Touching our Present Impositions of Loyalty and Obedience, Chapter 6

Touching our Present Impositions of Loyalty and Obedience · Chapter 6

p. 117CHAP. VI. The general Case or Cases of Conformity, which respect the Church as well as civil Obedience, proposed and weighed with candour and indifferency, that the rigid of those that Conform not may not censure others that have Conformed, and those that are willing to Conform, and are able, may have peace in it.

THere are two parts of this Discourse intended in the Title, The one of Loyalty against Resistance, which is dispatched: The other of Obedience for Conformity or Compliance with the present Establishment, so farr I could wish really as may possibly be without offending their Consciences, to all whatsoever. There is a State-Conforming, and a Church-conforming; The Act of Uniformity, and the Oxford Act, with other Acts. A Conformist to the State may be a Non-conformist. The Non-conformist is not all one with the Refractory. A Christian must conform to God, and to his Ordinance, the Powers that are, when he cannot conform (in every thing at least) to the Church, and will not to the World.

p. 118As for Ecclesiastical Conformity, all are not alike easie. There was a time the Nation had the overture of a Concord between the sober of two parties, and lo, in stead of that composition (which must still be implored as equal) a streight injunction of assent and consent to all things New and Old, or one of them must put up and be gone. How can those here whose judgments are perhaps, and have been for Moderation in times before, as now, come over thus to one party altogether on such terms? This hath moved some to no good Will. Again, It is God rules mens inclinations; They whose conversations show them most faithful, whose Zeal to the life and power of Holiness is most serious, whose faces are toward Zion, have ordinarily no heart here, they go another way. This enters into many a mans Soul. Moreover, There are strange things in the Revelations, the rise of two Beasts, whereof the one seems to be the Power Ecclesiastical; and there is a Babylon spoken of, out of which we are to come. I would to God we were sure what this Babylon and Beast are, that we could know where to be safe. I am sure our Protestant Divines have spoken so seriously of these things that they have frighted our people of this Nation so far from Popery, that we have run almost out of our Wits, and can't tell yet when p. 119we are farr enough, least we be still in Babylon, and the Beast have us. Such a Constitution of things, as, whether by Romish Idolatry, or other way of external Worship or form of Religion, undermines and persecutes the Life, Power, and Spirituality of it, is the Beast, Babylon, and Antichrist for ought some know. And consequently there may be a great difference to such, between joyning with the Bishops, Cranmer, Ridly, Latimer, Hooper, in those things they imposed then, when they were coming out of Babylon, and conforming to them now when their faces seem to be towards it. What? Toward Popery? No, perhaps they believe no such matter, but to such a way of Discipline and Worship, as carrying a countenance of either, but being rather only a kind of Idols thereof, by the shew pomp and formality of these things they indeed contain not in them, the Life, Power, and Efficacy of both, is undermined and lost. This where it lights sinks in deepest. Nevertheless in regard our dwellings in flesh are dark; and Pride and Superstition are two close sins; we cannot tell but Separation may be the Child of one of those two Mothers. For as there is a placing Religion in those things wherein there is none, that is Superstition on one hand: So is there a placing Evil and danger p. 120in those things wherein there is none, that is Superstition on the other: more weak, and perhaps more pernicious, as more against the goodness of God, and the conversation of Mankind one with another. I am you see impartial, God knows the truth on both sides. But were it not for these secret, deep impressions upon the hearts of good Men, that we can't tell what they be (unless aliquid foreign,) more then the objections only in their mouths and pens, the business of Conformity and Grace might come to farther parley.

To cary on this task then, there are three things that require our distinction and due consideration. The matter of Conformity, or the matters themselves imposed. The forms of Words, Composure, or manner wherein those matters are drawn up into such and such impositions. The scandal from without, unto which the tender Christian is to have such regard that what is lawful in its self, may not yet be done by him with sin to another.

For the middlemost of these (to begin there as most commodious to the rest) I must needs enter this pre-admonition, that I cannot but think it a reasonable thing that those who prepare such doses as are enjoyned in late Acts, for others, should consult with the Stomach of the Patients, to wrap them up in such expressions, p. 121as would go down best with them. There are the Compilers therefore of these Pills, and the Takers. I distinguish the parts of these in the point of their justification. For the Compilers I say nothing, For the Taker, I apprehend, he is to look to the sence and import of what is prescribed, and if he be satisfied in that, he is to impute the form and words to the Compiler, and not charge their oversights to the guilt of his Soul.

It is true, the interpretation of an Oath (say Casuists) is stricti juris; and we are to think no otherwise of every solemn Declaration imposed in our Acts: Nevertheless, as there are certain restrictions allowed to the obligation of an Oath it self, such as Quantum possibile, Quoad licet, Rebus sic stantibus, when taken: So in the taking, and consequently in all these injunctions, there are some conditions that are common to all Words and Speeches, necessary to be understood and granted, or else there is nothing can be spoken, promised, or sworn by any man, that he can assent unto, but what is spoken, promised or sworn to, in his own Words. Such a common condition now, I suppose this, that whatsoever is declared promised or sworn in these matters, as in all things in the World besides, the words must have an Equal interpretation. There is the very letter, p. 122and there is the meaning of Laws, and so of these impositions. The meaning is the mind of the Lawgiver or the imposer. His Will is t… Law, and his Meaning is his Will. In the general then we must take up here, That whatsoever the form of words be, wherein any matter is enjoyned, those that submit to that matter, must take it in the supposed sense of the King and Parliament who passed the same according to their declared words, receiving and bearing an equal interpretation.

Indeed the sense of a Parliament being not single, yet the declared words not varying, there is a latitude must go to an Equal meaning; Neither is it material what two or three or more of the harder-grained aimed at in passing an injunction, for so long as a man is to take it only in that sense which he verily believes was intended by the Major part, there is nothing but what is candid, or at least nothing that is unreasonable is to be attributed to it. If you say the Major part do differ in their meaning, and so we cannot go by the meaning of the Major part, you may cavil as well, the Parliament have no meaning at all to go by, because they have not all one meaning. I answer that that meaning wherein more do agree then in any other, is to be judged the Major parts meaning, and that, that is lyable p. 123to no more difficulty to go by, then if the Lawgiver (who is not actually to be consulted) was but one person.

This interpretation yet farther which is equal must be left in its decision to the Conscience of every single person, as it is in the case of Scripture. Not to put what sense on the injunction he will, or can, as if a man might use his Wit here, as his Weapon, to defend his living: but to judg what was indeed the Imposers meaning; Neither wronging them in straining their words to any harsh or injurious Construction, nor giving himself liberty to serve his turn of the most reasonable, which he believes not they intended. Every man is to judg what is the Holy Ghost's meaning in this or that text, and from that he may not recede, without sin, in his actions. Upon this account are the Scriptures not of private interpretation (N. B.) when yet we are still bound in the practice of them to a judgment of private discretion. We must hold the same of all Laws, and these Impositions.

As for the Mediums, whereby we gather the mind of the Imposers, they are various, some taking the common sense of the Many, some the sense of the Impartial and Wise, some the judgment of the Law, some the declaration only of themselves to be the sense of the p. 124words imposed. But let the Mediums be what they will, whereby a man comes to the resolution of his belief of the Imposers meaning, when he is once brought to a setled perswasion and conviction, that this or that and no other was their meaning, if he can submit to the words in the full latitude of that meaning as he is fully perswaded in his Conscience is all they intended in such or such an injunction then is he free to his own determination.

There is a strict, or allowed sense of words therefore, I said in one Chapter before; I will say it over here more fully. There is a sense which a man is perswaded in his Conscience if he should ask the Imposers they would allow, as what in these things was their meaning: and there is a sense they would not allow him. A Christian, I apprehend, is to take the injunctions of his Superiours in the sense he believes they allow him. If he makes such scruples and yields himself to them, which his Conscience tells him the sense which they allow him does satisfie, he wrongs them and trespasses on the fifth Commandment. If he on the other side receives their injunctions without any regard at all of their sense, or in such or such a sense which his Conscience tells him is larger then they allow him, he is profane in his Conscienae, and sins in the matter against p. 125God. There is a Court then is setup for every one in his own Breast, Let him go to his Conscience and ask what think I really, as in the presence of God, if I could ask the Imposers of these things whether it is their Will that he should be of another mind in these particulars that cross his assent, or leave his station? If his Conscience tells him it is verily perswaded it was their intention in the injunction, he is to honour God in his patient suffering their pleasure. But if he is perswaded in his Soul that this is utterly against their wills (and was) and that the things he scruples at, or as he scruples them, never came into their minds unles to admit them, only they passed them in the gross, never intending that they should put a barr in Conscience unto any, and if he could ask them, he believes they would certainly allow him in them, Here he is (I suppose) to put such a sense or meaning then upon the injunction, as may be favourable to his scruples, and yield it his submission. Leges satis habent id quod plerun{que} accidit respicere (said Theophrastus,) quae autem rarius contingunt, communibus tamen regulis constringenda sunt, quia etsi ratio legis in isto speciali facto specialiter locum non habeat, maneat tamen ratio in sua generalitate, cui specialia subjici fas est. They that please may read Suarez de Legibus p. 126l. 6. c. 1. For my part though I could use more words, I see no cause to alter any thing for my reading of him.

For the Matter it self of Conformity, the chief stumbling Stones may be reduced to these heads. The renunciation of the Covenant. Approbation of the Liturgy. Episcopal Orders.

The last is the threshold to Conforming, and there is a first and second discourse abroad about Re-ordination, which as the Authors of the Grand Case and Peace Offering referred their Readers to, for satisfaction: So the deceased Bishop Worth once told me he had actually himself satisfied all he met with in Ireland but three Scots with the arguments of the first of those Books. For my own part, I dispair really of proving any uncommon thing ever by Scripture if re-ordaining as to the work of a new charge is not exemplified in the instances that are pressed in those Papers: and I must yet say freely, I am satisfied that the repetition of Orders upon the said account is lawful, when I cannot methinks be satisfied with it upon any account else for my life, for this slippery Ice after tryal no where else will bear. Let a man produce St. Paul, the eleven Disciples and Barnabas receiving commission more then once, they will say this is still foreign. p. 127Be that exception then provided against, and forasmuch as this is the general case (for it is to a new charge if any now be ordained) let a man declare him self freely to the Bishop and others (those especially that have to do with him in it) that there is this account he has (whatsoever satisfaction he hath besides) upon which he can do it, and there is no scruple that I know otherwise, but he may find his ease for it (if he take heed) in that second, of those Discourses. In short, There is Re-ordination ad Officium, or ad Exercitium particulare. Though the one of these be condemned by Divines generally, Ancient and Modern, School-men, Councels, and Fathers: the other is justifiable and justified (as I remember) by Mason and as good Divines as any we have. And this expedient I will commend from the practice of the Primitive times. Justin Martyr in his questions and responses (if his) the Orthodox (Quest. 14) asking why the Church did not Baptize, and ordain the Hereticks again, whose Baptism or Orders before was faulty, thus answers. foreign. That is, The error of the Heretick who becomes Orthodox is thus amended. The error of his Opinion by the change of his mind; the error of his p. 128Baptism by the annointing of the Holy Chrism; the error of his Ordination by the Imposition of hands.

The next thing is the Renunciation of the Covenant; And here it is not for any to deceive themselves and think that less then this was intended in the Subscription of the Act of Uniformity, the Oath of the Oxford Act, and the like Declarations. They that took the Covenant swore they would in their place endeavour the extirpation of Prelacy, that is the change of Church-government, when in these late Acts they are required to declare, subscribe, and swear the direct contrary, that they will not endeavour any alteration of Government in Church or State, and that there lies no obligation on me then from the Covenant so to do. This is a manifest renouncing of it, and to be justified too only upon the account that this particular matter covenanted (at least according as it was covenanted) was unlawful, and so is it likewise expressed in the Subscription. In an Oath then (that every one may see before him what he does) there are two things to be distinguished, the Actus jurandi, and the Res jurata; The act of Swearing, and the thing Sworn; The Covenanting, and the matter Covenanted. It is not enough that the actus jurandi, the act of Swearing or Covenanting p. 129was unlawful, to make an Oath to be said unlawful in it self, so as upon that account to be renounced, unless the Res jurata, the thing Sworn, or matter Covenanted, be found so too. This matter Covenanted, what it was, we see: And the alteration of Episcopacy as now established which is that matter, may be considered then, either Simply and Precisely, without regard to the Covenant it self or them that Covenanted, and so we are not to suppose this matter in se to be unlawful (in favour to the concerned) but that it lies at the pleasure of the Power which is Supreme, directed by the word of God: or else this matter Covenanted may be considered Relatively and Complexly, as incarnated in the Covenant, and with regard to the persons that took the same, in their capacity of acting, and way of prosecution, and this Res jurata as to them who were in no capacity political, and acting not in order to the Will of the Supreme, but by force, and against his Will, must be unlawful and as against the Ordinance of God may be renounced.

To pursue this a little as clearly and honestly as I can. Whatsoever Government (to keep on my ground at first laid) it pleases God that men upon reasons seeming best to them do set up in any Nation and comes to be established, p. 130it is to be look'd on as set up by the providence of God, and so his Ordinance according to our Apostle, upon which the command of Subjection falling in immediately it is not for any single man, or party, to endeavour the disanulling of it. There is a Resistance of the Governours that are, which we understand easily, and there is a resistance of the Government that is, and that I take to be in the highest degree an endeavour it be not, and in the lower, an endeavour it be otherwise then it is; which consequently being unlawful, we must distinguish of the Constitution of a Government, and the Administration. Alterations in the administration of Government, are made we know ordinarily in repealing Old, and making New Statutes: But the fundamental Constitution whereby and according to which they are made, remains standing as the settled Ordinance of Gods Providence in the Nation. Now the way of any alteration according to the Constitution of our Government, is not forgotten, in the first Chapter to be premised; It must be by the King and Parliament, which being chosen by the people, the people thereby in their Representatives do concurr to these alterations. A thing we are to know so true that there are no Laws that pass, but in this sense are said to be Quas vulgas Elegerit. All p. 131the Commons in the Realm are represented in Parliament by the Knights and Burgesses says Sr. Edward Coke Inst. part 4. p. 158. And are called tout le comminaltie de la terre illon{que} Summones in the preface of Westminster the first. Every English man is intended to be there present either in person or by procuration, and the consent of the Parliament is taken to be every mans consent, says Sr. Thomas Smith, l. 2. c. 2. Nay while the King consilio & assensu Baronum leges olim imposuit universo Regno consentire inferior quis{que} visus est in persona Domini sui capitalis, prout hodie per procuratores comitatus says Sr. Henry Spelman. There is a Uniform kind of Endeavour therefore after the common good, wherein every man that hath a vote in choosing Burgesses, may be looked on, though private persons, in a sense, to act in a capacity that is political or publick, so long as it is in order only to a Parliamentary proceeding in subordination to the highest Authority: when if he shall act out of that way, not in order thereunto, such an acting cannot come under the score of a capacity political, but private, being against the Constitution, which is the Publick (or the thing wherein the Res publica or populi does mainly lie,) and consequently against the Ordination of God.

There are two suppositions upon this that p. 132are contrary, yet have both some truth in them, and must be set at rights. The one is, that it is the duty of every one to endeavour the reformation of the Church as highly pleasing unto God; which when some words of caution and tenderness were put in for the avoiding Sedition and breach of Peace, such as in their place and calling be, it is no wonder if the hearts of a great many of the most serious in the Land were won by so good an End and tender Words, so as to enter into a Covenant for the extirpatien of Prelacy in order to it. The other is, that the business of Reformation which includes an altering of the present Government, does belong to the Power which is Supreme, and for any to go about it in a way that was, or is not in order to the consent of the King, in and together with his Parliament, is so far from being his duty, that it is a thing contrary to subjection, that opposes Gods Ordination, that will not be content that Gods Will should stand, but would have the Powers that are to be otherwise then they are, and so entring into Gods Seat, as if a man could order things better then God does, as hath been spoken.

To the former supposition then I answer, there was two things put together that could not stand together, taking the Covenant truly p. 133as it ought, in its complex consideration. To wit, An endeavour to alter the Government, and according to every man's place and calling. It is indeed according to the place and calling of the Supreme Magistrate, of the King and Parliament to endeavour reformation of the Church and State as there is need. And it is according to the place and calling of private persons to desire and seek the same to be done by them. They may choose their Burgesses, Petition them, Advise with them, and Pray to God for them to that End: But to desire or seek it, and much more to swear to endeavour a change in the Administration of the Church (even so far as the extirpation of the persons therein governing) in a way that was not to proceed politically, by the act of the Supreme (for whether the Supreme Power lies in the King, or in the King and his two Houses joyntly as one, nothing could pass while he was divided from them) is not according to our place nor calling. So that the saying I will endeavour it, but according to my place and calling, was an inconsistency in the Lenitive, with the matter undertaken.

To the latter supposition I distinguish. There is an Endeavour of Reformation (or of altering what is convenient in the Government) that p. 134is consistent with the Constitution, to wit by the way of Parliament with consent of the King, which appears to be lawful before God and man, and that must therefore be maintained and held: when there is an Endeavour, Not in this way, and so not consisting with the Constitution, which (let it be in what way else it will) is pleaded to be Resistance, forbidden of God and men, and consequently liable to be quitted or renounced. In our late Acts when a man is put to profess, subscribe, or swear that he will not endeavour any alteration of Government, he is not to conceive that it is intended he should bind himself to lay down his subjection to the Laws, and much less to the Constitution it self of our Nation, which provides for the former Endeavour, so that if a Parliament be called, he is to act in their Choice, and consequently Endeavour in his place (for there he has place) the promoting the common good according to the constant practice of the Realm: But he is to conceive that he renounces the latter Endeavour, that is that endeavour which was carried on in the late times (unto which no doubt but these Acts have their respect) in a way not allowed by the Constitution, and consequently against Gods Ordination, where the unlawfulness of the War and Covenant p. 135by me is placed. To wit, the Constitution of our Land is such, that whatsoever alterations of Government there be (which as to the Administration may, and are fit sometimes to be,) they must be made only by the King and Parliament; and Here was an endeavour of alteration by the Parliament without the King, and against him; An endeavour by Arms to force the King to consent, in stead of that free joynt and mutual content in Parliament, the endeavour whereof alone it is, that our Constitution allows. And if the other be not allowed, we see how the late Parliament-cause may be relinquish'd, when yet all lawful endeavour for the publick good either of Church or State is upheld. There was the End of that cause let me say, and the Means. The Means were covenanting without the King, and War against him. The End was Reformation. The Means I apprehend appears lyable to renunciation, when the End is still by other means (that is according to the way our Constitution provides) to be sought. To conclude, The Impositions that are, must be taken in the sense of the Imposers I have said before. In these late Acts, when the Parliament do require that a man should renounce all obligation from the Covenant of Endeavouring any alteration in Church or State, their sense p. 136is plainly he should not do as they did formerly; that is, their meaning lies certainly in opposition to former proceedings, to what of late hath been practised, to use their own words before cited in the Militia Acts. He is to renounce all Endeavour which is Resistance, forbidden by the Apostle: but he renounces not not any Endeavour which is Subjection to the ordination of God i… the Nation.

I will …onfirm this, with one only clear reason. The grea… thing intended by the renunciation of the Covenant in our late Acts, is the preservation of the Government in the present Constitution against all alteration. But the Constitution of our Government being such in the fonndation that whatsoever is needful or convenient to be altered, may be proposed to that End in Parliament: to take away that which is universally radicated in the whole Nation in order thereunto, were a piece of the greatest alteration that could be, and consequently never to be understood as intended by the Parliament.

After this, it may be said haply, This determination were well, if it were Authorized: but how shall we turn universals into particulars without Authority? I answer, He that ploweth plows in hope, and I am not one out of hope but that these injunctions may yet come p. 137in due time under some revisory Explanation; and then may what I write (I mean the Contents) become serviceable. In the interim, There is a concent of Reason to be understood in the Laws one with another, and of all with the Constitution, and Reason of Law is my Authority. It is a general rule allowed by all Laws (says my Lord Coke) in the construction of Statutes. Quamvis Lex generaliter loquitur, restringenda tamen est, ut cessante ratione, & ipsa cesset; Cum enim ratio sit anima vigor{que} ipsius Legis, non videtur Legislator id sensisse quod ratione careat, etiamsi generalitas prima facie aliter possit suadere Inst. part 4. c. 74.

The third thing in the matter of Conformity is an agreement to the Liturgy. And here may be included the old difference about our Rites and Ceremonies: and the new Declaration in the Act of Uniformity.

For our old Rites. That the Church hath a Power to appoint Ceremonies I do not question, but how far this Power doth extend, is not perhaps so easy of decision. There is the Worship of God, and the Circumstances of it. The Worship of God it self cannot be instituted by Man, but God only, because there is none can know what will please him unless he reveal it. Besides, Will-worship is forbidden by the Apostle; To add or diminish by Moses; And p. 138this is the substance of the second commandment. Circumstances of Worship are its appendages or accidents which when they go not into the essence of that honour, which we give unto God according to his excellence (the School-definition of Worship) do appertain as necessary to the person in the performance. Those Ceremonies consequently which are not necessary to the person who acts in a thing which God hath commanded for his immediate honour thereby, are more then circumstances of the same (I will speak surer, are in my account or according to this adjustment I make, more then circumstances, or more then belongs to man to prescribe in Gods Worship,) and let them that impose them, or use them, look to it My reasons are, because this is a peculiar branch of Christian liberty to be freed from the Ordinances of men. Also …argue, That which is unlawful and forbidden the Church hath no Power in, for our Doctors say her Power lies in indifferent things that are neither commanded nor forbidden. But it is forbidden by the Apostle to enjoyn any thing that is not to Edification. Ergo, In things that are unnecessary and unprofitable I apprehend the Church hath no Power (that is, hath no right from the Will of Christ) to put Impositions upon us as to Gods Worship, and consequently p. 139there can be no subjection due in Conscience to such things. Things now that are necessary to him that acts in the Worship of God are so either in genere, or in specie. In things that are necessary any way I am willing the Churches Authority be owned, and I think one ought to submit his private judgment very much to hers in judging a thing edifying or not. When things in genere are necessary and not determined by God in specie, these are matters we suppose, wherein our Church or Rulers Power doth lie; And here we must distinguish of the Imposition, and the peoples Submission. As for our Submission, I apprehend that whensoever our Rulers do act in their own Sphere, and the things they command be lawful, we are concluded under obedience by the fift Commandment. For the Imposition there is need of a double distinction. The one is concerning those things which are necessary in genere and not determined by God in specie, and they are either such as are needful to be so determined; or not needful so to be. For instance, Time and Place are cirumstances of Worship …ecessarie in genere, for there must be some time and place, and this in specie is needful to be determined, for else cannot the Worship of God be performed. On the other hand, there is the Habit p. 140and Gesture, which are in genere also necessary: No Minister can come to Church but som habit he must have on, and he must use some gesture: but the determination whether it be of this or that Colour, in the Pulpit Black, in the Pew White, or the like, this is not needful to be determined, because the Service may be performed though that be not appointed. Now it is a question to me whether it be lawful for our Superiours to determine of things that concern Gods Worship which in specie are not necessary to be determined. For two reasons. The one from the analogy of that text, It seemeth good to the Holy Ghost and us, to lay upon you no greater burden then those necessary things. The other from those I Rules unto which the Church is tyed in her injunctions, to wit, that she do nothing to eay a stumbling-block before the weak brother, nothing but what is fit and decent and to edification. But it is impossible according to the condition of our Nation, to determine such things in Gods Worship as need not be determined, but it will scandalize many, and so cannot be to edification, when it is to their destruction. Nevertheless the other distinction is here also to take his room, to wit, between the Matter imposed and the Act of imposing. Though the Act of imposing were unlawful p. 141(which yet I peremptorily say not, yet is the matter imposed, so long as it is about that which in genere is necessary, no other then what does belong to the Sphere of our Superiours, and consequently obliges the outward man in point of Submission. The outward man I say de industria, for whatsoever the commands of our Superiours in indifferent things be, rather then resist, we must do them: though those commands in Ecclesiasticals must be for our Edification, and in Civils for the Common good, when they carry the Authority of God to bind the Conscience. See Suarez De Legibus. l. 1. c. 7 and Dr. Field on the Church. B. 4. c. 34. Nor am I ignorant here of the quarrel most have at these Ceremonies, meerly for their being Significative (which must be confess'd in the stated account of them,) when if they were not indeed so, the Compilers of the Common Prayer would have accounted them unprofitable and relinquish'd them. It is one thing therefore (I account) to make a Rite to be Exhibitive of Grace, and another to make it Significative of Duty. A Sacrament I know in the Catechisme after Austine, is defined an outward and visible Sign of an inward and invisible Grace, and some of our Rites you may say are made to be such. But this is not all the definition, we must not cut off there. A p. 142Sacrament is an outward sign of invisible Grace (such as remission of sins) given to us, &c. Note that. Now if any Rite of the Church be made a sign of invisible grace given, or to be given to us upon the use thereof, I shall see good reason for a mans dissent from her Liturgy till that be removed. For let me offer a little light here. To say the Church in such and such Rites makes a kind of new Sacraments, Take the word Sacrament in a common usage among the Ancients, and this is nothing if you understand not where the evil of so doing would lie. And where is that? Why a Sacrament being a sign of Grace given to us (that is of the grace of Gods part which he gives) thereby, there is none can be the ordainer of such a thing but God only, because it is he alone that can promise that Grace and give the same by it. If any mortal then should bring in such a Rite into the Church, and make it an exhibitive sign, that is a sign of the Grace of God given by the same, it were a most strange presumption in imposing upon the Almighty, manifestly, as if he should be tyed to exhibit his Grace according to the Will of Man, or upon an institution of his, the evil and horrour whereof must appear in the mention of it. But to make any circumstance of Worship, any piece of Decency, Ceremony p. 143or Rite to be significative only in puting us in mind of that Grace which is our duty (not as what on Gods part is given hereby, but what is) incumbent on us to exercise and stir up our selves unto, at all times, whether we use this Rite or no, and whereof it is good to be still put in mind, I apprehend not my self the harm therein, at least not such as that this signification should make such Rites to be Sacraments any more then the Fringes were made so on the Jews Garments for keeping them in mind of Gods commandments. In ritubus, si materia sit ductilis, nihil tutius quam ea restituere quae primis post Apostolos saeculis observata apparent. In hoc autem rerum genere quippe per legem divinam indefinito, recte fecerit summa potestas, si imperia sua subditorum affectubus attemperaverit. Grotius De imp. sum. pot. c. 6. §. 11.

For the new Delaration of unfeigned assent and consent to all and every thing contained in, and prescribed by, the Book of Common Prayer, and Orders, I must confess it is to me, too much methinks of all Conscience to be imposed under that strait prescription of those Words and no other. The design of the Act seems only to intend a compliance to the use of the Liturgy, and what need such a precise form of Words as this, or that of the Canon, in the p. 144old Subscription? What if a man would use the Common Prayer and consent to it in other Words? Why might not that serve? It is a hard thing to be forc'd to bear ones Testimony to the Book of Common Prayer in those terms as a man cannot declare to the Bible it self, or any Book in the World. If we turn to the Books of the Chronicles, and the Kings, we shall find it is said of the same man in one Book he was two and twenty years old when he began to Reign, and in the other he was two and forty. That these places are reconcileable, and reconciled in the Hebrew, we will suppose: But if I were put upon an attestation to the English translation, which is our present Bible, in these Words and no other, that I assent to every particular thing and passage contained in it, I must refuse, or pause at least, till I have made my interpretation. We must therefore have our recourse here to what was said before as to the forms and composure of late injunctions, and in regard the intendment of the Lawgiver or the Imposers is to be attended in all Laws, we may consider in the first place whether any man can seriously imagine for himself, that the Majority of Parliament could ever intend that he should give such an approbation to the Book of the Liturgy as is more then he can give to the Book of the Scriptures? p. 145Or rather whether he is not assured that if he give such a testimony to the one as he can to the other, he does come up to the utmost of their meaning, and performs as much as possibly they can be thought in reason to desire of him? We may consider then in the next place, there being some Mitigation proving here to be necessary, that when this man cannot declare to the Bible in those precise terms of assent to every particular thing in it, yet can he consent to the use of the whole, or to the reading of all and every thing therein without scruple. For instance, I cannot assent to the Words in both the Translation of the Bible and Psalter of that one verse of the Psalm where it is read in the one, they were not disobedient, or they rebelled and in the other, they rebelled not against his Word, seeing they are contrary: but I can consent to have both translations read in the Church, so long as a good construction may be (as Hooker shews) made of Either. So in the Liturgy, I assent not to that passage of Athansius's Creed that whosoever holds not that Faith entire is undoubtedly damn'd, for I doubt not but many of the Greek Church may be saved that dissent in one Article of it: Yet who would not readily consent to have that Excellent Creed used as the judgment of the ancient Church, for the curbing loose Wits from the p. 146danger of swerving about such Mysteries? To proceed upon this, Thus much I hold to be good, that whosoever could make this Declaration, if the word Ʋse were put in, I A. B. do declare my assent and consent to the use of all and every thing in the Book, he may make it no less now though it be left out. For though it may seem a hard Chapter to give ones consent thus to the use, in such a form of Words as declares to the things, and not at all to the use, that word being left out: Yet in regard the preceding words of the Act which enjoyns this Declaration on on the persons there concerned, are express, He shall declare his assent and consent to the use of the things in the said Book in these Words and no other, this Declaration in these Words (though they be in no other) must be understood to be to the use. We can have no greater evidence of what is the Imposers meaning then their own interpreting themselves, which they have also confirmed in the preamble of the Oxford Act. Neither may their Words be taken but according to their Meaning. Indeed I apprehend it not my self, proper to say Assent to the use, nor do I believe it easie for every one to give his Consent (which word is proper) to the use of every particular prescribed in the Rubrick and Orders, so that, as I do not know what advantage, or how p. 147much, may be made hereof, I must needs say moreover, that it cannot be thought by any that are considerate but that in an imposition which contains so many things in it as this, thereis and may be several exceptions picked up and pressed so to the quick, that no body shall be able to say any thing to the purpose, but thatt here is a tacit general allowance to be given to all these draughts of Men, and Humane things, as subject to oversight, diversity, and imperfection: and that as we have a refuge from the rigour of the Words of any Law, to the Meaning of the Lawgiver, so are we to pass a righteous judgment on their Meaning, that we burden it not with any thing that is intollerable, or not comporting with our Equal, and Believed interpretation. We must consider therefore in the third place more nearly. There is a Consent, Let us understand, that is External, if I may use the Words of Bishop Bramhal, and I be not mistaken; and there is a subscribing to the Doctrines of a Church as Articles of our Faith, or as matters of Concord, in the Words of Bishop Ʋsher. When a man is required in the old Subscription, and this new Declaration to assent and consent to all and every thing in the Liturgy, it is sufficient I apprehend that there be this Consent which is External, and such an Assent which p. 148is proportionable to things required only for Agreement, and not such as is requisite to points of our Creed: So that if a man will submit to the practice of these things established, and will not oppose any of them, this in short is as much (he is to account) as is expected of him in these Impositions.

This is certain that no Laws which are Humane, can meddle with the internal Acts of Man, and consequently that his assent and consent can be no otherwise, or no farther concerned herein, then is necessary to the resolution of the outward man and external Obedience. It is true also, There is a diversity of Faith, at least as to the Majus and Minus of it, to be allowed to the matters even of Scripture, and much more to the Contents of any other Book whatsoever. I will add, that I dare not deny but that it may be consistent with the Integrity of a Christian, in relation to many particulars, to speak and act sometimes with the Many, yet reserve ones inward thoughts in their native Ingenuity and Liberty with the Wise and fewer number.

What may be gathered from hence farther I leave: But there are few or no Churches that have not their Rites, and Confessions, and the like, unto which they require the signified approbation of their Ministers, especially p. 149when they first enter that Office, that they may stick the faster to them for the time to come; and it is not possible that all, if any who are men of Free and Searching judgments, should inwardly, and with conviction, perfectly accord in every point, words and all, with the same. There is a submission therefore of ones private judgment and belief (especially I say while a man is yet green) in some point to our Superiours, to the Church, or Common judgment, as Learners yield to their Teachers, and the Client to his Consellour, which is an External kind of Assent (as I spoke now of a Consent to what they prescribe in like manner) serving to Concord, when there is no less than an internal experimental knowledg and faith in necessary points will serve unto Salvation.

I must confess it were a happy thing I judg when the most of our serious Fathers and Brethren are not unwilling to take a latitude themselves in their sense of the things they Impose, or are Imposed on them, that they would come once to make the business of Conformity to lie no longer in any forms of Words, but in agreement to the general design only of those Acts which prescribe such or such Impositions: Nevertheless while those ordinarily who are in Power are so apt t… look upon it as a piece p. 150of Wisdome, that they may not bring any guilt upon their cause, or the Church appear inconstant, or for the like reasons, to keep up still unto that which hath been, there is a necessity that men must be ready to bend a little and find out something to satisfie their Consciences, wherein they act, or else retire and give off for this World. I remember there was a time when Cato himself by the contrivance of his enemies was brought to such a streight that either he must swear to a Law, and give his consent against his judgment, or else from the example of old Metellus, be like to be Banished; and he was perswaded by Cicero from his stiffness for the service of the Commonwealth, to temporize for once, rather then be rendred useless for ever after by his refusal. I cannot say that any man who is a Christian, may do so in a case of Confession, when he cannot save his Conscience: but if he can save it in this business of Conformity, I shall not blame him after Cato, for a little condesention. And I think I may apply here the Wise Man's saying. Be not Righteous overmuch, Why shouldest thou destroy thy self?

For the matter of Scandal. That now remains, and does deeply concern this Argument. There are two Cases of it momentous in p. 151Scripture. The one is, when a man is satisfied himself of the lawfulness of a thing, but by his doing the same he shall induce some others to it, that are either not under the same Circumstances, or not satisfied in Conscience about the doing, and to them it is sin, which when a man shall reffect on afterwards, he knows not what a Wound it may be to him. If you sin against the weak brethren and wound their Consciences, you sin against Christ. The other is, when a man shall use that liberty he hath himself in a thing which is so abhorrent to some of his brethren, that they be ready thereupon to fall away from the true Religion, and so perish inevitably. This made the matter of meats (I apprehend) to be of so much danger in reference to the Jews. For meat destroy not him for whom Christ dyed. It must be acknowledged therefore by me here, that when a man is indeed in such a case as that he shall certainly give either of these two scandals to others, he hath need to look to himself. It is not enough (I fear) to say, The matter of scandal does lie in indifferent things, but when Authority hath commanded them, they cease to be indifferent, and then cessante materia, the scandal ceases. For besides that if it were not for this command and danger of the penalty, a man should not at all be scandalized herein, p. 152having no temptation otherwise to do the thing which is against his Conscience, and whatsoever is so, we know is not to be done for all that command: Besides this I say, such a solution as this, is so easie a way of dispatch, that Christianity I am perswaded, requires more care, and carries in it more difficulty then that comes to. A man (as my mind does give me) must yield an account unto God for that opinion that will loosen his awe toward him, and tenderness toward his brethren, more then he does allow. God commands, Thou shalt not do that thing which will stumble thy brother so as to wound his Conscience, or destroy his Soul. Man commands, Thou shalt do this or that thing which will wound his Soul and destroy him. Who must be obeyed, God or Man? If I say to this, God does not command, Thou shalt not do that thing that will wound thy brother, but thou shalt not do that indifferent thing that will wound him, and when it is commanded by the Magistrate it is necessary, and a duty, this answer will not serve. For besides that this limitation is Mans gloss and not in the text, the bottom I think lies here, Where there is a former Obligation, as there is from that command, Thou shalt not kill, on the Conscience before, it cannot be taken away by a later as that of the Magistrates must needs be which p. 153yesterday was not. Moreover, That the Magistrate be obeyed is a duty of an affirmative precept which binds not ad semper: But that thou shalt not kill, or that thou shalt not scandalize thy brother in these senses which is in earnest the murdering of his Soul, is the duty of a Negative precept, which binds semper and ad semper, and so must take place of the other.

There is another way of satisfaction then, that a man must find here in his practice, when he cannot be help'd by his Brain. It is this. The objection from scandal against any thing in the point of obedience, does not nullifie the Duty which is commanded by the Magistrate, but it puts a barr to the Action, so that a man must first remove the scandal, and then do his duty. Whosoever thou art that readest these lines, take this with thee, remember it for thy occasion, and bless God. Now then as to the first Case. Are there any likely in anothers conforming unto this or that matter enjoyned, to be induced by him to the same, who are not under his circumstances for it, or not yet satisfied in Conscience about it, and so shall be wounded by his fact? Then let him go to such persons, If he satisfie them with his reasons, they are edified not scandaliz'd by him: If they are not, he may charge them not to do p. 154as he does, by his example. For the second case likewise, Let a man set him down impartially, and neither overweeningly of himself, nor unconcernedly toward others, consider whether his doing this or that thing is like indeed to have such an effect upon any, as that they shall be ready to think all Religion hereupon to be nothing, and so cast off all care of their Souls for the future, or at least depart from that holy way of profession wherein they have entred, insomuch that he verily believes it may be an occasion to their everlasting perdition, then let him in the name of God forbear the thing. I dare not judg otherwise then so. It is beter that a Mill-stone were about his Neck, and he thrown into the Sea, then that he should thus offend any: and there is nothing so bad I hope as that, like to befall him in the forbearing. But if the matter comes only to this, that folks will be displeased, some grieved, some angry, some triumph, so that he shall lose his credit haply with a great many, some will count him a Knave, and others a cold man, and many will revile all the Sect for his sake: I do not think any thing of this, nor all this can stand in competition with Obedience to Authority. That the name of God and good Men are reviled, is a thing 'tis true, not to be made light of: but it is a mans doing evil, in the causing p. 155it, makes him culpable, Ro. 2.24. Mat. 15.12. In fine, Do thou thy Duty with an upright heart, and God will take care of the issue.

The business of this Chapter thus being dispatch'd, there comes into my mind for the close a certain prank of a Minister in Somersetshire a very laborious pious Servant of Christ that wrote for the Morality of the Sabbath, and was very Zealous in that point, who when the Book of Liberty came out, took this course. He read the Book in the Pew (as his theme) in Obedience to the injunction, and then went into the Pulpit immediately, and Preach'd up the observation of the Sabbath with all his vehemency, so satisfying his Conscience about it. I do believe many good men who left their Ministry rather then they would read that Book being against their Consciences (though in the judgment of the point I meddle not) did glorifie God at that time, witnessing a good confession: and I dare not say but this eminently godly man (it was Mr. Bernard of Batcomb) did bear his testimony as well to the honour of God, and kept his Ministry. I say not neither assuredly that his action was laudable, but I say the best of the dead. The one might glorifie God in an act of prudence and faithfulness to his Flock, as the other in self-denyal p. 156and abrenunciation. I let this instance pass on purpose in regard this difficult case may happen. A Minister is put to read a thing that in his Conscience is unlawful; He must obey the Magistrate, and he must be true to his Conscience. If he cannot obey man, but he must offend God, he must choose to suffer. But if he can obey, and be true also to God, if he see the way clear to do both, that methinks were to be chosen. When an act is evil in it self, it must be avoided, but if it be evil only in the Consequences of it (as reading in this case seems to be,) let those consequences be prevented, and the act is free. Where a testimony for God does preponderate the service of man, much methinks may be done. After I had wrote this, I light on Dr. Taylor in his Cases l. 3. p. 243. with 176. Mauritius commands Gregory to hand an Edict to the Churches, that no Souldier should turn Monk without his leave; This in his Conscience is wicked; Hereupon he admonishes the Emperour of it, Prays, Preaches, declaims against it, yet withal upon the command publishes the Edict, giving this account of it. Ʋtrobi{que} quae debui exolvi, qui imperatori obedientiam praebui, & pro Deo quod sensi, minime tacui. The Dr. hereupon resolves the case very boldly. The unlawful Proclamations or Edicts of a true Prince may be published p. 157by the Clergy in their several Charges, yet they must not conceal from the people any part of their duty, nor from the Prince, if they can declare it. My thoughts here you may see are something parallel, but more fearfull in coming on to the main entendment. There are many at this day of those they call Non-conformists have left their Livings and Station in the publick Ministry upon the Act of Uniformity. I suppose the most have done it very honestly and to God's glory, though some of them the Lord knows not without Humane frailty. I know not whether the same persons might again find out some way of doubling the service of his name, in resuming their Ministry, with the preservation of their Consciences, which (how much or little so ever this Mite of mine may conduce unto) are not perhaps incompatible to those that will use search and entreaty in the matter. They have born their Testimony for Reformation against present Impositions, now they may bear their Testimony also for Peace against Schism, obstinacy, and faction. They have exercised self-denial, let them exercise Humility, Charity, toleration. St. Paul who withstood Peter against the Ceremonies, did upon occasion after conform himself to them. A good Christian may have more ways then one to glorifie God in his generation.

p. 158I will acknowledg there are twenty things and more, which, if they be severely pressed on tender and reflective minds, are enough to stumble them; and I am not the man who am like to go about the answering all particulars of that kind: Nevertheless, if there be any persons fearing God shall receive that enlargement of heart by the Rule I have laid them down, or any consideration else which I offer them in the general only, so as they can retain their Ministry, and submit to these Impositions which otherwise they could not, or others cannot, I shall have no cause I hope but that I may bless God for it, who does ordinarily according to his manifold Wisdom and Goodness toward his Church, in such turns of his Providence as these, provide some persons to be his Confessors, and to lay down all they have rather then offend their Consciences: and some to carry on the publick work without deserting their Station, and yet maintaining their integrity in what they do. Neither may that Author be less studious of charity toward his brethren, and of the honour of God thereby, who does industriously endeavour to heal the scruples of those that out of Conscience do Conform, then another who offers his Apology for such who out of Concience also, dare not. I confess if a man can p. 159by no means save his Conscience I have done, or if his heart cannot bear it. If he may enter again into the Vineyard without cloggs, and his Soul be in frame for it, it is what he should desire of God. But if he cannot, why should he become a burden to himself? God will have Mercy I hope, and not Sacrifice in this case.

After all, I have yet one thing methinks which I must also offer. Suppose a man who hath been a Non-conformist hitherto, should come to this resolution; To wit, to be ready to conform, in declaring, subscribing, and yielding to whatsoever is imposed, so far, or to so much as ever he can according to his Conscience, and if that will not serve his turn, to be fixt, not to go a jot farther, for any thing, or any body: but if it will serve him, and they wink at the rest, to be contented to do so, and to try. Suppose farther, that such a one should publish this, so that it being known as far, how he does it, as what he does, he shall not thereby become guilty of active scandal unto any, seeing if others do as he does, and but so, they will do no more then according to their Consciences, as he resolves as to his, and so shall they not be wounded by the example: If they be troubled only, that another does (if he could, or if he can) what they can't or won't, p. 160That I count must give place to edification. I ask, what may be said unto this? Let the Prudent give judgment. It may be possible some may scruple, or object, that the fear of God which requires our obedience to Superiors will not stand at any time with such a prefunctory or unfaithful performance of their commandments. I answer, As the commands which are divine reach but to a mans Natural Can, that if he does what he is able, God accepts of the Will, for that which he Cannot: So the commands which are Humane, reach only to our Moral Can, that when a man hath done so much of them as his Conscience will let him without sin, or is able to render a sufficient reason why he does no more, this is to be accepted of him, as perfect in its kind. Leges humanae (says Grotius) vim obligandi tum demùm habent, si latae sint ad humanum modum, non si onus injungant, quod a ratione & natura plané abhorreat. Humane Laws (says Dr. Taylor) bind the Conscience of the Subjects, but yet give place to just and charitable causes; which are competent and sufficient, is not expresly and minutely declared, but it is to be defined by the moderation and prudence of a good man. Too rigorous it were (says Mr. Hookeo) that the breach of every Law should be held a deadly sin: A mean there is between these extremities if p. 145so be we could find it out. His last Book, and his last Words.