The Grand Debate Between Bishops and Presbyterian Divines, Document 2 · Reply 31 – Section 40
Repl. 1. He that hath his Original ſin forgiven him, may well confeſſe that he was born in iniquity and conceived in ſin, and was by nature a Child of wrath, and that by one man ſin entred into the world, and that Judgment came on all men to Condemnation, &c. The pardoned may confeſſe what once they were, and from what Rock they were hewn: even actual ſins muſt be confeſſed, after they are forgiven, (unleſs the Antimonians hold the truth againſt us in ſuch points. 2. All is not falſe Doctrine that croſſeth mens private Opinions, which you ſeem here to obtrude upon us. We know that the Papiſts (and perhaps ſome others) hold that all the baptiſed are delivered from the Guilt of Original ſin; But (as they are in the dark, and diſagreed in the Explicatio of it) ſo we have more reaſon to incline to either of the ordinary Opinions of the Proteſtants, than to this of theirs, 3. Some learned Proteſtants hold that viſibly all the baptiſed are Church members; pardoned and juſtified, which is but that they are probably juſtified indeed, and are to be uſed by the Church (upon a Judgment of Charity) as thoſe that are really juſtified. But that we have indeed no certainty that they are ſo; God keeping that as a ſecret to himſelf concerning Individuals, till by actual Faith and Repentance, it be manifeſt to themſelves. Another Opinion of many Proteſtants is, that all perſons that are Children of the Promiſe, or that have the conditions of pardon and Juſtification in the Covenant mentioned, are to receive that pardon by Baptiſme: and all ſuch are pardoned, and certainly in a ſtate of Juſtification and Salvation thereupon: and that the promiſe of pardon is made to the Faithful and to their ſeed: and therefore that all the Faithful and their ſeed in Infancy have this pardon given them by the promiſe, and ſolemnly delivered them, and ſealed to them by Baptiſm, which inveſteth them in the benefits of the Covenant. But withall that firſt, the profeſſed Infidel and his ſeed as ſuch, are not the Children of the promiſe, and therefore if the Parent ludicruoſly or forcedly, or the Child by errour be baptiſed, they have not thereby the pardon of their ſin before God. 2. That the Hypocrite that is not a true believer at the heart, though he profeſſe it, hath no pardon by Baptiſme before God, as being not an heir of the promiſe, nor yet any Infant of his as ſuch: But though ſuch are not pardoned, the Church that judgeth by profeſſion, taking Profeſſors for Believers, muſt accordingly uſe them & their ſeed, 3. But though the Church judge thus charitably of each Profeſſor in particular, till his hypocriſy be detected, yet doth it underſtand that hypocrites there are, & ſtill will be in the Church, though we know them not by name. And that therefore there are many externally baptiſed, and in Communion, that never had the pardon of ſin, indeed before God; as not having the Condition of the promiſe of pardon: Such as Simon Magus was. We have leſs reaſon to take this Doctrine for falſe, than that which pronounceth certain pardon, and ſalvation to all baptiſed Infants whatſoever: And were we of their judgment, we ſhould think it the moſt charitable Act in the world to take the Infants of Heathens, and baptiſe them; And if any ſhould then diſpatch them all to prevent their lapſe, they were all certainly ſaved. We hope by (ſome reliques) you mean that which is truly and properly ſin. For our parts we believe according to the ninth Article, that Original ſin ſtandeth in the Corruption of the nature of every man, whereby man is far gone from Original righteouſneſſe, and inclined to evil; And that this infection of nature doth remain in the Regenerate; And though there is no Condemnation for them that believe and are baptiſed, yet Concupiſence and Luſt, hath of it ſelf the nature of ſin.) you ſay, (The Church acknowledgeth ſuch deſires, &c.) Devices, and Deſires are Actual ſins and not Original, which conſiſteth in privation, and corrupt inclination: The next words (There is no health in us) it ſeems the Tranſlators that put it into the Liturgy miſ-underſtood; But however you ſeem here plainly by your miſ-interpretation to miſ-underſtand it. Nulla ſalus in nobis, is ſpoken actively and not poſſeſſively or paſſively, the plain ſence is, that there is no help deliverance and ſalvation in our ſelves: we cannot help our ſelves out of this miſery, but muſt have a better Saviour; as Chriſt is oft called our ſalvation, ſo we are denied to be our own: ſo that yet here is no confeſſion at all of Original ſin, but of the effects; The two next ſentences confeſſe a debility, and privation, but not that it was ab origine, but may for any thing that's there ſaid be taken to be ſince contracted; Nor are the words in this Confeſſion, but in ſome other Collects elſe where, which proves not that this Confeſſion ſaith any thing of Original ſin.
[We know not what publick prayers are wanting, nor do they tell §. 7. Exc. 3.us, the uſual Complaint hath been, that there were too many: Neither do we conceive any want of publick Thanksgivings there being in the Liturgy, Te Deum, Benedictus, Magnificat, Benedicite, Glory be to God on high, Therefore with Angels and Arch-Angels, The Doxology, Glory be to the Father, &c. All peculiar as they require, to Goſpel worſhip, and fit to expreſſe our thanks and honour to God upon every particular occaſion, and occaſional Thanksgivings after the Letany, of the frequency whereof themſelves elſewhere complain, who here complain of defect; If there he any forms wanting the Church will provide.]
Repl. We have ſhewed you in the forms which we offered you, what we judge wanting, the Right Reverend Biſhop of Exeter hath taken notice of the ſame want, and propoſed a ſupply, thoſe you name are either but general ſentences, or extend but to ſome few particulars, as being ſuited to the perſons and particular occaſions of them, and none ſave the (Te Deum) deſigned to be the diſtinct praiſe of the Church for the benefits of Redemption, as the ſutable and ſufficient performance of this great part of the Liturgy; However it will do you no harm that your Brethren be gratified, with fuller expreſſions and variety. They that have complained of too many (becauſe you ſhred your Petitions into almoſt as many Prayers, and ſo the Thanksgivings into ſuch briefs) yet complained not of too much; But that too many (by the multitudes of Prefaces, and Epilogues) was the the cauſe of too little.
[They complain that the Liturgy contains too many Generalls, §. 5. Exc. 4.without mention of the particulars, and the Inſtances are ſuch Petitions as thoſe, That we may do Gods will; To be kept from all evil, almoſt the very Terms of the Petitions of the Lords Prayer: ſo that they muſt reform that, before they can pretend to mend our Liturgy in theſe Petitions.]
Repl. We complain not that there are Generals, but that there is nothing but Generalls in ſo great a part of your Prayers and therefore they are very defective: And if really theſe Generalls ſuffice you, a few lines may ſerve inſtead of your whole Book, Inſtead of all your Confeſſions, it may ſerve to ſay (That we have greatly ſinned) and no more: Inſtead of all your Let any or Deprecations it is enough to ſay (Deliver us from all evil) Inſtead of all your Petitions for Grace, Peace, Rain, Fair-weather, Health, &c. it is enough to ſay (Give us the Good we want) Indeed the Lords Prayer hath general Requeſts, becauſe it is the deſign of it, to be a Rule of Prayer, and ſo contain but the Heads to which all Prayers are to be reduced; But if therefore you will have no more particulars, why do you uſe any prayer but the Lords Prayer; We hope you do not think to ſupply any defects pretended to be found in its Generals, not to correct the order of it; If it be but becauſe you would not on every particular occaſion be ſo long, as to ſay the whole, you may take that Head. which ſuiteth that occaſion: And ſo (Give us this day our daily bread) may ſerve inſtead of all the Collects for temporal ſupplies: And all your Offices may be blotted out, and one of the petitions of the Lords prayer placed in the ſtead of each of them.
[We have deferred this to the proper place as you might have done.]
Repl. It was the proper place under the head of defectiveneſſe, §. 6. Exc. 5.to inſtance in this as well as other defects.
[We are now come to the main and principal demand as is pretended N. 18. §. 1.viz. The aboliſhing the Laws which impoſe any Ceremonies, eſpecially three, the Surplice, the Sign of the Croſſe, and Kneeling; Theſe are the Yoak which if removed, there might be peace. It is to be ſuſpected, and there is reaſon for it, from their own words, that ſomewhat elſe pinches, and that if theſe Ceremonies were laid aſide and theſe or any other Prayers strictly enjoyned without them, it would be deemed a burden intollerable, it ſeems ſo by N. 7. where they deſire that when the Liturgy is altered, according to the reſt of their propoſals, the Miniſter may have liberty to adde, and leave out what he pleaſes; Yet becauſe the impoſition of theſe Ceremonies is pretended to be the inſupportable Grievance, we muſt of neceſſity either yield that demand, or ſhew reaſon why we do not; and that we may proceed the better in this undertaking, we ſhall reduce the ſum of their complaint, to theſe ſeveral heads, as we find them in their Papers; The Law for impoſing theſe Ceremonies, they would have abrogated for theſe reaſons.]
Repl. To what you object, to intimate your ſuſpition of us) from N. 7. we have before anſwered: We muſt confeſſe the abatement of Ceremonies, with the excluſion of all Prayers, and exhortations, beſides what's read will not ſatisfie us. The liberty which we deſired in all the parts of Worſhip (not to adde to the Liturgy, nor take from it) but to interpoſe upon juſt occaſion, ſuch words of Prayer, or exhortation, as are requiſite, and not to be tyed at any time to read the whole, we are aſſured will do much to preſerve the Liturgy, and bring it into more profitable uſe and take off much of mens offence. And pardon us while we tell you this certain truth, that if once it be known that you have a deſign to work out all Prayers (even thoſe of the Pulpit) except ſuch as you preſcribe, it will make many thouſand people, fearing God, to be averſe to that which elſe they would have ſubmitted to, and to diſtaſte both your endeavours and ours, as if we were about drawing them into ſo great a ſnare. And as the Proverb is; You may as well think to make a Coat for the Moon, as to make a Liturgy that ſhall be ſufficiently ſuited to the variety of places, times, ſubjects, accidents, without the Liberty of intermixing ſuch Prayers or exhortations, as alterations and diverſities require.
[1. It is doubtful whether God hath given power to men to impoſe §. 2.ſuch ſignified ſigns, which though they call them ſignificant, yet have in them no real goodneſs, in the judgement of the Impoſers themſelves, being called by them things indifferent, and therefore Cor. 11.fall not under St. Pauls rule of Omnia Decenter, nor are ſuitable to the ſimplicity of the Goſpel Worſhip.
2. Becauſe it is a violation of the Royalty of Chriſt, and an impeachment 2.of his Laws as unſufficient, and ſo thoſe that are under the See Hooker li. 3. Sect. 4.Law of Deut. 12. Whatſoever I command you, obſerve to do, you ſhall take nothing from it, nor adde any thing to it; You do not obſerve theſe.
3. Becauſe ſundry learned pious, and Orthodox men, have ever ſince the Reformation judged them unwarrantable, and we ought to 3.be as our Lord was, tender of weak Brethren, not to offend his little ones, nor to lay a ſtumbling-black before a weak Brother.
4. Becauſe theſe Ceremonies have been the fountain of many evils 4.in this Church and Nation, occaſioning ſad diviſions betwixt Miniſter, & Miniſter; betwixt Minister and People, expoſing many See Hookli. 4, Sect. 1.Orthodox Preachers to the displeaſure of Rulers; And no other fruits than theſe can be looked for from the retaining theſe Ceremonies.
Repl. We had rather you had taken our Reaſons as we laid them down, than to have ſo altered them; Ergo having told you that ſome hold them unlawful, and others inconvenient, &c. and deſired that they may not be impoſed on ſuch, who judge ſuch Impoſitions a violation of the Royalty of Chriſt, &c. You ſeem to take this as our own ſenſe, and that of all the Ceremonies, of which we there made no mention; You referre us to Hooker, ſince whoſe writings, Ames in his freſh ſuit, and Bradſhaw, and Parker, and many others have written that againſt the Ceremonies, that never was anſwered, that we know of, but deſerve your Conſideration.
[Before we give particular Anſwer to theſe ſeveral Reaſons, it S. 3. R. 1.will not be unneceſſary to lay down ſome certain general premiſes, or rules, which will be uſeful in our whole diſcourſe. 1. That God hath not given a power only, but a command alſo of impoſing whatſoever ſhould be truly decent, and becomming his publick Service, 1 Cor. 14. After St, Paul had ordered ſome particular Rules for Praying, Praiſing, Propheſying, &c. He concludes with this general Canon, Let all things be done foreign in a fit Scheme, Habit, or Faſhion, decently, and that there may be uniformity in thoſe decent performances, let there be a foreign Rule or Canon for that purpoſe.]
Repl. As to your firſt rule we anſwer. 1. It is one thing to impoſe in general, that all be done decently and in order. This God himſelf hath impoſed by his Apoſtle: And its another thing to impoſe in particular, that this or that be uſed, as decent and orderly. Concerning this we adde, it is in the Text ſaid, Let it be done, but not let it be impoſed, yet from other Scriptures we doubt not but Circumſtances of meer decency & order, as determined time, place, utenſils, &c. which are common to things civil, and ſacred, though not the Symbolical Ceremonies. which afterwards we confute) may be impoſed with the neceſſary cautions and limitations afterward laid down. But 1. that if any Uſurpers will pretend a power from Chriſt, to impoſe ſuch things on the Church, though the things be lawful, we muſt take heed how we acknowledge an uſurped power by formal obedience. 2. A juſt power may impoſe them but to juſt ends, as the preſervation and ſucceſſe of the modified Worſhip, or Ordinances. And if they really conduce not to thoſe ends, they ſin in impoſing them. 3. Yet the Subjects are bound to obey a true Authority in ſuch impoſitions, where the matter belongs to the Cognizance, and Office of the Ruler, and where the miſtake is not ſo great, as to bring greater miſchiefs to the Church, than the ſuſpending of our active obedience would do. 4. But if theſe things be determined under pretence of order and decency, to the plain deſtruction of the ordinances modified, and of the intended end, they ceaſe to be means, and we muſt not uſe them. 5. Or if under the names of things decent, and of order, men will meddle with things that belong not to their Office, as to inſtitute a new Worſhip for God, new Sacraments, or any thing forbidden in the general Prohibition of adding or diminiſhing, this is a Uſurpation, and not an act of Authority, and we are bound in obedience to God to diſobey them. 6. Where Governours may command at ſet times, and by proportionable penalties enforce, if they command when it will deſtroy the end, or enforce by ſuch penalties, as deſtroy or croſſe it, they greatly ſin, by ſuch commands. Thus we have more diſtinctly given you our ſenſe, about the matter of your firſt rule.
[Not Inferiours but Superiours muſt iudge what is convenient and §. 4. Rul. 2.decent; They who muſt order that all be done decently, muſt of neceſſity, firſt judge what is convenient, and decent to be ordered.]
Repl. Your ſecond Rule alſo is too crudely delivered, and therefore we muſt adde: 1. A Judgement is a Sentence, in order to ſome Execution, and Judgements are ſpecified from the ends, to which they are ſuch means; When the queſtion is either, what Law ſhall be made, or what penalty ſhall be exerciſed? the Magiſtrate is the only Judge, and not the Biſhop or other Subject, In the firſt he exerciſes his judicium diſcretionis in order to a publick Act. In the ſecond he exerciſeth a publick judgement: When the queſtion is, what order pro tempore is fitteſt in Circumſtantials for this preſent Congregation; the proper Presbyters or Paſtors of that Congregation, are the directive Judges, by Gods appointment. 3. The Magiſtrate is Ruler of theſe Paſtors, as he is of Phyſicians, Pailoſophers, and other Subjects. He may make them ſuch general Rules, eſpecially for reſtraint, to go by, as may not deſtroy the exerciſe of their own Paſtoral power: As he may forbid a Phyſician to uſe ſome dangerous Medicine on his Subjects, and may puniſh him when he wilfully killeth any of them: But may not on that preſence appoint him what, and how, and when, and to whom he ſhall adminiſter, and ſo become Phiſician himſelf alone. 4. When the queſtion is, who ſhall be excluded from the Communion of a particular Church? The Paſtors of the Church (or Congregation) are the firſt proper Judges. 5. When the queſtion is, who ſhall be excluded from, (or received into) the Communion of all the aſſociated Churches, of which we are naturally capable of Communion? The aſſociated Paſtors or Biſhops of theſe Churches in Synods are Judg…; Beyond this there are no Judges. 6. When the queſtion is, whether the Laws of Magiſtrates, or Canons of Biſhops, are agreeable or not to the Word of God, and ſo the obedience is lawful or unlawful, the Conſcience of each individual Subject is the Judge, per judicium diſcretionis, as to his own practiſe; And if men had not this judgement of diſcerning, but muſt act upon abſolute implicite obedience, then firſt man were ruled as unreaſonable, Secondly, the magiſtrate were made a God, or ſuch a Leviathan as Hobbs deſcribeth him; Thirdly, And then all ſin might lawfully be committed, if commanded: But we are aſſured none of this your ſenſe.
[Theſe Rules and Canons for decency made and urged by Superiours §. 5. R. l. 3., are to be obeyed by Inferiours, till it be made as clear that now they are not bound to obey, as it is evident in general, that they ought to obey Superiours; for if the exemption from obedience be not Heb. 13. 17. Rom. 13.as evident as the Command to obey, it muſt needs be ſin not to obey.]
Repl. To your third Rule we adde; It is firſt conſiderable what the thing is, and then how it is apprehended, if it be really lawful, and well commanded, and to be obeyed, it is no ignorance, doubt or errour of the Subject that can exempt him from the duty of obeying; But it may enſnare him in a certainty of ſinning, whether he obey, or diſobey: For as God commandeth him to obey, and alſo not to do that which man commandeth, when God forbiddeth it; So he obligeth the erronious, firſt to lay down his errours, and ſo to obey. But if a thing he forbidden of God, and commanded of man, and one man erroniouſly thinke it lawful, and that he ſhould obey, and another is in doubt between both, it is neither a duty, nor lawful for either of them here to obey For mans errour changeth nor Gods Laws, nor diſobligeth himſelf from obedience; But this mans duty is both to lay by that errour, and to refuſe obedience but if the queſtion be only of the order of ſuch a perſons duty, we anſwer; If the thing be really lawful, and obedience a duty, then he that doubteth or erreth, ſhould, if poſſible, ſuddenly lay by his errours or doubt, and ſo obey: But if that cannot be, he ſhould firſt go about the fitteſt means, for his better information till he be reſolved, and ſo obey. And ſo on the contrary, if really the thing commanded be unlawful, if he be ſure of it, he muſt reſolve againſt it; if he heſitate he is not therefore allowed to do a thing forbidden, becauſe he is ignorant: For his ignorance is ſupoſed culpable it ſelf, but he is firſt to conſult and uſe the beſt means, for his Inſtruction, till he know the truth, and in the mean time to ſuſpend his Act. But yet becauſe of humane frailty, between ſeveral faults, we muſt conſider when we cannot avoid all as we would, in what order moſt ſafely to watch, and to avoid them. And ſo when I have done my beſt, and cannot diſcern whether a Command be juſt, and the thing lawful or not; If it have the face of Idolatry, Blaſphemy, or ſome hainous Sin; that is commanded, and our diſ-obedience have the appearance, but of an effect of involuntary ignorance, it is more excuſable in us to fear the greater Sin, and ſo to ſuſpend till we are better ſatisfied, than to do that which we ſuſpect, to be ſo hainous a Sin, though in leed it prove no ſin; So on the contrary, if our diſobedience be like to bring Infamy, or Calamity on the Church, and our Obedience appear to be but about a very ſmall ſin, if we doubt of it, it is more excuſable to obey, than to diſobey, though both be faulty, ſuppoſing the thing to be indeed unlawful, and we diſcern it not. So that your Rule of obeying, where you are not as ſure, &c, Is an unſure Rule, unleſs as we have fullyer cautioned it.
[Pretence of Conſcience is no exemption from obedience, for the §. 6. Rul. 4.Law as long as it is a Law, certainly binds to obedience; Rom. 13. Ye muſt needs be ſubject, and this pretence of a tender gainſaying Conſcience cannot abrogate the Law, ſince it can neither take away the Authority of the Law-maker, nor make the matter of the Law in it ſelf unlawful; Beſides if pretence of Conſcience did exempt from obedience, Laws were uſeleſſe, whoſoever had not liſt to obey might pretend tenderneſs of Conſcience, and be thereby ſet at liberty, which if once granted, Anarchy and Confuſion muſt needs follow.]
Repl Neither pretence of Conſcience, nor real Errour of Conſcience exempteth from the Obligation, to obey: though ſometime it may ſo enſnare, as that obeying ſhall become of the two the greater ſin; ſo alſo real Errours, or pretence of Conſcience will juſtifie no man for obeying when it is by God forbidden.
[Though Charity will move to pity, and relieve thoſe that are §. 7. Rul. 5.truly perplexed or Scrupulous: yet we muſt not break Gods Command, in Charity to them, and therefore we muſt not perform publick Services undecently or diſorderly for the eaſe of tender Conſciences.]