Concerning Things Indifferent in Religious Worship Part 2, Tract
THE SECOND PART Of the GREAT QUESTION Concerning INDIFFERENT THINGS IN RELIGIOUS WORSHIP, &c.
Queſt. Whether it be Lawful to ſubmit unto the Uſe and Practiſe of things, commonly ſuppoſed to be Indifferent, when they come to be Impoſed and made Neceſſary in Religious Worſhip?
FOR the righter Stating and clearer Underſtanding of this Queſtion, I ſuppoſe theſe two Things.
1. By Things commonly ſuppoſed to be Indifferent, I do not mean ſuch things as are purely, and in their own Nature Indifferent; ſuch are the Time and Place of Religious Worſhip. Nor, 2. Such things, as in their own nature, though Indifferent, yet ſeem to have a greater Aſpect and tendency unto that which is Natural Decency and Order, then otherwiſe; as, to ſtand or kneel, at time of Publick Prayer, and the like: In both theſe Caſes, though perhaps the Magiſtrate doth ill to interpoſe his Command, becauſe things of a Religious Concernment belong not properly and immediatly to his Juriſdiction; yet I ſee not why his Command ſhould make us ſcruple or forbear the doing of them: For whatever, either in it ſelf, or in common eſtimation among ſober men, is more decent and comely, though it gaines no ſtrength from the Command Impoſing it, yet there can no reaſon be given, why it ſhould loſe any. Therefore by Things Indifferent in the Queſtion, I mean ſuch things, as being conſidered at large, and diveſted from all Circumſtances, may perhaps be done or not done, and that lawfully; yet pro hic & nunc, with reference to the power which impoſes, and to the end which continues them, it is queſtionable whether they be Indifferent or not; ſuch are, the Surplice in time of Publick Prayer, Muſick in Churches, Preſcribed Forms of Prayer, the Croſs in Baptiſm, Kneeling at the Sacrament, Bowing at the Name of Jeſus, and the like; which are not ſo purely Indifferent, but that they offend the Weak, who doubt; and cauſe many fierce and vehement Contentions, even amongſt the Learned, who diſpute, whether they be lawful or not: And about theſe things alone, do I deſire to be underſtood in my following Diſcourſe.
2. By Submitting, I do not mean, a being preſent at ſuch time and place, where theſe Rites are uſed, but actively concurring to, and perſonally doing them our ſelves: For as Mr. Hales excellently obſerves, What if thoſe to whom the Execution of the Publick Service is committed, do ſomthing either unſeemly or ſuspitious, or peradventure unlawful? What if the Garments they wear, be cenſured, nay indeed be ſuſpitious? What if Geſture or Adoration be uſed to the Altars, as now we have learned to ſpeak? What if the Homiliſt have preached, or delivered any Doctrine for truth, of which we are not well perſwaded? Yet for all this, we may not ſeparate, except we be conſtrained perſonally to bear a part in them our ſelves. And therefore the Queſtion doth not ſo properly concern the People, who, for ought I know, may be preſent where theſe Ceremonies are uſed, 1 Kings. 19.without being defiled by them, as Elijah was a looker on upon Baals Prieſts; and the Apoſtle tels us, we may eat meat, 1 Con. 8.and therefore hear the Word, though in an Idols Temple. But I chiefly mean the Preachers and Miniſters of the Word, upon whoſe Perſonal Practiſe all theſe things are commanded, and this I hold utterly unlawful for them to ſubmit unto.
Firſt, Becauſe the Magiſtrate hath no power to impoſe things doubtful and diſputable upon the Practiſe of any in the Service of God; Arg. 1 and therefore it cannot be lawful for any, to obey him, when he ſo impoſes: For the clearing of which Reaſon, two things are to be explained.
1. That the Magiſtrate hath no Power to impoſe things doubtful and diſputable in the Service of God.
2. That if he doth impoſe, we cannot lawfully obey him.
The firſt Aſſertion is this; That the Magiſtrate hath no Power to impoſe things doubtful and diſputable in the Service of God: And the Reaſon is clear, becauſe God hath given him no ſuch Commiſſion: For ſince it is moſt Equal and Reaſonable, that God ſhould be the ſole Orderer of his own Worſhip, and if in his Revealed Will (which the Magiſtrate is as much bound to obey, as the meaneſt Chriſtian) God hath not authorized any to enforce upon the Practiſe of others, things which are of a doubtful and diſputable nature; then cannot the Magiſtrate lawfully take to himſelf that power, becauſe in ſo doing, he goes beyond his Bounds, and exceeds thoſe Limits, which God hath ſet all that profeſs Faith in him, viz. of not being wiſe and holy above what is written. Beſides, our Saviour while he was upon Earth, though he had all Power committed to him, as Mediator, yet he neither exerciſed himſelf, nor intruſted to his Apoſtles ſuch Power, that they ſhould force or compell any to obey him, becauſe his Kingdom is not of this world, i. e. not to be acquired or enlarged by thoſe Arts and Policies which humane Princes uſe; but Converts only are his Subjects; and thoſe he alone owns for Members of his Church, whom Preaching and ſound Perſwaſion hath won over to him. And therefore it is very incongruous for the Magiſtrate, who pretends to act for Chriſt, to take more upon him then Chriſt himſelf did, and by enforcing things dubious, make Religion a very uneaſie and unpleaſant yoke, and thereby fright Conſcientious and Sober men from the Service of him, whoſe honour he would ſeem to promote; which is directly contrary, both to the Nature of Religion, and to the Ends of Chriſtian Government.
Againſt this, in behalf of the Civil Magiſtrates Power, it is urged.
1. Obj. 1 That Jehoſaphat, Hezekiah, and other Kings of the Jews, are commended for repairing and beautifying the Temple and Worſhip of God; and likewiſe David made Muſical Inſtruments, appointed the Courſes of the Prieſts, preſcribed their Garments and manner of Service, none of which were provided for by the Law of Moſes; from whence it followes, that Chriſtian Magiſtrates have ſtill the ſame power, which the Jewiſh Princes had; that is, to regulate and order the outward Circumſtances of Gods Worſhip, though over Subſtantials, and Articles of Faith, it is acknowledged they have no Power at all.
But I Anſwer: Anſw.
1. Deut. 17.18, 19.That whatever the Jewiſh Princes did in regulating Gods Worſhip, they had a particular and expreſs Law, which did exact it from them; and which in all, even the ſmalleſt Punctilio's and Circumſtances, had ſo provided, that they could not fail of knowing their Duty; whereas Chriſtian Religion is in moſt Particulars of leſſer moment, more free and undetermined, and therefore there is not the ſame parity of Reaſon, that the example of the Jewiſh Princes then, ſhould be obligatory to our Magiſtrates now, becauſe the Law is altered, and that accurateneſs in ſmall things needs not ſo much be inſiſted on. For now the Magiſtrate moſt conſults Gods honour, and his own duty, if he leaves the Chriſtian Law as large as he found it; and doth not urge, either little, or much leſs doubtful things, becauſe God, in not requiring them, ſhews, that the preſſing them, will not be a work pleaſing or acceptable to him, becauſe it laies an Imputation upon his Wiſdom and Holineſs, as if he had not in his Word ſufficiently provided for his own Worſhip.
2. And more particularly, to that Inſtance of David, I Anſwer, That whatever David did in regulating the Service of God, in appointing Muſical Inſtruments, Prieſts Garments. and the like, he did it not by his Authority, as King; but by Gods Command, as a Prophet; as will appear from theſe Places of Scripture: One is, 2 Chron. 8.14. Where it is ſaid, that Solomon appointed according to the Order of David his Father, the Courſes of the Prieſts, to their Service, and the Levites to their Charges, to praiſe and miniſter before the Prieſts, as the duty of every day required: For ſo, ſaith the Text, David the man of God commanded. Where that Expreſſion, The man of God (which is a Name given only to Perſons extraordinarily inſpired, ſuch (were the Prophets of old) ſufficiently ſhews in what capacity David ordered theſe things; not barely as a King, but as a man of God, i. e. by God himſelf excited and inſpired to do it. Again, when Hezekiah reſtored the Purity of Gods Worſhip, which his Father Ahaz had polluted, it is ſaid, 2 Chron. 29.25.that He ſet the Levites in the Houſe of the Lord with Cymbals, with Pſalteries, and with Harps, according to the Commandment of David, and of Gad the Kings Seer, and of Nathan the Prophet, For, ſaith the Text, ſo was Gods Commandment by the Prophets: Whence it plainly appears, that David did no more in theſe Particulars, then what God himſelf had by his Prophets commanded. And therefore when David gave to Solomon his Son the Pattern of Gods Houſe, and of all the Rooms and Apartments in it, it is ſaid to be, the pattern of all that he had by the spirit, among which things are reckoned, 1 Chron. 28.12. V. 19.the Courſes of the Prieſts and of the Levites, and for all the work of the Service of the Houſe of the Lord: Of which the Text ſaies, All this, ſaid David, the Lord made me underſtand in Writing, by his hand upon me, even all the works of this Pattern. From whence it evidently follows, that not the leaſt Circumſtance which David then ordered, came from his own motion, or was eſtabliſhed barely by his Kingly Authority, but it did proceed from the infallible Directions of Gods Spirit, and therefore Magiſtrates cannot urge his Example, unleſs they will pretend at leaſt to his Divine Aſſiſtance, and not Regal, but Prophetical Authority.
Laſtly, Since the Objecters allow that over Subſtantials, as for example, to make or command Articles of Faith, Magiſtrates have no power; methinks it demonſtrably followes from their own Conceſſions, that over Circumstantials they have much leſs: Since Subſtantials concern the Eſſence of Worſhip, and therefore may ſeem to be a juſt ground for Impoſition; upon which, the Apoſtles found the Equity of their Canon, about forbidding things ſtrangled, Blood and Fornication, Acts 15.28.becauſe they were foreign, things very neceſsary; but Circumſtantials may very well be omitted, without any prejudice either to Gods Worſhip, or to the Magiſtrates Power; and the very needleſſeneſs and ſuperfluouſneſs of them, may ſeem juſtly enough, to make it unlawful to impoſe them: For if in general, the Magiſtrate hath nothing to do, whether I am a Chriſtian or not, ſince as a man, I have a Title to his Protection: then ſure, when I acknowledge my ſelf a Chriſtian, in what kind of Habit, Poſture, or Words, I will worſhip God, the Magiſtrate hath much leſs to do, becauſe Charity, Forbearance, Doing as he would be done by, not to lay a ſtumbling Block before his Brother, and the like, are as much Parts of the Chriſtian Magiſtrates Duty, as Obedience to the Magiſtrate in all lawful, and therefore not diſputable things, is the duty of a Chriſtian Subject.
2. Obj. 2 It is objected again, That there are many Prophecies in Scripture, that Magiſtrates ſhould own and defend Chriſtian Religion, Iſa. 49.23.and in particular, that Kings ſhould be Nurſing Fathers, and Queens Nurſing Mothers to the Church; and therefore certainly they may employ their Authority for the beautifying and adorning it in all ſuch outward Circumſtances of Worſhip, as meerly appertain to Decency and Order.
But I Anſwer: Anſw.
1. There are indeed many Prophecies in Scripture, that Kings and Inferiour Magiſtrates ſhall ſubmit to the Faith of Chriſt; yet it doth not follow, that therefore they are to take upon them to model and regulate any part of his Worſhip. C. 7.18.For as in the Opinion about the Reign of the Saints, it is clear from Scripture, that a time will come when the Saints ſhall rule the world, as in Daniel, The Saints of the Moſt High ſhall take the Kingdom, and poſſeſs the Kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever: Yet it doth not follow, that therefore they ought to take Arms, and by violence poſſeſſe themſelves of an Earthly Kingdom, becauſe this contradicts ſo many other places, wherein Patience, Self-denial, and Waiting upon God, is enjoyned them. So in this caſe, there is a vaſt difference between a Magiſtrates becoming Chriſtian, and his medling with Preſcribing Forms of Chriſtian Worſhip, which no Prophecy did ever mention: Nay on the contrary, in ſtead of foretelling any ſuch Imperious and authoritative Rule of Princes, in Religious matters, the Scripture mentions their lowly and humble deportment; as in Davids Prophecy concerning the Meſſiah: All Kings ſhall fall down before him, all Nations ſhall ſerve him. And in Iſaiah, Kings ſhall ſee and ariſe; Princes alſo ſhall worſhip. Pſal. 72.11. Iſa.49 7.Nay in that very place, where there is mention of Kings being Nurſing Fathers, it is added, they ſhall lie down to thee with their Face towards the earth, they ſhall lick the duſt of thy Feet: Which places do rather argue the Magiſtrates awful Reverence of, and reſpectful ſubmiſſion to the Church of Chriſt, then their exerciſing Authority over it. At leaſt thus much may be evinced, that, though Magiſtrates loſe no power by becoming Chriſtians, yet they gain none, but in every thing are to act as Servants to the Law of Chriſt; from which, as nothing may be taken, ſo to it nothing ought to be added; no, though it may be patronized under the names of Decency and Order; which if we make to ſignifie, not Natural, but Deviſed and Fancied Order, it is that which all Superſtitions plead, to defend their unwarrantable Traditions and Inventions by. And therefore to purſue the Simile a little farther, it were to be wiſhed, that Kings would ſo far prove Nurſing-Fathers, as to uſe their Chriſtian Subjects in this particular, as Nurſes do their Children, i. e. only to put into their Mouths, that which the Apoſtle Peter cals foreign, 1 Pet. 2.2.Reaſonable and ſincere or unmingled Milk, i. e. only Gods Word in its Native Purity, without being ſowred by the Harſhneſs of Impoſitions, or corrupted, rather then ſweetned, by the undue mixture of Humane Fancies and Imaginations.
2. The beſt way for Chriſtian Magiſtrates to advance and beautifie Religion, is not by the Prodigality of their Purſes, in stately Structures, Choyce Muſick, Curious Pictures, and the like, wherein Superſtition will be ſure to out-do them; or by the Severity and Rigour of their Laws in ſmall things, but in the Piety of their Lives, and ſtrictneſs of their Civil Government. For let Magiſtrates once cleanſe the Soyl of Humane Nature, by making ſharp and wholſom Laws againſt Vice and Immorality, and then weed it, by impartial puniſhing of Drunkenneſſe, and other Diſorders, which the Apoſtle cals Works of the Fleſh; then Religion will make its own way into mens hearts, and produce an outward Compoſure in Service, ſutable to its own inward Worth and Excellence: Whereas the Magiſtrates medling with Outward Forms, begets only a Face of Religion, which is ſo much the more loathſom, in that it is uſed commonly as a Cover, to hide many foul Enormities, which without that Mask, no ſober Magiſtrate could have the heart to tolerate. I conclude therefore ſince, 1. God never gave. 2. Chriſt never exerciſed. 3. The Examples of the Jewiſh Princes, nor Scripture Propheſies do warrant ſuch an impoſing Power, eſpecially in things doubtful, as ſome contend for, it follows, that the Civil Magiſtrate hath no ſuch power, and ought not to take it upon him: Which was my firſt Aſſertion.
The Second Aſſertion was this, That if the Magistrate doth impoſe things doubtful, we cannot lawfully obey him: And the Reaſon is clear, from what is already argued: For no man can lawfully do any thing in the Worſhip of God, but what he is ſatisfied he might do, whether it were by men commanded or not; therefore he that hath no other warrant for his doing any thing, then the Command of the Magiſtrate, when it is clear the Magiſtrate hath no Power to command him, muſt needs ſin in what he does: And that,
1. Becauſe thereby he viſibly diſowns, and detracts from Gods Soveraignty, who is ſole Lord of the Conſcience, whoſe Honour is then given to another, when by our ſubmitting to them, we ſeem in fact at leaſt, to acknowledge, that they have Power to impoſe: For in the Church of Chriſt, by an Overt Act, to own and countenance the Juriſdiction and Authority of another, this is to leſſen Chriſts Legiſlative Power, and to make Two Heads of the Church, a Viſible and Inviſible, or a Political and Spiritual one, which is a diſtinction that the Scripture knows not; and only the Popiſh, that is the Antichriſtian Church makes uſe of.
2. Becauſe by obeying what is in it ſelf doubtful, and in the Impoſer unlawful, we ſhall conſent to, and approve the Magiſtrates ſin, and ſo harden him to continue more fierce and peremptory in it. Now if it be a Rule in general, that we ought to reprove our Brother, and not to ſuffer ſin upon him, much leſs to conſent, Lev. 19.and to partake with him in it: How much more is it our duty, to prevent, ſo far as we can, any ſin in our Magiſtrate, (whoſe happineſs we are bound in eſpecial manner to procure and pray for) and this muſt be done, by our modeſt and humble, but yet reſolute and conſtant refuſing to obey his Impoſitions; wherein we are ſo to proceed, as to evidence both by our Language, and Actions, that it is not Peeviſhneſs or Petulancy, much leſs a diſobedient and contradicting humour, which puts us upon it, but meerly Conſcience of our Duty, both to God and Him; namely, becauſe the Magiſtrate, as to theſe matters, is not in Gods ſtead, God not having committed unto Chriſtian Magiſtrates, but unto his Son, the Government of his Church, and that in the Outward Policy, as well as in the Inward Purity of it: For where the inward Purity is not wrought, there outward Conformity is not a ſerving God; but men, and proves a Service, which as God requires not, ſo neither will he at all accept. And therefore ſince even the higheſt Magiſtrates on earth are accountable to God, who hates Oppreſſion, under pretence of advancing Piety; this, as it ought to make all Magiſtrates afraid how they meddle with impoſing, without any warrant, ſo it ought to make us wary too, leſt by active ſubmitting, we do abet and own their ſin, and ſo become Parties in the Tranſgreſſion; There being but little difference, in the ſight of God, between him that commands a doubtful thing, and him that doth it, upon no better argument, then becauſe another, who had no power, commanded it: For in that, or in no caſe, God cals for Suffering, and not for Submitting.
3. He that obeyes in ſuch a caſe, muſt needs ſin, becauſe he cannot act in Faith, i. e. in a ſound and thorow, Perſwaſion, that it is lawful for him to obey. For ſince no Concluſion can have in it greater certainty then the Premiſes which infer it, I would fain know, how it is poſſible for him to have any clear ſatisfaction, who thus argues.
1. The thing commanded, as for example, the Croſs in Baptiſm, is in its own nature very diſputable, whether it be Lawful or not?
2. The Magiſtrate who commands it, hath no power to do it, and therefore ſins in enjoyning; muſt not then the Inference be, therefore I ſhall ſin in obeying him, ſince his Command, when he wants Power, can never make a doubtful thing warrantable or ſafe to a doubting Conſcience. From all which, it followes, that if it be unlawful to command a thing doubtful in Religious Worſhip, it is equally unlawful to obey it; which is the ſumme of my Firſt Argument.
My Second Reaſon ſhall be taken from the Neceſſity and Nature of Chriſtian Liberty; Arg. 2 which as it conſiſts eſpecially in the free uſe of Indifferent, or Forbearance of doubtful things, ſo are we bound entirely to preſerve it. To clear up which, we muſt conſider, that the whole ſtream of the Goſpel, in reference to theſe outward things, doth run in ſuch Expreſſions as theſe; If you be my Diſciples, ſaith our Saviour, you ſhall know the Truth, John 8.31. &c.and the Truth ſhall ſet you free. And again, If the Son ſhall make you free, you ſhall be free indeed. Gal. 3.1. V. 13. James 1.25. & 2.12.So the Apoſtle Paul, Stand faſt in the liberty wherewith Chriſt hath made you free. And again, Brethren, you have been called unto Liberty, So James cals the Goſpel the perfect Law of Liberty: and, ſo ſpeak, ſaith he, and ſo do, as thoſe that ſhall be judged by the Law of Liberty. All which places, with many others, to the ſame purpoſe, do evince thus much, that it is not a thing meerly arbitrary, and at our pleaſure, whether we will preſerve our Chriſtian Liberty or not; but we are ſtrictly commanded to do it: and the ſame obedience which we owe to other Divine Precepts, we are obliged to pay unto this, becauſe it is dictated by the ſame Spirit. Now ſince this Liberty, as it is mentioned by our Saviour and his Apoſtles, is only to be exerciſed in things of Religious Concernment (for as to Civil matters, no doubt, the ſtricteſt Obedience to the Magiſtrates Command, is our Duty) it follows therefore, that when once things, otherwiſe perhaps Indifferent, yet indeed Doubtful, come to be made neceſſary, and forced upon our practiſe, we are then bound by a meek and Chriſtian, but yet magnanimous Refuſal, to aſſert our Freedom, and not ſuffer our ſelves to be entangled by a Yoke of Bondage, which is ſo much the more heavy and galling, becauſe it is confeſſedly needleſſe, and hath no holier end to ratifie it, then meerly an undue will of the Impoſer; which if we obey, 1 Cor. 7.23.we then become Servants of men, and cowardly deſert that Freedom which Chriſt came to purchaſe for us: which is quite contrary both to the Command & Practiſe of the Apoſtle Paul, who though he held Circumciſion, in ſome caſes to be Indifferent, and accordingly uſed it; yet when once Falſe Brethren came to ſpy out their Liberty, Gal. 2.and by their ſubtil Diſcourſes ſought to bring them into Bondage, Paul would not yield to them in the leaſt, but conſtantly oppoſed the Inſinuations of thoſe crafty men (with whom no doubt, Arguments from Decency and Order were not wanting) that ſo he might tranſmit the Truth, i. e. the Liberty of the Goſpel unto his Followers: And for his own, both Judgment and Practiſe, he gives this General Rule, All things, i. e. which are not forbidden by God, are Lawful, but, foreign, i. e. I will not be domineer'd over by any, 1 Cor. 6.12.or, I will not ſuffer any to exerciſe Authority over me, as that I ſhould upon his Imperious and unlawful Command, forbear the free uſe of that which the Lord hath left free unto me.
Againſt this it is Objected, Obj. 1
1. That Paul in his Epiſtle to the Galatians, ſpeaks only of Circumciſion and Jewiſh Ceremonies; and therefore the Liberty he mentions, muſt only be underſtood in reference to them, which all acknowledge to be aboliſhed, and without ſin, cannot be revived; but this doth not concern other Chriſtian Rites, which are introduced, as by another power, ſo upon another Score, ſc. not as Parts of Religion, but as Circumſtances of meer Decency and Order. But I Anſwer.
1. Anſw. The Apoſtle Paul doth not ſo confine his Diſcourſe to Circumciſion, but that in other places he extends it to Meats and Drinks, to Obſervation of Dayes, and ſuch like, which are much more indifferent, then thoſe now conteſted about: Concerning which, the Apoſtles Aſſertion is, That he would not be brought into bondage by any, but be left as free in the uſe or forbearance of them, as the Laws of Charity would permit. And therefore whatever the Apoſtle ſaies, though properly and immediatly it relates only to Jewiſh Cuſtoms, yet ſince his words are general and indefinite, they muſt be underſtood equally to concern all things, that are of a like, and much more thoſe that are of a more doubtful Nature.
2. Though the Apoſtle did ſpeak only of Circumciſion and other Legal Rites, yet the very ſame Reaſon which ſerved to take them away, may eaſily be improved, to keep back any other from being either impoſed or obſerved in their room. For, 1. Since God himſelf was the immediate Author of all Moſaical Ceremonies. And 2. Since they were afterwards aboliſhed, not becauſe they were ſinful, but becauſe they were unprofitable; not becauſe they were inconſiſtent with Salvation, but becauſe they did not ſufficiently promote it, as the Apoſtle witneſſes: There is, Heb. 7.18, 19.ſaith he, a diſanulling of the Commandment going before, for the weakneſs and unprofitableneſſe thereof; for the Law, i. e. of Ceremonies, made nothing perfect: Then it followes, that things, 1. Which have not the ſame Divine warrant and Preſcription. And 2. Which are equally, if not more unprofitable, as to what concernes the Conſcience, ought not to be introduced or practiſed; for elſe we ſhould be very little Gainers, if being ſet free from Gods, we might be made ſubject to mans Law, and if in ſtead of Divine, we might own and practiſe Humane Impoſitions: This would not eaſe our Yoke, but only alter it, nay make it much more inſupportable then the Jewiſh Burden was: For they, in what they did, obeyed a Righteous and Infallible God, and therefore were ſure, they could not erre: But we muſt obey the Arbitrary Fancies of Unrighteous, and Fallible men, concerning whoſe Authority in impoſing, or the Uſefulneſſe of the things which they impoſe, we can never be ſatisfied; ſince they ſeem, not only to go beyond their bounds, but likewiſe by enjoyning ſuch poor things, to play with, rather then to adorn Religion, and in ſtead of conſulting Gods Honour, to provide only Traps and Snares for their Conſcientious and ſoberly diſſenting Brethren.
2. It is objected again, That the Church was not in the ſame condition in the Apoſtle Pauls time, Obj. 2 that now it is in; for then there was no Civil Magiſtrate that did ſo far countenance Chriſtian Religion, as to interpoſe and meddle with it, and therefore none could enjoyn thoſe things, in the uſe whereof Paul bids them be free; but now the ſtate of things is altered: For Magiſtrates have taken upon them the care of Religion, unto whoſe Injunctions we are to yield obedience, according to that of the Apoſtle, Let every Soul be Subject to the Higher Powers.
I Anſwer, Anſw. 1. It is aſſumed gratis, and without the leaſt pretence of Proof, that the Chriſtian Magiſtrate hath any thing to do to impoſe in things of Religion: For which, I might bring many Sentences out of Tertullian, and eſpecially Lactantius, who affirm the ſame: but the thing is clear; For Civil Government is properly and adequately concerned only in Civil things; but Religious matters belong only to him that is Inſpector and Lord of the Conſcience; and therefore that Text, Let every Soul be ſubject to the Higher Powers, is in this debate impertinently alledged; ſince it is evident, that the Apoſtle wrote it, with reference to Nero, who was then Emperour, and certainly did very little trouble himſelf with things of Religion, except it were to perſecute it; and even then when the Magiſtrate doth ſo, I acknowledge that we are to be ſubject to, i. e. not to reſiſt him; Nay, further, it followes from the Text, that ſhould our Magiſtrates become, what they then were, Heathen and Infidels, yet in all Civil Matters, we were bound to obey them; which I am ready to aſſert againſt all, whether Papal or other Encroachments. But that the Magiſtrate either hath power to preſcribe Religious Rites, or that if he doth preſcribe, we ought to ſubmit to him, neither that, nor any other Text of Scripture doth evince, as I have already demonſtrated.
2. I deny, that any upon Earth, now hath greater power to impoſe upon the Church, then thoſe had in the Apoſtle Paul's time. For I take it for granted, that Peter was, if not the greateſt, yet one of the greateſt Perſons, that ever was ſince our Saviours time, and yet when he, by his ſuſpitious and inconſtant carriage, gave occaſion to the Gentiles, to think, Gal. 2.that the Jewiſh Rites ought ſtill to be continued, Paul openly reproves him, in theſe words, Why compelleſt thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? i. e. Why doſt thou ſeem to lay a conſtraint upon them, and by the Authority of thy example, induce them to believe, that thoſe Ceremonies are ſtill to be practiſed? From whence I infer, that if in one who was ſo great an Apoſtle, Paul would not brook the leaſt ſcruple of carriage, which might ſeem to abate and leſſen the extent of Chriſtian Liberty, then it follows.
1. That no Magiſtrate can lawfully take upon him that power, ſince the greateſt Magiſtrate on Earth, in things appertaining to Divine Worſhip, is much inferiour to Peter, both for Knowledge and Authority.
2. That if the Magiſtrate doth take upon himſelf that power, we are to be ſo far from complying, as rather, by Pauls example, openly to reprove him; at leaſt we are to let him know, that we ſtand engaged to another Maſter, who hath commanded us to be free; and that it is not out of diſobedience to the Magiſtrate, but out of duty to God, if we peaceably aſſert and maintain our Liberty.
3. The laſt objection is this, Obj. 3 That Chriſtian Liberty conſiſts not in Freedom of Practiſe, but in the Freedom of Judgment: And therefore many acknowledge, that if theſe doubtful things were ſo impoſed, as that thereby we ſhould be obliged to think them neceſſary to ſalvation, then it was our duty not to do them: But ſince they are meerly enjoyned by the Magiſtrate, as things of Outward order, ſo long we may freely do them, and ſtill retain our Liberty of Conſcience. And this is the Summe of what many Learned men, both in their Writings and Diſcourſes do affirm. But I Anſwer:
1. That the Diſtinction is meerly coyned to ſerve a turn, Anſw. without the leaſt Foundation, either in Scripture or Reaſon. For, 1. It is not grounded on Scripture, ſince all thoſe places wherein we are commanded not to be the Servants of men, to ſtand faſt in our Liberty, and the like, do principally reſpect the freedom of our Practiſe, in reference to the Impoſer, whom we ought not to ſubmit unto. Neither, 2. Is there any colour of Reaſon for it; for Liberty of Judgment, without Liberty of Practiſe ſutable to that Judgment, is not only a vain and ludicrous, but a burdenſom and vexatious thing; and eſpecially in the Service of God, while we alwaies outwardly do that, which inwardly we do not approve, is nothing elſe but direct Hypocriſie.
2. The Queſtion is not, Whether any may impoſe upon our Judgments; which it is evident none can; but whether our Practiſe, ought not to be left as free as our Judgments, in thoſe things which in reference to his own Worſhip, God himſelf hath not determined. The Diſtinction therefore which ſuppoſes, that our Practiſe may be bound up, and yet our Liberty, which Chriſt and his Apoſtles were ſo tender of, preſerved, doth not prove, but only begs the Queſtion: And like ſuch kind of ſtuffe, is meerly ſo much duſt thrown into our eyes, that we might not read, and make uſe of our Royal Charter.
I conclude therefore, 1. Since Chriſtian Liberty is entirely and indiſpenſably to be preſerved, becauſe the ſame Authority which forbids Murder, doth command that, and it is the Authority of our Law giver, which gives each Law its Sanction. 2. Since Chriſtian Liberty hath place only in the uſe of Indifferent, or forbearance of doubtful things (for things neceſſary are already enjoyned by God, whom we are to obey, whether the Magiſtrate do command them or not) therefore it follows, 1. That whoever takes away the liberty of Practiſe from us, directly contradicts ſo many places of Scripture, which do expreſly enjoyn it: and then, 2. We cannot without diſhonour to God, and violation of one of the greateſt outward Priviledges that the Goſpel doth indulge us, conſent to, or by our Practiſe ſeem to approve of any thing which doth ſo immediatly intrench upon our Chriſtian Freedom: Which is my Second Argument.
The Third Argument ſhall be taken from the Nature of the things Impoſed, Arg. 3 which are not purely and in their own Nature Indifferent; for then we need not, and I believe, few would ſcruple at the practiſe of them) but, as I ſtated above, they are things very doubtful and diſputable, and therefore no Command can make them Lawful. For to inſtance only in one of them, and that is, the Croſſe in Baptiſm, I may affirm of that, which I find the Learned Hales aſſerting concerning Images. 1. It is a thing acknowledged by all, that it is unneceſſary. 2. By moſt, at leaſt in this Nation, it is ſuſpected. 3. By many it is held utterly unlawful: Can then the enjoyning of ſuch a thing, be ought elſe but Abuſe? Or can the Refuſal of (he ſayes, Communion, I ſay) Submiſſion, be ought elſe but Duty?
I am not ignorant that many ſpecious Arguments are brought for ſome of our Ceremonies, as particularly, for Set Forms of Prayer, and for kneeling at the Sacrament which, becauſe they are obvious, I ſhall not inſiſt upon: For allowing, but not granting, the utmoſt of what is ſaid, that to pray by a Book, is a more rational and Compoſed way of Divine Worſhip, then to pray from the ſtrength of ones own Meditation, and the Aſſiſtance of Gods Spirit; who, becauſe of thoſe Enlargements and quicknings he gives, is peculiarly ſtiled the Spirit of Prayer. 2. Granting that to kneel, is a more humble, and therefore a more decent Poſture, at the Sacrament, then to ſit, as our Saviour and his Apoſtles did; (whoſe Example ſure we may follow without ſin) or at leaſt, to ſtand, which is a poſture of Prayer, and therefore of Reverence, and leſſe ſubject to harden the Papiſts, who have ſo monſtrouſly abuſed Kneeling, by their Idolatry: But granting the Decency and Conveniency of both, yet,
1. Since they are either Parts of, or Additions to Divine worſhip, unwarrantably deviſed, and forcibly obtruded.
2. Since the Impoſers do lay ſo much ſtreſſe upon them, that, it is evident, though they call them Indifferent, yet they think them Neceſſary.
3. Since in theſe Forms of Prayers, there are thoſe Mixtures, which make our Liturgy, though not ſimply unlawful, yet highly queſtionable.
4. Since they are joyned with ſome other Ceremonies, as the Croſſe in Baptiſme, which are of a more doubtful Nature.
Laſtly, Since many, as ſober and as Pious Chriſtians, as any are in our Nation, are infinitely grieved at the uſe of them, and are upon the point of forſaking our Aſſemblies, becauſe of them. It followes hence,
1. That it doth not at all become the Piety and Prudence of Chriſtian Governours to impoſe theſe things which grieve and diſturb very many, and in their own nature are grateful to very few? beſides ſuch who make uſe of their Conformity, as the way to Preferment.
2. That no Conſcientious Miniſter, ſo far as I yet ſee, can perſonally bear a part in all theſe Ceremonies, becauſe he cannot act in Faith, as doing that, 1. Which God requires not. 2. Which his, perhaps weak, but yet Chriſtian Brother, takes offence at, and if the Apoſtle Paul ſayes, he would never eat meat (which is alwaies lawful, and to ſome tempers neceſſary Food) rather then offend his Brother, ſure he would have forborn a Croſs, or a Surplice much more.
If any Anſwer, as ſome do, that it is Scandalum acceptum & non datum, Obj. i.e. an Offence only peeviſhly taken, but not juſtly given.
I anſwer, Anſw. It is Scandalum datum, an Offence juſtly given: For he that upon any pretence whatever, doth conſent, not only to quit his own Liberty, but likewiſe in ſo doing, doth violate and injure the Conſcience of another; he gives juſt occaſion to have his action cenſured, as if he choſe ſin rather then Affliction, ſince they are only Motives of Convenience, which ſeem to lie at the bottom, and make him ſtoop to ſo mean a Bondage.
Some object, That it is true, by doing theſe things, we offend our Brother, Obj. but then by refuſing, we ſhould offend the Magiſtrate, who is ſomthing more then our Brother, to whom we owe not only the duty of Love, but likewiſe of Subjection; and therefore the leſs Offence muſt give place to the greater. But I anſwer.
1. Anſw. That if the Magiſtrate hath no power to impoſe, as I have already proved, then he hath no reaſon to be offended at my refuſal to obey him; ſince eatenus jus non habet, and therefore I ſhould more ſcandalize, i. e. give him a greater occaſion of ſinning, by ſubmitting to, then by quiet diſowning of his Authority. For by ſubmitting, I ſhall beget this Opinion in him, that he doth well to impoſe, which is undoubtedly ſinful; whereas by diſowning his Authority, I only make my ſelf liable to ſuffering, which every good Chriſtian ought at all times to be prepared for.
2. Our Saviour hath already taught us how little we are to care for the offence which men take at that ſober and juſt uſe which we make of our Liberty: For when he refuſed to waſh his hands before meat, (which by the way, was a Rite much more innocent, then thoſe I now diſpute of) and gave this for his ground, that it was a plant not of his Fathers planting; his Diſciples ſeem to importune him to condeſcend unto the Phariſees, who were his lawful Governours, by urging, that they were offended at his Saying: But our Saviour in ſtead of aſſenting, cries out, let them alone, they are Blind Guides, with other words, ſhewing, that while they made uſe of their Authority, to preſs ſuch needleſs Toyes, it was his duty to diſobey them. Which carriage of our Saviour is ſo much the more remarkable, in that, when they came to demand Tribute-money, though he alledged, that by his Birthright he was free from any ſuch Tax, yet, ſaith he, rather then offend them, let us pay it; plainly implying, that in Civil things, not to ſtand too nicely upon our terms, but for peace ſake even to part with ſome of our Right, is honeſt and commendable; but in Religious things we muſt not yield a tittle, becauſe in them, the honour of God is immediatly concerned: For, as being Lord of the Conſcience, and ſole Dictator of what way he will be ſerved in, he expects, we ſhould upon all occaſions, openly aſſert his Right, and neither teach for Doctrine, nor ſolemnize for Worſhip, the Commandments of men. For, that I may obviate an Exception of ſome, who alledge, that theſe things are not impoſed as Doctrines: When a Ceremony comes to be urged and preſſed, beyond the bounds of a thing Indifferent, here though no Doctrine be mentioned, yet there is a Doctrine couched under it, and that is, this which I have been all this while ſpeaking againſt, That the Magistrate hath power to impoſe in Religious Worſhip. So that when things doubtful come upon that ſcore to be obtruded, we muſt reſolutely refuſe to do them, leſt we ſhould ſeem to own and aſſent unto the Doctrine. To conclude therefore, Since the things in queſtion, are ſo preſſed, as if the Impoſers thought them neceſſary. 2. Since many of them are very diſputable. 3. Since moſt of them are very ſcandalous and offenſive to our weaker Brethren, it followes, that they are not in their own nature Indifferent, and therefore it cannot be lawful to practiſe them. And ſo much for the Third Argument.
The Fourth and laſt Argument ſhall be taken from the Reſemblance and Correſpondency which theſe things have to others, which we have already renounced in the Popiſh worſhip; as likewiſe from the impoſſibility, that any rational or ſober account can be given why we diſſent from thoſe, if we aſſent to theſe. For, I would fain know, wherein lies the true ground of our ſeparation from the Church of Rome, if not in this, becauſe they obtrude ſuch conditions of Communion, which Gods Word doth not warrant us to aſſent to? For let men ſpeak as much as they pleaſe againſt Images, Crucifixes, Praying to Saints, or for the Dead, &c. at laſt it will be found, that the only firm and ſolid Argument to overthrow all theſe things, is this, They are not written. God hath no where in his Word commanded ſuch things, and therefore we may ſafely reject them. But on the ſame ſcore, the Croſs, the Surplice, Bowing Kneeling, and the reſt, muſt be rejected too, as being equally uncommanded,: For how can we ſatisfie any inquiſitive man, why in Baptiſm, we have caſt off Oyle, and retain the Croſs? why in the other Sacrament, we retain Kneeling, and refuſe Adoration? Why we bow to the Name of Jeſus, and yet are offended at a Crucifix? In ſhort, why we have pared away ſome Rites, either as Idolatrous, or elſe as ſuperfluous, and yet have retained others, that are equally ſcandalous, equally indefenſible? If we anſwer, that we did it, becauſe every National Church hath power to judge of Ceremonies, and to impoſe upon her Subjects, as few or as many as ſhe thinks fit; Will it not inevitably follow, that our Church may when ſhe pleaſes, bring in all thoſe exploded Rites upon us, and when ſhe doth ſo, we are bound to ſubmit unto her Authority? So that all the advantage we have got by our Reformation (which at the beginning of it, was the beſt and the moſt ſtupendious that ever the world ſaw) is only this, that we have lopt off ſome Branches of Popery, but left the Root untouched; as owning that Doctrine of Impoſitions, which may whenever the Magiſtrate pleaſes, bring in the outward practiſe of that Religion again upon us. I do not ſpeak this, as if I did in the leaſt imagine, that our Governours do ſo much as dream of any ſuch thing, but I argue meerly as a rational man, and conſidering the nature of things; for ſince every man then acts rationally, when he acts conformably to the Principle he holds; therefore he that firſt miſtakes things doubtful, for things Indifferent, and then maintains, that the Magiſtrate hath power to make even things Doubtful, Neceſſary, when he impoſes them; he leaves the Magiſtrate free, to bring in as much of the Popiſh Worſhip, as he is pleaſed to think is either decent or convenient.
Since then the Croſſe, the Surplice, &c. are all of the ſame Idolatrous Nature and Original, with other parts of Romiſh Worſhip, which we have worthily rejected, as being coyned in the unlicenſed Mint of mens Brain, without the ſtamp of Divine Authority; it followes, that either we muſt not uſe them, or elſe we muſt acknowledge, that if Oyl for Infants, Holy Ʋnction for the ſick, Exorciſmes, &c. were enjoyned, we could lawfully ſubmit to them too, and ſo never fix our ſelves a certain point of Religious Practiſe, but depend altogether upon the Beck and Pleaſure of our Magiſtrate.
Againſt this, I know not what can be objected, except as ſome affirm, that the Pope is not Antichriſt, ſo others will take upon them to prove that Popery is not Idolatry. If any Proteſtant be of that mind, I hope he thinks of returning ſpeedily to their Communion, but till I underſtand, how Pictures may be made and placed, if not as Objects, yet as Helps of Devotion; how Saints can firſt be Canonized, and then prayed to, how the Bread can be confined to a place, and yet adored as god, how the Virgin Mary beſides being prayed to, can be entreated to command her Son; till I ſay, I underſtand how theſe, and many more ſuch things can be done, and no Idolatry committed, I muſt take leave to affirm, that if that Church be not Idolatrous, there never was, nor can be ſuch a thing as Idolatry in the World.
To conclude therefore, I will acknowledge, that uſing the Croſs, though not in Baptiſm, is very ancient, and mentioned more then once by Tertullian aApolog., that a peculiar Reverence to the Name of Jeſus, is aſſerted by Origen bLib. adv. Celſ., that the Worſhip of Angels, or ſomthing very like it, is maintained by Justin Martyr cApolog. 2.Prayer for the Dead, as I remember, by Cyprian, I am ſure by Tertullian dApolog., Purgatory by Arnobius, &c. But yet theſe Opinions, which in thoſe Excellent Writers (who were newly recovered out of Gentiliſme) were very tolerable Miſtakes and Errours, did neither hurt them, nor the Church of Chriſt, till the world was grown lazy enough to believe, and the Biſhop of Rome had force enough to impoſe them, as Neceſſary Doctrines. This is that which not only diffuſed, but ſo far fixed the fatal Poyſon of Errour, that the world can never expect to be freed, till it pleaſes God to raiſe up ſome generous and truly Heroick Prince, who may be convinced of the truth of Chriſtian Religion, not by hear-ſay from others, but by a through ſearch and enquiry into the Cauſes of it himſelf, and growing from thence aſſured, that nothing can more hinder the Progreſs of the Goſpel, then to diſguiſe and alter its ſimplicity (for a ſtrange dreſs muſt needs render it ſuſpected) will reſolve to give it a free and undiſturbed Paſſage, and never draw his Sword, but when Malice and Ignorance do joyn together, not only to oppoſe, but to perſecute it; how will Truth then, being unfettered and ſet free, from the Clogges of pretended Decency, but indeed Antichriſtian Tyranny, run through this Nation, and chaſe Errour before it, as the Light doth Darkneſs? This Great and Glorious work I dare almoſt prophecy that his Majeſty is reſerved for, whoſe pious and unequalled Declaration, hath already indulged as much Liberty, as any ſober-minded Chriſtian can pretend to: and which will then undoubtedly be made a Law, when by our conſtant and chearful Sufferings for this Doctrine of Liberty, we have expiated and waſhed away thoſe Scandals, which our many odious and unparallel'd Abuſes have caſt upon it.
FINIS.
End of the text · Edward Bagshaw, Concerning Things Indifferent in Religious Worship Part 2 (1661)