Twenty-Four Cases Concerning Things Indifferent in Religious Worship, Part 1

Twenty-Four Cases Concerning Things Indifferent in Religious Worship · Part 1

The XXIV Caſes CONCERNING THINGS INDIFFERENT IN Religious Worſhip Conſidered. OR THE RESOLVER Better Reſolved by his own Principles; AND NON-CONFORMISTS More Confirmed. ALSO THE GRAND CASE Touching Miniſters Conformity, with the double Supplement thereunto Annexed, Briefly Diſcuſſed.

Rom. 15.22.

Happy is he that condemneth not himſelf, in that thing which he Alloweth.

And, Happy is he that alloweth not himſelf, in that thing which he Condemneth.

LONDON, Printed in the Year, 1663.

p. 1Queſtion. Whether Things Inexpedient, or purely Indifferent (ſuch as our (Engliſh) Ceremonies are) may be Impoſed by men lawfully in the Worſhip of God? Or, if Impoſed, may lawfully be ſubmitted, aſſented, and conſented unto?

THis Grand Queſtion hath three Heads of Diſpute; Of the Lawfulneſs 1. Of the Impoſition of them in Worſhip. 2. Of Submiſſion to them as to Practiſe. 3. Of the Declaration of an Ʋnfeigned Aſſent and Conſent to all and every thing contained in, and preſcribed by the Book of Common Prayer, or by the Late Act of Ʋniformity in Doctrine, Worſhip, Diſcipline. The Probleme hath reſpect only or chiefly to Worſhip, and to the Deciſion of it, I ſhall do theſe three things. 1. Explain the Terms. 2. Shew how far the Diſſenting Parties agree. 3. Undertake to prove the Negative in all the Particulars, upon the Caſuiſts own Principles and Conceſſions.

I. Explication of the Terms.

1. Ceremonies.] I begin with this, partly to diſtinguiſh between Ceremonies, and Circumſtances of Worſhip, which commonly in this Diſpute are confounded; and partly to draw down the Queſtion a Theſi, as diſcourſed in general under the Notion of Things Inexpedient, and purely Indifferent (as it is warily done by the Rev. Caſuist, and others, which affords them ſome Creep holes, and Liberty of Evaſion) ad Hypotheſin in ſpecial to our Ceremonies, of which the Controverſie is. And the Definition of a Ceremony will clearly difference it from a Circumſtance of Worſhip. Every Ceremony may be conſidered as a circumſtance, but every circumſtance in, or of Worſhip is not a Ceremony. A Ceremony is a circumſtance, and ſomething more. And a circumſtance may be made a Ceremony: ex. gr. The colour of a Beaſt offered in Sacrifice was a circumſtance in it ſelf: But in the Heiſer of Expiation, p. 2the colour was ſpecified, and required to be Red, and no other: Here a circumſtance is made, more then naturally it was, a Ceremony. Say the ſame of Time. Place, Habit, &c. abſtractedly conſidered they were but circumſtances of Worſhip, but determined or inſtituted by God were made Ceremonies, as were the Jewiſh Feſtivals, Temple, Ephod▪ &c. As for the Definition of a Ceremony (for a circumſtance is nothing but an Adjunct of any other thing, ſubſtance or action) it is variouſly given by divers Divines; but all for the moſt part agree in this (even Heathens alſo in any Religion) [That a Ceremony in Religion is a ſacred Rite inſt…uted for the honouring of God in his Publick Worſhip, and indeed a part of external Worſhip.] The Caſuiſt cals them [Sacred myſtical Ceremonies, ſignificant ſymbolical Rites, Pag. 145.] Others call them Ritus colendi Deum; not only circumſtantial Rites to attend the Worſhip, but Rites of Worſhip: or Ceremonial, Ritual Worſhip: that is, parts of Worſhip: for worſhip is divided into Moral and Ceremonial; which Diſtinction is idle and vain, if Ceremonies be not worſhip or parts of worſhip. The Learned Caſuiſt (and others) fearing this may fall foul upon our Ceremonies, have confounded Ceremonies with circumſtances, or at leaſt have equivocally uſed the words: For Pag. 6. He ſpeaks [of circumſtances properly ſo called, as time, place, habit, purely indifferent] in a general conſideration abſtractedly from Inconveniency; But he knowes that thoſe circumſtances determined by God were made alſo Ceremonies: Inſtitution Divine made this alteration in, or gave this addition to them: And will not humane Inſtitution alſo of Sacred, myſtical, ſymbolical, ſignificant Rites do the ſame? That ſhall be tried hereafter. But in another place, Pag. 145. ſpeaking of ſuch Ceremonies, he confounds, or darkens the ſenſe by a Diſtinction: To this effect: [Ceremonies may be appointed to ſignifie the Favour of God, or the Grace of the Sacraments, or to be a means of receiving any Bleſſing from God, and this is very dangerous, if corrupt and ſuperſtitious men at any time rule the Church, &c.—But if by Rights and Ceremonies we mean only the circumſtances of Divine worſhip, and by ſignificancy that they are fitted to commend the Exerciſe, with Order and Decency to expreſs the Gravity and Devotion of the worſhippers, I cannot diſcover ſo much danger.] But 1. Should not men ſpeak Properly in ſuch a controverſie as this, diſtinguiſhing p. 3Ceremonies from circumſtances? Do any that would be underſtood, call meer circumſtances of Order, &c. Ceremonies? Are not natural and civil circumſtances ſo far ſignificant, to expreſs gravity and devotion, and tend to Edification, and yet no ſacred Ceremonies? 2. Though our Ceremonies do not ſignifie immediately the favour of God, or the Grace of the Sacraments; yet do they ſignifie Duties on our part, Purity, Conſtancy, Humility: and unleſs they be idle and vain, (and for that cauſe be caſt out of Worſhip) they are intended to be a means of receiving ſome Bleſſing from God, by a moral operation of thoſe Graces and Duties intended to be ſignified in their Inſtitution: And this will eaſily multiply their number, and in his Judgment render them dangerous, till (as he ſaith) they become ſtench in the Noſtrils of God, and of all ſober and ſtayd men] As in the Church of Rome. More of this hereafter.

2. Inexpedient things.] This word had need to be explained; for it may have a double ſenſe. 1. Privatively, it is as much as not expedient: and ſo is the ſame almoſt with thoſe things the Caſuiſt cals purely Indifferent (of which in the next place) and often cals them Inconvenient. 2. Poſitively, as directly contrary to expedient, which ſignifies things uſeful, helpful in worſhip, or to the worſhip. He gives us this notion of them, when he ſaies, p. 49. [Ceremonies of the Church ought to be expedient not hurtful to the Church, not troubleſom to good Conſciences, not burdenſom] Things inexpedient therefore in worſhip are ſuch as are hurtful to the worſhip or worſhippers, troubleſom, burdenſom, in a word, any things that violate thoſe 7 Rules required in the Impoſition of Indifferent things in worſhip, Caſ. 8. p. 33. And in this ſenſe I think the Rev. Caſuiſt doth, or ſhould underſtand the word Inexpedient; as a degree worſe then purely-indifferent (which alſo for their uſeleſſeneſs in worſhip are unlawfully impoſed by the Church or Magiſtrate, as we ſhall hear him aſſert anon) But yet (which is obſervable) in the proceſs of his Diſcourſe he confounds things inexpedient with things meerly or privatively inconvenient, or unfit: The Inſtances are many, [Pag. 80. Inconveniency and inexpediency, Pag. 81. Any thing unfit and Inconvenient. Pag. 89. Inconvenience only. Pag. 91. An Inexpedient indifferent thing. Pag. 109. Somewhat inexpedient, barely inexpedient. Pag. 105.] But (under favour) this is either a tergiverſation, or perverting p. 4of the Queſtion; eſpecially in reſpect of the ſecond part, our ſubmiſſion to them: for though it be true that ſome things inconvenient ought not to be impoſed in worſhip, yet ſuch things if impoſed, may in ſome caſes be lawfully ſubmitted to, and in that No…ion have been ſubmitted to, by ſome Learned and Pious Nonconformiſts: For the Inconvenience may be only in a circumſtance of Worſhip, as at an unſeaſonable time, or unconvenient place, and the like. And if no other will be allowed, ſubmiſſion to them may be lawful, rather then not to enjoy the publick Ordinances. But if inexpedient as Ceremonies, i. e, hurtful to the Worſhip as before; the Queſtion is altered, and ſome new Diſtinctions muſt be uſed, of which more perhaps hereafter.

3. Things purely indifferent] What is meant by things Indifferent, he reſolved us in his firſt Caſe. A middle between neceſſary, as commanded, & unlawful things, as forbidden; morally neither good nor bad in themſelves, but may be either by ſome circumſtance: And theſe ſeem to ſome to be of two ſorts. 1. Such as may be ſome circumſtance be made good or bad. 2. Such as when uſed in Worſhip, are at leaſt not good: (whether not bad is a Queſtion if Impoſed and uſed in Worſhip) Theſe our Caſuiſt cals purely Indifferent, others meerly Indifferent; or quatenus Indifferent. Caſe 6. What thoſe purely indifferent things are, he diſcovers not, either by a deſcription of them, or any one Inſtance in particular. Indeed at Caſe 12. He gives us the ſame deſcription of a thing Indifferent (as at firſt) and applies it to a thing purely indifferent. [A middle place it holds between things neceſſary and things ſinful; between things expedient, and things inexpedient, &c. but in all regards purely indifferent.] And then tels us, [The Queſtion is not whether there be any ſuch things or no, but hoc ſuppoſito, that ſuch things there are, and that they are commanded by Lawful Authority] But did it not concern him to give one Inſtance of ſuch a thing as is purely Indifferent, not in its Nature and in it ſelf, for there are enough in that kind, but when Impoſed in Worſhip? That's the Caſe and Queſtion: [What's to be done by private perſons, when things purely indifferent are required in Religious Exerciſes?] Now if there be no ſuch things as purely Indifferent in worſhip, the Caſe is vain and idle: Speak Sir, to our Ceremonies: Are our Ceremonies, as the Surplice, or Croſs in Baptiſm, a thing purely Indifferent in worſhip? You durſt not ſay ſo; for p. 5that had reflected upon the Church impoſing, as a crime, you having formerly affirmed it unlawful to impoſe ſuch things upon ſeveral good Reaſons, Caſe 6. Therefore you had rather ſuppoſe ſuch a caſe ſhould be, then propoſe an Inſtance when it is ſo: Cautè ſi non caſtè. But Sir, by things purely Indifferent, my ſelf, and ſome Readers underſtood you to mean things that were no way uſeful in worſhip, but like Herb-John in the Pot; if they do no good, they do no harm, as differencing them from things Inexpedient, as leſs evil. And this at laſt you give us to be the ſenſe, but when you thought this queſtion and your former ſenſe of it, Caſe 12. was forgotten, ſee Pag. 147. your own true deſcription of a thing purely indifferent, viz. [as to be of no uſe or ſervice] that is, in worſhip. Affirming [nothing ſo purely indifferent ought to be impoſed.] And in this ſenſe I take a thing purely indifferent in worſhip is a thing uſeleſs, needleſs, unneceſſary, &c. And in this notion if you do not take it, you will never fully reſolve the preſent Controverſie. As on the other ſide, if you take inexpedient only privatively, for not uſeful, or only inconvenient and unfit, your Caſes are coincident, if not the ſame; this of purely indifferent, and that of things inexpedient. But I paſs on in my Explication.

4. May be impoſed lawfully by men] This deſerves to be explained a little. 1. To manifeſt where the Poyſon lies of moſt of humane Traditions applied to worſhip, viz. in the Impoſers, ſometimes, only; alwaies, chiefly. For their Impoſition entrenches moſt upon the Wiſdom, and Soveraignty of God; and the Kingly Office of Chriſt, in appointing waies and meanes of his worſhip. 2. To diſtinguiſh between the Impoſers and Submitters in point of Lawfulneſs. For ſome inconvenient things may lawfully be ſubmitted to, if they be impoſed, which may not but ſinfully be impoſed. As if a meer circumſtance unfit or inconvenient (in the Caſuiſts language) be commanded in worſhip, without the Obſervation whereof, there can be no publick worſhip, it's granted by him to be unlawful to command ſuch a circumſtance, but ſtrongly pleaded to be lawful and expedient to obey it. 3. I adde, By men.] For God may by his Soveraignty command what indifferent, or to us ſeeming inconvenient things in worſhip, he pleaſes (as water in Baptiſm to ſignifie and operate the Grace of Regeneration) becauſe he hath power to work Grace by any means: but men as they p. 6have no Authority to inſtitute any means of Worſhip, ſo neither have they power to render them effectual to them that uſe them.

5. In the Worſhip of God.] For in civil things ther's a Latitude or Liberty both to Superiours to impoſe things inconvenient, or inexpedient, both privatively, if not unfit; or poſitively, as hurtful; and for people to obey, without ſin: but not ſo generally in Worſhip: for there both may ſin, the one in commanding, the other in ſubmitting to unlawful things. Unlawful, I ſay, either in their own nature, or by ſome Accident or circumſtance becoming ſinful in Worſhip. Of which hereafter more.

6. Or, if Impoſed, may lawfully be ſubmitted to.] This brings us to the ſecond queſtion, concerning Submiſſion to things inexpedient, or purely indifferent in Worſhip. For 1. That they may not lawfully be impoſed, is aſſerted often by the Caſuiſt. The ſubmiſſion to them is now conſiderable. 2. This ſubmiſſion may reſpect either the Miniſter who is to act them, by active obedience, or the People, who in ſome things are, or may be only paſſively obedient, by preſence at them, when they are done without any aſſent or conſent unto them, yea with manifeſted diſſent from, and diſlike of them. Of which in another Place and Time.

7. Aſſented and Conſented unto.] And this leads us to the third and laſt queſtion. We have thus proceeded. 1. That ſome things inconvenient may not be impoſed in Worſhip. 2. That yet ſome ſuch things, if impoſed, may be barely ſubmitted to, and alſo lawfully in a Caſe. 3. We are now to go the laſt ſtep, whether they may be ſubmitted to with an unfeigned aſſent and conſent? The Explication is only here intended in three words. 1. Aſſent] hath reſpect to the truth of a thing, and is an act of the Ʋnderstanding. 2. Conſent] is an Act of the Will reſpecting the Goodneſs of a thing. 3. Ʋnfeigned] implies the ſincerity and fulneſs of that Aſſent and Conſent from the bottom of the heart. The Terms of the queſtion being thus explained, we proceed to the Second thing propounded. How far Parties agree.

II. Poſtulata, ſive Conceſſa.

1. Things uſed (or to be uſed) in Worſhip, are of three ſorts: Neceſſary, Ʋnlawful, or of a middle ſort, of themſelves neither p. 7good nor bad, but made ſo by circumſtances, called things Indifferent.

1. Neceſſary, as commanded by God: and they are of two ſorts. In ſpecial, as the particular Ordinances, the word and Sacraments. Or in general, as the neceſſary circumſtances tending to Decency, Order and Edification, 1 Cor. 14 40. This Diſtinction is given us by the Caſuiſt in a little other terms, Caſe 12. Pag. 67. A thing is neceſſary either properly as expreſly commanded by God, or occaſionarily, as expedient.] that is, with reſpect to the Rule of circumſtances, and ſo generally commanded alſo. Things expedient then are Neceſſary in Worſhip by an occaſional or ſecondary Neceſſity; let that be remembred.

2. Ʋnlawful or ſinful, from ſome Prohibition from God, and that (as was ſaid in the former) either in ſpecial, as forbidden by expreſs words, as Images in the Second Commandment: or in general and by conſequence, as all Imaginations and Inventions of men added to divine worſhip, which are prohibited in the negative part of the ſame Commandment: and alſo ſuch Circumſtances as are indecent, unorderly, and againſt Edification in the Negative part of that Precept, 1 Cor. 14.40. This Diſtinction is owned and given us alſo by the Caſuiſt in the ſame place, Pag. 68. A thing may be ſinful either in it ſelf, (that is, in its own Nature, as directly prohibited by God) or by ſome inconvenience in its uſe.] that is, when it is Inexpedient to be uſed in Worſhip; Inexpedient as to the uſe, as he expreſſed himſelf there, pag. 66. Things Inexpedient then, as violating Order, Decency, &c. are unlawful in Worſhip: Let this be remembred alſo againſt anon.

3. Indifferent, of a middle ſort in themſelves neither good nor bad, as morally conſidered, or in their own Nature, but by circumſtances they may become good or bad: or to uſe his own words [very apt by reaſon of Circumſtances to tend unto, to ſwerve unto, to become, or appear, either good or bad.] Now what thoſe Circumſtances are that change them into good or bad, he doth not thereby tell us (as he ought to have done) but yet we may collect his ſenſe or meaning, by what is already ſaid, (and more hereafter:) viz. they then become good, (yea neceſſary) when they are expedient for Decency, Order, &c. and Bad, i.e. ſinful when they are inconvenient, or inexpedient for thoſe ends, that is hurtful in their uſe.

p. 8For a Cloſe of the firſt Conceſſion, I ſhall only take and give notice of the Method of the Caſuiſt. In the former part treating of the Impoſition of things in Worſhip, he only denies the power to impoſe things, purely Indifferent, and Inexpedient, (ſuppoſing indeed that as Neceſſary things are commanded by God and Impoſed: ſo ſinful things may not be Impoſed by man.) but ſaies nothing of things doubtful or ſignificant, &c But in the latter part, of Submiſſion, he inſtances in, and puts five Caſes, what is to be done, if ſuch things be impoſed, viz. 1. Neceſſary things. 2. Expedient. 3. Purely Indifferent. 4. Inexpedient. 5. Sinful. In which Proceeding this is further obſervable, that he miſleads himſelf and his Reader by this gradation: as if all the 4 former were ſinleſs and lawful, and the laſt ſort only ſinful in Worſhip. But it already appears (by what hath already been ſaid, and will do more hereafter) that as the two firſt ſorts are only lawful in Worſhip, So the three laſt are all unlawful there; either in themſelves, as thoſe he cals ſinful, or by the Inconvenience of their uſe, as the third and fourth. And ſo ſtealing (in this Miſt) this Opinion, that things purely Indifferent or Inexpedient, without the former Diſtinction, are lawful in Worſhip: His Arguments for Submiſſion ſeem ſo Rational and Plauſible, taken from Peace, Duty, Safety. In a word, as he miſtakes, ſo he miſ-ſtates the queſtion, diſputing for Submiſſion to things lawful in themſelves: when he ſhould prove things Inconvenient in their uſe, in Worſhip, may lawfully be ſubmitted to. This Obſervation being remembred we thankfully accept this firſt Conceſſion, and proceed to the next.

2. Nothing ſinful or unlawful, may be either Impoſed or ſubmitted unto in Divine Worſhip. 1. Not Impoſed: This needs no Proof, as confeſſed by all, that know what Religion is, and the Worſhip of God means. But we have the Aſſent and Conſent of our Rev. Caſuiſt, often atteſted in this Point. For putting the Caſe, what is to be done, when things ſinful are Impoſed, he deprecates any [miſtake of being an Advocate for ſin or ſinful Impoſitions.] And preſently after reſolves, [ſuch Impoſitions are not to be obeyed,] and if not obeyed, to what end are they Impoſed? Yea when he reſolved before, that things purely Indifferent and Inexpedient cannot lawfully be Impoſed in Worſhip, much more will he deny things ſinful to be lawfully Impoſed. 2. Not Submitted p. 9to if Impoſed. This is the Reſolution of the Caſe, Pag. 119. peremptorily from the Authority of St. Auguſt. and Bernard. [Things of themſelves and materially evil, as they cannot juſtly be commanded, ſo they cannot lawfully be done.] Yea in another Caſe. [What if they ſeem ſinful to us, though lawful in themſelves, if after ſincere and ſerious diſquiſition they ſeem ſtill ſinful to us?] He peremptorily concludes we muſt not obey, pag. 126. Much leſs if it be ſinful in it ſelf. But ſeeing ſome things are ſinful, not materially or in themſelves, but in their uſe, what will he reſolve in the latter caſe? Whether may ſuch things be Impoſed in Worſhip: or if Impoſed, be ſubmitted to? The Reſolution of this ſully and clearly would have put an end to the preſent Controverſie; But he either waves it, or obſcures it. Yet ſomething ſhall be ſaid to it in the next Conceſſion.

3. No Inexpedient thing may lawfully be impoſed in worſhip, See pag. 69. Ther's a preobligation upon Authority to Impoſe nothing but what is expedient in the Worſhip of God, and p. 73. admits the exerting of power in requiring of things that are lawful, but inexpedient, to be unwarrantable, as an abuſe of Authority.or ſubmitted to. 1. Not impoſed: this is fully yielded us, pag. 36. Caſe 8. [It being againſt the Rule of the Apoſtle, (all things are not expedient) and indeed againſt common Reaſon; it is not lawful in Church-Governours to impoſe any thing about Gods worſhip that is only Indifferent, and lawful in its ſelf, but not expedient.] Had he given us his Reaſons againſt Impoſition of ſuch things in worſhip (as he doth in things purely Indifferent) he had done noble ſervice to the Church; yet ſomething he hinted in the words alledged [Its againſt the Apoſtles Rule, and common Reaſon to impoſe ſuch things,] and more explicitly in the words afore theſe immediately [All things that are Indifferent and not expedient, are not lawful, but ſinful] Sinful! Surely he muſt not mean materially and in themſelves (for they were not then Indifferent) but ſinful in their uſe if Impoſed or uſed in Worſhip: that is, becauſe they are Inexpedient, yea hurtful to the Worſhip, againſt Order, &c. and to the Worſhippers too often. In a word, againſt the Second Commandment. 2 Not ſubmitted to. For this we have his Aſſent alſo. [Things not expedient to be done) ought not to be done, and things not expedient to be commanded, ought not to be commanded.] Where we have both aſſerted. They ought not to be impoſed, or if impoſed, not ſubmitted to. If he, or any for him ſhall ſay (as ſome for him do ſay) things not expedient, if left free to our choyce, may not be done, but if commanded, that alters the Caſe. I Anſwer (though I think he intended not p. 10this hidden ſenſe in this place) 1. He hath aſſerted that [things not expedient (in worſhip) are not lawful, but ſinful] as afore. And can the Command of Authority make that lawful which, if not in it ſelf, yet in its uſe is ſinful? 2. It is acknowledged by a Proſelyte, and ſtout Advocate of the Caſuiſt, [That if the things be ſinful, they may neither be lawfully Impoſed nor Submitted to.] I ſee his Evaſion: He meanes if they be ſinful in themſelves, or in their Nature, and not if only ſinfully commanded. But I rejoyn. Things may be ſinful in their Ʋſe as inexpedient (as was ſaid and granted by his Freind, ſupra Conceſſion. 1.) and will he, dare he affirm, that things either way ſinful, may be either impoſed, or practiſed in Worſhip? I believe he will not upon ſecond and ſerious Conſideration.

4. Nothing purely Indifferent (that is idle, or of no uſe) in worſhip, See Pag. 147. Nothing purely indifferent ought to be Impoſed, as all moderate men allow.may be impoſed in worſhip, or if impoſed, ſubmitted to in Practiſe. 1. Not impoſed, that's granted, and aſſerted often. Firſt, he hath a caſe wholly againſt it, Caſe 6. Where, by ſeveral Arguments he confutes that Opinion; ſome whereof are taken from the groſs Abſurdities which would follow if ſuch a power were granted to Church-Governours. All a poſteriori, only the laſt a priori. God hath not inveſted them with ſuch a power, which though I grant to be true, ſome of his good Friends will not allow him: For they ſay God hath not only given allowance, but a Command to the Church-Rulers, to ordain Ceremonies for Order and Decency, 1 Cor. 14.40. Yes, may he ſay, but not what indifferent things they pleaſe. But according to the Rules of Impoſition in the Scripture: that they be few and wholſom, expedient, &c. But I pray who ſhall be Judge of their Impoſitions? If themſelves only in their Prudence and Diſcretion, they may impoſe what, and as many as they pleaſe. And though the Rev. Caſuist ſaies, pag. 28. [he never met with any high Conformiſt that allowed them ſuch a power,] yet ſure he forgot himſelf. For a few Leaves after, pag. 36. he brings in the great and famous Defender of this Church, confidently, and expreſly aſſerting ſuch a Power. [Church-Governours (ſaith he) have liberty to eſtabliſh whatſoever being in it ſelf indifferent, ſhall to their wiſdom ſeem moſt expedient.] But let that paſs. How doth he prove [that God hath not inve…ed them with ſuch an Arbitrary and ſtrangely unlimited power?] Not a word to prove it, which concerned him p. 11to have done; ſeeing others affirm, that he hath ſuch a Power. One Argument a priore, from the Prohibition of God, had done the deed. That was, the ſinfulneſs of ſuch things in Worſhip. Why? Becauſe they are either againſt the Apoſtles Rule, (they are againſt (or not according to) Order, Decency, or Edification.) or againſt the Third Commandment of the firſt Table, (the general Rule of worſhip) as idle, uſeleſs, ſuperfluous, and conſequently a taking of Gods Name in vain. Again he tels us, what he had told us before, that [ſuch things, viz. purely Indifferent, ought not to be enjoyned by Authority.] 2. But what if they be Impoſed? May they be ſubmitted to by Miniſters, or People? For this, he is as peremptory for the Affirmative, as he was before for the Negative. [When a thing is once required, though not expedient as we would deſire (here he cals things purely indifferent not Expedient) we are under an obligation, and we muſt not conſult our Liberty, but our Duty. Not ſo much our liberty to forbear, as our liberty to obey, &c. pag. 69.] And preſently endeavours to prove this his Aſſertion [By three things of ſo great concern, and even indiſpenſable conveniency, that the ordinary inconveniency of any lawful thing enjoyned, ſeems very light and inconſiderable, &c. pag 90 and they are Peace, Duty, Safety.] But (let it be obſerved) This he could not affirm, till firſt he had changed the ſtate of the Queſtion: which was of things not expedient, or Inexpedient, turning the ſenſe into Unfit and Inconvenient. And 2. Pittifully begged the queſtion; that the things ſpecified, (whether purely indifferent, or inexpedient) are lawful in Worſhip. He muſt not mean lawful in themſelves, or in their nature, but alſo in their uſe in worſhip. For this Diſtinction he gave us, (and we ſhall hold him to it) in the firſt Conceſſion: [A thing may be ſinful either in it ſelf, or by the inconveniency of its uſe] that is, when it is inexpedient to be uſed in worſhip. A thing therefore may be lawful in it ſelf, out of worſhip; which may be ſinful by the inconvenience of its uſe, if uſed in worſhip. And upon this groſs (I ſay not prevarication, for I judge reverently of the Caſuiſt, he intended not to pervert the ſtate of the queſtion, but) miſtake or ſlip of his Judgment or Memory, the whole following Diſcourſe is founded. He ſuppoſes (and it hath miſl…d too many) that becauſe the things are lawful in themſelves, abſtracted from worſhip, therefore though inconvenient in worſhip; they p. 12may be lawfully obeyed in worſhip, and yet ſinfully impoſed. And this Miſtake I confeſs he might the more eaſily fall upon, by the non-obſervation of a double Diſtinction, uſeful to the deciſion of this Controverſie. 1. Between the Nature of the things inconvenient impoſed in worſhip. They are either meer Circumſtances, or more even Religious Ceremonies; If the firſt be impoſed (though ſinfully by Authority) rather then loſe the ſubſtance of Worſhip, the Ordinances of God, they may, yea muſt be ſubmitted to, and obeyed. But if they be Sacred Ceremonies of humane Invention, and Inſtitution, they may not (I yet think) be obeyed; at leaſt, that's the queſtion. 2. Ther's another Diſtinction to be obſerv'd between Active and Paſſive Obedience, when ſuch things are impoſed. It may be lawful (as I yet ſuppoſe, to prevent ſeparation from a Church) to yield Paſſive Obedience, by preſence at the Ordinances, when not to be had without them, having ſhewed our diſlike and diſſent. But the queſtion is of Active Obedience in acting thoſe Impoſitions, which involves our aſſent and conſent, either unfeigned or hypocritical. But I return to the Rev. Caſuiſt And had he not in his Title Page, limited his Diſcourſe to Religious Matters, that is, Matters of Divine worſhip, I ſhould have ſuggeſted another Diſtinction, between Civil and Sacred Affairs, with reſpect to the power of Superiours in both of theſe. It may give a little light to the buſineſs in hand, and therefore I ſhall briefly touch it. In civil affairs the ſupream Authority may impoſe ſome things inconvenient, or inexpedient, that is perhaps hurtful to the buſineſs, and to the Subjects or Inferiours, and muſt alſo be obeyed; But in Religion and Worſhip, as he may impoſe nothing inexpedient (as is granted above) ſo if he doth impoſe ſuch things in worſhip (with the Limitations and former Diſtinctions) he is not to be obeyed. And this I ſhall briefly make good againſt him by his own Principles, and Conceſſions, and other Reaſons. 1. No ſinful or unlawful thing may be (impoſed or) ſubmitted to in worſhip: but things inconvenient in their uſe, are ſinful: See the firſt Conceſſion, Paragr. 2. [A thing may be ſinful either in it ſelf, or by the inconvenience of its uſe, p 68.] Therefore they may not be ſubmitted to. 2 No inexpedient thing may be (impoſed or) ſubmitted to in worſhip: This is yielded in the third Conceſſion; and the Reaſon is, becauſe they are ſinful. So he affirmed afore, pag. 35, 36. [All things that are indifferent, p. 13and not expedient, are not lawful but ſinful.] But things purely indifferent are inexpedient in worſhip. This is alſo his own Expreſſion, now he is ſpeaking of things purely indifferent, to call them inconvenient, not expedient; And ſurely he will not deny but purely Indifferent things impoſed in worſhip, are inconvenient in their uſe, and not expedient or inexpedient. (If he take theſe terms for the ſame) therefore not to be ſubmitted to.

3. No things that cauſe the ſubmitter to them, to prophane the worſhip of God, by taking his Name in vain, againſt the Third Commandment, are to be ſubmitted to, though they be impoſed; this cannot with any Reaſon be denied: But purely indifferent things, that is, (by his own Expoſition) ſuch as are of no uſe in Service or worſhip, but idle, uſeleſs, ſuperfluous, (perhaps ridiculous) do prophane the Worſhip of God, therefore they are not to be ſubmitted to.

4. Nothing that violates the Rule of the Apoſtle concerning Order, D…cency and Edification, 1 Cor. 14.40. ought to be impoſed, or if impoſed, ſubmitted to; That ſuch things may not be impoſed, is aſſerted ſtrongly, pag. 43. [Nothing that is diſorderly, indecent, (or againſt Edification in Gods Worſhip, can warrantably be impoſed upon the Church.] But things purely indifferent (deſcribed as afore) are indecent, diſorderly, and unedifying in Worſhip; ergo not to be impoſed, and for the ſame reaſon to be ſubmitted to, becauſe they are ſinful againſt the Apoſtles Precept: Much more might be added, but I forbear till we come to the Hypotheſis in our Ceremonies. I have been large in this, I ſhall b… ſhorter in the next Conceſſions.

5. Nothing really ſuperſtitious may be impoſed in worſhip, or if impoſed, ſubmitted to. 1. Not impoſed: For that's a manifeſt injury to, and violation (as of the whole firſt Table of the Decalogue in general, ſo) of the Second Commandment thereof in ſpecial, which forbids all ſuperſtitious Worſhip, as falſe. Our Rev. Caſuist ſpeaks not expreſly of this Caſe, in regard of the Impoſition of ſuch things; but comprehends it (as I ſuppoſe) under the general of things ſinful and unlawful, and that is enough againſt the Impoſition of them. 2. And as for ſubmiſſion to them, he ſeems to grant that if the things be proved to be really ſuch (as by ſome they are ſuppoſed to be) they need not, they ought not to be ſubmitted to. To diſcover his Judgment herein he puts a p. 14caſe [wherein doth Superſtition, or the appearance thereof conſiſt? pag. 129. And he reduces all to 4 Heads. 1. Merit. 2. Worſhip. 3. Perfection. 4. Neceſſity] Whether all the kinds of Superſtition fall under theſe 4 heads, I am not fully ſatisfied: But he ſeems to me to grant, that if they be truly and really ſuperſtitious, we may lawfully diſobey the Impoſition of them. But of this more in Hypotheſi.

6. Nothing doubtful or ſuſpicious of ſinfulneſs ought to be impoſed in worſhip, or if impoſed, ſubmitted to. For the Impoſition of ſuch things in the worſhip of God the Rev. Caſuiſt ſaies nothing, or but little directly, as not making it a diſputable Caſe; only by conſequence he ſaies ſomething to it in another Caſe. [What is to be done when a thing ſeems ſinful to us?] And he ſeems to reſolve it negatively, we ought not to ſubmit unto it. For pag. 124. He thus beſpeakes his private perſon. [If thy diſquiſition for ſatisfaction, hath brought thee to this, that thou art in a doubt, whether thou maiſt obey or no, firſt I recommend thee to that excellent Caſuiſt, the Rev. B. of Lincolne.] But what if he ſatisfie him not; then hear his own Reſolution, pag. 126. [If the thing required appear ſinful to thee ſtill, thou art bound by the Law, thou art bound to the peace of thine own Conſcience,—Thou maiſt not obey.] Thence would I infer if in doubtful things, I am not bound to obey (for if I doubt, and do a thing, eſpecially in worſhip, I ſin) the Magiſtrate ſeems pre-obliged not to command ſuch things: For to what end, if the doubtful need not, muſt not obey him? But of this alſo more in Hypotheſi.

7. No part of worſhip may be impoſed in Divine Service by men. The Reaſon is given by the Rev. Caſuiſt twice, becauſe it is ſuperſtitious; once p. 4. and 130. Adding, It's Gods Prerogative alone to preſcribe his own Worſhip; Command. 2. and forbidden to men in the Negative part thereof.

8. No ſignificant thing (or Ceremony) may by men be impoſed in Worſhip.] The Rev. Caſuiſt, having propounded this caſe, p. 144. [Whether the imputing of ſignificancy to things impoſed render them ſuperſtitious?] Reſolves the Caſe by a double or rather treble Diſtinction. 1. Of Ceremonies from Circumſtances of Worſhip. 2. Of the Authors or Inſtitutors of Worſhip, God or Men. 3. Of Significancy, to ſignifie either the Favour of God, the Grace of the Sacraments, or to be a meanes of receiving any p. 15Bleſſing from God, or to intend only fitneſs to commend the exerciſe with Order and Decency, and to expreſs the gravity and devotion of the Worſhippers, &c.] The Reſult is this, That Ceremonies (not meer Circumſtances) inſtituted by men (not God) ſignifying the Favour of God, &c. (not Order, Decency, Gravity) are very dangerous, if corrupt and ſuperſtitious men ſhould at any time rule the Church: and we may have quickly not 7, but 70 times 7 if not entire, yet Semi-Sacraments, the Church of God and his Service being thereby obnoxious to all the antick and conceited Crotchets that the vain imaginations of over-curious men can cumber them with, till they become ſtench in the Noſtrils of all ſober and ſtayd men, and of God himſelf, as with the Church of Rome.] This is enough to decide the Controverſie in hand, if juſtly appliable to our Ceremonies. To the Conſideration whereof we now proceed.

III. The Proof of the Negative in all the Particulars.

Hitherto following the ſteps of the Rev. Caſuiſt, I have proceeded only in Theſi, concerning things Inexpedient, or purely Indifferent, whether they may be impoſed, or if impoſed, ſubmitted to in worſhip; and have gathered his Conceſſions into one view, and ſhewed how far both Parties agree: We are now come to the Application of theſe Conceſſions in Hypotheſi. to the Matters of our bitter Contentions at this day: And much of my work is done already. The Propoſitions being granted me, and proved, I ſhall need only to prove the Aſſumptions of all my Syllogiſmes:

For if our Ceremonies prove ſuch things, as the Conceſſions grant, the Concluſions will eaſily follow, that they are unlawful, to be either Impoſed in Worſhip, or Submitted to: I ſhall now therefore ſtate the Queſtion anew in our particular Caſe, thus:

Whether our Ceremonies may lawfully by men be Impoſed in the Worſhip of God: or, if Impoſed, may lawfully be Submitted, Aſſented and Conſented unto?

The Explication of the Terms is laid down in the beginning, and the Probleme containes 3 queſtions, viz. Of the Lawfulneſs 1. Of p. 16the Impoſition of them in worſhip. 2. Of the Submiſſion to them. 3. Of the Declaration of an unfeigned Aſſent and Conſent unto them. To the Particulars.

I. Of the Impoſition of Ceremonies.

What we, and moſt Learned Divines underſtand by a Ceremony impoſed in worſhip, was diſcourſed in the Explicatory part at the Entrance of this Diſſertation, viz. a Sacred Rite of worſhipping God intended and inſtituted to the honouring God in worſhip; whereby it is contra-diſtinguiſhed to a meer Circumſtance of Worſhip, tending to Decency, Order and Edification. Now that ſuch Ceremonies may not be Impoſed, the Rev. Caſuiſt doth not explicitly aſſert (that had been dangerous to himſelf) but yet implicitly inſinuates ſo much: [If Ceremonies ſignificant of the Grace and Favour of God, or to be a meanes of receiving any Bleſſing from God be impoſed, there is, no doubt, (ſaies he) much danger in it, p 145.] But what if meer Circumſtances be impoſed? But of this more in that Head of Significancy.

That it is unlawful for the Church or Magiſtrate to impoſe our Ceremonies, will appear by Application of all or moſt of the Conceſſions above, given us by the Reverend Caſuiſt himſelf; In General thus. No ſinful, unlawful thing may by any ſort of men be impoſed in worſhip. This is yielded by all of any Religion, as at Conceſſion 2. But I aſſume, our Ceremonies impoſed are ſinful and unlawful; ergo they ought not to be impoſed in Worſhip: The Aſſumption is proved by the ſpecial Conceſſions.

1. [All things impoſed or uſed in Worſhip, are either neceſſary or unlawful; and ſo either Good or Bad: But our Ceremonies are not neceſſary; ergo.

The Minor is conſtantly and frequently affirmed by the Advocates thereof. God was, is, and may be well, yea better ſerved without them.

The Major is granted in the firſt Conceſſion. Neceſſary a commanded by God; ſpecially, or generally. Unlawful, as forbidden by God, either in ſpecial or in general. If it be ſaid, but there are ſome things Indifferent, neither commanded, nor forbidden by God, as the Diviſion above was Tripartite. I Anſwer, There are three things in themſelves abſtractedly conſidered which p. 17are Indifferent, neither morally good nor bad; but in Worſhip, nothing Impoſed is Indifferent, but it is either expedient for Decency and Order, and ſo commanded and neceſſary; or Inexpedient in the uſe, and ſo forbidden and unlawful; It is aſſerted by our Caſuiſt, Caſe 2. [No one Action (he might have added, no Ceremony) in Religious Exerciſes is of its own nature ſo Indifferent, but that by the Circumſtances, it eaſily becomes good or evil.] Good, if it be expedient in, or uſeful to the Worſhip: evil, if any waies Inconvenient in its uſe, that is, Inexpedient, or hurtful to the Worſhip. Of this more in the next.

2. [Nothing Inexpedient may be impoſed in Worſhip: but ſuch are our Ceremonies; ergo &c.] The Major is fully conceded above, and proved alſo by very good Reaſons; this for one, [All things indifferent and not expedient, are not lawful but ſinful.] If not expedient things, that is, not uſeful to the worſhip, be ſinful, then much more, things inexpedient that is, hurtful to the worſhip, are ſinful: In the Explication of this Term, Inexpedient, it was ſhewed, that as, Expedient, imports ſomething poſitive, uſeful, helpful to the worſhip; ſo, Inexpedient, muſt (in the juſt oppoſition) ſignifie ſomething prejudicious, hurtful to it: Not privatively only, which may be taken for ſome things purely Indifferent; but poſitively, as hurtful, troubleſome, burdenſome, &c. The Minor, that the Ceremonies in Controverſie, are inexpedient and hurtful to the worſhip, or worſhippers, is abundantly proved by others, and evident by Experience: as violating moſt of his 7 Rules, given for regulating the Impoſition of Indifferent things in worſhip, Caſe 8. Take the Particulars briefly.

1. [They break the Peace of the Church, which ought primarily to be regarded in Impoſition of ſuch things.] The Caſuiſt proceeds excellently and boldly in the Vindication of his ſecond Rule for Publick Peace. I wiſh the Impoſers of our Ceremonies would read or hear his words, and ſeriouſly lay them to heart. [God is the God of Peace and Order, of Peace as well as Order. And as the Order, ſo the Peace of the Church (without which, there is no Order) is precious with him, and with all that have the Spirit of God, and any care of his Church: Should any thing give way to Peace, and ſhould not things Indifferent? Are not theſe Indifferent? Is not Peace neceſſary in many reſpects?] See the Place. Who knows not, that as the firſt Breach of the Publick p. 18Peace of the Church, was about a Ceremony, or thing Indifferent; ſo theſe Ceremonies impoſed have for many years broken the peace of our Church, and now worſt of all? I ſhall add a few more of the Reverend Caſuiſts words. [Who can think it wiſdom to force any thing that is but indifferent, to the endangering ſo neceſſary a thing as peace, or the dividing of the Church of God, or provoking any conſiderable part thereof to ſeparate from us?] But I forbear.

2. They are offenſive to weak Brethren [who (as he well) though weak, are not to be thrown to the wals, without any regard, yea the Scripture reaſons us to a greater tenderneſs to the weaker part of the Church.] And more to this purpoſe. Things inexpedient of this nature are deſcribed by our Rev. Caſuist, to be ſuch as are troubleſom to good Conſciences, burdenſom, &c. telling us, Ceremonies of the Church ought not to be hurtful to the Church, troubleſom, &c. pag. 49. The Apoſtles had a ſpecial care of this, foreign, not to trouble Gentile Believers with Jewiſh Ceremonies, Acts 15.19. And how much trouble and ſad diſtractions theſe Ceremonies have brought upon many truly tender Conſciences, is too viſible. While they were put upon this Rack, either to violate the peace of their Conſciences, or to run upon their utter undoing by the rigour of the Law. I commend to their Conſideration a Speech of Mr. Rogers, to be ſeen. p. 40. (a ſufficient Defender of Ceremonies.) [He that in things indifferent hath not a tender care of weak Chriſtians, ſheweth that there is not that Charity in him, nor regard of his Brethren which God commanded.] But I pray Sir, Ought there not to be the ſame tender care of weak Chriſtians, after they are commanded? Let him reſolve it.

3. The next Rule violated, to render them inexpedient, is [that of Edification; the grand Level of all Church-power (ſaith our Author) Edification, and not its Deſtruction, in the whole or in any part. The great Principle of ſuch Impoſitions muſt be Charity, not envy at, or deſire of revenge, upon any perſon or party otherwiſe minded. Not to ſhew victory over them, or dominion over their Faith or Actions.] Add the next words, with a very little variation. [Things I doubt, not ſincerely abhorred by our preſent Governours, as nor by our former] Things then that make not for Edification, but rather againſt it, ought not to be impoſed p. 19in worſhip; becauſe they are inexpedient, either privatively, as not furthering Edification, or poſitively, as hindering or hurting it. But our Ceremonies, and other Impoſitions do rather hinder, then further Edification; and by Edification I mean true ſpiritual Edification, not carnal or ſuperſtitious; there are ſome things, that in (Tertullians Language) do aedificare ad Gehennam; edifie downwards, or to deſtruction; that is, to take men off from the power of Godlineſs, and make them formal, placing all their Relig on in Ceremonies, and Ceremonious Worſhip; as it was with the old Papiſts, the Phariſees, and at this day with the new Phariſees the Papiſts; yea they have turned to the deſtruction of precious Miniſters, and pious people. I need ſay no more to that.

4. The next is, That they violate [that moſt noble Rule of all, that of the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 14.40. Let all things be done decently, and in order. A ſtanding Rule (as he goes on) never to be croſſed by any Authority under Heaven: yea God himſelf will never reverſe it. Then (ſaies he) nothing that is indecent, or diſorderly in Gods Worſhip, can warrantably be Impoſed upon the Church.] Now how diſorderly ſome things impoſed in our Liturgy are, the Reverend Commiſſioners, and others have manifeſted. And if men were not reſolved upon their own Inventions: Is not Kneeling at the Lords Supper a diſorderly Geſture? Not only varying from the firſt Pattern, but from the Order of all Nations, who ſtand or ſit, but never kneel at a Supper? and as contrary to the Cuſtom of the prime or pureſt Churches for the firſt 600 years together; who by the Decrees of Councils, forbad Kneeling at Prayer, on all Lords daies? And Custom is one of the Rules of Impoſition given by the Caſuiſt. [Of very great uſe to indicate what is decent and orderly: Cuſtom is Umpire of Indifferent things, &c. pag. 44] I might have made this a diſtinct Head by it ſelf, But it may ſuffice to touch at it here.

5. The laſt Rule violated by humane Ceremonies impoſed in Worſhip is, Goſpel or Christian-Liberty. [This muſt not be invaded by any Impoſition which is infringed, if theſe and other rules be not obſerved. 1. If any thing indifferent be impoſed, which any way checketh with the former Rules of Expediency, Peace, Offence of the weak, Edification, Decency, Order, and the Cuſtom of the Churches. 2. If things indifferent be required p. 20with equal ſeverity as things neceſſary.] I liſt not to make the Application. How far theſe Rules are infringed in the Impoſition of our Ceremonies, he that runs may read it. By what hath been ſaid already, they are now ſufficiently proved to be in inexpedient and hurtful to the Worſhip and Worſhippers, and therefore ought not to be Impoſed in our Worſhip. But further.

3 [Nothing purely Indifferent ought to be Impoſed in Worſhip. This Propoſition is fully yielded, aſſerted and proved above at the fourth Conceſſion. The Aſſumption, That our Ceremonies are ſuch, i. e. purely Indifferent, will be manifeſted from the Deſcription of a thing Purely Indifferent, given us by the Reverend Caſuiſt, above in the Explication. [A thing ſo Indifferent as to be of no uſe, or Service (in Worſhip) not more Expedient then Inexpedient.] that is, (as I ſuppoſe) neither good nor bad. But I queſtion whether any thing Impoſed in worſhip is not either good or bad: yea therefore bad, becauſe it is not good. The ſenſe is Things purely Indifferent, are things uſeleſs, needleſs, idle, ſuperfluous, the Worſhip being compleat and perfect without them; Now it is confeſt by all that our Ceremonies are not neceſſary (as was ſaid above) but yet their uſefulneſs is ſtrongly pleaded for, as decent and orderly, adding Beauty and Luſtre to the Worſhip: I could ask many Queſtions here. 1 Are not Gods Ordinances orderly and decent without them? If not, they charge the wiſdom of Chriſt, as not able to manage his Worſhip decently and orderly without the help of fooliſh men. If ſo, what need have they of a painted Beauty, having a native beauty of their own? 2. To whom do Ceremonies ſeem to add Decency and Order to Divine Ordinances? Not to God, or truly Devout Chriſtians, who are both beſt pleaſed with the ſimplicity of Gods preſcribed Worſhip. To whom then I will not ſay. 4. What Decency, or Order is there is a Surplice, more then in a Gown, or Cloak (ſuch as Paul wore) but of ſome mens fancying? 4. If they plead them uſeful as ſignificant Rites, to excite Devotion, or Duty, &c. I ſhall therefore plead them uſeleſs, needleſs, &c. becauſe what is expected by them, is done before, and better, by the Ordinances themſelves. Of which more upon another account.

4. [Nothing really ſuperſtitious (or eaſily abuſed to Superſtition) may be Impoſed in Worſhip. But our Ceremonies are guilty of Superſtition, and ſuperſtitiouſly abuſed, not only at Rome, p. 21but by many amongſt our ſelves; ergo, &c.] The firſt Propoſition was the fifth Conceſſion: but lightly touched, intended to be more largely handled here. Thus the Rev. Caſuist ſpeakes more fully. [Upon ſuppoſition that the Idolatry, or ſuperſtition (and ſuperſtition is a degree of Idolatry) cannot be ſevered from the uſe of a thing, or very hardly done; Idolatry and Superſtition muſt have no Indulgence: the Serpent it ſelf muſt be broken in pieces; and that famous Rule of Pope Stephen is applauded by all,] See pag. 141. (The rather becauſe it is the Teſtimony of a Pope againſt his Succeſſors) the words are theſe. [If ſome of our Predeceſſors have done ſome things which at that time might be without fault, and afterwards are turned into Errour and Superſtition, without any delay, and with great Authority, they may be deſtroyed by Poſterity.] But Superſtition being not in the things uſed, or required, but in the perſons that ſuperſtitiouſly require, or uſe them, grounded in the falſe Doctrine, and Superſtitious Opinion which perſons have of them, how ſhall we come to know when things are ſuperſtitiouſly abuſed? And then how can we charge our Ceremonies with Superſtition? Our Rev. Caſuiſt hath given us ſome rules to try them by, pag. 130, &c. which we ſhall apply to the caſe in hand as we go. Only premiſing theſe two things. 1. That we limit not our Diſcourſe only to the 3 Ceremonies, Surplice, Croſs, and Kneeling, but enlarge it to any other Rites and Ceremonies Impoſed and uſed in the Publick Worſhip; even to the Liturgy it ſelf, which being the Form of divine Service, as it is called, may be ſtiled, a Grand Ceremony. 2. That it muſt not be expected that all the Rules of Diſcovery ſhould be applied to every particular Ceremony to prove it ſuperſtitious; but any one may ſuffice, if rightly applied. And now I proceed.

1. The firſt way of Diſcovery of Superſtition is by the 4 Characters thereof given by Learned Divines. An Opinion of Merit; of Worſhip; of Perfection; of Neceſſity. Any one of theſe found in our Ceremonies will teſtifie the perſons that ſo uſe them to be Superſtitious.

1. Of Merit. [When (to take his own words) we think God is bound to reward our Inventions, and that by our Purſes or Labours we purchaſe his favour, this is Superſtition.] And does not a great Rabbi of our Church (whoſe Learning and Books are not only applauded, and admired as Oracles, but approved as Orthodox p. 22by our Rulers,) profeſs openly and confidently. [It is his Doctrine that Will-worſhip, (his Free-will-Offerings) are more commendable, more acceptable, and more rewardable with God then commanded Duties.] Amongſt which Free will Oblations, the Liturgy is one, great one, the only Form of Divine Service, as it is called by ſome; and do not the vulgar and many higher perſons eſteem it to be moſt commendable, moſt acceptable, and conſequently moſt rewardable Service of God? and if not with their Purſes, yet by the labour of their Lips; in bearing a part in that Service, to purchaſe his Favour? And is not this Superſtition? If it be rewardable, it muſt be either by ſome Promiſe, but there is none ſuch in Scripture. Or of due Debt. Rom. 4. but that is plain Merit; there's no third way to ground the Reward on.

2. Of Worſhip. [When things are required as parts, or of the Eſſence of Divine Worſhip, or ſo uſed, this is Superſtition] But the Liturgy it ſelf is by the Rulers made and called the Form of Divine Worſhip, not a part only, but the whole Eſſence and Subſtance thereof. 2. Ceremonies are eſteemed by all Religions, Rites of Worſhip, Ceremonial worſhip, and ſo parts of worſhip, (as was proved above.) 3. They are made by the Impoſers, Religious, not civil Ceremonies, and ſo parts of Religion, that is, of Worſhip, and ſo uſed by many: Certainly Kneeling at Sacrament is a part of external worſhip, and ſo eſteemed and uſed by moſt.

3. Of Perfection. [When we conceive the true Beauty of the Church, and the Perfection of Chriſtianity conſiſteth in things of humane Invention. This is Superſtition.] And do not ſome, on this ſide Rome, place the Perfection of Chriſtianity, and the beauty of Religion, in Pompous Ceremonies, Glorious Temples, Sweet and melodious Muſick, Gawdy Prieſtly Garments, a compleated Liturgy, &c. And do not many think the Service undecent without a Surplice? the Baptiſm imperfect without the Croſs? the Sacrament irreverently received without Kneeling? Is not this groſs ſuperſtition?

4. Of Neceſſity. [When ſuch things are required, and ſo uſed, as ſimply neceſſary in their Nature, being but things Indifferent. This is alſo Superſtition.] And I pray, hath not a Learned Doctor a Late Biſhop, pleaded the Liturgy to be ſo neceſſary, that without it, there can be no Religion, no honeſty, no Allegiance. And p. 23do not the Late Commiſſioners plead a Precept of Scripture for their Ceremonies? Not an Allowance only, but a Command to inſtitute Ceremonies? And is not that neceſſary? In a word, does not the Late Act make them ſo neceſſary (as far as they can) that the commanded worſhip muſt rather be omitted, then any of their humane divine Service omitted? that men muſt not worſhip God without obſervation of their Ceremonies? Wear a Surplice, or pray not, preach not: Croſs the Child, or baptize not: Kneel, or receive not the other Sacrament. And for the ordinary uſers of them, it is obſervable, that humane Inventions added to the Worſhip of God, as they are more ſtrictly obſerved then the preſcribed Worſhip of God, Micah 6. ult. ſo after long continuance, they are eſteemed neceſſary; as (falſly) ſuppoſed to be of Divine Original. Theſe are the ordinary Characters of Superſtition, which I could wiſh were not too viſible ſpots in the face of our Church; But I believe there are more and other waies to diſcover Superſtition, then theſe. As, 1. To put Holineſs in things, times, places. 2. To put vertue, efficacy, in things which they have not neither in their Natures, nor by Divine Inſtitution. 3. To put ſignifications upon Ceremonies in Divine Worſhip. Of which more by and by.

2. The next Rule is [when upon evident and undeniable grounds of General Practiſe, it appears to the ſober and unbyaſſed ſort of men, that a thing is uſed ſuperſtitiouſly in any of the former Reſpects, then no doubt there is an appearance of Superſtition.] Now firſt the Cenerality of our Nation, are proved afore, to be ſuperſtitious in the uſe of our Liturgy and Ceremonies. And for the Learned that conform to them ſome are known to be Popiſhly ſuperſtitious; in Bowing, Croſſing, &c. Some are by aſſed by Profits or Preferments that are gotten or loſt thereby. Only ſome few Sober, Learned and unbyaſſed perſons are free from the guilt of Superſtition: ſticking to the ſimplicity of Goſpel-worſhip.

3. A third Rule given, and moſt undoubted, is [Look to the Doctrine of the Church, whence the Grounds of Impoſition and Practiſe are drawn: If they be falſe and ſuperſtitious, then there is an appearance of evil to be avoyded.] We joyn iſſue in this alſo, and apply it to the Caſe in hand.

1. The Doctrine of the Church though found in moſt of the 39 Articles, hath yet been ſcrupled at by Nonconformiſts in the p. 24Inſtitution of Ceremonies; and the Doctrine and Power given queſtioned: [The Church hath power to Impoſe Ceremonies,] ſee the Article: and this is aſſerted by that great Advocate of this Church cited above, and more confidently by a Late Biſhop. Upon this Principle and bottom are all our Ceremonies, and all thoſe at Rome founded, and is moſt certainly falſe; as is proved elſewhere.

2. They are held forth in practiſe, as Moral means to excite Devotion, and teach and provoke to Duty: the Surplice to Purity, the Croſs to Conſtancy, &c. And upon theſe Reaſons commended, and commanded by the Church her ſelf, (Preface to the Liturgy:) and by her Champions propugnated, which renders them ſuperſtitious; as will further appear on another Head.

4. The laſt Rule is [When we have ſome unqueſtionable Reaſon to ſuſpect the deſign of our Governours, to betray the Church to Superſtition and Idolatry, contrary to the known Doctrine of it] enough, and enough! This Symptome hath been viſible formerly in ſome chief Rulers of the Church, who were known to be Popiſhly affected: and laboured to bring in Superſtition and Idolatry into the Church, by ſetting up Images, Crucifixes, Altars in the Churches, requiring Bowings at the Name of Jeſus, and to, or towards the Altars: Aſſerting holineſs of Times, Places, &c. which God never conſecrated: What ſome in chiefeſt places of the Church are now deſigning, time will manifeſt. Sufficient hath been ſpoken to prove our Ceremonies to be ſuperſtitious, and therefore not to be Impoſed, or if Impoſed, to be repealed, and reverſed.

5. [Nothing doubtful, or ſuſpected juſtly to be ſinful may be Impoſed in Worſhip.] This was the 6th. Poſtulatum, either to be granted, or proved: How far the Rev. Caſuiſt hath yielded to this Propoſition, may be ſeen above, and what was evinced from his Conceſſion. Other Learned and Judicious Divines aſſert, and prove it more fully; Take ſome of their own words. Firſt, the famous Mr. Hales. who propounds this as a remedy of Schiſm. [To have all Liturgies and Publick Forms of Service ſo framed, as that they admit not of particular and private Fancies, but contain only ſuch things in which all Chriſtians do agree. To charge the Church with things unneceſſary, was the firſt beginning of all Superſtition and Schiſme: — and concludes, whereſoever faiſe or ſuſpected p. 25Opinions are made a part of Church-Liturgy, he that ſeparates is not the Schiſmatick; for it is alike unlawful, to make profeſſion of known, or ſuſpected falſhood, as to put in practiſe unlawful or ſuſpected actions.] See more in his Book of Schiſm. Or as his words are cited more largely by Mr. Stilling fleet, who agrees with him in the Aſſertion, Iren. part. 1. pag. 120, &c.and gives a ſtrong Reaſon againſt the Impoſition of ſuſpected things. [As for publick Forms of Divine Service ſuch of all things certainly, ſhould be ſo compoſed, as to be the leaſt ſubject to any ſcruples from any perſon whatſoever, being on purpoſe compoſed for the declaration of mens Unity and Conſent in their publick Worſhip.] And let me add my Mite to the Heap; See Rom 15.5, 6. & 1 Cor. 1.10.Rom 15:5Rom 15:61 Cor 1:10In worſhip there is req…ired Ʋnanimity of hearts, rather then Ʋniformity in Ceremonies; ſo the Apoſtle: Be ye all of one mind. Speak the ſame thing, Phil. 2.2. And all ſhould ſay Amen to the ſame Prayers, 1 Cor. 14. Which cannot be done in things to any doubtful, or ſuſpected to be falſe or unlawful.

And now I ſhall not need to prove the Aſſumption. I ſhall only uſe Mr. Hales his words cited above, ſpoken indeed of Image worſhip, appliable to our Ceremonies. [They are acknowledged by all to be unneceſſary, by many held unlawful, by moſt ſuſpected or doubtful;] and therefore may not lawfully be impoſed in Worſhip.

6 Laſtly, [No ſignificant thing (or Ceremony) ſignifying either the Favour of God, or the Grace of the Sacrament, or to be a means of receiving any Bleſſing from God, may by men be Impoſed in Worſhip: But ſuch are our Ceremonies; ergo, &c.] The Major Propoſition is fully granted above in the 7th. Conceſſion; and further confirmed thus; Becauſe ſignifications of ſuch things, put upon things or Ceremonies in worſhip make them Sacraments, too like to thoſe of Chriſts Inſtitution, at leaſt (as he) Semi-Sacraments, which Papists call Sacramentals. And indeed they fall under the Definition of a Sacrament, given in the Church Catechiſm, [A Sacrament is an outward viſible ſign, of an inward and inviſible Grace,] and therefore an outward viſible ſign of an inward ſpiritual Grace, is a Sacrament. Now, Exod 30.33.Exod 30:33as in the Holy Perfume in the Old Law, there was a ſtrict Prohibition that no man ſhould dare to make the like, ſo is there a ſtricter prohibition (if ſtricter may be) in the ſecond Commandment, that no man preſume to make a Sacrament, (which is a part of worſhip) or any thing like p. 26a Sacrament, or part of worſhip. The Jealouſie of God will not endure it. It was Jeroboams ſin (and therefore not ſuch policy as he fancied) to make a Feaſt, like unto the Feaſt in Judah, 1 Kings 2.32. It remaines then to prove the Minor; that ſuch ſignifications are put upon our Ceremonies; that in their Impoſition ſome of thoſe ſignifications are put upon them, and ſo practiſed by many Conformiſts.

1. That voluntary Services (ſuch as our Ceremonies) are intended to ſignifie and procure the Favour of God in ſome reſpect, was openly profeſſed by a Learned Rabbi of this Church, approved cum Licentiâ Superiorum, as was inſtanced above. And by thoſe that eſteem the Sacrament of Baptiſm, imperfect, without the Croſs; or the other Sacrament irreverently received without Kneeling, it muſt be intended, that thoſe Ceremonies do procure (and therefore ſignifie) the Favour of God: but I let that paſs as the ſenſe of private perſons, (for ſo it will be anſwered) and not as the Judgment of the Church.

2. [They are Impoſed to ſignifie the Grace of the Sacraments, at leaſt in part,] with this only difference, that the Sacraments do ſignifie the whole Covenant of Grace, or the whole Grace of the Covenant; theſe ſome particular Graces thereof: as the Surplice to ſignifie Purity, the Croſs Conſtancy: and what are theſe but Semi Sacraments (as he cals them) and the Definition of a Sacrament fits them handſomly. The outward ſign of the Surplice ſignifying the inward inviſible Grace of Purity. The outward viſible ſign of the Croſs ſignifies the inward inviſible Grace of Conſtancy in our Profeſſion: ſignified before by Baptiſm; Sacraments are ſigns to remember us of the whole Covenant of Grace, in both the parts; of Grace from God to us; of Duty from us to God. Ceremonies are impoſed, to ſignifie (they ſay) our Duty to God, but not the Grace of God to us. Ex. gr. the Surplice (being pure white Linnen) ſignifies what purity, holineſs chaſtity, ſhould be in a Miniſter, (ſay the ſame proportionably of the Croſs.) But does it not alſo ſignifie Grace from God, to work thoſe duties or graces in us? (for they are both graces and duties) If ſo: What differs it from a Sacrament? If not; it will prove an idle and vain Ceremony; and for that reaſon not to be Impoſed in worſhip, or if Impoſed, to be repealed. In the Old Teſtament, they were commanded, to make, and weare Fringes, Frontlets, Phylacteries, p. 27[To look upon it, and to remember all the Commandments of the Lord, and do them, and be holy unto their God, Numb. 15.39, 40.] And being things appointed by God, no doubt but to the right uſers of them, they were accompanied with grace to perform thoſe duties; and thoſe were part of their Ceremonial Worſhip. But if they had deviſed their Ceremonies of their own heads to the ſame religious ends in vain might they have expected the like efficacy: though ſtill they had been religious Ceremonies, and parts of worſhip, but falſe. And when the Phariſees did add to theſe Ceremonies [by making broad the Phylacteries, and enlarging the Borders, (that is, the Fringes) of their Garments Mat. 23.5] Our Saviour reproves not only their Hypocriſie, in ſeeming holier to men; but alſo their Superſtition, in ſeeming wiſer then God, in their own additions. As in another caſe of their own Traditions, their Ablutions before they did eat, waſhing of Pots, Cups, and Beds, as well as hands, they made this a Ceremony, to ſignifie what purity and holineſs ought to be in themſelves and others; expecting no doubt the ſame (if not greater) efficacy from this Ceremony as from thoſe Ablutions commanded by God in their Law; and for this our Saviour chargeth them with Will-Worſhip, [Mat. 15.8.9. In vain do they worſhip me, teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of men.] How applicable all this is to our Ceremonies, I need not ſay: the Surplice anſwers to their Fringes, the Croſs to their Frontlets, being applied to the Childs Forehead: If any ſhall ſay theſe our Ceremonies as they are only monitory of Duty, not exhibitory of Grace; ſo the like efficacy is not given to them, by the Doctrine of our Church. To that ſee the next.

3. [They are inſtituted (as I conceive by their words) to be a means of receiving ſome Bleſſing from God] that is, to be moral cauſes to work thoſe Duties, or Graces in the Ʋſers of them; and ſuch (and not Phyſical cauſes) were not only thoſe Frontlets, Fringes, &c. but the Word and Sacraments alſo of God appointment. To make good this Charge, I ſhall produce the words of a Late Advocate of our Ceremonies. [If men put any force or efficacy in Circumſtances deviſed by men, which neither God hath promiſed to make good, nor Nature it ſelf is apt to produce, a religious Form is impreſſed on them by an erroneou Intention.] That more vertue or efficacy is put upon our Ceremonies, then God hath promiſed, or Nature can produce, ſhall be made out p. 28from their own acknowledgments. 1. The Church it ſelf, in retaining and inſtituting them hath theſe words; Pref. to the old Liturgy.[We have been content with only thoſe Ceremonies, which make to decent Order, and pious Diſcipline, and which [Note that] by ſome excellent and ſpecial ſignification, are able to call to memory, a Duty to be performed to God, in the ſtupid mind of man to his edification] It muſt be remembred here: 1. That theſe Ceremonies are to be uſed in the Worſhip of God. 2. They are able to mind men of a Duty to God. 3. They are uſeful not to civil, but ſpiritual Edification: juſt as the Frontlets and other Ceremonies were. Now this is a ſupernatural effect expected by the uſe of them, which neither by any promiſe of God, nor by their own nature, they are able to produce. But 2. the Apologiſts, who underſtood the mind of the Church, and were approved by her. Go further: As, Eccleſ. Pol.1. The Learned Hooker affirms, [That Ceremonies do leave a ſtronger and deeper Impreſſion.] He muſt mean it, as I ſuppoſe, of a Spiritual Impreſſion, (being uſed in the Worſhip of God) and that ſtronger and deeper then the very Ordinances of God do exhibite, or elſe they are idle, and needleſs, where the ſame or an equal Impreſſion, is made by the Ordinances themſelves; ex. gr. The Croſs uſed in Baptiſm, muſt be ſuppoſed to make a deeper Impreſſion then Baptiſm it ſelf, &c. which if it be not Superſtition in a high degree, I know not what is. 2. The Learned Dr. Field ſpeaks fuller to the purpoſe: Who having ſtrongly confuted the Popiſh Superſtitions, becauſe they put a ſupernatural force in theſe Ceremonies: addes this; [Our Ceremonies are adhibited, to put in mind, Of the Chur. lib. 4. Cap. 30. ad ſinem.and (mark this) to excite greater Fervour and Devotion, and to be of force to expreſs ſuch ſpiritual and heavenly affections, diſpoſitions, motions, or deſires, ſuch a are or ought to be in men.] And I pray, what did the Legal Ceremonies appointed by God (before-mentioned) do more? Or what is this leſs then is intended to be effected by Romiſh Ceremonies? If it be ſaid (as it is) [Our Ceremonies are monitory only, D. B.external occaſions, and objects, whereby the mind of man worketh upon its ſelf, not cauſes working by ſome vertue in them.] I Anſwer, 1. The very Ordinances of God. Word and Sacraments, and thoſe other named Ceremonies, did not work phyſically by any vertue in them, but morally by the Inſtitution of God; and yet were they and are means to procure and receive a Bleſſing from God. 2. The p. 29words are plain, they are appointed to excite ſpiritual Devotion, make ſtronger impreſſions, &c. and is not that a working cauſe, or a means uſed in worſhip to thoſe ends? which is flatly againſt the Second Commandment. 3. If they ſtir up ſpiritual devotion, heavenly affections, &c. are not thoſe ſupernatural effects? 4. If they excite ſuch effects in mens hearts, muſt not that preſuppoſe, all that uſe them to be ſpiritually minded, and diſpoſed? How elſe can they ſtir up in them, thoſe affections that are not in them? But then what uſe are they of to Natural and carnal men? There is a carnal Devotion, as well as ſpiritual. To ſtir up carnal devotion will not make them acceptable to God: If they ſtir up ſpiritual devotion in carnal men, is not that a ſupernatural effect aſcribed to humane Ceremonies? And are they not made hereby as operative, and exhibitive of Grace as thoſe Inſtituted by God? Let it be conſidered! I could enlarge this Diſcourſe with other Teſtimonies of Learned Ceremonialiſts; to the ſame purpoſe: and with the Practiſe and Opinion of many that dote upon them, who expect Grace Favour, and a Bleſſing from God, upon ſuch Devotion: But I forbear, and now draw up the Argument into one view againſt the Impoſition of our Ceremonies, twiſted up of a ſix-fold Cord, which will not eaſily be broken. Thus, [Nothing ſinful, inexpedient, purely-indifferent, ſuperſtitious, doubtful, or ſignificant Ceremony may by men be Impoſed in Divine Worſhip] But our Ceremonies are guilty of all theſe Crimes; therefore they may not by men be Impoſed in Worſhip, and conſequently if Impoſed, to be repealed, which was our firſt undertaking, now performed.

II. Of Submiſſion to them, if Impoſed.

The hardeſt and greateſt work is now over, and I ſhall not need to be long or large in the two following Particulars As to the preſent Queſtion. [Whether if ſuch things be Impoſed by Authority, we may lawfully ſubmit unto them?] It is often pretended by the Caſuist and others, [that though the things be Inconvenient, and Inexpedient, yet the Command of Authority alters the ſtate of the Queſt. pag. 39, 69, &c. and makes them to us neceſſary by a neceſſity of Obedience, (though not ſo in their own natures) by vertue of a Divine Commandment. [Obey them that have the Rule over you, and ſubmit your ſelves.] Indeed this pretence ſeems to p. 30put a demur to the Caſe: and is the foundation of all his Diſcourſe in the greateſt part of it, concerning ſubmiſſion to ſuch Impoſitions: But it is eaſily removed, by a Diſtinction or two.

1. Of the ſenſe of the word Inconvenient, which he ſubſtitutes for the word Inexpedient, to mo…lifie the harſhneſs thereof, as was noted in the Explication of Termes, which having once preſumed to do, he then ſuppoſes (unjuſtly alſo) thoſe things now called Inconvenient, to be things lawful not only in their own nature, and extracultum, but alſo in their uſe, and in Worſhip, which is contradicted by himſelf, when he makes things inconvenient in their uſe to be ſinful, p. 68. Of which afore.

2. Of things inexpedient or inconvenient, which may be conceived to be of two ſorts. 1. In regard of meer Circumſtances of Worſhip, as an inconvenient place, or an unſeaſonable time thereof, which muſt be taken, or no other allowed for publick worſhip, wherein the Authority may ſin in Impoſing: as violating, the Rules of Decency, Order, or Edification, 1 Cor. 14. but the Subject ſins not in ſubmitting, yea ſhould ſin in not ſubmitting. 2. With reſpect to humane Ceremonies, which are inconvenient, and inexpedient in their uſe, that is hurtful to the Worſhip, or Worſhippers: which are alwaies ſinful in worſhip, and may no more lawfully be ſubmitted to, then Impoſed in worſhip, as he hath often granted. Now then our Ceremonies being proved to be ſo many waies inexpedient, that is, ſinful in worſhip, one Argument (but a complicated one, and ſo much the ſtronger) will diſpatch the buſineſs. Thus. [No ſinful, inexpedient, unneceſſary, ſuperſtitious, doubtful, ſignificant Ceremonies, may be ſubmitted to, if Impoſed in Worſhip. But our Ceremonies are proved to be ſuch; ergo they may not be ſubmitted to.] Againſt this Concluſion neither the Peace of the Church, nor pretended Duty, nor too much deſired Safety (his threefold Cord, uſed to draw others to Conformity with himſelf) can diſpenſe, till this Argument be enervated, and made voyd. I proceed to the laſt.

III. Of Aſſenting and Conſenting to them.

This third and laſt Queſtion is newly occaſioned by the Late Act for Uniformity, and the too general compliance of Miniſters, with it: not only to ſubmit to the Ceremenies, and other things p. 31Impoſed as to Practiſe, (which in ſome things might be tollerable) but alſo to enſlave their Judgments, to a full approbation of all and every thing contained in, and preſcribed by it. Which one would think, ſhould have ſtumbled many more till they had ſerio…ſly conſidered both what the things are (which are very many) and alſo have ſufficient ground for ſo large a Submiſſion. When it is evident that many of the Declarers and Subſcribers, never ſaw the Book, nor conſidered the Reaſons of ſo deep an Engagement, but haſtily ſwallowed down all, with an Implicite Faith truſting to their Rulers. Now if there be but one thing Inexpedient in it, one thing falſe, or evil, that is ſinful: As ſubmiſſion to ſo univerſal a Practiſe of it, is proved unlawful, ſo the giving an [unfeigned aſſent and conſent to all and every thing contained in it] can by no good Conſcience be juſtified. That Act takes in the whole Book, as now it is Publiſhed and Eſtabliſhed. And containes the Epitome, or rather Volume of the Engliſh, Proteſtant, Epiſcopal Religion.

1. The Form of Doctrine, or Confeſſion of Faith in the 39, Articles.

2. The Mode of Worſhip in the Liturgy.

3. The Model of Diſcipline in the Book of Ordination or Conſecration, of Biſhops, Prieſts and Deacons.] All theſe to be at one Lump, ſubmitted, ſubſcribed, aſſented, conſented to, and that unfeignedly; It was partly yielded above, that in ſome caſes it may be lawful not only for peace ſake, but alſo for Conſcience ſake, to ſubmit to ſome thing Inconvenient, (as an Inconvenient Circumſtance) if Impoſed by a lawful Authority: But now the Queſtion is, of declaring openly an unfeigned aſſent and conſent to a thing (any thing, if any there be) Inconvenient in the Book, which to me imports an Approbation of it: as ſhall be ſhewed ere long: I ſhall only deſire to remember the Explication of the Terms. That Aſſent hath respect to the truth of a thing: Conſent to the Goodneſs: Ʋnfeigned to the ſincerity of both. I now propound the Queſtion the third time.

Whether it be lawful for Miniſters to conform ſo far to the Late eſtabliſhed Book for Ʋniformity, as Publickly to declare an unfeigned Aſſent and Conſent, to all and every thing contained in, and preſcribed by it?

p. 32To the Deciſion of this great Queſtion, one would eaſily think, little need be ſaid, conſidering what hath been ſaid already, againſt divers things contained in that Book; any one whereof if proved ſinful (as I believe ſome are, and more will be) might be a ſufficient bar to ſuſpend either Aſſ…nt or Conſent to the truth or goodneſs, much more the practiſe of them, which yet is promiſed in the Subſcription to them; I ſhall argue firſt ex conceſſis & probatis; and then add ſome more ſpecial Reaſons in ſome Particulars.

1. In General; thus I aſſault them. [If divers things Impoſed and to be ſubmitted to be ſinful, (the Impoſition and Submiſſion to them being therefore ſinful) then it is much more ſinful to declare an unfeigned Aſſent and Conſent to them, yea to all and every thing contained in and preſcribed by that Book; but the Antecedent is moſt true, and aſſerted by themſelves, and where they are ſhut, proved ſo to be: the Conſequence is made undeniable by the Apoſtles Logick and Divinity, [Rom 1 ult Who though they know that they that do ſuch things are guilty or worthy of death; not only do ſuch things, but alſo foreign, conſent to, or favour them that do them.] The Argument is taken a minore ad majus: It is bad to do things ſinful, eſpecially againſt Knowledge and Conſcience, but much worſe to aſſent and conſent unfeignedly to the truth, and goodneſs of ſuch things. The reaſon is, becauſe a man may do a thing ſinful, either out of Ignorance, or inadvertency, or the violence of a Temptation; but he cannot unfeignedly aſſent, and conſent to the doing of them, or to them that do them, without deliberation, and knowingly againſt his clearly convinced Conſcience. And the more of Will is in a ſin, the higher is the aggravation of it. Now this is obſervable, that few Conforming Miniſters there are, which do not believe ſome things in that Book to be inconvenient, burdenſom, troubleſom, and ſcarce Orthodox, either in Doctrine, Worſhip, or Diſcipline: And ſome in my hearing have already complained, that the burden to read all preſcribed, and to preach when they have done, (as they ought to do, being of Divine Inſtitution) is a Burden which they are not able to bear, as ſome of their Forefathers complained. And to omit or ſhorten Preaching, to enlarge the Church-Service, they are ready to profeſs to be againſt their Conſciences; as a making voyd the Commandment of God, by obſerving the Traditions of men.

p. 332. [It is highly ſinful to Aſſent and Conſent unfeignedly to things Inexpedient, purely Indifferent, (that is Idle, or Uſeleſs) Superſtitious, Doubtful, or Significant Humane Ceremonies, as againſt the Second and Third Commandments,] and becauſe ſuch things are ſinful in Worſhip. But to ſome ſuch things, yea many, do they aſſent and conſent, who declare their aſſent and conſent to all and every thing Contained in, and Preſcribed by that Book, as hath clearly been proved, ergo, &c.

3. [It is highly Preſumptuous, Sacrilegious, if not Blaſphemous, to make that Book equal to the Sacred Bible, and the Powers Impoſing it, as infallible, as thoſe were that wrote the holy Scriptures, (as the Pope does the Apocrypha, and the Traditions of the Church.)] But this is done by all that in that manner make that Declaration: For what can more be declared and aſſerted of the Holy Canonical, Spirit inſpired Scriptures, then an unfeigned aſſent to the Truth, and conſent to the Goodneſs of all and every thing contained in thoſe Books?

4. [To aſſent and conſent to the Impoſition of things unlawful, in Worſhip, is to make themſelves twice guilty of ſin, once as they aſſent and conſent to things unlawful, and a ſecond time, as they confirm the Impoſers in that ſinful Impoſition. For when will they repent of, or repeal theſe ſinful Impoſitions, when they are confirmed to be true, and lawful, by ſo many complying Miniſters in ſo high a Declaration?

5. To declare and profeſs ſo publickly before God and their People, their unfeigned aſſent and conſent to all and every thing in that Book: believing, that ſome things are Inconvenient and Inexpedient, which they wiſh were removed, is groſs Diſſimulation, and deſperate hypocriſie. But many of the Complyers do believe and confeſs ſome ſuch things to be contained in that Book, either not true, or not lawful, and yet aſſent and conſent to all and every thing contained in it. Or ſuppoſe them ſo corrupted in their underſtanding and Judgments, as to be perſwaded of the Goodneſs and Truth of all and every thing therein, it may eaſily be proved, and hath been already, that ſome things in it are not true, as to matter of Doctrine, and ſome things not lawful, as to matter of Worſhip or Diſcipline, if I might ſafely diſpute againſt that Book, having a Law to render it liable to a Premunire. But Truth is p. 34Truth, and to be acknowledged, when we are called to give teſtimony to it. This hath been done by many, and not yet anſwered. The Book containes the whole of Engliſh Religion, in Doctrine, Worſhip, and Diſcipline, and in every one of thoſe Defects, Imperfections, and Corruptions manifeſted; and yet without Reformation of many things, impoſed and preſſed on us with more rigour then formerly. See ſome Particulars.

1. In Doctrine. As 1. In the Articles of Religion, Art. 20. [The Church hath power to decree Rites and Ceremonies,] which words being ambiguous, taken either for meer Circumſtances of Worſhip, for Order, Decency, &c. or for Sacred Rites, and religious Ceremonies; In the firſt ſenſe they are true, but doubtful: To which no unfeigned aſſent can be given, till the diſtinction be given: In the laſt ſenſe (in which they are uſually taken,) they are proved to be falſe, above in this Diſcourſe. And ſome other principal points of Doctrine there are ſo doubtfully worded, that as Papists and Arminians, have gloſſed them to their Opinions, ſo no tender Conſcience can ſafely give ſo full aſſent to them as true, till they be explained, which was formerly denied and prohibited to be made by thoſe that ſubſcribed them.

2. In the Liturgy, ſome Doctrinals are delivered and preſcribed to be aſſented to; as firſt, a falſe Tranſlation of the Pſalmes, according to the errours of the Vulgar Latine, ſtill retained to be read; not to ſpeak of their leaving out of the Titles of many Pſalmes, which in Hebrew are Canonical Scripture. And it is as unlawful to take from the word of God as to add to it; unleſs they intend to make amends for their Subſtraction of ſome, by Addition of other things: and that is ſufficiently done, by addition of ſome Apocryphal Pſalmes, Te Deum, Benedicite, and a great many Chapters of the Bookes called Apocrypha, to be read, a moſt for two moneths together; ſome whereof are falſe, and as very lying Legends as thoſe uſed in the Romiſh Churches, and ſome newly added not in before, as the Hiſtory of Suſanna, Bell and the Dragon. And what is this but (as they at Rome) a Canonizing in part, of the Apocrypha, making it equal to the Scripture in Divine Service, as part of their Doctrine; I might add that Aſſertion [That all Children Baptized are really regenerated, and want nothing neceſſary to their Salvation] which drawes after it, all or moſt of p. 35the Arminian and Popiſh Tenents

3. The Homilies are part of the Doctrine of the Church, ratified by the 35 Canon, and preſcribed to be read by every Miniſter, and now with the Articles enjoyned to be aſſented to unfeignedly as true. In theſe have been obſerved ſome falſe Doctrines; as to juſtifie plurality of Wives, by the old Fathers, Hom. Of the time and place of Prayer, pag. 147. That Almes purgeth away all ſins, delivereth from death, Hom. 2. Of Almes, pag. 16. For proof whereof is cited, as good Scripture, Tobit 4.10. & the Son of Syrach. Dare any Orthodox Miniſter declare his unfeigned aſſent to the Truth of theſe Doctrines? yet this is done by too many.

2. In Worſhip. There are ſome things not good, that is unlawful, to which yet an unfeigned conſent is to be given. For the Ceremonies they are largely diſcovered to be ſinful and unlawful above. To which may be added the Apocryphal Pſalmes and Books made not only equal with the Divine Scriptures, but alſo parts of Divine Service, as fully as any part of the Word of God. Add to theſe the Reſponds of the Clerk and People, Women, Boyes and Wenches, clearly againſt the Apoſtles Rules of Decency, Order, Edification, as may be eaſily manifeſted. And more might be ſaid concerning the Miniſters change of places, poſtures, ridiculous geſticulations, as if Divine Service were ſome Play or Comedy to be acted; which cauſes the Name of God to be taken in vain againſt the third Commandment: Can any pious devout Miniſter give his unfaigned conſent to theſe as good?

3. In Diſcipline. The Book of Ordination is the Epitome thereof, now joyned and eſtabliſhed with the Articles and Liturgy. But there are ſome things in them proved to be falſe. As 1. That there are three kinds or Orders of Church Officers; Biſhops, Prieſts and Deacons, when Scripture knowes but two: It being proved and confeſſed by Epiſcopal men, that in Scripture a Biſhop and a Presbyter are one and the ſame Order and Office. 2. That Ordination by Presbyters is null. I add no more: To all theſe either falſe or unlawful do they aſſent and conſent, which how they can do with a good Conſcience, I underſtand not, but do admire.

6. And Laſtly, (beſides the burdens they have laid upon their weak Brethren, in a very conſiderable number, and the hurt they have done to the Church in the loſs of ſo many Able Miniſters, to p. 36the gratifying of Antichriſt) they have by their unfeigned aſſent and conſent to all and every thing contained in and preſcribed by that Book, in Doctrine, Worſhip, and Diſcipline, as precluded all future hopes of Reformation, ſo alſo enſlaved themſelves, and their Succeſſors of the Clergy to the power and yoke of Epiſcopal Tyranny: Juſt in the ſame manner, (if not meaſure) as the Popiſh Clergy are enſlaved to the Pope, without all hope of freedom, till either Antichriſt be fallen, or thoſe ſtrict Lawes for Conformity be repealed and broken: This is one chief Character of Antichriſt, that he cauſeth all his Subject; (eſpecially the Clergy) to receive a Mark in their right hand, and in their Forehead, that none may buy or ſell that want this Mark. How far this is appliable to our preſent condition, any wiſe man will eaſily diſcern. The Biſhops have now obtained their long Deſire, and Deſign, to ſubdue, and enſlave the Clergy to themſelves (and with them the People) they having boared their Eares to their Door poſts, and received a mark in their Foreheads, by their ſo Publick Declaration, and in their Right Hand by their Subſcription, without which no Miniſter may buy or ſell, that is, deal in any thing that concernes his Miniſterial Office, or as a Schollar, to get a Livelihood. And whether this be not the ſlaying of the Witneſſes (Natural or Civil) ſpoken of in the Revelation, or the Forerunner of it, I leave to prudent men to determine. And here I reſt.