Twenty-Four Cases Concerning Things Indifferent in Religious Worship, Part 2

Twenty-Four Cases Concerning Things Indifferent in Religious Worship · Part 2

p. 37The Grand Caſe conſidered, as to the double Supplement annexed thereunto.

I. Touching Things Inexpedient.

I Begin with this (though it ſtand laſt in the Grand Caſe) partly becauſe it is intended to be a Support to uphold his former Tract, which I have throughly ventilated; and partly becauſe it muſt be the Foundation of the Main Caſe of Conformity to the Declarations required in the Late Act. For if the things in queſtion, be not only Inconvenient, or burdenſom, but alſo Inexpedient, that is, (according to his own Expoſition of the word) Sinful, [In vain is the Net ſpread before the eyes of any Fowl.] No man of any good Conſcience, can, or dare be taken with ſuch Chaffe, as he hath here ſcattered, in ſtead of good Corn, to beguile and miſlead his Readers.

Before I conſider, what freſh Supply he hath brought, I ſhall premiſe ſome few Obſervations, as grounds to ſhake and fruſtrate all this ſecond Undertaking.

1. He here again (as was complained of, and manifeſted, on his former caſes) confounds Inexpedient with Inconvenient. Sometimes we hear of [Things ſimply inexpedient, p. 144. which he expounds by things Inconvenient, p. 147. No ſmall Inconvenience, p. 150. For ſome Inconveniences impoſed on us, we ought not to quit our Miniſtry.] (Which we profeſs we would not do) and other the like Paſſages: when yet he told us, [Things not Expedient in Worſhip ought not to be Impoſed, or if Impoſed, to be Submitted to.] as anon we ſhall hear.

2. Inexpedient may be taken, either negatively, for a thing not Expedient; or poſitively, for ſomething hurtful: For as, Expedient is taken for uſeful, helpful, to the buſineſs we are about: So a thing Inexpedient (in a flat oppoſition, as was ſaid) may be taken either way, for not-uſeful, or hurtful to it.

p. 383. A thing inexpediently evil, or hurtful in Worſhip, may be taken either for malum poenae, as troubleſom, or burdenſom, or for malum culpae, a thing ſinful. The Rev. Caſuiſt does not clearly diſtinguiſh theſe two ſenſes, and which he meanes; and therefore ſeemes ſecretly to paſs a genere in genus: from one kind to another.

4. A thing may be ſinful, either in it ſelf, or in its uſe in Worſhip, from ſome Circumſtance of time or place, &c. This Diſtinction is given us by the Caſuiſt, p. 68. of the former Tract, and we ſhall make uſe of it hereafter.

5. A thing may be Inexpedient in two Reſpects; 1. In matters of Civil, and common Affairs, or in matters of Religion and Worſhip. Some Aſſertions of his, are true and allowable in the firſt, but not in the ſecond reſpect. I needed not to have noted this, but that he ſeems to have forgotten (what he firſt intended) that he is tied to ſpeak to things Inexpedient in Worſhip.

6. Things evil and Inexpedient, in both ſenſes, as penally or ſinfully ſuch, may be conſidered or compared 3 waies.

1. One evil of puniſhment with another, a leſſer with a greater; and here the Rule is, e malis minimum; chuſe the leaſt.

2. An evil of puniſhment, with an evil of ſin; and here the Rule is, The greateſt evil of puniſhment muſt be choſen, rather then the leaſt evil of ſin, as Heb. 11.25.

3. One evil of ſin with another, leſſer, equal, or greater; and here the Rule is, e malis neatrum, vel nullum.

And now we come to the Caſe propounded [Whether, or how far things inexpedient (not impoſed in Worſhip, for that is peremptorily denied by the Rev. Caſuiſt in the former Tract, but) may be ſubmitted to, if impoſed, by Authority?] That was the Caſe before. [What is to be done, when things Inexpedient are impoſed? viz. in Worſhip: Now an Objection, it ſeemes, is lately flarted, and an Argument enforced from his own Principles, for the Negative, in this manner:

Nothing ſinful in Worſhip may be ſubmitted to, though impoſed by Authority; which is now proved by Scripture, we may not do evil, that good may come thereby: But Inexpedient things impoſed in Worſhip are ſinful; ergo not to be ſubmitted to.] The Major as it is obvious to any Religious Conſcience, ſo it is often aſſerted in the other Tract: The Minor is alſo granted in the very terms: [All Indifferent things not expedient, are not p. 39lawful, but finful, p. 36.] And p. 34. Things not expedient to be done, ought not to be done.] What ſaies he now to it? Both the Propoſitions being his own, he muſt either yield the Cauſe, and own the Concluſion, or diſtinguiſh of one, or both the Propoſitions; which latter he attempts to do, as followeth:

[Things are evil or unlawful, either in specie, or in genere only, either in themſelves, as prohibited by ſome ſpecial Law, Natural or Poſitive; or in reſpect to ſome Circumſtance or Accident.] To which I reply in this manner; deſiring to know to which Propoſition he will apply this Diſtinction. 1. If to the Major, it muſt be thus; [Things ſinful againſt a ſpecial Commandment, may not be ſubmitted to in Worſhip, but things forbidden by a general Commandment, may, if impoſed by Authority.] For ſo he ſaies: [Things of the ſecond kind, prohibited in general, are not a violation of a ſpecial Law of God, but of a general, p. 145.] And ſuch may be lawfully ſubmitted to, or I know not what to make of his words: To ſay, that things prohibited by a general Law, are not a violation of a ſpecial Law, is a vulgar truth, and not beſeeming the R. Caſuiſts Learning. And to ſay, things evil and unlawful either by a ſpecial or general Law, are not ſinful, will leſs beſeem his Wiſdom; for that is a contradiction: Things ſinful (ſuch are all prohibited by any Law of God) are not ſinful. 2. If he apply his Diſtinction to the Minor, it muſt, I ſuppoſe be thus: [Things Inexpedient are of two ſorrs; either ſuch as are prohibited by a ſpecial, or by a general Comandment: the firſt ſort are ſinful, and not to be ſubmitted to, but the latter may.] Will he ſtand to this? May any ſinful thing in Worſhip be ſubmitted to? Hath he not aſſerted the contrary, in the caſe of ſinful things impoſed? Beſides, this Diſtinction comes here too late, being neceſſary to have been uſed, before he gave us that univerſal Propoſition: [All Indifferent things not-expedient, are not lawful, but ſinful.] And now, belike, ſome not-expedient things are not ſinful, but lawful in Worſhip. 3. Or if he ſhall ſay, by Inexpedient, he meanes only things Inconvenient, burdenſom perhaps, but not ſinful: the firſt may be ſubmitted to, not the ſecond: He ſaies true, but then he equivocates with us, in both his Tracts, in the ſenſe of the word, Inexpedient: having told us, that all Inexpedient things in Worſhip, were ſinful, and not to be done: and ſo ſlips a genere in gemes. 4. He told us alſo, ſome things were ſinful in themſelves, and ſome p. 40by Inconveniency in their uſe, p. 68. But both are ſinful, and can either of them be lawfully ſubmitted to? 5. His Inſtances of things prohibited in genere, are Indecencies, and Diſorders, and the like, in Worſhip. But this is a great Miſtake, in a Divine, in a Caſuiſt: For there are as ſpecial Lawes againſt them, either in Nature, or Scripture, and as Moral, as againſt Murder, or Theft; viz. either the Second or Third Commandments, as Additions to the Worſhip, or prophanation of it, and conſequently a taking of Gods Name in vain; or by 1 Cor. 14.40. where ſpecially forbidden: Yea, they ſeem prohibited by a Law of Nature, [A ſtanding Law, (ſaid he) never to be croſſed by any Authority under Heaven, yea the God of Heaven being the God of Order, will never reverſe it, &c.] p. 43. of the other Caſes: If not impoſed, nor may they be ſubmitted to: The Reaſon is the ſame for both, becauſe they are ſinful in their uſe, or by the circumſtance of the time, when uſed in Worſhip, being now Inexpedient, and for that reaſon both unlawful to be impoſed, or if impoſed, to be ſubmitted to, p. 34.

Hereupon it ſeemes ſtrange to me, which here he ſaies; [If the Inexpediency of ſuch a thing, for which alone it is prohibited, be either ſeparated from it, or overballanced, it becomes repugnant to no Law at all, &c.] For, 1. This is as if he ſhould ſay, ſeparate the ſin from it, and it is not ſinful: What is the ſin of a thing inexpedient in Worſhip, but the uſe of it in Worſhip? Separate the uſe of ſuch a thing from Worſhip, and it may be lawfully uſed out of Worſhip: e. g. a Surplice, and the Sign of the Croſs uſed in Worſhip, as Symbolical Rites, or Ceremonies, we ſay, are ſinful: but out of Worſhip, the one may be lawfully uſed, by a Groom or Porter; the other for a Sign of a dwelling houſe, &c. But in worſhip, the ſin and the thing uſed, are inſeparable. 2. Neither can the ſinful Inexpediency be overballanced by any external, temporal, Expediencies: [An evil of ſin may not be done, to prevent the greateſt poenal evil, or to procure the greateſt temporal good.] And here he ſecretly flides from one kind of evil to another. Calvins. Teſtimony is not to the purpoſe; for he ſpeakes of Civil uſages, or Cuſtomes of the place, and not of Religious Rites or Ceremonies.

The like Miſtakes are in the next. [That which by reaſon of Circumſtances only, is evil, or unlawful, is ſo accidentally, and may be not immutably ſo.] The firſt part is true; but a thing p. 41which is accidentally evil, may be immutably ſo, in its uſe, in worſhip, as an Indecency, or Diſorder in Worſhip, is alwaies evil; ſinfully evil, as was confeſſed. 2. [That which is evil by accident, in one reſpect, may be good, yea better than another.] True alſo, if he ſpeak of things poenally evil: But if the thing be ſinfully evil, (though but in the uſe, in Worſhip) all the reſpects in the world cannot make it good, much leſs, better to be done in Worſhip. 3. Hence the thing that ſeemed, and was ſinfully Inexpedient, can by no Circumſtances penally evil, be made (as he ſaies) expedient, much leſs lawful, and neceſſary: for ſo we may, yea muſt do evil, that good may come thereby. Polanus his Rule is Golden, and good in civil things penally evil; there the greater and more expediencies muſt overballance the leſſer and fewer; but is a Leaden Rule, when ſinful and penal evils meet together; the firſt muſt be left undone, whatever becomes of the other.

We muſt not do evil, to obtain good. He returnes to this. [Yet we muſt do good to prevent evil, though the thing be good for nothing elſe.] I pray what is the meaning of the Apoſtles Rule? [We muſt not do the leaſt ſinful evil, to obtain the greateſt temporal good:] But he by evil, underſtands ſome poenal evil (not moral or ſinful) when he ſaies, we muſt do good, to prevent evil: What good? Morally good? That's true, but then he ſecretly begs the Queſtion, that Inexpedient things are morally good, in worſhip; or if otherwiſe, then he allowes us to ſin, to prevent ſome penal evil: And what means he by evil, which we muſt prevent? If only penal, he permits us to do a ſinful evil to prevent ſome penal evil, or if ſinful, then he allows us to prevent one ſin by doing another: For ſuch we take things Inexpedient in worſhip to be. But (by the way) this is but an ill Character of the good he intends, that it is good for nothing elſe but to prevent the evil of ſuffering: I leave him to apply it. I ſhall not now ſtand to anſwer what he ſaies of the Apoſtles making of ſome inconvenient things neceſſary: It will come again more fitly, and fully to be conſidered in the next Caſe. All I ſay now, is but this; That if Expediency will make a thing good, & neceſſary, and our duty to do (as he aſſerts) then it may ſeem reaſonable, at leaſt, in worſhip, that Inexpediency ſhould render a thing evil, and unlawful, and make it ones Duty not to do it.

The Teſtimonies of Cypr. Ambroſe, Auguſt. are eaſily anſwered, p. 42in a few words: They ſpeak not of Myſtical Rites, or ſignificant Ceremonies, but of ſome civil external Uſages gotten into worſhip; different in divers places; as Socrates tells us of many, in his time; as in obſervation of Eaſter or Lent: in receiving the Lords Supper at Evening or Morning, ſtanding or ſitting, &c. Such an Uſage in Reformed Churches, is, that ſomewhere the Miniſters preach with heads covered, otherwhere, bare-headed, and many the like: In ſuch things, thoſe Ancients adviſe to conform to the Uſages of the places where they come: but ſurely, would never have wiſe people to comply in things inexpediently ſinful, in worſhip, in any place.

The ſame may be ſaid for Forreign and home-reformed Divines. [Do not they (they abroad) either approve our Uſages, or diſlike them only as inconvenient? and thoſe they diſlike as ſuch, do they not yet earneſtly perſwade to conformity to them, from a ſad proſpect of greater Inconveniencies, the diſquiet of the Church, provoking Governours, and the laying aſide the work of the Goſpel?] D. A. Freſh Suite part 2. p. 456.I might anſwer many things, but a Learned and Pious Non-conformiſt hath done it to my hands at large, to whom I referre the Rev. Caſuiſt, for full ſatisfaction. The ſumme is this:

1. Some of thoſe Learned men, did, at the beginning of the Reformation, and before they had ſtudied the Controverſie about Ceremonies, ſuppoſe our Uſages to be only Inconvenient, and burdens, and therefore adviſed, that for ſome Inconveniences impoſed here, they ſhould not quit their Miniſtry, or hazard the Church. (Which Counſel we ſhould be willing to embrace, were not many things to us unlawful.)

2. Some of them, yea many, upon more ſerious Conſideration, do in their latter Writings, declare their Judgment of them, that they are unlawful.

3. Being in ſome perplexities, what to anſwer to thoſe Inconveniences feared, and out of tender humane Compaſſion to their Brethren here, like to ſuffer poverty, and hardſhip, did adviſe, comparatively, rather to Conformity, than to quit their Miniſtry; againſt their own Judgment. This, and much more, that Learned Profeſsour. They did not therefore ſo ſweetly agree together, as is pretended; for they agreed not with themſelves.

As for Illiricus, who differed from the reſt of his Brethren, in matter of Conformity; it was only or chiefly with reſpect to the Interim, impoſed by the Emperour; wherein were many Popiſh Errours. p. 43he had better ground to oppoſe that Conformity, than others had to perſwade unto it: And if ſome things now impoſed, be (to us) as unlawful as thoſe were, they that now refuſe, have as good, (if not the ſame) Apology for themſelves. And if that only was his Crime, and occaſioned ſo many tumults, he was unjuſtly charged by Beza, [That he promoted Popery, as if he had been hired by the Pope.] unleſs any will ſay, the preaching of the Goſpel by the Apoſtles, was the cauſe of ſo many Tumults, where-ever they came. But rather, they that impoſed thoſe Errours, were the cauſers, and they that conformed to them, were the Occaſioners of thoſe Calamities, which fell upon Non-conformers: and did the Pope more ſervice, by ſilencing thoſe Pious men, from Preaching againſt thoſe Errours. If Illiricus was an hot-ſpirited man, and had other Errours of his own (as this for one, that Sin was a Subſtance, &c.) which he too vehemently maintained, he might deſerve that black Character, given him by the Hiſtorian; but not for perſwading the Miniſters, to lay down their Miniſtry, rather than conform to thoſe many Popiſh Errours.

And for our own Divines, at home, that they were ſubdued by this Principle [That we ought rather to conform to ſome things Inexpedient, (that is Inconvenient) than to lay down our Miniſtry,] is partly true, of ſome of them, that at firſt, taking things impoſed to be only Inconvenient, and not unlawful, they did, in ſome things comply; But it is as evident, that they did eſteem fome things unlawful, and (like men under ſad temptations) did contradict themſelves; an example whereof, the Rev. Caſuiſt gave us, in one of the moſt eminent among them, in his other Tract, p. 101. But the truth is, moſt of thoſe named by him, lived, and died Nonconformiſts.

For Mr. Sprint, as he was prevailed upon, to conform, by that ſuppoſed, not proved Principle, that our Ceremonies were but Inconvenient, not unlawful; ſo no marvel, if he upon the ſame Principle, prevailed with others, perhaps unacquainted, and unſtudied in the Controverſie, and willing to be perſwaded, for ſome reaſons of their own. And if our Rev. Caſ. perceive any bloſſoms, to appear in ſome, by the influence of his Reſolutions, I fear it is with them, as with ſome over-forward trees, that bloſſome in February, and are blaſted by ſome March winds, and Froſts: when they ſhall ſee themſelves deceived, in the Application of that Principle; p. 44and find ſome things preſumed to be only Inconvenient, (not proved ſuch by their Author) to appear, and be unlawful.

2. Touching the Impoſition of things unlawful.

In the propoſition of this Caſe, we muſt rather take his meaning than his words. The Queſtion is not of the Impoſition, but of the Submiſſion to unlawful things, if they be impoſed. He hath in his former Tract, ſtrongly argued againſt the Impoſition, of not only unlawful and ſinful things, but alſo of things which he calls Inexpedient: And that for this very reaſon, becauſe they are not lawful, but ſinful, in worſhip; as was ſhewed in the former caſe: And any man rational would eaſily conclude, in this preſent caſe, one or both of theſe two things.

1. That if it be unlawful, to impoſe things unlawfull or ſinful in worſhip, it is alſo unlawful to ſubmit unto them in worſhip, for the ſame reaſon.

Or 2. If it be lawful to ſubmit to unlawful or ſinful things impoſed in Worſhip, it may be lawful to impoſe ſuch things in Worſhip. Yea theſe two things he hath formerly granted, and aſſerted. Firſt, That it is utterly unlawful to impoſe things Inexpedient, in Worſhip, as being ſinful there; and then, that it is as utterly unlawful to ſubmit to ſinful things, if impoſed, p. 119. And yet now he undertakes a ſtranger Paradox; [That it may be lawful to ſubmit to things unlawful, even directly ſinful againſt a particular Scripture, not only inconvenient, and unlawful in genere:] And the Argument to this purpoſe, muſt, I think, be thus framed: [It may in ſome caſes be lawful, yea neceſſary to do things directly forbidden by a ſpecial poſitive Law in Scripture, therefore much rather, if forbidden, only by a general Law.] The Conſequence at firſt view, ſeems reaſonable, a majore ad minus. The Antecedent he proves from Scripture Inſtances; [Of the Prieſts prophaning the Sabbath, and yet innocent.] and the like, of which anon. To the anſwering whereof, theſe things may be ſaid, in general.

1. He ſtill takes for granted, both that things Inexpedient, are only Inconvenient, not ſinful in Worſhip; and alſo that ſuch things (as our Ceremonies) are forbidden only by a general Law: when as we have manifeſted, in the former caſe; that they are forbidden p. 45by ſpecial Lawes, the ſecond and third Commandments, and 1 Cor. 14.40, &c.

2. God may diſpenſe with his own Lawes, yea ſeemingly, and in part Moral Lawes; As to the Iſraelites to take the Goods of the Egyptians, and to Abraham to kill his own Son; The reaſon is, partly his Soveraignty over all Creatures, to diſpoſe of them as his own, as he pleaſes, Pſal. 50. And partly, and chiefly, becauſe all men are Delinquents, guilty of many ſins, and Forfeitures of all their Enjoyments, and God may juſtly puniſh them, with loſs of Goods, or Life; and make what hands he pleaſes his Executioners; as in Jobs caſe: But no power on earth may command, what he forbids; nor forbid, what he commands; and therefore none may forbear to do what he commands, though men forbid: nor ſubmit to do, what he forbids, though men command.

3. The things inſtanced in, at leaſt ſome of them, as the Prieſts killing Sacrifices, were never ſinful, in the intention of the Law of the Sabbath, being Gods works, not our own; but commanded, by a ſpecial Law, and ſo their Duty to do; as being alſo a part of ſanctifying the Day, in that Ceremonial Worſhip: [And in ſuch a caſe (they are the Caſuiſts own words) it is not ſinful, not to fulfill a particular Command, but rather a clear Obedience to God, who in the inſtance, takes off the force of the particular, in his more general Law.] But can he ſhew us any general or ſpecial Law for our unneceſſary Ceremonies? If not, what Neceſſity can make them expedient, lawful, or neceſſary? But we ſay, they are ſinful, and ſo ſaies he, by conſequence, being ſo many waies Inexpedient, hurtful to the Worſhip, and Worſhippers, as is proved on his former Tract.

4. Thoſe Inftances, were only, in caſes of Neceſſity, and that alſo of Gods making, either by his ſpecial Command, or by a way of Providence, caſting men into ſome neceſſity. [And then doubtleſs (his own words again) the general warrant of the more general Law of Neceſſity, gave a Superſedeas againſt particular Obligation.] as will appear upon review of the Particulars: But I pray, what Neceſſity is there for the things in queſtion, either by way of Divine Command, or of his Providence? What neceſſity to command them? what to obey them, eſpecially if Inexpediently ſinful? If there be any, it is of mans making, either on the Commanders, whom the R. Caſ. hath excluded from Impoſing them: or on the p. 46Submitters part, for fear of puniſhment, loſs of Livings, &c. And if ſuch Neceſſity may make Submiſſion neceſſary; the 3 Children, (as called) knew not their Liberty, they might have ſaved their Lives, by obedience to the Kings Command. I ſhall put him a Caſe or two to reſolve: There was a particular Law, that a Jew might eat no Swines-fleſh; Two Caſes of Neceſſity might happen, to enforce him to eat it; Extremity of Famine, or the Command of a Tyrant; I ſuppoſe the Caſuiſt will grant, that it was lawful, yea neceſſary in the firſt caſe to eat it, rather than ſtarve; but not in the ſecond: Or elſe thoſe Brethren ſuffered death fooliſhly, when commanded by the Tyrant to eat it. He may eaſily underſtand my meaning, and apply it. I come to his Particulars.

1. That of the Prieſts, is anſwered already; I only add another Caſe: Suppoſe Saul had commanded Butchers, to kill Beaſts on the Sabbath, under ſome great penalty: Here was his Neceſſity to do it, or ſuffer: Let him reſolve the Caſe.

2. It was by a ſpecial Law enjoyned, that none might eat the Shew-bread, but the Prieſts: Suppoſe again, Saul had commanded David and his men, (in no neceſſity of hunger) to eat it, with a ſharp penalty upon refuſal. Here was his Neceſſity again: Might they eat it, or not? Yet in a Caſe of Providential Neceſſity of hunger, they might eat it, and are juſtified by our Saviour. The Reaſon of this Difference is, becauſe in the one caſe, Life is more neceſſary to be preſerved, than a Ceremonial Command: in the other, Obedience, even to a Ceremonial Commandment of God, is more neceſſary than Life.

3. For Solomons Offering upon an Altar not commanded, our Divines give theſe Anſwers.

1. That he did it by Divine Direction, as he did many other things.

2. That it was in a Caſe of Neceſſity, in ſuch abundance of Sacrifices: and other the like Reaſons. See D. A. ubiſupra. P. 328. But there is neither Direction from God, nor any Neceſſity for our Ceremonies, more, than for many more at Rome.

4. Hezekiahs admiſſion of the Legally unclean, to the Paſſeover, fome perhaps will plead Neceſſity; but (under favour) I ſhould rather ſay, Hezekiah did not well: Which appears by Gods ſtriking of the people, which he would not have done, if they had not tranſgreſſed ſome Law; or if Neceſſity would have excuſed the matter: p. 47Yea Hezekiah had forgotten the Caſe determined by Moſes, that if a man were unclean, or in a Journey, at the juſt time of the Paſſeover, he might be excuſed, if he did obſerve it, the 14th. day of the next MonethMonth.

5. Pauls Caſe was this, Life is more worth, more neceſſary than meat, than Corn, in ſuch a Condition.

And therefore his cautelous Diſtinction, [betwixt things, that are naturally, internally, materially evil, and ſuch as are unlawfull only by ſome poſitive Prohibitions in Scripture;] is here little helpful to him: For we tell him, that the things in queſtion, (ſome, if not all) are naturally, internally evil; and ſome become materially evil, by ſome evil Circumſtance, (if a Prohibition will make a thing materially evil, as he ſeems to allow) and as againſt ſome ſpecial Lawes, the Second or Third Commandments, and that ſpecial Law of Nature, 1 Cor. 14.40. Which in his own Judgment, is a Law of Nature, which the God of Nature, will not reverſe; and ſo immutably ſuch: Things Inexpedient in Worſhip, though but Inconvenient in their uſe, are as naturally, internally evil, as is any other thing prohibited by a Moral Law; and therefore not to be ſubmitted to, for any external humane Neceſſiry.

That Law of Indulgence of God, [I will have Mercy (to men or Beaſts) rather than Sacrifice,] deſerves his and our wonder, and aſtoniſhment. But little to his preſent purpoſe: For it is applyable only in Caſes of emergent and Providential Neceſſity; and then alſo, but when compared with Sacrifice, [the external and Ceremonial parts of Worſhip] as himſelf ſpeaks: e. gr. An Houſe is on fire, a Man or Beaſt is fallen into a Pit, on the Sabbath day, in time of publick Worſhip, in danger to periſh: Here God will have Mercy, and not Sacrifice: as Paul left off Pre…ching, to recover the man fallen down dead. The reaſon is evident, becauſe to preſerve Life and Goods, are Moral Commandments, and the external Exerciſes of Religion, are, in a kind, Ceremonial; And beſides, theſe may be delayed, and made good another time, but the other will periſh, if not ſpeedily ſuccoured: [The poſitive (ſayes he well) muſt yield to the Natural, and Moral Duty, the leſs Neceſſity, to the more neceſſary, the leſs to the greater.] But can any external neceſſity be greater, than that of Obedience unto Gods Command, by a Moral or Natural Law?

p. 48His Application therefore, of that Rule of Indulgence, proceeds upon his too common Suppoſition [Is Mercy to our Beaſt ſo highly prized, how much more is Mercy to our ſelves, to our Nation, to the Church, to the ſoules of our people? &c.] This Inference were good, were the things in queſtion proved to be only Inconvenient penally in Worſhip: but if any of them be proved unlawful, and ſinful, I ſhould argue to the contrary; [Is Mercy to our Beaſts, ſo highly prized, how much more, Mercy to our own ſouls? Yea Mercy to our Nation, Church, People, in avoyding ſin againſt God?] whom by ſinning, we provoke againſt all theſe. This is the way to deſtroy both Altar, Sacrifice, and Prieſts alſo: for Miniſters to comply together, to offend God: Mercy does well with Piety, but without it, is meer Cruelty.

But much ſtreſs is laid upon the practiſe of the Apoſtles, in their condeſcending to Conform in ſome things, to the Ceremonial Law, and in that Decree, Acts 15. To make ſome things neceſſary, after they were aboliſhed by Chriſt his Death. This was alledged in the former Caſe, and here again. For Pauls circumciſing Timothy, and his own Obſervation of ſome Jewiſh Rites, when he had preached againſt them; and that Decree, making ſome Ceremonials, not only lawful and expedient, but neceſſary, many things may be ſaid.

1. Though thoſe Ceremonies were dead with Chriſt, yet at that time they were not deadly till they were decently buried; and therefore were then, a while, Indifferent, to be uſed, or not, according to occaſion: Paul, that circumciſed Tim. would not circumciſe Titus, in another caſe.

2. The reaſon of both, was one and the ſame, viz. to avoid offence, to the Jewes, one while to further their Converſion: to the Gentiles another while, to prevent their Apoſtacy. Now not to lay a ſtumbling-Block, or to remove it, if it be laid, is a Moral Law, to which, Poſitive, and Ceremonial Lawes muſt give place: Even Ceremonials of Divine Inſtitution, much more of mens Invention.

3. For that Decree, making ſome things aboliſhed neceſſary; though enough hath been ſaid already; yet I ſhall conſider further what he ſaith: [Things that are expedient, are therefore good, (it ſeemed good to us) and therefore neceſſary, theſe neceſſary things: whence thoſe very things, which we are afraid to do, p. 49becauſe Inexpedient, may poſſibly, be our Duty to do, becauſe expedient.] By a contrary Inference, things that are not-expedient in Worſhip, are not good (but evil) and therefore unlawful: hence thoſe things, that we do, when expedient, we muſt be afraid to do, when, and where they are Inexpedient, that is, (in his own Gloſs) ſinful, in Worſhip: He addes, p. 147. [The Apoſtles knew, that refuſing to eat things ſtrangled and bloud, at that time, eſpecially by a Law to enjoyn it, was in one Conſideration, no ſmall Inconvenience, yea a burden, as they call it, yet to prevent greater Inconveniences, the Apoſtacy of the Jews, the Interruption of the Goſpel, &c. it ſeemed good, yea neceſſary to them, to do ſo.] Let the Reader obſerve here, his old Diverſion, (to ſay no worſe) in ſubſtituting the Word Inconvenient for Inexpedient: a penal, for a ſinful evil, and confounding the terms: For true it is, thoſe Ceremonial Obſervations (dead before this time) were a burden, if Impoſed on Chriſtians, at that time, but not ſinful; but the cauſing or occaſioning of the Apoſtacy of the Converted Jews, or the Interruption of their Converſion, by the Non-obſervation of them, for a time, were not only Inconveniencies (though ſuch alſo) but ſinful Inexpediencies, and therefore enjoyned for a time, to prevent very great ſins: But I pray, is the Impoſition of our Ceremonies, and the ſubmiſſion to them, for any ſuch ends? Hear himſelf ſpeak; [The ends moving thereunto, were moſt weighty, viz. The Unity of Brethren, winning Soules, the Propagation of the Goſpel, the prevention of Scandals, and the danger of the Miniſtry, by perſecution.] Now as for our Ceremonies Impoſed, (or the Impoſition of things Inexpedient (ſuch as they are) which might equally be juſtified, upon the ſame grounds, which yet is by the R. Caſ peremptorily denied) not one of theſe ends can juſtly be pretended:

1. Not the Unity of Brethren; for they are the greateſt Cauſes of our former, and preſent Diviſions.

2. Not winning of Soules: for whom ſhould they win? Papiſts? We ſee the contrary: as ſome are hardned by our coming ſo near them; ſo ſome, upon our Complyance with them, are turned Roman Catholikes.

3. Not the Propagation of the Goſpel: they hinder it (nothing more) by caſting out ſome Thouſands of able Miniſters, as is reported.

p. 504. Not Prevention of Scandal; for none that judge them M…tters of Indifferency, and unneceſſary, (as moſt do, or they are very ill taught) have any juſt cauſe to be offended at our non-obſervation of them, while we are perſwaded of their unlawfulneſs: yea they occaſion much Scandal, to many truly tender Conſciences.

5. Not the danger of the Miniſtry, through Perſecution; For as that was no End of the Apoſtles making that Decree, they being perſecuted, for not obſerving them, and preaching againſt them; ſo it was the end of the Falſe Teachers, Gal. 6.12. who preached up Circumciſion, to avoid Perſecution: and indeed the rigorous preſſing of them, hath proved the greateſt danger (I muſt not ſay, perſecution) of the Miniſtry, ſince Q Mary's daies: Upon all theſe Reaſons, in my poor Judgment, the Rev. Caſuiſt, and his Prelates, might have done far more and better Service, to this Church and Nation, if they had endeavoured to procure an Act, for Repealing of them, than for their Impoſition, with ſo much rigour: But whiſt.

Laſtly, To this Inſtance, of the Apoſtles Decree, and Practiſe, I will not plead, the great Diſtance of the two Authorities, then, and now, in impoſing things Indifferent, or Inconvenient, on the Churches: For I foreſee, what may be Anſwered: But I ſhall only tell him, that very Learned men, are of Opinion, that, that Decree, or Law, to abſtain from things offered to Idols, ſtrangled, and Bloud, is ſtill obliging to Chriſtians: (and then this Inſtance is impertinent.) For,

1. More may be ſaid to aſſert their Obligation, than for any of ours, or for all the Ceremonies of the Roman Church: for this was one of the Lawes given to Noah, before the Law: revived again, by Moſes, under the Law; and now the third time ratified under the Goſpel: I know nothing ſo atteſted, except one day in ſeven, for a Sabbath.

2. The things decreed by the Apoſtles, ſeem all either equally neceſsary, and perpetual, or all equally mutable: Theſe neceſſary things; and if mutable and arbitrary, then, Fornication may ſeem now to be, a venial ſin, as Papiſts; or an Indifferent thing, as many Proteſtants repute it, if we may judge by their Practiſe; And why things unequally lawful, or unlawful, ſhould be included in one Decree, I ſhould be glad to ſee a clear Reaſon:

3. The reaſon of their Prohibition may ſeem (for I aſſert it not) to be Moral, and the ſame in all: As,

p. 511. Things offered to Idols, the eating of them, eſpecially in the Idol Temples, ſeems to be two waies Scandalous, firſt to the Idolaters, to confirm them in their Idolatry, by Chriſtians Communion, and communicating with them; and next, to encourage weak Chriſtians to do the like, with a doubting Conſcience; thus the Apoſtle argues againſt it, 1 Cor. 8.10. Or elſe, let the Rev. Caſ. give a Reaſon, why it is unlawful to be preſent at, and communicate of the Romiſh Maſs.

2. The not eating of things ſtrangled, and bloud, is founded, (ſay ſome) upon a Moral Reaſon, becauſe the Life is in the Bloud, or is the Bloud, Gen. 9.4. Lev. 17.14. and that is perpetually ſo.

3. As for Fornication, that, ſay moſt, is prohibited by a Moral Law, the Seventh Commandment. Now I ſhall leave this Caſe alſo, with the Rev. Caſuiſt, to be reſolved, at his leiſure. However, in the Interim, I ſhall ſay, theſe two things.

1. That in ſome Caſes, thoſe things (beſides Fornication) are ſtill obliging, as to abſtain from eating things offered to Idols, in their Temples, if a Chriſtian ſhould live amongſt them, for the Reaſons given above: and to abſtain from things ſtrangled, and bloud, if the Jewes lived with us, if it might further their Converſion.

2. That our Caſe is not the ſame with theirs. For we abſtain not from things meerly Indifferent, or Inconvenient, but from things (in our Jugment, and his alſo) Inexpedient, that is ſinful in their uſe, in Worſhip.

I ſhall not need now, to ſay any thing, to the Teſtimonies of Calvin, Pet. Martry, or Zanchy; they are all ſatisfied, by what is ſaid: and I haſten to conclude this Caſe: I hope the Rev. Caſ. will now find his Scriptures anſwered better, and himſelf better reſolved, by his own Principles; as my ſelf, and I believe many others, are more confirmed in our Inconformity, by a prudent and ſorious pondering of the Premiſes, lent us, by himſelf.

3. Concerning the making of the firſt Declaration.

In managing the whole Diſcourſe of the Grand Caſe of Conformity, the Rev. Author, deales not ſo fairly and fully, as was expected, nor (under Favour) ſo ingenuouſly, as is deſired: For he carries on the Buſineſs ſo precariouſly, ſo limitedly, as if he cared not, or intended not to ſatisfie all his Readers, but to wave the main p. 52part of his work, or leave it half undone: as may thus appear.

1. Pag. 2, 4, 12.He profeſſes, that he treats only with ſuch, as could conform, were it not for one, or both the Declarations, which I believe (for I have ſpoken with divers of them) not one of a hundred of Nonconformers, would have done. And he ſpeakes not one word to ſatisfie thoſe, who have other Reaſons for their Inconformity.

2. He profeſſes alſo, that he takes for granted, that the Government, Liturgy and Ceremonies of the Church, are all good, and lawful, (waving the Neceſsity of them) and eſteemed ſuch by them, that refuſe conformity, p. 138. [I confeſs I took the lawfulneſs of theſe, in themſelves, for granted.] When as he knowes, they have all been controverted, more or leſs, well nigh theſe laſt hundred years, and are yet ſubjudice.

3. As in his former Caſes, ſo here, all along, he takes alſo for granted, both that Inconvenient and Inexpedient are both one, and alſo, that the Ceremonies, and other things controverted, are but inconvenient, and not ſinful: Now it is an eaſie thing, to make and reſolve any Caſes, if a man may have liberty to ſuppoſe what he pleaſes, to build (as a Foundation) his Reſolutions upon: And if he will give me the like liberty, to ſuppoſe all thoſe three named to be unlawful, or but to have ſomething in them, untrue, or unlawful, how eaſily can I diſſolve all his Reſolutions, and reſolve and determine the contrary to his Opinion. And this Advantage we have on our ſide, that as he (I ſay not, cannot) hath not proved all things in them lawful, ſo if but one Particular in each of them, yea in the whole Book, as now eſtabliſhed, be either untrue, or unlawful, no conſcientious man can make thoſe Declarations, without palpable Diſsimulation, if not ſomething worſe. Had the Rev. Caſ. taken but half ſo much paines to prove them, and all things in them, to be true, and lawful, as he hath to perſwade us to conform, by ſuppoſing them lawful; he might have had more Proſelytes, than now he can expect: But I attend his motion.

His firſt Caſe, with the Reſolution thereof, concernes not thoſe at all, that go upon other grounds, for their Inconformity. For as ſome of them, never made the former Subſcription, nor took any Oath to the Ordinary; ſo others of them, have (ſeeing juſt cauſe, as they believe) repented of their raſh undertakings in their younger years, p. 53through Ignorance, and inconſideration. And as the Objections by him ſtarted, are not by theſe owned; ſo nor do they think, the Solutions by him given, will be ſatisfactory, to thoſe, for whom they are intended.

For the firſt Objection, that though they could read the Expreſſions, yet they do not ſo heartily like and approve them, as ſeems to be required; he reſolves it thus [The Object of your aſſent, and conſent, is not the words, but things; not every word, but every thing, &c.] A poor eluſion, or rather deluſion of his Readers; For as the things are expreſſed in the words; ſo the very words, (for it was ſollicitouſly worded) are a part of the all, and every thing contained in the Book; from which if a man ſhould vary, to uſe his own apprehenſions, and expreſſions, he ſhould quickly hear of it, (as is ſaid) with both his eares. And to ſay, we cannot heartily like, and approve them, as ſeems required, and yet to give an unfeigned Aſſent, and Conſent to all and every thing therein, ſeems to me (I ſay not Hypocriſie) a contradiction: as I ſay; [I cannot heartily approve them, and yet I do heartily approve them.] For what is done unfeignedly, is, I take it, done heartily, ex animo.

His Diſtinction, of abſolute, and comparative approbation, applyed to the Second Objection; will hardly pleaſe any Party:

1. Not the Nonconformers; for if their ground of refuſal be good, viz. the unlawfulneſs of but one thing therein, they can neither abſolutely nor comparatively aſſent and conſent thereunto: A comparative Approbation of a ſinful thing, is it ſelf ſinful.

2. Not thoſe he intends to perſwade; for an unfeigned aſſent, to the Truth, and Conſent to the Goodneſs, of all, and every thing in that Book; is as full and abſolute an Approbation (in their apprehenſion) as can be given to the Book of God, the Holy Scripture it ſelf.

3. Not to the Biſhops or Prelates; for it is ſuppoſed, that their deſign, in procuring and promoting the Act, was to get the Aſſent and Conſent, and that unfeigned, of all the Clergy; that is their Approbation of the Truth, and Goodneſs, of all and every thing in the Books of Prayer and Ordination; of their Order of Epiſcopacy, above Presbyters, &c. which was formerly attempted (but miſcarried) in the & caetera Oath: And to ſay, [you do not abſolutely approve of every thing in the Book, as that you would chuſe above all, and as beſt in it ſelf,] as it will hardly pleaſe them, ſo it ſeems to put p. 54a ſlurre, as upon the Book, as not the beſt (which yet was requiſite in the publick Worſhip of God) ſo upon the Compoſers of it, as if ſomething in it, were ſcarcely true, or good; but at leaſt, very Inconvenient, and to be yielded to, only comparatively, to prevent ſome greater Inconveniencies, all which, if they pleaſed, they could have removed.

Laſtly, It will hardly ſatisfie the Impoſers, whoſe Deſign is ſuppoſed to be, Unanimity, as well as Uniformity; a full and unfeigned Approbation, of all, and every thing, contained in that Bulk, or Body of Religion, as now it is come forth, and eſtabliſhed: for they three or four times (beſides this Declaration) require, in the Act, an Approbation of all and every thing; as if they intended to explain, what they mean, by [thoſe milder words of Aſſent, and Conſent,] as the R. Caſuiſt cals them, p. 8. viz. a full Approbation of all.

But he addes: [Had the word free been in the Act, in ſtead of unfeigned (as ſome male-contents out of a vile Deſign, do buzze up and down) there had been more colour of the former Objection.]

To let paſs the harſhneſs of his words, in this Paragraph, the rather, becauſe he hath been ſo modeſt and moderate, in his former Caſes: To the reſt I ſhould ſay: Is not unfeigned, as much, or rather more, than free? Surely what I unfeignedly aſſent to, as true, and conſent unfeignedly to, as good and lawful, I do it freely, or groſſely diſſemble. And may we not freely chuſe things that we believe are true, and good, for themſelves, and of our own accord? I believe many do ſo: Aſſent and Conſent to all and every thing as freely, as unfeignedly, and deſire no other, no better, as thinking theſe the beſt. And I ſuppoſe, the Compoſers, if not the Impoſers, expect this free choyce, and will hardly thank them that do it, for other Reaſons; as no ſure friends to their Cauſe.

But the laſt Anſwer will [perfectly remove any ſuch ſcruple for ever: Let the Act interpret it ſelf: The words foregoing are theſe: Every Miniſter ſhall declare his unfeigned Aſſent, and Conſent to the uſe of all things, in the ſaid Book, &c. not ſimply, to all things but to all things with reſpect to their uſe, to the uſe of all things in the ſaid Book.] As fine and nice a Cobweb Lawn, as can be ſpun; but tranſparent, and fit only to catch weaker flies, but eaſily broken by the ſtronger. For.

p. 551. He told us before, p. 7. [the Object of our Aſſent, was not words, but things, not every word, but every thing.] Now Aſſent, (as was ſaid long ago) is an Act of the Underſtanding, whoſe Object is Truth: Conſent is an Act of the Will, whoſe Object is Goodneſse; If then, I aſſent and conſent to all and every thing contained in that Book; do I not ſimply aſſent, and conſent to all things in it, as true, and good?

2. Can any Conſcientious man, aſſent, and conſent to the uſe of all and every thing in the Book, unleſs he be firſt convinced of the Truth and Goodneſs, of all, and every thing to be uſed? And if the uſe had been intended only, in this firſt Declaration, it was ſuperfluous to put it again, in the ſecond.

3. The Intention of the Impoſers, may be collected rather from the Declaration it ſelf, than from the foregoing words, [They ſhall declare their Aſſent, and Conſent, to the uſe of all, in this manner, by declaring their Aſſent and Conſent to all, and every thing in the Book.] their uniformity in practiſe, by their unanimity in Judgment: For this in reaſon muſt be ſuppoſed, or they could not in any reaſon require the other, to make men practiſe againſt their judgment. And if this was not their deſign, why did they ſo ſuddenly change the expreſſion, firſt to the uſe, and now to all and every thing?

4. And why do they afterwards, ſo often uſe thoſe words, He ſhall declare his Approbation, his Approbation of all, &c. which muſt be meant of the Truth and Goodneſs of all, as well as of the uſe.

Laſtly, this nice diſtinction of uſe and things, cannot be applied to all, and every thing, in this firſt Declaration: For, every Miniſter, though he aſſent and conſent to the uſe of all in the Book of Common-Prayer, yet he cannot properly aſſent and conſent to the uſe of all and every thing contained in the Book of Ordination: for no Miniſter under a Biſhop, can Ordain a Presbyter, or Deacon: It muſt then neceſſarily be taken, for their Aſſent and Conſent to the Truth and Goodneſs of the Way of Ordination by Biſhops, and of the three Orders of Church Officers, &c. And thus much of the firſt Declaration.

4. Concerning the making of the Second Declaration.

In the Subſcription, or ſecond Declaration, there are three main things that fall into conſideration.

p. 56["1. The taking up Armes againſt the King.

"2. Corformity to the Liturgy.

"3. The Solemn League and Covenant.]

Of which, we know not what is beſt, and ſafeſt, whether to speak, or be ſilent: If we ſpeak not very warily, we run upon a rock of Law; if ſilent, we may be ſuſpected, to betray our own Innocence: To the two firſt, we ſhall ſay very little, to the laſt a little more.

1. To the firſt, we humbly cr…ve leave to ſay this little: They that refuſe to make this Declaration, do not ſtick at this, but are ready to profeſs [That as they never did take up Arms againſt the King (which was conſtantly denied by the Parliament, in all their Declarations, and Proteſtations, and they think, in the Covenant it ſelf) but for the King. So they hold it utterly unlawful, for Subjects, ſo to do.] and hold it (as now by Law it is determined) a Trayterous Poſition, ſo to aſſert; which they were taught before to abhor, both by Scripture, by the Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy, and by the Solemn Covenant it ſelf.

2. The ſecond of Conforming to the Practiſe of the Liturgy, as little is ſaid here by the Caſuiſt; ſo it is ſufficiently diſcuſſed and reſolved, according to the judgment of Non-conformiſts, in the former Caſe: The Reſult whereof is this: [If there be any thing, any one thing in it, either untrue, or unlawful, they dare not declare their unfeigned Aſſent, and Conſent to it, or the practiſe of it.]

3. That of the Covenant is the Mountain to be removed, not by the Faith, but by the ſtrength and skill of the Learned Caſuiſt: And this is acknowledged by the Refuſers of this Declaration, to be the main Buſineſs of conteſt: and that, not in the whole, but in one particle thereof, in the ſecond Article: as will appear.

In three things, the Rev. Caſuiſt, and they, are fully agreed.

[1. That a Covenant both illegally Impoſed, and illegally taken, may bind the Takers.] That muſt be (I ſuppoſe) from the, either neceſſity, or lawfulneſs of the matter covenanted.

[2. That the Covenant in queſtion, doth not bind to an endeavour to alter, or meddle with the State-Government.] No, for it is as ſtrong an eſtabliſhment of it, as can be made, in the third Article.

[3. That if the Alteration or Extirpation of Church-Government, be the main Buſineſs of the Covenant, and this be lawful p. 57it doth ſo far bind the takers: if not lawful, they are ſo far diſcharged from the Obligation of it.] Now evident it is, that the Anti-Covenanters, as they do not except againſt any Article of it, but the Second; ſo not againſt any part or particle of this ſecond Article, but only this, [That Covenants to endeavour the extirpation of Prelacy, that is the Hierarchy, &c.] This, this is the Helena, for which they contend ſo vigorouſly: This the eye-ſore, that ſo exaſperates their Spirits. They do not, I think, they dare not deny the Obligation, of the other Articles, nor of the other parts of the ſecond, [as to the extirpation of Popery, Superſtition, Hereſie, Schiſm, Prophaneſs, &c.] Much leſs will they deny the Obligation of the third Article, [to defend and preſerve the Kings Majeſties Perſon, and Authority, the Rights and Priviledges of Parliament, &c.] They may ſay, they were bound to thoſe, either by the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, or by the Law of Nature, as Native Subjects: I anſwer,

1. How many took the Covenant, that never took thoſe Oaths?This Oath was made, at leaſt in this Article, to God only, P. 114.

2. The other is true, but then it muſt be granted, that the Covenant, though illegally impoſed, and taken, (the matter being neceſſary, or lawful) addes a new Obligation, being made to God only: And as the latter does not voyd the former, ſo the former does not diſoblige from the latter.

3. I add, we were bound (before the Covenant was impoſed or taken) by the Law of Nature, and our Covenant of Baptiſm, and Scripture-Rules, [to endeavour the Reformation of Religion, in Doctrine, Worſhip, and Diſcipline, in our places, and Callings, and conſequently to extirpate Popery, Superſtition, &c.] though we had never taken the Covenant: Hence I would infer, (ſuppoſing, for Diſputations ſake, not poſitively aſſerting it,) [If the Epiſcopal Government, as then it ſtood, be equally unlawful, with Popery, Superſtition, and the reſt: we are by a former Obligation to God, bound equally to endeavour the alteration, and extirpation of it;] and the Covenant is but a new Cord, added to ſtrengthen that Obligation. Hic labor, hoc opus.

I know it is not ſafe for any wiſe man, to ſay much, in Defence of the Covenant, there being an Act publiſhed to diſſolve, and annull it, as unlawful, in ſeveral reſpects: I ſhall therefore aſſert nothing poſitively for it, or againſt the preſent Church-Government; but humbly crave leave, to proceed ſuppoſitively, as the Rev. Caſ. does: p. 58For all his large Diſcourſe, to perſwade to that part of the ſecond Declaration, is founded upon this Suppoſition; not that the Government is Jure Divine, and ſo neceſsary, (for upon ſuppoſal of that, a Covenant, or endeavour to alter or extirpate it, were utterly unlawful:) but only Lawful or Indifferent: And then, I ſhould, for my part, grant, that it was unlawful to Covenant, much more to endeavour to alter and extirpate it, without the Supream Authority of the Nation: And let me but have the like liberty, to ſuppoſe, (let others that can, make it good) that the Government, is, by the Word of God, unlawful; and upon that Suppoſition and Perſwaſion, as I may not own it, by Aſsent, Conſent, or Subſcription, ſo all his Arguments, to prove the Lawfulneſs of making this Declaration, are to me, of no force; till he prove it, either neceſsary, or at leaſt Lawful (which he goes not about to do, but all along takes for granted, which, I think, he ought not to do) for their ſakes, who ſcruple the Lawfulneſs of it.

That he does ſuppoſe the Lawfulneſs, (for he waves to plead the Neceſſity of this Government, as others begin to do, both in the former, and in theſe Caſes) appeares in ſeveral paſſages: ["as p. 25. ſ. 10. and p. 52. Admit that Epiſcopal Government was Res Indifferens, & Mutabilis, when ſworn againſt, p. 80. If the Government ſworn againſt, be not unlawful. And p. 138. I confeſs I took the Lawfulneſs of the Government, &c. in themſelves, for granted.] Importing (as I think) if the things were unlawful, then the fault of the Covenant was not in the Matter (it might be lawful to covenant, and endeavour the extirpation of them) but in the Manner, that it was illegally impoſed, and taken, without the King, &c. And now I ſhall ſee him ſtate the Queſtion.

It ſeemes, ſome Covenanters granting, that if the Matter of the Covenant, was but in this Particular unlawful, the Covenant it ſelf, was ſo far unlawful, and loſt its Obligation; do call aloud for ſtrong Reaſons, to prove the unlawfulneſs of the Matter, in this particular: The Learned Caſuiſt now undertakes to give ſuch as he hath; but (under favour) quite beſides the Queſtion by them intended: For they ſuppoſe, not only the Government to be unlawful, but alſo the Extirpation of it (which is the Matter now in queſtion) to be lawful: and require Reaſons to prove it materially unlawful. But his Caſe, and Reaſons reſpect the Takers, whether they may Covenant and endeavour to extirpate the Government, without the King: p. 59for ſo he ſaies: [My work is, in ſhort, to prove, that the Covenant, ſo far as it engageth the Takers of it, againſt Church Government, and for the change of it, is unlawful, and ſinful, in the Matter of it.] The Matter is one thing; whether it be lawful (for any) to extirpate the Government (ſuppoſed unlawful:) The Takers are another; whether it be lawful for private men, to undertake this, without the King: The former may be lawful, when the latter is not ſo: And here he ſlides ſecretly from the Matter to the Manner; from the Thing to the Perſons; as will appear.

For mark his Diſtinction, whereon, he ſayes, he fixes the foot of all the Arguments following: [The things ſworn to be done, may be either ſuch, as is ſimply unlawful for any to do, or quoad nos, when though not ſinful in the firſt Conſideration; yet to ſuch perſons it is ſinful.] Mark this, it is in true ſenſe, as if he had ſaid, the Matter may be lawful and laudable in it ſelf, and lawful to be done, but not lawfully (for Manner) by ſome Perſons: For inſtance; The Government, being not neceſsary, but Indifferent and mutable, may lawfully be altered, yea extirpated, by the King and Parliament; but not by ſingle or private perſons: (I doubt his Superiours will give him little thankes for this Intimation.)

But now ſee, how he applies this Diſtinction; [If the Extirpation of the Government, be unlawful, either in the firſt or abſolute ſenſe, or elſe as to thoſe, that did thus covenant; if either way, it be found unlawful, ſo far the Covenant is ſinful in the very Matter of it.] This is ſtrange from ſo Learned a Caſuiſt: For if it be abſolutely unlawful to extirpate the Government, then it is unlawful to Covenant ſo to do; but if it be unlawful only as to ſuch perſons, will your Learning ſuffer you to aſſert, it is ſinful in the very Matter of it? And is there not another way, granted by your ſelf, to free the Matter from fault? You may pleaſe to review, how you ſecre…ly beg the Queſtion, that it is ſimply unlawful to extirpate the Government, which you cannot ſay unleſs you make it neceſſary, Jure Divino, (which you have twice waved to do.) And if it be only lawful, and not neceſſary, (as you ſeem to be of opinion) you will not deny (unleſs you deny a Priviledge of Parliament) but it is mutable, and may be altered by a Lawful Authority: much more if it be it ſelf unlawful: And if ſo; then the Matter of the Covenant, is not ſinful; but the Crime will fall only on the Takers, which reſpects the manner. But on the other ſide; If it be in it p. 60ſelf unlawful, the extirpation of it, is alſo lawful, and the Covenanting to endeavour it, even by private perſons, may be materially lawful, by former Obligations to God. Or let him give us a ſolid Reaſon, why the Covenant ſhall bind us, to extirpate Popery, Superſtition, &c. And in the ſame Article, ſhall not oblige us, to extirpate an unlawful Government, I mean, ſuppoſing it to be ſuch.

There are therefore no ſmall miſadventures in his Ninth Paragraph, p. 25. As,

[1. That the immediate Queſtion, and that which moſt nearly concernes the Covenanters, is not, whether the thing ſworn be in it ſelf lawful, but whether it be ſo to them?] But by his favour, the firſt Queſtion concernes them moſt: for if the thing ſworn be unlawful in it ſelf, it renders it ipſo Facto unlawful for them to ſwear: But if the thing be lawful in it ſelf, yea neceſſary for ſome to do, yet it may not be lawful for them to undertake it; as he told us, a little before.

2. If the thing be materially lawful, and more, if it be neceſsary for all to do, in their places and callings, there lies no guilt upon 'them, ['firſt to purpoſe, and then to ſwear to do their Duty;] that is, to do that which God hath ſome way or other commanded them to do.

3. It is not reaſonable to ſay. [As it is unlawful for us, it goes into the matter of the Covenant which we take.] For the Matter may be lawful, as to execute Juſtice, &c. and yet unlawful for private perſons. And then the Conſequence, which he would infer hence, is inconſequent. [That that which is unlawful to us, if ſworn, doth make that Oath, as ours, unlawful in it ſelf, that is, in the Matter of it.] It makes the Oath unlawful indeed, but not in the Matter, which may in it ſelf be lawful, but in the Manner, as ours.

The prime and main Queſtion then, ſhould have been, [Whether the Government covenanted againſt, be neceſſary, lawful, or unlawful?] All which, he induſtriouſly waves to reſolve: for ſo he ſaies, [I ſhall not need to diſpute, whether the Government of our Church be ſo neceſſary by a Jus Divinum, as that it is unalterable by men: or that it is ſinful in it ſelf, to endeavour the alteration of it, p. 25.] Truly, I believe, he anſwers not the expectation or deſires of ſome of his own Party, that he does not undertake this Taske. And I can aſſure him, that if he had proved p. 61that by two or three ſtrong Arguments, his Non-conforming Brethren, would have much thanked him, and ingenuouſly have confeſſed, the Covenant in the Matter of it was unlawful: But why would he not for their ſakes, give ſome ſolid Reaſous, to prove the Government lawful? And then perhaps, they would have yielded, the Covenant to be unlawful in the manner, if not alſo, ſo far in the Matter. It were no hard work, to conjecture, why he choſe rather to prove the Covenant to be unlawful, with reſpect to the Perſons, that impoſed, and took it; and took it for granted, the Government was, and is in it ſelf lawful. But I ſhall forbear to expreſs my thoughts. I ſhall tell him what I obſerved on his former Caſes, that he did not in Hypotheſi, take upon him to vindicate our Ceremonies, but kept aloof in Theſi, in Indifferent, and Inexpedient things (which yet he could not do, but he muſt ſuppoſe, for Diſputes ſake, the Ceremonies were ſuch things, though he inſtanced not in any of them) becauſe it was both hard to prove them lawful; and unſafe or dangerous, to inſinuate they were unlawful: I ſay no more.

But now, ſeeing he knowes, that the Governments Lawfulneſs, hath been long controverted at home and abroad, by very Learned and Pious men, and Churches: I ſhould think, it had been reaſonable and expedient, in this ſo great an undertaking, as to perſwade Diſsenters to Conformity, not to preſume, and take for granted, the things are lawful, but by ſome irrefragable Arguments, though few, to prove that they are ſo: Or elſe to give them liberty to produce theirs, to prove them unlawful; which is not ſafe for either Party: Yet to ſuppoſe a while, and for Diſputations ſake, to take them (the Government in ſpecial) to be unlawful; and then, thereby to manifeſt how weak, and unſatisfying, all his Reaſonings are, to ſuch as take them ſo to be: This one Anſwer may be an impenetrable ſhield, [The Government is to us unlawful; and therefore we cannot, we dare not aſſent, conſent, or ſubſcribe unto it.]

To follow the Rev. Author, in all his Particulars, would be both dangerous, and tedious, when one Anſwer muſt ſo often be repeated, which may ſerve once for all, It is to us unlawful.

For hence, 1. It matters not at all [Whether the Covenant in this part (or others) was impoſed, and taken, by a Body in Parliament, or by Single perſons, or by the King himſelf without them.] For the thing it ſelf being unlawful, they were bound, without any Covenant taken (but more with it) to alter, and endeavour to extirpate it, every one in his Place, and Calling. A neceſſary p. 62Duty, concerning all perſons, more, or leſs; as it may and muſt be done, by every one ſingle (I ſay ſtill, in his Place and Calling) ſo it may be covenanted to be endeavoured, by one or more together. This is Aſſerted by a Learned Epiſcopal Doctor [That to fulfil the expreſs Commandment of God, no man doubteth, but that a Covenant may be made, not only without, but againſt the Command of a Prince.]

2. If the thing be in it ſelf unlawful, then to Covenant to endeavour (each in his Place and Calling) to extirpate a ſinful Government, is not againſt, [1. The Kings Rights, either as S… pream Governour, or as Legiſlator. 2. Nor againſt the Lawes of the Land. 3. Nor againſt the Priviledges of Parliament. 4. Nor againſt the liberties of the ſubjects. 5. Nor againſt any former obligations.]

God hath the firſt Obligation upon us, by our Baptiſm, and Chriſtian Profeſſion (I ſay ſtill, each in his Place and Calling.) [To contend earneſtly for the Faith once delivered to the Saints, Jude v. 3.] And conſequently to endeavour to remove and root out, all Doctrine, Worſhip, Diſcipline, or Government contrary thereunto: I ſhall not ſo much diſtruſt the Underſtanding of any Reader; much leſs the Judgment of the Learned Caſuiſt, as that they will deny the former Conſequences (upon my borrowed, or begged Suppoſition) or that they are not eaſily able, if but willing, to make Application thereof, to all the Particulars named.

Much more might have been ſaid, to many things, but I am warned by anothers Harm, [Not to fly too near the Candle, leſt I be ſcorched by the Flame.]

5. The Concluſion. Concerning the Lawfulneſs of Re-Ordination, &c.

There is one thing (and but one thing, he ſaies) more, in the Condition of Law, required of Miniſters, by the Act, and that is, [Re-Ordination of ſuch, as were Ordained by Presbyters only, and Ordination of others, by Biſhops.] And both theſe are much ſcrupled by ſome, men of hopeful, and very uſeful parts: The latter ſort, becauſe they believing Biſhops, as ſuch, and as a diſtinct Order from Presbyters, to be unlawful, dare not come under unauthorized hands: The former, becauſe they judge their Ordination valid, by Presbyters; and dare no more be re-ordained, then re-baptized. And indeed, if their Ordination by Presbyters, be invalid, all their Miniſterial Acts, by vertue of that Ordination, are null, (as ſome Prelates have told them:) and if not they themſelves, p. 63yet thoſe baptized by them, muſt be re-baptized, or elſe they are ſcarce Chriſtians: which ſeems very harſh Doctrine, from them, who as thy cry out of Anabaptiſts, for Re-baptization; ſo in ſome Caſes, allow a Woman to baptize: Let them conſider it: and I attend him. He uſes many Reaſons, to perſwade the firſt ſort (though nothing to the ſecond) not to ſtick at Re-ordination. As,

[1. Conſidering, that Liberty is not denied them, to keep their own ſenſe, whether Ordination by Presbyters, is valid, or not.] This is, as if the Children of Anabaptiſts, being forced by Law, to be baptized, ſhould perſwade their Parents to ſuffer it, conſidering that Liberty is not denied them, to keep their own ſenſe, whether this Baptiſm is valid, or not: and they may rebaptize them, when at Age. Does an Ordinance of God, depend upon mens ſenſe thereof? Or may men dally with it in this manner? and not take his Name in vain? However, ſome Biſhops tell them, their firſt Ordination, with all the Acts thereof are null, and bid them repent of all. Now if their Ordination be judged by them, to be valid, they in repeating of it, offend againſt the Word, the Ordainers, and thoſe Churches that have no Biſhops, as making theirs, no Miniſters, no Churches. If they judge it not valid, they offend (if but ignorantly) againſt the Inſtitution of Chriſt; who hath placed Ordination in a Presbytery. Biſhops themſelves being firſt Ordained by ſuch, (even B. Timothy, if a B. he was) as Hierome (with the Scripture) hath proved, and others follow him therein.

[2. The Act (he ſaies) makes it ſelf no judge of the Ordination by Presbyters, in forreign Churches.] In words, and directly it does not; but implicitly, and conſequentially it does; Elſe, why doth it ſo ſtrictly, ſo rigorouſly, require Ordination by a Biſhop? But as making the former null, and invalid, to any Miniſterial Acts? Yea ſome Prelatical men, ſtick not to affirm thoſe Churches to be none, that want Biſhops.

[3. There is no other way (ſaies he) to exerciſe their Miniſtry, in this Church, by Law, or to entitle them to a Charge, or the Profits thereof.] How true this is, appeares, in that many Prieſts, ordained by Popiſh Biſhops, are admitted to all thoſe, without Re-ordination, It is a ſad thing, that a Presbytery of pious, Learned, Orthodox men, ſhould not find the ſame favour with Proteſtants. But if Ordination by Presbyters, be Evangelical, it ſhould ſeem reaſonable, it ſhould be made Legal: No Law of p. 64man ought to countermand the Inſtitutions of Jeſus Chriſt. And what is this, but a kind of Independant Principle, on the one ſide, who allow and require Re-ordination of their Miniſters (ſuch as it is) as oft as they remove from one congregation to another: And on the other ſide, a kind of Anabaptiſtical Fancy, & practiſe, who allow, & require rebaptization of thoſe baptized by our epiſcopa Miniſters. And laſtly it ſeems a too near Complyance with Rome; where they re-ordain thoſe of ours, that convert, or apoſtate to them, though ordained by our Biſhops, as our Biſhops re-ordain thoſe ordained by Presbyters. This Retaliation may ſeem juſt, and reaſonable, at leaſt from God.

4. To ſave himſelf a further Labour, he refers us to Mr. Humphries Juſtification of his own, and others Re-ordination: Alas poor Soul? A worſe Perſwaſive could ſcarce have been brought: whoſe Tracts are judged by ſome very weak, and by others ſufficiently confuted; and which is more, ſtrongly, really contradicted, by a moſt vehement Abjuration, of his 2^d Ordination by a Biſhop.

Concerning his own ſolemn Profeſſion and Subſcription, ex animo, [That he hath not uſed one Argument, but what he judges convincing, &c.] I, for my part, am in Charity bound, and willing to believe him: For upon his Suppoſition, I ſhould eaſily be convinced my ſelf; that is, [if the Government, Liturgy, Ceremonies of this Church, be in all, and every thing, true and lawful,] (which are indeed all concerned, and ſuppoſed in the Declarations, but not by him at all proved, but confeſſedly here, taken for granted) I ſhould be ready to profeſs Conformity to them; notwithſtanding many Inconveniences in them: But when his Oppoſites take many things to be unlawful, and he preſumes to take them all for lawful; he may perhaps perſwade ſome, that are of his mind, (which few are) but cannot in reaſon hope to make them his Proſelytes, who judge any thing in them, unlawful.

There are ſome other things here repeated, which have been ſpoken to elſewhere, and I paſs them by. I have one humble requeſt to make to the Rev. Caſuiſt; and I have done: That at his next leiſure, he will be pleaſed to give ſome few new Arguments, (for the old, we think, are inſufficient, and ſufficiently anſwered) to prove, I ſay not all and every thing in the Declarations to be neceſſary (that would be too hard a Task) but to prove, the things controverted, the Government, Liturgie, Ceremonies to be Lawful, according to the Word of God; and I ſhall engage my ſelf, and what little Credit I have, either to give him a fair, and full Anſwer, with Meekneſs, and Modeſty; or, if I cannot, to yield my ſelf his Proſelyte.

FINIS.

End of the text · Edward Bagshaw, Twenty-Four Cases Concerning Things Indifferent in Religious Worship (1663)