Defense of Non-Conformity, Part 2 · Section 3
SECT. III. Of the Terms of Communion imposed by the Church.
AFter Examination of other Pleas for Non-conformity, the Dr. cometh Sect. 13. to examine that which he confesseth to be the most colourable Plea that hath yet been used; to wit, their imposing of unlawful Terms of Communion with them. And this I look on as not only the most colourable Plea; but is the causa sine quo non, that without which no Separation can be made from a True Church, which is sound in the Faith, without Sin; and as the very Foundation of that Cause that I now plead: and if the Dr. can beat us out of this Hold, we shall become his willing Proselites. Let us hear then how he taketh this Plea from us.
Sect. 2. His first assault is by a distinction, which is really true, but very ill managed, tho' by amost Learned hand; but the Dr. being Master of so much Learning, as few men are, doth, I suppose, sometimes make him consider less what he writeth, than they find need to do, who move in an inferiour Orb. His distinction is, between terms of Communion plainly and in themselves sinful; and such as are only fansied to be so through Prejudice and wilful Ignorance, or Error of Conscience. That there are some Terms of Communion with a Church really sinful, and others that are not so, tho' they be fansied by some to be so, I think none ever doubted; and therefore the Dr. might have better imployed his pains (to say nothing of his Ink and Paper) that he hath taken to prove this by a multitude of instances. And I grant, that when the sinfulness of the Terms is only fansied, the Sin of Schism, that followeth on that apprehension, lieth not on the Imposers, but on those that separate: Only I must add an Exception of a Case in which it may lie on both; that is, when the thing imposed is unnecessary, and is made a ground of Separation by the mistake of persons otherwise orthodox and sober, and who pretend to no other cause of Separation: If the Imposers will not yield in that case, (that is the wiser to the more wilful) they shew not that moderation, nor love to Peace that they should. If the Quakers could be gained by forbearing preaching by an Hour-glass, (the Dr's. instance) I would think it hard to lose them for that, for whom Christ lost his Life.
Sect. 3. As the Dr. manageth this distinction, it is hard to tell what to make of it; for he confoundeth two things that are most distinct, yea, different; to wit, Terms of Communion plainly sinful, and Terms of Communion in themselves sinful: And in the other Lemma of the distinct on, he hath set nothing in opposition to plainly; for fansied to be sinful through Prejudice, wilful Ignorance, Error of Conscience, are all opposite to those that are sinful in themselves. He should then have told us, if Terms of Communion imposed be sinful in themselves, but not plainly, but only obscurely so; what censure he would pass on them that could not comply with them; also what degree of plainness he would require about the sinfulness of imposed Terms of Communion, that it might be lawful to Separate, rather than yield to them. My opinion is, that if Terms of Communion be imposed, that are in themselves, and really sinful, and if the sinfulness of them can be known by diligent searching of the Scripture, and depending upon God for Light and Guidance, tho' there be not such plainness as the Dr. had above called glaring Evidence, that all the world may see, they that are consciencious ought to withdraw from any Church whatsoever, rather than submit to those Terms. There is an Ambiguity in the Term that he useth, In themselves sinful; for I know, that it is their usual Plea for the Ceremonies, (the imposed Terms of Communion now under debate) that they are things in themselves indifferent. This may either be understood, that they are in their general nature such; which we grant; Habits, and Postures, and Gestures importing neither good nor evil, as such: Or as considered under the circumstances that they are cloathed with, as they fall under our debate; and so we think them sinful. Now, the Dr. should have told us whether he meaneth of Terms of Communion, that are things imposed, which are really evil, under the circumstances with which they are imposed; or Terms of Communion, which are things in their general nature evil: We think the sinfulness of Terms of Communion, even in the former, and not only in the latter sence, may warrant our withdrawing.
Sect. 4. He telleth us, That the Magistrate of Church may lawfully determine and impose Time and Place, and such-like circumstances of Worship; which we grant, (tho' we think it inconvenient to be rigorous in these Impositions, or too frequent and universal in them; but about these, our Question is not conversant:) Therefore, if any Separate from these Impositions, he saith, the Sin of Separation is on their part: This we do not deny. We also grant his Hypothetick Proposition that followeth; to wit, If other things be as much in the Magistrate or Church's Power, they sin who separate, because of imposing of them. His reason of this is not so clear; to wit, Where there is no plain prohibition, men may with ordinary Care and Judgment satisfie themselves of the lawfulness of the things required: And there is no plain prohibition, he saith, of the Liturgy and Ceremonies. We deny the imposing the Liturgy and Ceremonies to be as much in mens power as is the determining of Circumstances of Time and Place, and such-like. We deny also, that men, with the best Care and Judgment, can see the lawfulness of every thing imposed in the Worship of God, (for of such things we now discourse) that is not plainly prohibited: For, What if they be prohibited, tho' not plainly? It is too great peremptoriness, to take upon us to teach the Spirit of God how to speak in Scripture; if He expects Obedience from us (the Dr. was in this strain also in his Ir…nicum;) if we have any hint of His Will, tho' never so obscurely, so as we can understand that it is the Mind of God, we are obliged to obey it. Again, we deny, that want of either obscure or plain Prohibition is good ground to satisfie us about Religious Ceremonies, that they are lawful, though imposed by men: It is enough, that they are not commanded nor instituted. Will Worship is condemned in Scripture; and, Can it be denied, that what is not commanded, tho' it be not plainly forbidd…n, is Will-Worship? And, What Argument will the Dr. bring against most of the Popish Ceremonies, but that they are not commanded? Where is the plain Prohibition of them?
Sect. 5. Further, we say, That the Liturgy and Ceremonies are plainly enough forbidden, tho not in particular, yet in general terms. The Traditions of men in Gods Worship, are plainly forbidden, Mat. 15. 7, 8, 9. Mark 7. 6, 7, 8. Gal. 4. 9, 10, 11. Col. 2. 20.—which Scriptures, and other Arguments proving them to be forbidden by God, have been so fully managed against his Party, without any Answer, as may let the world see, that neither Ordinary Care nor Judgment hath been wanting to find▪ out the lawfulness of such Impositions; and yet we cannot find it. I shall not now repeat what I have elsewhere said to this purpose, but intend to answer what the Dr. will please to say in defence of these his Lawful Impositions.
Sect. 6. The Dr. is at some pains to prove, that the prohibition of these is not in the Second Commandment: But if he would have convinced us of our Error, he should have proved, that they are neither forbidden there, nor elsewhere, by giving satisfying Answers to all our other Arguments; but he is pleased to insist only on our Argument from the Second Commandment, and to that as he is pleased to frame it, he giveth an Answer, such as it is. I observe some mistakes in his treating of this Argument; 1. That he expecteth that the Liturgy and Ceremonies should have been forbidden in words, if they be forbidden; that is, that they should have been expresly named. Will he forbear no Sin, but what is named in one of the Ten Commandments? What will he say of Fornication, Incest, Rebellion against Kings, &c. May be he will say these are forbidden expresly in other parts of Scripture. Ans. So are humane Inventions in God's Worship; as hath been shewed: And beside, it were impertinent to deny Fornication to be forbidden in the Seventh Commandment, because it is not named there, tho' it be in other Scriptures: Even so it is here; yea, I suppose the Dr. will not think, that whatever is not named in Scripture as a Sin, is no Sin; mispending the Sabbath day in sleep, idleness, play, &c. advising or commanding one man to murder another, and many things of that nature, are not named in Scripture, and yet comprehended under general prohibitions.
Sect. 7. 2. His Question is very absurd, How shall we come by the sence, but by the words? He must mean the words of the second Commandment. And then I answer, That we could never by this way know the sence of the seventh Commandment, Fornication is a Sin: Nor by the words of the sixth Commandment could we know it is a Sin, to say to our Brother, Thou fool. Wherefore hath the Spirit of God written so much more Scripture holding forth Sins and Duties, if we are only to look to the bare words of the Ten Commandments, for learning the preceptive or directive part of His revealed Will? His Commands are exceeding broad, Ps. 119. 96. and therefore we are to look for more understanding from them, than the words by themselves can afford us. Ezra and the Levites read the words to the People, and gave the Sence, Neh▪ 8. 8. It is our Duty also to read it, and enquire into the sence of it. One useful means of coming by the sence of the Commandments, is, to consider how they were expounded by Christ, enlarged on by the Prophets and Apostles injoining and forbidding things of the same nature, with what the words of the Commands do express; and in general, we must compare Scripture with Scripture, if we would understand the meaning of the several parts of it. It is strange, that the Dr. and his Pa…ty should deal so unequally; they take a great deal of Liberty to impose things on the Church of God, from a very general Command, Let all things be done decently and in order: Which words they practise upon at their pleasure, devising Rites for the Worship of God, and bringing This to warrant them, tho' they can bring no such sence out of the words, as that Crossing, Kneeling, &c. are lawful: But if we scruple any of their Inventions, we must be obliged to give words of Scripture, where they are expresly forbidden.
Sect. 8. In the Third place; When his opposites alledge certain Rules for interpreting the Commandments, he asketh, Whether they be divine or humane? I again ask him, Whether doth he own them as sound, or reject them as fallacious? But to his question I answer; They are by men collected out of the Scripture, and therefore have Divine Authority, tho' the frame of them be Humane; as the Dr's Sermons (I do not mean that at Guild-hall) are divine. Truths, and of divine Authority, tho' of humane frame and composure. 4. One of these Rules is, That where any thing is forbidden, something is commanded. We chuse, after the generality of Divines, rather to express it thus; That in every Negative Precept the contrary Duty is commanded: And in the Affirmative Precept, the c…ntrary Sin is forbidden. His Answer is, There is here a Command to worship God without an Image. A Logician would say, this is still a Negative Command, for here the matter of this Precept is expressed Negative. All Protestant Divines agree, that the matter of the Second Command is the m…dus of Divine Worship, Divine Worship it self being commanded, and what is contrary to it forbidden in the First Commandment. Now, though this preceptive proposition of the Dr's, Worship God, be set down affirmative, yet the manner how God is to be worshipped, is set down negative; and therefore he hath yet given us no Duty commanded in the second Commandment, but only the way of worshipping God by an Image forbidden, (which he shunneth to say) or we must seek for some other way to express the affirmative part of this Commandment.
Sect. 9. We may then conclude, that it is injoined in this Command, That we should worship God in the way that He hath prescribed to us in His Word. This is elsewhere commanded, Exod. 25. 9, 40. and the contrary is severely reproved, Isa. 66. 3. Ier. 7. 31. From all these places it is evident, that God is to be worshipped according to his own Institution, and no otherwise: And I hope the Dr. will not dissent from the generality of Divines, who hold, that all Sins and Duties held forth in other places of Scripture, are reducible to one of the Commandments. And to which of them can this duty of worshipping God by the prescript of His VVord, be reduced, if not to the second? Hence we conclude, that the affirmative part of the second Commandment is, that we ought to worship God in the way that He himself hath prescribed in the Word. And if the Dr. can make it appear, that the Liturgy and Ceremonies are prescribed there, whether plainly or obscurely, directly or by consequence, we shall own them. 5. Whereas we say, that it is a prohibition comprehended in the second Commandment, That we must worship God by our own Inventions. He saith, No Inventions are condemned in the Worship of God, but such as God Himself hath somewhere forbidden; but He hath no where forbidden the Liturgy and Ceremonies. The meaning of this must be, a general prohibition of humane Inven…ions is not sufficient; but notwithstanding, that they are generally forbidden, Men may devise, and bring into God's worship, and impose on others what they please, if that in particular be not forbidden by a particular precept wherein it is named, or otherwise particularized. VVhat a mad exposition of the second Commandment is this? He might as well say, when it is said, Thou shalt not kill, I may, for all that, kill any man I please, if there be not a particular command not to kill such a man. Are there particular prohibitions of the several Ceremonies that were used in Popery? or, Must the Bible have been made so voluminous, as to mention every circumstantiate Case, otherwise we will take no notice of its general Precepts? Is not this stretching and forcing of Scripture to defend a bad Cause, which he below chargeth us with?
Sect. 10. The Dr. (as conscious to the insufficiency of this shift) cometh in the Fifth place to excuse the Ceremonies from falling under the second Command, by telling us of two sorts of humane Inventions forbidden in it, and no other. 1. Such as go about to represent God, and so to disparage Him: For, he saith, the reason of the law, to wit, the spiritual and invisible nature of God, extendeth only to these. Ans. 1. It seems then, worshipping God by or before a Crucifix, is not here forbidden, for that doth not go about to represent or disparage God, but only to represent CHRIST as Man. The same may be said of all the use of the Images of Saints in the worship of God that is among the Papists; that is, they are all innocent by this Doctrine: For, if these be not forbidden in the second Commandment, the Dr. will find it hard to refute these practices from Scripture. If such a passage had dropt from the Pen of a Non-conformist, how would the Dr. have improved it against the whole Party, as doing the Papists work for them; as he hath charged them on far less grounds than this is? Ans. 2. Seeing other waies of uncommanded VVorship are condemned in Scripture, as hath been shewed, what reason is there to say, that this way of it alone is here meant? This is to expound Scripture ad libitum, and amplifie or restrain it as our fancy or interest leadeth us. Ans. 3. I deny not the spiritual and invi…ble nature of God to be a good Reason of this Law; but I deny it to be either the sole reason of it, or the reason of it that is exprest in the Law it self; which is, that He is a jealous God, and will punish the corrupters of His Worship. Now this Reason of the Law doth evidently extend to all waies of worshipping Him that He hath not injoined, making bold to worship Him in any of these ways, being a derogation from that soveraignty that He hath over Men, especially in His own VVorship, which hath a nearer dependance on His Institution than other thi…gs have.
Sect. 11. The other sort of humane Inventions that he will exempt from the scope and sence of this Commandment, is, Such as relate to the manner and form of Worship, supposing the Worship it self to be performed in a way agreeable to the Divine Nature and Law. Ans. 1. I desire to know of the Dr. what difference he maketh between the manner or form of Worship, and the way of Worship; when he supposeth the way of it to be agreeable to the Divine Nature and Law; while yet the Controversie is, whether the manner and form of it be so. This is a subtilty that I cannot reach; but Words must serve to palliate a bad Cause when Reason cannot defend it. Will then the Dr. say, that the way of Divine Worship is injoined in this Command, but not the manner and form of it? I hope he will not deny; that the object of worship is fixed in the first Commandment, and also the way of it, so far as by that word is expressed, the duties of natural worship, the inward affections and actings of the Soul on God, that are requisite in His Worship. Wherefore, if he will (with all Divines, except Papists and some Lutherans) allow this to be another Precept, and not a part or explication of the first; he must say, that here is appointed all instituted worship; that is, all the means, manner, external forms and ways, by which the Lord will have us to worship him; to wit, that we should make nor devise none of them to our selves: And this he was pleased to express by the most absurd and most common way that Men had devised to themselves to worship God by, to wit, Images; as, in the rest of the Negative Precepts, he useth to express all the sins included in it, by one that is more notable than the rest. Ans. 2. I hope the Dr. will not deny, that most of the Popish Ceremonies, as Oil, Salt, Spittle, &c. are forbidden in this Commandment, (or, if he do deny it, let him tell us where they are forbidden, or whether they be forbidden any where, or not) but they perta…n to the manner and form of worshipping God, as well as our Ceremonies do. Further, let him tell us whether it is possible there should be any Superstition in the manner and form of worship; and if there be, where is it forbidden, but in this Commandment? Or, let him give us any reason why Humane Inventions, relating to the manner and form of worship, are not forbidden, as well as these that relate to the way of it. A Reason indeed he pretendeth to give, Otherwise (saith he) all Vse of Mens inventions, as to preaching, reading, interpreting Scripture, would be forbidden; and then this interpretation of the second Command would be unlawful, because it is a meer invention of Man, as much as Liturgies and Ceremonies. If this be to reason like a Divine, or to quibble like a Sophister, let the Reader judge; for the Invention that men make use of in preaching, &c. is the act or exercise of their faculties, whereby they find out the mind of God: The inventions in God's worship, that we …ow debate about, are Objects found out by Men, not commanded by God. If Men devise unrevealed Objects in Reading, Preaching, &c. we condemn them in that, as well as in devising ways of worshipping God: And if the Dr. mean, that this exposition of the second Commandment is an invention of Man, that is, the exercise of his inventive Faculty, whereby he findeth out the Mind of God; he speaketh wide from the purpose, when he compareth that with things that men devise to worship God by: If he mean, That the Interpretation is only devised, not warranted; let him prove that, and we shall reject it.
Sect. 12. I hope, by this time, the impartial Reader may judge whether we stretch and force Scripture to condemn Liturgies and Ceremonies, as the Dr. saith; or he doth so to defend them. That he imputeth to us, blinding and fettering our minds by Education, and reading but one sort of Books, and taking things for granted, which we ought not, we resolve to bear patiently, and must accept of these, instead of better Arguments, to refute our Principle. His instance of the deniers of Infant-Baptism, proveth fully, that the Schism doth not alwaies lie on the Imposer's side, (tho' they separate from us, because of our using it, without considering imposing it on them. VVho of them have been excommunicated for not using it, as we are for forbearing the Ceremonies?) If men will separate, because the Ordinances of God are imposed on them, let them answer it; we scruple only the Ordinances of Man: Neither did we ever say, that the blame of separation doth in all c…ses lie on the Imposers. And we confess, that where impos…d Terms of Communion are scrupled through mistake, they that separate on that scruple do sin. And we yield also to him, that not the pretence of Conscience, but sufficient proof of the unlawfulness of the Terms of Communion, is a good ground of Separation; and we still desire that the matter may be put to that issue.
Sect. 13. He proceedeth next to set …orth the principles of them who hold all Acts of Communion with the Church of England unlawful; of them he hath little to say, their mind (as he saith) being easily discovered; and we are not concerned in that opinion, and therefore shall not insist on it. Only I see not on what grounds the Dr. nameth the Author of the Book called Jerubbaal, as one that is against the lawfulness of hearing the conforming Ministers preach; for that Author …, p. 12. of himself and others, whom Mr. C. had charged with Schism, because they could not communicate with Her in the Liturgy, that they joined with Her in the instituted VVorship and substantial Ordinances of Christ, as Prayer, Hearing of the Word preached, singing of Psalms, &c.