimonides in his Book de Cultu Devino and the Holy Scriptures themselves present us with diverse such without the least intimation of God's dislike of them Besided some of those which I mentioned He gives other Instances viz. King Solomon's Hallowing the middle part of the Temple for Sacrifices 1 King 8.64 The seâ— hours of Prayer in the Temple Acts 31. Several Alterations and particularly that of the Gesture in Eating the Passover the which Christ declared his Approbation of by his Conformity to them Mat. 26.20 Those two known Rites of the Jews not commanded in the Law viz. that of joyning Baptism with Circumcision in admitting Proselytes and that of Post Coenium or Feast after the Passover And these two our Saviour was so far from condemning upon the score of their being of Humane Institution that his two great Sacraments received their rise from them The Texts which are chiefly urged to prove the Unlawfulness of bringing any thing into the Worship of God but what He hath himself prescribed are those in the Old Testament wherein God declareth his Displeasure against some of the Israelites for doing those things which he commanded them nâ—t and one in the New but cited out of the Old where our Saviour reprehendeth the Pharisees for teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men. Those Texts in the Old Testament are Lev. 10.1 Deut. 17.3 Jer. 7.31 Câ—â—p 19.5 Chap. 32.35 But I wonder that those who produce these Texts for such a purpose could not see without our shewing it to them that they all speak of such things as God did not only not Command but had strictly Forbid In Lev. 10.1 the thing which God saith He commanded them not was Nadab and Abihu's offering strange Fire before the Lord which was an Act of Disobedience to a most express Law Chap. 6.12 13. That in Deut. 13.3 not commanded by God was a most hainous Sin and a black Transgression of the First Commandment viz. Serving other Gods and Worshipping of them the Sun the Moon and the Host of Heaven That not Commanded Jer. 7.31 was not only contrary to the Law of God but a horrible Wickedness condemned by the Light of Nature viz. the burning of their Sons and their Daughters in the Fire in the Valley of Hinnom That which God saith He commanded not neither came it into his mind Jer. 19.5 was the same Unnatural Wickedness viz. the burning their Sons with Fire for Burnt-offerings to Baal and that in Jer. 32.35 was the causing of their Sons and their Daughters to pass through the Fire unto Molech But what doth God's condemning such abominable Practices as these signifie towards the proving it unlawful to use or impose certain innocent Rites and Circumstances in Divine Worship which are not expresly and particularly required by God but may be truly said to be in the general required by him as such are necessary to the decorous management of his Worship and agreeable to the foremention'd Rule of doing all things decently and in order And whereas the Urgers of these Texts for tire ' foresaid purpose do reply to us that tho' they cannot deny but the Instances of the things not commanded mention'd in each of them are things also prohibited yet they are pertinently insisted upon by them because it is tacitly implied in God's expressing them as things only not commanded that things not commanded in his Worship offend him as well as things prohibited To this I briefly Answer that this is subtile Arguing indeed except it can be shewed that God doth any where condemn the doing in his Worship what is lawful in its own nature and no where forbidden by him under the notion of a thing not commanded which I dare affirm cannot be shewed And I add that nothing is more absurd than ' to build Doctrines upon Idioms of the sacred Language but this is too commonly done by the Men we are now dealing with as I am able to shew in too many instances And if we should turn the Scales and argue thus such and such things are not forbidden by God therefore they are commanded we should not be guilty of a grosser Absurdity than they are in inferring from God's not having Commanded them that he hath therefore Forbidden them And as to that Text in the New Testament Mat. 15.9 But in vain do they worship me teachâ—â— for Doctrines the Commandments of Men. It is manifest that that which is condemned in the Pharisees here is the setting up of their own Constitutions instead or in the place of God's and those too contrary to God's Commandments This is evident from the Context Our Saviour saith ver 3 Why do you transgress the Commandments of God by your Traditions That is saith Irenaeus upon these words They did not only frustrate the Law of God by Prevarication mixing Wine with Water but they also set their Law in opposition or contradiction to the Law of God c. And that so they did appears by what follows ver 4 5 6. for God commanded saying Honour thy Father and Mother c. But ye say Whosoever shall say to his Father or his Mother it is a Gift by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me and honour not his Father he shall be free Thus have you made the Commandment of God of none effect by your Tradiction And next follows a Citation out of Isa 29.13 according to the Septuagint whereof these words are part viz. Ye Hypocrites well did Esaias prophesie of you saying This people draw nigh unto me with their mouth and honoureth me
was typifyed and shadowed out thereby which is now Abolished by Christ and proved secondly that it is used by us out of any Judaizing Principle What this weak Man means by imitating them in their Relicks I know not but I leave it to be tryed by what has been already said whether To devise a Priestly Garment of our own head in God's Worship be to rob Christ of his Honour exceedingly and to make our selves deeply guilty of Will-worship But let me aâ—k him Does the Scripture any where say so Or does the Apostle any where call this Will-worship Why does he not quote Chapter and Verse Or deduce it by some Logical and Natural Inference No body I hope will believe this Man purely upon the score of his Confidence God having cloathed those Garments under the Law with a particular and punctual Command the Jews had been guilty of manifest Disobedience if they had not made them as the Lord commanded but being goodly and beautiful Garments they could never have been esteemed ridiculous if God had commanded nothing at all about them And his commanding them is I think a good Argument that in themselves they were not so It is I must confess very observable that there is so much Humane Learning in this Man and his Party that they can count Nine but what if God had commanded Ninety times in one Chapter that the Aaronical Garments should only be made so and so is it any thing to us who according to himself are no ways concerned in those Ceremonies and Shadows of the Law and to whom God has not given one particular direction in such Matters but left us to the general Rules of Decency and Order and the Custome of the Churches of God We are therefore left at liberty to use such Garments as shall be judged most agreeable thereto God under the Gospel having neither forbidden nor commanded the use of any If it can be proved He has then farewel Surplice And here I cannot but wonder that since this Man joyned the Cross with the Surplice in his General Charge and Indictment he did not also as particularly plead against that Ceremony and endeavour to expose it by deriving its Pedigree likewise But as to the Lawfulness of the Use of the Cross I refer the Reader to the Case of the Cross in Baptism by Dr. Resbury This old Plea for Separation has been again and again answered by those who have writ in the defence of our Church but to make short work on 't I will only ask whether this that you assert Namely that we are not to bring any thing of Man's Invention into the Service of God nor use any thing in his Worship but what he has commanded be the word of God or If it be not how come you to impose it upon us for such or charge that upon us for a sin which is not the transgression of any Law If it is the word of God then it is either expresly such or it is a clear Inference and Deduction from his express word You cannot pretend the former and therefore that which you say is that it clearly follows from God's particular prescribing the Garments of Aaron and to give this Man another Argument the whole Levitical Service The Consequence remains still to be proved and against the Truth of it I urge the Practice of the Jewish Church who made no scruple of ordering divers things for which there was no Command and yet they were never blamed for them by the Prophets or our Saviour Particularly David's design of building an House without God's Command or his so much as speaking a word to him about it was so far from being Faulty that God commended him for it Hezekiah continued the Feast of unleaveed Bread seven days longer than the time appointed by the Law Mordecai and Esther made an Ordinance for the yearly Observation of the Feast of Purim without any Command from God that we read of Of the four Fasts mentioned Zach. 8. there was only One Commanded The Feast of the Dedication is known to be of modern and humane Institution and yet it is as well known that our Saviour honoured it with his Presence There was no Appointment for the singing a Paschal Hymn after the Passover and yet our Saviour and his Disciples observed that Usage and which therefore will not I presume be said to be sinful Now if the Addmittance of certain Usages not commanded was not sinful under the Law where the manner of divine Worship was particularly specified how comes it to be so now under the Gospel where there is no such particular Prescription nor hardly any thing more than such general Rules as I have before mentioned which are to be respectively applied by Superiors and Inferiors such as let all things be done decently and in order and submit your selves to every Ordinance of Man for the Lord's Sake This seems to me to be Answer enough to what this Man has said about the Vnlawfulness of using any thing in the Worship of God but what he himself hath commanded but that I may if possible confute and silence if not convince the Urgers of this grand Objection and even those who may perhaps manage it after a better Manner than this weak Arguer has done I will present to your Consideration what the Right Reverend the Bishop of our own Diocess hath with great clearness written upon this Subject It is indeed a great deal to transcribe but it is so full and pertinent to the business in hand that my pains therein will be well bestowed if you will but vouchsafe it an impartial Reading In his Discourse of Christian Liberty Chap. 13 p. 176. he is speaking to that Notion of Christian Liberty which makes it to consist in Freedom from those Laws of Men that command things indifferent relating to Religion and the Worship of God and makes it appear to be wild and false by these Considerations First This Notion of Christian Liberty tends to introduce sad disorder and confusion into the Churches of Christ and will certainly do it if practised upon I need not go about to Prove that the Order of Ecclesiastical as well as civil Societies consisteth principally in the due Regulation of things in their own Nature indifferent St. Paul hath enjoyned that in the Church all things be done decently in Order 1 Cor. 14.40 But how shall they be so done if it be a Violation of our Christian Liberty to have any thing imposed upon us by our Governours for Decencies and Orders Sake Particular Rules being not given us in Scripture about this Matter which to be sure would have been were they not left to the Determination of the Governours of each Church upon supposition that 't is possible to give such as would well suit all Churches Calvin upon those words of St. Paul 1 Cor. 11.2 Now I praise you Brethren that you remember me in all things and keep the
own and study to honour God by abstaining from these things by which he never said that he was dishonoured O that all tender Consciences would seriously consider this for they would soon discern that your Ministers by forbidding those things now in dispute lay greater Burthens upon the Consciences of their Brethren and clog them with more duties than God hath laid upon them Whereas we who think those things may be done lay no other Burthen upon the Conscience than what God himself hath laid which is to obey our Governours in all things wherein he himself hath not bidden us to do the contrary ANSWER I shall only touch of Additions in the Service Book there are added three whole Verses to the Fourteenth Psalm and one Verse to the Thirteenth Psalm REPLY If it be granted that there are those Additions he speaks of yet it was not the Mistake of the Common Prayer Book but of the Translations which the Common Prayer followed viz. the Septuagint and Vulgar But I wonder how he came to be so cautious as not to call these Additions to Scripture for that certainly was his meaning The Additions to the 14th Psalm are accounted for in one of the old Bibles by this Note That of this 14th Psalm the 5th 6th and 7th Verses which are put into the Common Translation and may seem unto some to be left out in this are not in the same Psalm in the Hebrew Text but are rather put in more fully to express the manners of the wicked and are gather'd out of the 5th 140th and 10th Psalms the 59th of the Prophet Isaiah and the 36th Psalm and are alledged by St. Paul and placed together in the 3d to the Romans But the saying that there is a Verse added to the 14th Psalm is a notorious Falshood there are only these words I will praise the Name of the Lord most Highest which are in the seventh Psalm and the last Verse What then can this Man be thought to mean Would he insinuate that these Additions are Inventions of our own or that they are inserted by the Church upon some wicked selfish design I hope it appears that they were not nor we upon the score thereof obnoxious to the Penalty of Deut. 4.2 before quoted by him But I would fain know whether they are not deeply guilty of the Crime they charge us with who teach That nothing is to be used in the Worship of God but what is prescribed by God himself for if that be not a Scripture Truth then what an Addition is this Do not they who teach this for a Scripture-Rule and Precept impose upon Mens Consciences as much as Papists and like them and the Pharisees of old teach the Traditions of Men for the Doctrines of God Nay is not this directly contrary to the Gospel it self which tells us that Sin is the Transgression of a Law and that where there is no Law there is no Transgression And thus you all along see with how keen an edge those Weapons turn upon you which you make use of in fighting against us ANSWER In a word I may say of all the Ceremonies in the Service Book as one of your own Church saith of the Succession of Church-Officers and in particular that of Bishops He tells us That our English Bishops received their Orders in the Communion of the Church of Rome and ergo they had as good Orders as any of the Church of Rome they must needs be as good when they are the same But 't is but a weak Proof for the Succession of their Bishops when they must go to Rome for it REPLY One would think it were high time for you to have done with this old Accusation of Popery and that you should have more Prudence than to give us Occasion to upbraid you with your fawning upon and sneaking to it in the late Reign while the Bishops and Clergy of our Church made such a brave and vigorous Defence against it even to the hazard of their ALL. If indeed it be true that our Bishops received their Orders in the Church of Rome then his ergo is good and the only good one he has made in this Paper and the Argument is a good one against the Papists and no weak one neither for the Succession of Church-Officers against you if you pretend to impugn it which if you do it lies at your door to prove a failure in their Succession since our Bishops are in possession of their Authority He ought to have quoted his Author for a Reason before mention'd But what if it be true is therefore Episcopacy unlawful or the Succession of our Bishops not good He may as well argue that the Water is not good or comes not from the Fountain-head because the Conduit thro' which it is convey'd is faulty But since this Man questions the Succession of our Bishops and upbraids us with having our Orders from the Church of Rome it is but reasonable to demand Whether your Preachers have any Orders at all and if they have Whence they had them and thro' what Channel they were convey'd down to them and whether you have any Arguments to urge for the Validity of Their Orders which we cannot with much more reason make use of to prove the Goodness of Ours But we may see how far Envy and Malice will sometimes make People overshoot themselves This Man rather than not send forth his Bolt at our Bishops and Clergy will strike at the whole Reformation and call in Question the Validity of the Orders of all the Reformed Churches of Luther and Calvin himself nay even the Authority of their own Ambassadors As for our Ceremonies tho' they be superstitiously abused by the Papists yet that is no Argument against the present use of them in the Church of England who retains them not because they are of Rome but of an Ancienter date than that now corrupted Church and if they are therefore unlawful because they are used by her then every thing done in that Church is so which I suppose you will not say We only reformed from the Errors and Corruptions of that Church and not from what was Apostolical Primitive and Innocent because they used it And whatever Opinion these People would have others entertain of them yet their admired Mr. Calvin declares in express words that He would not have any Man think him so Austere or bound up as to forbid a Christian without any Exception to accommodate himself to the Papists in any Ceremony or Observance for says he further it is not my Purpose to condemn any thing but what is clearly evil and openly vicious But for a full Answer to all you Object against us upon this score I refer you to the Case of Symbolizing with the Church of Rome by Dr. Eowler our present Bishop where he quotes those very words of Mr. Calvin ANSWER Sir we desire not Separation but Reformation for I hope we have all of us so tender