CASE I. What are Things In­different?
Resol.

THINGS Indiffe­rent have their place in the middle, be­twixt things Necessary and things Sinful; things that [Page 2] ought, and things that ought not to be done: For as to their Simple and com­mon Nature, i. e. Consi­dered nakedly without re­spect to such Circumstan­ces as change their proper­ty, and denominale them good or evil; they are such things as may be done or left undone without sin.

They are of a Middle, not a Mixt Nature, not both good and bad; that is Medium abnegati­onis. a Contradiction: not partly good and partly bad; then the good can never expiate the bad; (for the least de­gree of evil renders the Action evil:) but neither good nor bad.

As they are Morally neither good nor bad; so, they are not made such by [Page] Scripture, being neither commanded nor forbid­den.

They are of an Indiffe­rent Nature, and may be Indifferently Used: Yet very apt, by reason of Cir­cumstances, to tend unto, to swerve towards, to be­come, or appear, either good or evil.

CASE II. Whether there is any thing Indifferent in the Exer­cise of Religion?
Resol.

FOR Our cleerer satis­faction herein, let us consider Actions and Cir­cumstances.

[Page 4] 1. Touching Actions, I as­sert, First, That no one Acti­on in Religious Exercises is of its own nature so Indif­ferent, but that by its cir­cumstances it easily be­comes good or evil.

2. No Action, that is deliberate, and hath an or­der to a certain end (di­stinguished from Actions of fancy, usually so called, which are unobserved by the Agents) Individually considered, and as perform­ed about the Worship of God, can be truly Indiffe­rent; but by reason of its circumstances is good or evil.

3. No Action, consi­dered as a part of Divine Worship, can possibly be In­different; for either it is [Page 5] such as God himself hath appointed, and therefore ne­cessary; or invented by men and superstitious.

4. Yet Fourthly, There are divers Actions that are no part, but circumstances of worship (though Acti­ons in themselves) before they are exerted and cloth­ed with their circumstances that are properly Indiffe­rent, both as to their Na­ture, neither good nor bad, as to the Scripture, neither commanded or forbidden; and consequently: as to our use neither necessary nor unlawful: and lastly, in comparison with other Actions, that might as law­fully serve in the same stead, of neither more or less necessity: as I might [Page 6] instance in lifting up, or casting down our eyes, in lifting up or spreading a­broad our hands in prayer, &c. But thus much for Actions.

2. As for Circumstances properly so called, It is not doubted, I think, by any, but there are some, viz. time, place, habit, that are purely indifferent: I mean, befo [...]e they are de­termined, and in a gene­rall consideration, abstract­ed from conveniency, and not complicated with o­ther accidents that may vary the Case.

I shall not burden this unexceptionable Point with needless Authority, which were very easie, if not needless. I shall on­ly [Page 7] instance the reasonable­ness of it, under one part of Divine Worship, viz. the Sacrament, in the judg­ment of Mr. Calvin, So Calv. I [...]sti. lib 1. Sect. 43. much (saith he) as concerns the outward form of Mini­string the Sacrament, viz. Whether the faithful re­ceive into their hand, or not: Whether they divide it, or every one eat that which is given him: Whether they put the Cup into the hand of the Deacon, or deliver it to the hand of the next: Whe­ther the Bread be Leavened or unleavened: Whether the Wine be red or white; it maketh no matter; these things be Indifferent, and left to the liberty of the Church. Thus he: and we might adde almost so many [Page 8] more of the like nature, a­bout every other Ordi­nance, if occasion requi­red.

CASE III. Whether may things Indif­ferent be Imposed and re­quired by Authority?
Resol.

DOubtless they may: For,

1. The Word of God hath not particularly taught us, what that decency and order is that is required: Yet the Ruling part of the Church ought not only to require, but to take care and see (according to the Apo­stles [Page 9] example) that all things be done decently and in order.

2. Then, plain Reason demonstrates, that if it be the duty of Rulers, to see That all things be done de­cently and in order; they must also by their own dis­cretion, or advice with o­thers, judge and prescribe what is such.

3. The Great Apostle, therefore, took upon him, not only to press the gene­ral command of decency 1. Cor. 14. 34. & 11. 4. 17. 1 Tim. 2. 8. 9. 1 Tim. 2. 12. 1 Cor. 7. 10. and order; but to reprove particular disorders, and to direct unto and command particular parts of order and comelinesse in the Churches.

4. Yea, that Famous Synod, and truly Apostoli­cal, [Page 10] in Acts 15. did by their power also limit the use of Indifferent things; which they concluded for the pre­sent necessary, Both to be ordered and to be observed, for the Peace of the Church.

5 And, that this power of ordering the Church in things indifferent, was not peculiar to the times of the Apostles, but resides in the Rulers of the Church, to be exerted upon the same Moral and reasonable oc­casions, might easily be made to appear to have the suffrage of the Learned of all ages, if any need re­quired.

6. Ames himself having ventured to say, That no­thing ought to be command­ed [Page 11] but that which is good, or forbidden but which is Ames, Gas. de Adia­phoris. evil, seems presently to check, and so to limit, as almost to recant what he had said; adding, Quod Adiaphorum est, non potest simpliciter, absolu [...]è, & in perpetuum, vel prohiberi vel imperari; Whereby one would think he yielded, that, for some respects, and for some time, things indif­ferent in their own Nature may be commanded or for­bidden.

7. I shall conclude this also with Calvins Authori­ty; in 1 Cor. 11. 2. We know, (saith he) that every Church is left free to appoint a form of po­litie and government fit and profitable for it self, because the Lord hath prescribed [Page 12] nothing certain: to whom we might adde the perti­nent (if alike weighty) Testimony of Philip Me­lancton; who tels us, That because the Ministry di­vinely ordained ought to be publique and external, there is need of some hu­mane In Com. Loc. Ordinances.

Vid etiam Danae. Ju­dic. &c.

CASE IV. Whether may things Indif­ferent conduce any thing to the order and decency of Gods Worship?
Resol.

THings indifferent, ab­solutely so, or conside­red as such, cannot: For things indifferent, as such, do equally respect the order and disorder of the Church or service thereof, other­wise they were not media or indifferent things, but partial. So far true is that of Ames, Those things which make for order in their own Nature are not indifferent.

However, there are di­vers things in their own common nature indifferent, that yet in some respects are of more expediency in the Worship of God then o­thers: which happens, ei­ther from their better rea­diness and aptness for or­der, as applyed; or because they may have more repute or shew of goodness refle­cted from the temper of the place where they are used; and consequently, are more eligible then those that ap­proach to vice or supersti­tion, or are blemish'd with appearance or repute of evil, or are aliene and unapt for the present service.

Again, divers Accidents that are equally indifferent in their nature, and left so [Page 15] by the Scripture, may also be equally accommodated, so far as we may judge, for order and decency, and consequently both indiffe­rent and expedient; for although they all of them be decent and comely e­nough, yet neither the worshippers nor the wor­ship may be capable of ad­mitting or using them all, at least at one and the same service.

Lastly, the Custome of the Churches is a standing Rule in these Matters, ac­cording to which that which is decent in one Church as well as lawful in it self, may be most un­comely, and consequent [...]y most inexpedient in ano­ther; which addes no little [Page 16] cleerness to the demonstra­tion, that things indiffe­rent in themselves, may, as they are applied, conduce something, yea and very much, to the order and comeliness of Divine wor­ship.

CASE V. What are those things indif­ferent that are to be deter­mined by the power of the Church?
Resol.

THese things indiffe­rent are apparently reducible to that General 1 Cor. 14. ult. Rule of the Apostle, Let all things be done decently [Page 17] and in order: this Calvin calls that general conclusion which briefly takes in not only the whole state, but e­ven all the particular parts of outward order; Yea, saith he, 'tis that Rule to which all things which re­spect external politie are to be reduced.

1. The ruling part of the Church hath power to set things IN ORDER in the Church of Christ: [The rest will I set in order when I come.] which pow­er may shew it self in three great Instances. The form­ing of a Government, of a Liturgy, and the ordering of the Manner of publick Worship.

1. I must (though with all respect and condescen­tion [Page 18] to any means of Con­viction to the contrary) I must yet acknowledge, that I find so little of the form and frame of Church-Go­vernment▪ delineated in Scripture, and so much en­couragement for my pre­sent opinion in judicious, sober and learned Authors, that I am very apt to think that much of the Modelling of the Government of the Church is left by God to the prudence, and wisdom, and power of the Church.

I most readily subscribe, that there is a Government of the Church, that this Government is fixed in the Officers of the Church, that the General Rules of this Government are plainly revealed in Scripture; yea, [Page 19] that there was Episcopal Jurisdiction (in the com­mon acceptation of it) ex­ercis'd by the Apostles, and Timothy and Titus, up­on such common and Mo­ral Reason as may bear it up, and commend its use to the end of the world.

Yet the Frame, Fashion, and special subjects of it are so obscure in Scripture, and so little entitled to it, that, methinks, even all of all perswasions amongst us are forced to prudence at last in the practice, though in their disputes they fetch fire from Heaven Jure Di­vine.

Very many moderate Episcopal Divines are suffi­ciently known to content themselves with St. Hie­rom's [Page 20] Basis of Episcopal Government, and to de­fend it only as a prudential and occasional (though yet Apostolical) Institution, ad tollenda schismata, whereon I think it may stand as Mount Sion, and never be moved.

The Presbyterians if they well consider their subor­dination of classes they must needs appeal to pru­dence and reason for its de­fence, while they find this at least as much a stranger to the Word of God as a subordination of persons. Indeed this they of late seemed plainly to acknow­ledge, when upon the same grounds with their mode­rate brethren of the Epis­copal Concessi­ons and Desires. perswasion, they con­ceded [Page 21] to a Regulate Episco­pacy; desiring also at the hands of the King that their grand grievance of too large Diocesses might be healed by Suffragan-Bi­shops; which some think are not obscurely answered already in the jurisdiction of Arch-Deacons, at least, as to the assistance of the Bishop, and the satisfying the desires and complaints of our brethren aforesaid.

Yea, the very Congrega­tion it self called Indepen­dents acknowledge their devolving the exercise of Government upon their Elders to be only for Or­ders sake, and their Church-Covenant to be only neces­sary for its ends; and at length their great Champi­on S. M. [Page 22] hath found no other foundation for the whole Fabrick of Congregational Discipline, but Mutual Confederacy and Prudential Agreement among them­selves.

2. The second thing at­tributed to the Care and power of the Church is the forming and establishing of a publick Liturgy.

Though we find not any such form in Scripture ei­ther imposed, framed or di­rected, yet the grounds and matter thereof are plainly there, and seen and acknow­ledged to be there well nigh by all the Churches of Christ in the world.

I do not find but that at the Episcopal Divines plead the Necessity, so most [Page 23] of the moderate Presbyte­rians allow the lawfulness and the usefulness, yea and the Imposition of forms of publick Prayers, of Admi­nistring the Sacraments, of Catechism, Confirmation, and of reading of the Scri­ptures; as also of repre­hending offenders, &c. All which (as Mart. Bucer. enumerates them, and con­cludes) Vid. M. [...]. lib. 1. de reg. Christ. c. 13. are reserved for the care and power of the Church.

3. Thirdly, thereunto al­so belongs the Ordering and managing of the pub­lick Worship, as to the time, manner, and parts of it; when to begin, how to proceed, when to end in the ordinary course of Divine Service; as also to appoint [Page 24] extraordinary times of fasting and thanksgiving; all which, seeing Scripture hath left them to the Chur­ches liberty, in reason they ought to be ruled and fixed by prudent Authority, as we would avoid Confusion and Ataxie in the Church of Christ.

2. Secondly, things ser­ving to the Comeliness and Beauty of Worship are also to be put to the same ac­count; the decency of the place of Worship; the gravity of the habit of Mi­nisters; the fitness of the Vessels for both Sacra­ments; the kind of bread and wine; the places and gestures of Administration and Communion, and such like, which the Scripture [Page 25] hath taken no notice of, and yet all sober men are fully convinced that very high and almost indispensa­ble convenience exacts a settlement and prudent Regulation of them; and in all which, methinks, Ʋniformity with Decency should offend no body.

CASE VI. Whether may the Ruling part of the Church impose upon the Church things in­different, quatenus Indif­ferent, or meerly because they are such?
Resol.

I Humbly conceive they have no such power, no [Page 26] such Arbitrary & strange­ly unlimited power, which, if exercised with any ex­tent, is not likely to edifie, but to destroy the Church.

For,

1. If we should grant that the Governours of the Church have power to im­pose things as they are in­different, or because they are indifferent, we grant they have power to impose any thing indifferent, and consequently what indiffe­rent things they please, up­on the Church: and thus we make the Will of Men the Principle and Rule of decency and order in the Service of God, and not the Will of God, or reason and prudence in the choice of things fittest according [Page 27] to his Word. Then they have power to clog Gods Worship with things altoge­ther incongruous to it, pro­vided they be indifferent in general, (as Dauncing, Bowling, &c.) and to ren­der it instead of a reasonable Service, absurd and ridicu­lous. Then may they add Ceremony upon Ceremo­ny, until the number is so many, and the weight so great, that the work will be burdensome and indeed intolerable to God and Man. Thus may they im­prove their Dominion over our Faith, until they have worn out the beauty of ho­liness, the power of Devo­tion, and have rendred the Christian Liberty worse As Aug. complain'd then the Jewish or Popish Bondage.

This Power, as God did never intrust them with it, so I never heard of that man, or sort of men, that pretended unto it, or to the exercise of it; every one in Authority still granting that there ought to be Rea­son for their Impositions, acting therein as Men, as wel as Governors.

And though many are too apt to give Flattering Titles to men in Authori­ty, I have not met with any that Write highest for Con­formity, and obedience to Authority in things Indif­ferent, that allowed such a Power to men in Autho­rity, to require what indif­ferent things they pleased, without any respects to the fitness and usefulness [Page 29] of them in the Worship of God.

For, as Thomas Rogers, Against Seffray: Obi. 4. (that notable Adversary to Non-Conformity) in this Case said, Authority in ma­king Laws must alwaies re­spect the Common Good. And though Church-Go­vernors, saith Francis Ma­son, Authority of the Church, &c. p. 8 9. (of the same spirit with the former) may make Church-Laws, yet they may not establish what they list. God hath inrailed their Authority with certain bounds and limits, which they may not pass: Agree­ing with Calvin, who hath also taught us, That God hath not left us effraenem li­centiam, such an unbridled liberty; Sed cancellos cir­cundedit, in Cor. 14. ult.

CASE VII. What then doth render things indifferent fit to be imposed?
Resol.

INDIFFERENT things though they be not commanded or forbidden particularly, but left un­decided in Scripture, yet must they be Reducible to, and Agreeable with some general Rules in Scripture, to make the Imposition of them fit or warrantable.

This Resolution becoms Christianity, neither can it be inimicous to Christian Discipline; it hath the suf­frage of highest conformity, [Page 31] which affords its liberty still to challenge great consideration in all impo­sitions of things Indiffe­rent. Clapham, an earnest and Learned Opposer of Non-Conformity, hath thus stated it, Such things, saith Chronol. Discourse of the Church, cap. 9. he, we say to be of an in­different nature; as for the doing or not doing thereof we have no express Word of God in particular, only by some general Rule we are led to use our Christian Reason. Francis Mason Authority of the Church, p. 8. 9. also allows, That all (Ec­clesiastical) Canons must be framed according to the general Canons of the holy Scripture. In a word, I never read a denial of it.

CASE VIII. What are those general Rules of Scripture that li [...]it the Imposition of things Ind [...]fferent?
Resol.

POlanus gives us a brief Syntag. Tom. 2. p., 70. and sound, though a general satisfaction to this Case; Things indifferent (saith he) ought to be redu­ced to that general equity (which the Scriptures ap­point to be the rule and mea­sure of all our actions) the Lex respi­cit ordinē ad bonum commune. Aquinas. good of our Neighbour. Quatenus ad Dei Gloriam, & proximi salutem faci­unt: [Page 33] or the Common good, as Rogers shortens it.

Marlorate doth more In 1 Cor. 14. ult. fully explicate himself, say­ing, that the Apostle con­firmeth his Traditions by the Word of God, Reason, Edification, the Example of Churches, Decency and Order; and he adds, With which same Arguments we [...]ght to examine our Ec­clesiastical Traditions.

But let us a little consi­der some more special Rules, as we easily find them in the surface of the Scripture.

1. The first shall be that Catholique Rule of Expe­diency. All things, (saith 1 Cor. 6. 12 the Apostle) are Lawfull for me; but all things are not expedient. Some law­ful [Page 34] things, it seems, are not expedient. Things not ex­pedient to be done, ought not to be done; and things not expedient to be com­manded, ought not to be commanded.

Thus there falls before us a double lawfulness; a thing may be lawful and expedient; a thing may be lawful, and not expedient; or a thing may be lawful, and yet we ought not to do it, because not expedient; and a thing may be lawful, and we ought to do it be­cause expedient: And thus a thing may be lawful and not lawful.

More plainly, there is a lawfulness more remote from us, which is fixed in the general nature of the [Page 35] thing; this is meant in the first expression of the Apo­stle, All things are lawful for me. 2. There is a law­fulness that is more imme­diate and nearer to us, which dependeth not upon the common essence of the thing, but upon some ex­trinsick circumstances, of Time, Place, Occasion, &c. whereby the thing is fitted to the present service; this the Apostle means by Ex­pediency, All things are not expedient.

Now where you speak of this latter lawfulness of expediency, the former, viz. of Indifferency is shut out: so that though in one sence, all things that are indifferent are lawful, yet in this latter sence, all [Page 36] things that are indifferent and not expedient, are not lawful, but sinful: And it being against the Rule of the Aposte, and indeed a­gainst common reason; it is not warrantable for Church-Governors to im­pose any thing about Gods Worship, that is only in­different and lawful in it self, but not expedient.

Thus that great Defen­der of our Church and the Ceremonies of it extends and limits her power; Church-Governors (saith he) have liberty to establish whatsoever being in it self Authority of the Church, p. 13. indifferent shall to their Wisedom seem most expe­di [...]nt.

2. The second special Ru [...]e is the publique Peace. [Page 37] God is the God of Peace and Order; of Peace as well as Order; and as the Order, so the Peace of the Church, without which there is no Order, is preci­ous with him, and with all that have the Spirit of God, and any care of his Church.

Should any thing give way to Peace, and should not things Indifferent? are not these Indifferent? is not Peace necessary? is it not necessary by command? Yea, it is necessary as a means; as a means of pre­venting our fears, of ob­taining our hopes, our hopes of settlement, our hopes of unity, our hopes of plenty, of prosperity and glory in Church and State.

Who can think it wise­dom (without some other greater inconvenience urge to it) to force any thing that is but indifferent, to the endangering so neces­sary a thing as Peace, or the dividing the Church of God, or provoking any considerable part thereof to separate from us? Let us rather with the Apostoli­cal Synod, weigh the pre­sent necessity in this regard; and as the Apostle exhorts in the like case, Follow the things that make for Peace, Rom. 14. 19.

3. The third special Rule in Scripture is, the of­fence of weak brethren, who though weak are not to be thrown to the walls without any regard.

Yea, the Scripture rea­sons Vid. Rom. 14. 1 Cor. 7, 9, 10. cap. us to a greater tender­ness to the weaker part of the Church; and more care of that: and in this very case hath given us di­vers and weighty Consi­derations, that we wilfully offend not our weak Bre­thren by the use of our li­berty in things indifferent.

Indeed, when things indifferent are once com­manded, the case is alte­red, as to private Christi­ans, (as at large hereafter) but otherwise, where the reason of the Apostle's Example and Commands is found, the obligation of both will hardly be esca­ped.

As Polanus saith, That Syntag. tom. 2. p 376. Ceremonies may be observed [Page 40] for peace sake, and the a­voiding of the offence of the weak: so, I humbly con­ceive, that the rigor of im­position may be warranta­bly abated for the same causes.

M ^r Rogers is more pe­remptory Against Seffray. Object. 4. (though, as I no­ted before, a sufficient De­fender of Ceremonies) He that in things indifferent (meaning, before they are commanded) hath not a tender care of weak Chri­stians in his doing, shew­eth, that there is not that charity in him, nor regard of his brethren which God requireth.

Upon this ground, no doubt, the Learned Doctor Gardner stood, when he said, If the Laws in these [Page 41] cases, viz. of Ceremonies, had not been already made, I should never for my own part wish to have them made. Dialogue about Ceremonies.

Neither, can we referr to any other Topick the care and pains that Queen Elizabeth and King James used for the just satisfacti­on of Non-conformists in the ages before us: To the 1 Cor. 9. 22, 13. weak, became I as weak, that I might gain the weak—and this I do (saith the great Apostle) for the Gospels sake.

4. The fourth special Rule may be Edification, the grand Level of all Church power: the Edifi­cation of the Church, and not its destruction in the [Page 42] whole, or (if possible to a­void it) in any part.

Therefore, the great Rom. 14. 15. In quo Charitas moderatrix est, Calv. Rom. 14. 10. principle of all such impo­sitions must be charity and love to our Brethren; not envy at, or desire of revenge upon any person or party o­therwise minded: not to shew victory over them, or dominion over their faith or actions; things, I doubt not, sincerely abhorred by our present Governours as well as by our former; but forbearing one another in love, and forgiving one another, as Christ also hath given us example, shewing all bowels and tenderness in all waies and means of an happy accord and ac­commodation.

5. Fiftly, the most no­ted [Page 43] Rule of all is that of the Apostle, Let all things be done decently and in or­der: a standing Rule never to be crossed by any Au­thority under heaven; yea, the God of heaven, being the God of Order, will never reverse it. Then nothing that is either inde­cent or disorderly in Gods Worship can warrantably be imposed upon his Church. The contrary whereof, I think, had ne­ver hitherto the honour to be asserted.

Clapham, speaking of things indifferent, touch­ing Chron. c. 9. which (saith he) the Apostle sheweth, that de­cency and order must be observed; but for parti­culars, he hath no particu­lar [Page 44] injunction from the Lord. Chron. cap. 9.

Provided alwaies, saith M ^r Mason, that all things pag. 13. be done honestly and in or­der.

6. The sixth Rule is Custome: of very great use to indicate what is de­cent and orderly; seeing by the force of Custome, that is comely in one Country, that is plainly ab­surd in another.

Custome is the Umpire 1 Cor. 11. 26. in indifferent things: If any man seem to be conten­tious (saith the Apostle) we have no such Custome. No doubt, 'tis dangerous to in­troduce innovations, and by new impositions to force against the Usages and Cu­stomes of the place where [Page 45] we live: 'Tis well known, how much weight Am­brose, Augustine, and the rest of the Fathers laid upon this both for them­selves, and their advice to others.

We have no such Cu­stome, nor the Churches of God. Doubtless, the more extensive a Usage is, the more ancient, the more u­niversal, the longer and farther a thing hath been practised in the Churches of God, the more it ought to be regarded, both by the governing and governed parts of the Church, ac­cording to the Rule of the Fathers.

7. The last Rule is Gospel liberty: this must not be invaded by any im­position, [Page 46] though it must not be mistaken.

Gospel liberry can hard­ly be infringed if these Rules be heeded in the im­position of things indiffe­rent.

1. That nothing indifferent be imposed that any way checketh with the former Rules of expediency, peace, offence of the weak, edifi­cation, decency, order, and the custome of the Chur­ches.

2. That things indiffe­rent be not imposed as if they were in themselves necessary; which Divines assert to be Superstition.

3. That things indiffe­rent be not required with equal severity as things ne­cessary.

[Page 47] 4. That such things when imposed be declared by the Imposers to be mu­table in their nature, and to be altered upon just oc­casion.

5. That things indiffe­rent be not imposed in so great a number as is really burthensome to the Church of God; which was much in the care of our first Re­formers.

‘Concerning the multi­tude of Ceremonies of idle and vain nature (saith Bi­shop In Apol. Jewel) we know that S ^t Augustine did much complain of them in his time; and therefore we have greatly diminished the number of them, be­cause we know, that they were troublesome to [Page 48] good consciences and burthensome to the Church: yet we retaine and have likeing, not on­ly of those Ceremonies which we are sure were delivered us from the A­postles; but some others too besides, which we thought might be suffe­red without hurt to the Church of God: because we affected that all things in the Congrega­tion might (according to the will of the Apostle) be done with comliness and good order. But all such things which we perceived to lean to Su­perstition, or to be of no use, or bald, or toyish, or against the sacred Scri­ptures, or else unmeet for [Page 49] sober and wise people, whereof there is a con­fused Chaos in the Ro­mish Synagogue, all these we have utterly renoun­ced and cast off, because we would not have the Worship of God con­founded and combred with such follies.’ Thus that most excellent Man. The summ of whose words here recited, doth in effect contain and confirm all that I have said upon this Case; viz. That the Ce­remonies of the Church ought to be expedient, de­cent and orderly, not hurt­full to the Church, not troublesome to good con­sciences, not burdensome: And he adds, that our own Church in the first Re­formation [Page 50] had regard to the said Rules.

Let me conclude with an humble Petition, that I be not mis-interpreted to prescribe to Authority in what I have said: I have onely marked the general Rules in Scripture, leaving particulars to the liberty and wisedom of Superiors; to whom I only take bold­ness to offer, that they ought to walk by these Rules, & settle the Church and Worship of God in peace and order, with all comliness and expediency.

CASE IX. How are private persons to demean themselves un­der such impositions of Authority in religious Exercises?
Resol.

VVE have hitherto, rather, labored to discover the reason of Imposing, and the due ex­tent of Ecclesiastical Au­thority in things indiffe­rent; endeavouring also to draw that as narrow and straight, and as much to Rule as may be; yet, I hope, without just offence to the same.

We are now descending to take a view of the rea­son [Page 52] of obedience; and to consider the extent of their duty, who are under com­mand. Where, that I may appear impartial and for peace indeed, I must be con­sonant to my Designe, and labour to dis-intangle and enlarge the consciences of private persons, with as much freedom towards con­formity as lawfully I may; that, having brought the Injunction as low and nar­row, and the Obedience as high and large as we may, the commanders and the commanded may be happi­ly found nearer together, and in sweeter communion one with another.

Charity, surely, will not be displeased at this harm­less project, but will be [Page 53] ready with a pardon, though I fail of success, or too imprudently manage the Attempt; especially, while my Aime is levelled at so desireable an end, the peace of the Church & the com­mon good; and use no o­ther Engine to draw down the one, and raise the other, but that from heaven, the holy Scripture.

And to the Case in gene­ral, which is this [How are private persons to demean themselves under the commands of Authority or Ecclesiastical Laws, in Religious Exercises?] I shall now (the Lord assist­ing me) betake my self, with all conscience and fi­delity, to answer, breaking it into several particular [Page 54] cases, according as the Ob­ject of humane Injunctions may be distinguished.

The Object of humane Injunction, or that which is injoyned or commanded, may be proceeded upon, by a gradation or descent of five stepps: for that which is injoyned, is either necessary, expedient, purely indifferent, inexpedient, or unlawfull. Accordingly, there may be offered five Cases, viz. what a private person ought to do, when things necessary, or things expedient, or things purely indifferent, or things inex­pedient, or things unlaw­full are required by Au­thority in the exercises of Religion: to all which we addresse our [Page 55] selves to apply a seve­ral and particular satis­faction.

CASE X. What ought a private Chri­stian to do, when things necessary in themselves are required by Autho­rity?
Resol.

BOth for the Intention of the present Dis­course (we treating proper­ly about things indiffe­rent) as also, for the very nature of the thing it self, this need not be put to the Question.

For though some have [Page 56] thought they have seen reason enough, not so farr to countenance an Usur­pation, as to do their duties when commanded there­unto by unlawfull powers; from the liberty of that trite Rule, Affirmative Precepts do not binde to e­very particular instance of time: yet, it were a strange perversness in any, not to do that which God re­quires, because his Vice­gerent, lawfull Authority requires it also, even in the things of Gods Worship.

Optatus reckoned it a madness in Donatus, that broke forth in that questi­on of his, Quid Imperatori cum Ecclesia, What hath the KING to do with the Church? But Optatus wise­ly [Page 57] answered, The Common­wealth is not in the Church, but the Church is in the Commonwealth; and con­sequently, he that is Go­vernor of the Common­wealth is so of the Church; and the Rule is, The Go­spel takes Non tollit praecepta naturae & legis, sed perficit, Rom. 3. ult. not away the Pre­cepts of Nature, and the Moral Law, but establish­eth and perfects them, and rather enlargeth and con­firms, then any way weak­ens Obedience to Authori­ty.

Therefore are we to pray for Kings, that under their pious and religious gover­nance, we may not live in peace, and honestly only, but in godliness, in all godliness, as the Apostle directs us:

St Augustine, upon those Contra Crescon. lib. 3. cap. 51. words in the second Psalm saith, Kings (not onely as men, but as they are Kings) serve the Lord, if in their Kingdomes they command that w ^ch is good, and prohibite that which is evil; not only in those things which appertain to humane Society, verùm e­tiam in iis quae ad divinam Religionem, but also in matters concerning Reli­gion and divine Wor­ship.

Who dare offer to name the Time since the World began (the Times of perse­cution which rendred it im­possible only excepted) wherein God did not allow, & Governours both Tem­poral and Ecclesiastical did [Page 59] not assume the power of governing & giving Lawes to the Church, for the dis­charge of their duties in matters of Religion?

As soon as the black and bloody cloud was dis­pell'd, by the favour and power of glorious Con­stantine, he assumed this Supremacy; he put down Idolatry, he establish'd the Truth; he composed dif­ferences among Bishops, suppressed Heresie and Schism, called Councils, and gave his suffrage in them; he heard and judged Causes in Religion, and made Ecclesiastical Laws and Edicts; and all this, (as Eusebius saith) tanquam communis Episcopus à Deo Euseb. de vita Con­stan. lib. [...]. cap. 37. constitutus, as a common [Page 60] Overseer or Bishop ordai­ned of God; and I may adde, as an excellent Ex­ample to all Christian Princes to the end of the world.

Doubtless, if he that resists a lawfull power shall receive to himself damna­tion, he shall hardly escape that resists his command in lawfull, yea, in necessary things; wherein (if in a­ny thing) he ought to obey, for the Lords sake, and to submit in conscience of his duty to God as well as Man; for, as Augustine, Hoc jubent Imperatores, quod jubet & Christus; quia cum bonum jubent, per illos non Christus nisi jubet: so that when Kings com­mand, what Christ has first [Page 61] commanded, Christ com­mands by them, and we are called to obey not onely them but Christ in them.

CASE XI. What private persons are to do, when things expedi­ent are required of them?
Resol.

THE second sort of things enjoyned in the exercise of Religion, we have proposed to be things expedient for their present and special use, though not necessary in their common nature, or particularly comanded by [Page 62] God. And the Question is, When such things are re­quired by lawfull Authori­ty, whether private persons are bound in duty to obey or not?

Some persons, I believe, like not, that any such thing should be imposed u­pon them; but would ra­ther have the Decent orde­ring of Gods Worship left to their own private dis­cretion: yet I hope better of my Brethren, then that they should refuse the ex­ercise of any thing which themselves allow, because it is also approved by o­thers and commanded by Authority; and therefore, to be disorderly in the Church of God, because they are enjoyned to do things in order:

Such things as we know to be fitted for the decency and order of Gods Worship if enjoyned by a lawfull Authority, though they be not necessary in their com­mon nature, or particular­ly commanded by God; and thus, though they want a primary necessity; yet they seem, in the judg­ment of all sober men; to contract a treble secunda­ry necessity, to oblige us to obedience; viz. from the general commands of Scri­pture, from the particular injunction of Authority; and the urging direction of our own conscience; where God, indeed, seems to speak thrice at once unto us; by the Rule of the Apostle, the Law of the Land, and [Page 64] the voice of our own con­victed Consciences.

Such Constitutions (saith Bullinger) as are expedient Dec. 2. Sect. 1. and drawn from general Scripture, and are for edi­fication, I call not Humane Traditions.

Yea, one of the Refor­med Churches have put it Confes. Suev. in Harm. Confes. 8. 17. pag. 290. into their very Confession, That they deserve to be e­steemed Divine rather then Humane Constituti­ons.

For, saith M ^r Calvin, such are not to be reckoned for Calv. in 1 Cor. 14. humane Traditions, since they are founded in the ge­neral precept, and have the Zanch. in com. loc. 16. liquid approbation, as it were, of Christs own mouth.

Beza, therefore, con­cludes, Beza Epist. 24. [Page 65] That things that make for order, being com­manded by Authority, do so far binde the conscience, that no man can wilfully transgress them without sin.

CASE XII. What are private persons to do, when things that are purely Indifferent are required in Religious Exercises?
Resol.

THat thing I here call purely Indifferent, w ^ch impartially retaines a midd place betwixt things neces­sary and things sinfull, and [Page 66] betwixt things inexpedient and things expedient; more plainly, we take a thing to be purely indifferent, here, that is neither necessary or sinfull in its nature, or by the Word of God; nor yet expedient or inexpedi­ent, as to the use for which it is appointed, but in all regards purely Indifferent, being neither necessary with a primary or with a secundary necessity, as we lately distinguished; nor yet respectively sinfull or unlawfull, viz. either with a primary or secundary sinfulness.

Now the Question is not whether there be any such things, or not; but, hoc supposito, supposing there are, and that they are [Page 67] commanded by lawfull Au­thority; the Question is, What private Christians are to do in such a case?

For my part, though (as I have said) such things ought not to be enjoyned by Authority; yet, if the Scales be even before, the command of Authority must (I think) of necessity turn them.

So that here we must ob­serve a third kinde of Ne­cessity, where the two for­mer are wanting: so that, where a thing is not ne­cessary properly, or occa­sionally, as expedient, yet, it may become necessary by the addition of a hu­mane Law; which also circulates into the first necessity of a divine com­mand; [Page 68] Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake: though it be but a meer humane Ordinance, yet, (as such) if not sinfull or forbidden by God, you seem com­manded to submit unto it.

Consequently, we have discovered a third kinde of sinfulness, where the primary and secundary is wanting: so that, where a thing is not sinfull in it self, or by any inconveni­ence in its use, yet it may become so, by disobedience to lawfull Authority: O­bey them that have the Rule over you, and sub­mit your selves:

'Tis necessary we observe a difference in the reason of [Page 69] imposing and of obeying; For, before a thing is im­posed, there is no obligation upon Authority to require it, if it be not fit; yea, ra­ther there is a pre-obligation to impose nothing but what is expedient in the Worship of God; but now, when a thing is once required, though not expe­dient, as we could desire, we are under in obligation; and we must not consult our liberty but our duty: or if our liberty, not so much our liberty to forbear, as our liberty to obey; and to enquire whether the thing be lawful or not, whether God wil [...] allow us to do it or not; and if so, Whether it be not our du­ty; and whether, though [Page 70] we would not do it for the things sake, we must not do it for the commands sake; the command of Man, and the command of God.

Wherefore Beza (to whom I might add the Learned of most ranks and ages, if need required) is so express, Res Alioqui per se medioe, &c. ‘Things of middle and indifferent na­ture do after a certain man­ner change their nature, when by lawful Authority they are either comman­ded or forbidden, because it is not lawful to omit against the Precept when it is commanded, or to act against the prohibiti­on, when it is forbidden.’ Thus Beza: an undoubted [Page 71] Testimony in the Case.

But we need no more, see­ing the thing hath been granted long agon by a nu­merous body of Non-con­formists; Their Re­ply to Mr. Powel, p. 2l ‘ In things (say they) truly indifferent, it is always justified, and shall be farther justified if need require, that we attribute no less to the Magistrates, then o [...]r Adversaries (meaning the Conformists) do.’

CASE XIII. What are private Christi­ans to do when things In­expedient are required of them?
Resol.

IN the fourth place, things enjoyned about the Worship of God may be supposed to be inexpe­dient when they are proper­ly unlawful.

Here we have also asser­ted, there is a farther abuse of Authority that ought al­ways to be limited by the Sacred Canons of Decency and Order, and things ex­pedient; but admitting [Page 73] such an unwarrantable ex­erting of power, in requi­ring things that are lawful, but inexpedient; we are now to inquire how a private conscience may preserve it self and the publick Peace, and whether it should obey such injunctions, or not.

This is indeed the bur­then; but how to remove it, hic labor, hoc opus est.

This, in the first place, seems to call us to another point of weighty moment, viz. Who is the proper Judge of expediency in the circumstances of Gods Worship?

There are but two that can bid for it; the publick prudence of lawfull Au­thority, or our own pri­vate discretion: in things [Page 74] necessary, the Word of God is our Rule; in things ex­pedient, Prudence: the Question is, Whether pri­vate or publique? that is, (pardon my plainness) where God hath left the matter to men, whether the People or the Governours should Rule? or, if you had rather, Whether they that are called to obey, are not bound to submit them­selves, where God himself interposeth not, to those that have the Rule over them?

All, I know, will ac­knowledge, that when S ^t Paul had determined the decency and order of par­ticular things in the Church, that it would have been very Tumultuary for the people to have said, [Page 75] These things seem strange to us, and inexpedient: And the like censure would have passed upon those, Act. 15. had they returned the like remora to the Synodical Sentence. Forgive me the wrong, Dear Reader, if I remember that of the Poet, Mutato nomine, &c.

It may farther challenge a sober debate, Whether the Ax [...] is not thus laid at the root of all polity and Government in the world, if once we grant the final Judgment of what is fit and orderly to private per­sons, and that this ought to be the Rule of every ones practice.

I must begg leave of the people to judge with Plato, Nullun sensus privatus re­rum [Page 76] mensura est. I mean no more, but that every one is to judge what is ne­cessary according to God; but publick Authority only what is expedient; and I think we have reason to advise, before we either give the things that are Gods, viz. necessary things, to Caesar, or the things that are Caesar's, that is, things expedient, to the people.

I do acknowledge the people a Judgment of Di­scretion, the guide and measure of every ones acti­ons, viz. to discern what God saith in things necessa­ry, and what humane Au­thority saith in things ex­pedient, and to obey both; but for the people to be wise above what is written [Page 77] in the Bible, to judge what is necessary, and what is re­quired by the Laws of the Land, to judge what is ex­pedient, I fear is folly, and tends to confusion in the Church and State.

Where God commands and Man forbids; or where God forbids, and Man com­mands, we are bound by the Covenant of Nature and Grace to acknowledge the supremacy of heaven, and to obey God rather then Man: But where God is sile [...]t, and Man com­mands, Obedience to our Governours is far better (ha­ving more of Religion and Order in it) then sacrifice­ing to the net of our private Reason for things more expedient.

Jesus Christ having fixt by his own appointment all the Essentials of his Fa­thers Worship, left the Circumstances of Decency and Order in the manner of performance, as things too small to engage the Wisedome of Heaven to the Church, as if there were some thing in this regard in that common saying, Non vacat exigu­is rebus, &c. Hereupon Calvin concludes, Haec in­differentia Inst it. lib. 4, 7, 43. sunt, & in Ec­clesiae libertate posita. In­different things, things not decided by God, are left in the liberty of the Church: Not in the liber­ty of every Member; 'twere easie to shew, that was not Calvins meaning, [Page 79] no more then it was the Apostles, who denied that liberty to the people, and gave them particular Or­ders himself, then which there is nothing more evi­dent in Scripture.

Consulte agit qui praecep­to legis obtemperat, saith the Civilian: And no doubt when it is not sin, 'tis wisedom to obey the Law: It is seasonable to call to mind and to practise too: Leges hominum, non homi­nes legum dominos esse opor­tet: It is fitter that Laws should govern Men, then that Men, private men, e­very private man shou [...]d govern the Laws: still I must be understood in things not determined by God, for then we are pre­obliged [Page 80] by a higher Law, which supersedes the low­er; and not we, but God contradicts such Laws of Men as are against his own: But when the matter is left to Men, and they com­mand us; for us out of a pretended Judgment of discretion, to object incon­venience and inexpedience, and to resist the power, sa­vours but little of either Judgment or Discretion.

But, that I may offer all fair satisfaction to this great scruple, I crave leave to admit the private Con­science into the Chair, and then the Case stands thus.

CASE XIV. What are private persons to do, when things sinful are imposed?
Resol.

I Would not be mistaken, I have not hitherto in, and I trust never shall be an Advocate for sin or sin­ful impositions; I have on­ly pleaded for a just and peaceable self-denial, and [Page 117] submission to the Laws of the Place where we live, in lawful things: We are descending to the lowest step from things Necessa­ry, Expedient, purely In­different, and Inexpedient, (all which have had their particular debate) to the last object of imposition proposed, viz. Things un­lawful; to consider what we are to do, should Au­thority require conformi­ty in things unlawful.

That I may speak fully, and as I humbly desire, sa­tisfactorily, to this doubt, I shall take the liberty of di­stinction.

Things are sinful, either,

1. In themselves, viz. such as God prohibits.

2. Or, To us, such as we [Page 118] judge to be forbidden of God. Or,

3. Unto others, such as others judge to be sinful, when they are neither so in themselves, nor judged so by us that are to use them; according to which distri­bution we are further invi­ted to the consideration of three Cases.

1. What we are to doe when things sinful in themselves are required. Or,

2. When such things are required as appear sinful to our selves. Or,

3. If not to our selves, to others that will be offen­ded at our obedience.

CASE I. What are we to do when things of themselves and materially evil are com­manded by Authority?
Resol.

ST Augustine delivered much in those few words, There can be no Law that is not just. S ^t Bernard gives us a smart explicati­on and account of it; What man commands, in such a case, God forbids, and so repeals and nuls it; or rather by a pre-declaring his Will against it, by whom Kings Reign, it is void of it self ipso facto.

Hereupon the conclusi­on [Page 120] is drawn home to our present Case in the other words of Bernard; Pura Ber. Ep. 7. mala ut nunquam juste ju­beri, sic nec licite possunt f­eri; Things of themselves and materially evil, as they cannot be justly command­ed, so they may not be law­fully done.

Shall we be deaf to God (as Bernard reasons) and hear Men? or with the A­postle, shall we hearken to men rather then God? We must not obey a Constable in opposition to the King; nor the King in oppositi­on to God, the King of Kings, as well as Subjects, and the King of Subjects as well as Kings, whose Soveraign Authority both Kings and Subjects and all [Page 121] must acknowledge, lest he vindicate it with his pow­er.

CASE II. What are we to do when such things 'are required, as, if not sinful in them­selves, yet we judge to be so?
Resol.

IT is past denial, that as some things may seem lawful to one that seem sin­ful to another; so, some things may seem either lawful when they are sin­ful, or sinful when they are lawful, to persons mis­informed.

Therefore, where a thing seems lawful to our Rulers, and fit to be imposed, and yet we judge it sinful, and not to be performed. The advice I should tender in such a case, is,

First, Be not over-con­fident of the certainty of thine own opinion, consi­dering others, especially men in Authority, that with advice and assistances, which private persons can­not obtain, have judged it not only lawful, but fit to be imposed and practised: and perhaps if thou hast u­sed any due diligence for the discovery of the truth herein, thou hast seen rea­son to be more favourable in thy censure then for­merly.

2. Therefore, with self-diffidence search farther, search impartially, read on both sides; if any thing bias thee, let it be thy mi­strust of thy self, thy esteem­ing of others, thy inclinati­on to peace, thy love of the Church, thy obedience to superiors; ever remembring, that ignorance and preju­dice make snares some­times, and Zeal without Knowledge sets the Church on fire.

3. When thou hast tho­rowly searched, the matter must needs appear unto thee either lawful, or doubt­ful, or sinful still.

1. If God shall bless thy endeavours with conviction, and bring thee to see thine own errour, and the law­fulness [Page 124] of that which before thou condemnedst, the ground of the doubt is re­moved, and consequently Obedience is justly expect­ed from thee.

2. If thy labours for sa­tisfaction have only brought thee into some farther suspition of thy o­pinion, so that now it doth not seem to be directly sin­ful which is required, but of a doubtful nature, so that thou art in a doubt whether thou maist obey or not, I commend thee for thy further satisfaction, to that excellent Casuist the Reverend Bishop of Lin­coln his Lectures, p. 216. & 217.

‘He concludes, If be­cause of some probable [Page 125] reasons, appearing on both sides, the subject cannot easily determine with himself whether the Law be right or not, in­somuch that his mind is in a great incertainty, and knows not which way to incline; he is bound in this case actually to obey it; so that he sinneth if he obeyeth it not, and doth not sin if he obeyeth.’ For which he gives several Reasons.

In general, the Reason seems to be this; That whereof a man doubts holds the beam, as it were, even; there is equal weight in each scale: so we say, A man doubting is one in bi­vio, in aequilibrio; but if the command of Authori­ty [Page 112] be thrown into the scale, it must needs turn it, if even before: this may not draw me to think it more lawful, but yet more necessary; not more law­ful with respect to God, yet more lawful with respect to us, and more practica­ble; upon that known rule, In re dubia, &c. In a doubt­ful case the safer part is to be chosen.

3. But if the thing re­quired appear sinful to thee still, thou art bound by the Law, thou art bound to the peace of thine own consci­ence, Gods Vice-gerent within thee, and thou maist not obey.

Yet it may be worth thy pains to search again; thou ca [...]st not suffer upon too [Page 127] sure grounds; and per­chance, yet, thou maist be in an errour, and God may at length reveal it to thee. And that I may offer all my ser­vice, both to thy conscience & the peace of the Church, let me beseech you thorow­ly to examine, & satisfy your selfe in these four Cases.

1 Wherein Real Super­stition, or the shew and ap­pearance of it lies?

2 Whether such things are still to be reckoned Su­perstitious, as have been for­merly used to Superstition?

3 Whether the signifi­cancy of things imposed render the things Superst [...] ­tious or sinful?

[Page 128] 4 Whether it be a sinful betraying the Christian Li­berty to obey the Law in things indifferent in the Worship of God?

I know nothing that makes impositions of this kind seem sinful to any, but it may be reduced to these four heads: give me but a little liberty to speak my mind briefly upon each of them, and I hasten to a Conclusion.

CASE I. Wherein doth Superstition or the appearance of it consist?
Resol.

THis Case hath visibly two Branches.

• 1 Touching the reality,
• 2 The appearance of Su­perstition.

1 For the reality of Su­perstition; all Divines con­clude, that it sticks not in the natures of the things u­sed or required, but in the persons that superstitiously require or use them. Su­perstition therefore is right­ly said by Divines to be grounded in that false [Page 130] Doctrine or superstitious o­pinion▪ that superstitious persons have of them.

Polanus, with many o­thers of unquestionable credit in this particular, hath reduced those errours that constitute circumstan­ces of Worship truly and really superstitious, to four heads.

1 Meriti: When wee think God is bound to re­ward our inventions, and that by our purses or la­bours therein we purchase his favour. This is Super­stition.

2 Cultus Dei: When things are required as parts, or of the essence of Di­vine Worship, or so used. This is Superstition.

3 Perfectionis: When [Page 131] we conceive that the true beauty and excellency of the Church, and the perfe­ction of Christianity consist­eth in things of humane in­vention. This is Super­stition.

4. Necessitatis: When such things are required as simply necessary in their na­ture, and so used, when they are but things indif­ferent. This is also Super­stition.

CASE II. Whether such things as have been used superstitiously must be reckoned Super­stitious still.
Resol.

THis doubt is also re­solved upon the for­mer grounds. For,

1 If Superstition consists not in the nature of the thing, but in the superstiti­ous conceit and use of it, then superstition cleaves no long­er to any thing, when the thing is purged and freed from the superstitious do­ctrine and use, opinion and practice aforesaid.

[Page 138] 2 None can reasonably doubt but that upon this ground Superstition is se­parable from a thing that hath been thus abused; as one saies well, Nothing can be so far gone into the de­vils power, but may be redu­ced to Gods Glory.

3. Therefore, as hath been said, we must still have recourse to the reason of the usage at present, and the present grounds of the im­position; would you judge righteous in this weighty particular.

Superstition is reforma­ble two waies; either by abolishing the thing, or removing the abuse: Now which is the best and most effectual course to be ta­ken, must be left to the [Page 139] wisedom and zeal of Gover­nours; yet Reason judges so far, Frustra fit per plu­ra, &c. If the end can be attained without more a­do, i. e. if by instruction and injunctions the thing may be reduced to a lawful and laudable use, what need of the abolition of it?

Ad eundem finem multis mediis pervenitur; We may arrive at the same end by divers means; the means are of no moment, as such, further then they advance the end. If superstition be removed, no great matter which way, as appeareth in the practice of good He­zekias; he took away the High places, brake the I­mages, cut down the Groves, brake the Brazen Serpent; [Page 140] thus he endeavoured with all pious zeal to reform by the first course, the aboliti­on of the things abused; yet he spared the Chappel which Solomon built for Ashtoreth the Idol of the Sydonians, and for the Che­mosh the Idol of the Moa­bites, and for Milcom the abomination of the chil­dren of Ammon, in hopes, no doubt, to sever the Ido­latry from the Places, and by a milder course of Go­vernment, Vid. Greg. l. 10. Ep. 71. to reduce these by his wisedom to the use and service of the true God.

Yet upon supposition that the Idolatry or super­stition cannot be severed from the use of the thing, or very hardly done, Ido­latry and superstition must [Page 141] have no indulgence; the Serpent it self in such a case must be broken in pieces. Here that famous Rule of Pope Stephen is appproved by all; Per hoc, Magna Authoritas, &c. ‘For this cause that Authority is esteemed great in the Church, that if some of our Predecessors have done some things which at that time might be without fault, and after­wards are turned into er­rour and superstition, without any delay, and with great authority, they may be destroyed by Po­sterity.’

Yet to this rule we must oppose that excellent obser­vation Ad publi. Col. 154. of St Augustine, Cum Templa, Idola, Luci, [Page 142] &c. ‘When Temples, I­dols, Groves, or any thing of like qualily, by lawful Authority are ru­inated, if they be trans­lated into common (not proper) uses, and conver­ted to the honour of the true God, that falleth out in them which happeneth also in men, when as of sacriledgious and ungod­ly, they are converted to the true Religion.—So God (saith he) comman­ded, that the Wood which grew in the Groves of strange gods should be u­sed in the Holocaust; and that all the gold and sil­ver of Jericho should be brought into the Lords Treasury. De [...] Vest. ad Nop.’

‘Because (as the Learned [Page 143] Bucer teacheth) to be a legal or Antichristian Rite, sticks in no creature of God, in no Gar­ment, in no Figure, in no colour; or in any work of God, but in the mind and profession of those that abuse the good crea­tures of God, ad impias significationes, to wicked or ungodly purposes.’

Hereupon, Scio (inquit Beza) nonnullos sublata cru­cis Adoratione, aliquem sig­ni crucis usum retinnisse; utuntur igitur ipsi, sicut par est, suâ libertate.

But lastly, Admit that our Rulers ought to abolish the thing that hath been so used to superstition, but do not think fit to do it; & in­joyn us by their commands [Page 144] to leave the superstitious use, and to use it as we lawfully may; it need not enter into a Question, Whether we ought not to forsake the superstition, and also to obey Authority in the lawful use of that thing without fear of superstiti­on.

CASE III. Whether the imputing of sig­nificancy to things impo­sed render them Super­stitious?
Resol.

TRuly some Reverend and Learned men seem so affrighted at the [Page 145] very mention of sacred mystical Ceremonies, signifi­cant symbolical Rites of hu­mane Institution, that I cannot but fear, rhat they have apprehended some ve­ry great danger in them.

Should we once grant, that Ceremonies of humane Institution might be ap­pointed to signifie the fa­vour of God, or the grace of the Sacraments; or to be a means of receiving any blessing from God; no doubt, there is so much dan­ger in it, that if corrupt and superstitious men should at any time rule the Church, we may quickly have not onely Seven but Seventy times seven, if not intire, yet, Semi-Sacraments; the Church and service of God [Page 146] being thereby obnoxious to all the antick and con­ceited crotchers that the vain imaginations of over­curious men can cumber them with, untill they be­come stench in the nostrils of all sober and staid men, and of God himself with the Church of Rome.

But, if by Rites and Ce­remonies we mean onely the Circumstances of Di­vine Worship; by Scri­pture left to the liberty and prudence of the Church: and by the significancy of them, we intend nothing, but that they are fitted to commend the exercise, with order and decency, to express the gravity and de­votion of the Worshippers; tending also (as such things [Page 147] are capable) to unity and edification: if this be all, truly I cannot discover so much danger.

Yea, give me leave to add, that to quarrel with them, because they are such, seems to be angry with these Ceremonies which are better, and be­cause they are better then others; and to quarrel with their very fitness, and their conformity to the ge­neral Rules of Scripture, by which alone they ought to be measured.

Again, if nothing that is so purely Indifferent, as to be of no use or service; and not to be more expe­dient then inexpedient, ought to be imposed, as all moderate men allow; and, [Page 148] according to the opinion in hand, Nothing that hath its use or significancy may be required: who sees not but the Church is crucified between two Opinions, that openly rob her of all power about things indifferent.

Some very wise and un­suspected persons have freely declared themselves not to discover any such danger in the bare signifi­cancy of the Rites of the Church, as others are af­frighted with. ‘It is not lawfull (saith Peter Mar­tyr to Hooper) to deprive the Church of that liber­ty, that she should not by her actions and Rites of the Church, aliquid significare, signify some­thing. Yea, (further saith’ [Page 149] he) the very Apostle himself used that liberty, when he taught, ut illis signis, that with those signes they should be admonished of their duty. Again, Rerum significationes, &c. the sig­nifications of things call to our minds, quid nos deceat, what is expedient. Mini­stri magis memores sint sui officii. [Vid. Aret. in 1 Cor. 10. 10. & 16. 16. Pet. Mart. in 1 Cor. 16. 26. Geneva Annotations in 1 Cor. 16. 20. Perkins Case. Consci. cap. 3. Sect. 3.]

Calvin also is nothing Calv. In­stit. lib. 4. c. 10. 28, 29. fearful to de iver his minde in the point: There are (saith he) Rites which draw Veneration to holy things, &c. with such little helps we are provoked to piety.— [Page 150] They are adapted to the re­verence of holy Mysteries; thereby the exercise is sui­ted to holin [...]ss.—They are not without fruit.—Thereby the faithfull are admonished with what mo­desty and religion they are to worship God.

Kneeling (saith Beza) when we receive the Signes, hath a shew of Godly and Christian Veneration.

CASE IV. Whether it be a sinfull be­traying our Christian li­berty to obey the Law in things Indifferent in the Worship of God.
Resol.

THis Question seems to engage God and Ce­sar; and to cause a quarrel betwixt Duty and Liber­ty, which neither God or Cesar, Duty or Liber [...]y will own or defend.

The doubt apparently results out of a too gross mistake of the nature of true Gospel-Liberty; the Internal part whereof, [Page 152] though it indeed free us from Inward Bondage, yet binds us the faster in Ser­vice to God: so the exter­nal part thereof doth also deliver us from outward slavery to the lusts of men; yet it the more obligeth us in duty to Superiors.

Polanus placeth Exter­nal Christian Liberty (w ^ch indeed is properly Christi­an, as it may be distinguish­ed from Gospel-Liberty) in two things. A Li­berty from the Law of Mo­ses; 2. A Liberty in the use of Indifferent things. Now, though the first branch may not be touch­ed, yet, he doubts not in the least, but that the latter may be determined, upon just occasion of the Chur­ches [Page 153] order, by lawfull Au­thority.

Libertas Christiana est duplex; à Legibus Mosis, & in Adiaphoris, quales sunt Ceremoniae humanâ au­toritate institutae, boni ordi­nis causâ. Christian liber­ty (saith Polanus) is two­fold; from the Laws of Mo­ses, and in things indiffe­rent: of which sort (mea­ning things Indifferent) are Ceremonies appointed by humane Authority for orders sake.

Now neither of these branches of Christian Li­berty can be soberly thought to make void the Law, as Moral or Natural, in any one jot or tittle of it, which our Saviour came to fulfill, Matth. 5. and [Page 154] establish, Rom. 3. ult. but to assert, that Rulers have no power in things Indiffe­rent, because of Christian liberty, seems to weaken he arm of Authority Ec­clesiastical, Civil, Political, Oeconomical, and even to raze out the fifth Comman­dement of the Moral Law; yea, what unnatural conse­quences of all disorder are like to ensue, in Church, in State, in Families, and all Societies in the world? the beauty and comliness of all which lies not a litle in the due order of things Indifferent.

Yea, how often is the Apostle himself the great Assert of Christian Li­bertie, thus made an Inva­der of it? how Injurious­ly [Page 155] did that famous Synod, Act. 15. binde the Church to those indifferent things? What Council, Father, Scholman, Church, nay, what wise man was ever of this opinion? or who is that solid Writer, in any age almost, that hath not declared the contrary?

Give me leave, there­fore, to repeat it, the na­ture of Christian Liberty is much mistaken: It is not only consistent with, but it even consisteth in the determination of things in­different by lawful Autho­rity. It is one part of this liberty (as Calvin asserts) Libertas aufertur, ablato Ju­re & Le­gibus. that the Church hath pow­er to regulate the Circum­stantes of Worship, for peace and unity, order and [Page 156] decency; and it is, no doubt, another great part of the said Liberty, that the members of the same may, without sin, obey their Ru­lers in such determinations.

It is most worthily ob­served by the Apostle, that is a part of our Freedom, as Christians, that we may be the Lords free-men in our 1 Cor. 7. 20, 22. publick capacity, and yet servants in our private; our Christian liberty being not infringed by our outward duty.

Moreover, that for the good of Society, the pre­servation of our selves from legal penalties, for our maintenance and liveli­hood, we may be subject to the commands and laws of men, I take to be a [Page 157] very valuable part of our li­berty also; provided no­thing be required or acted against the Supremacy of our Lord Paramount in Heaven.

But let us a little more 1 Cor. 7. 20, 21, 23. distinctly consider the A­postle, Let every one abide in the same calling (private) wherin he is called; that is, to be a Christian: Art thou called a servant, &c. Whence briefly note,

1. Are not all that are called to be Christians, cal­led to the liberty of Chri­stians?

2. Doth not the Text assure us, that this liberty to which we are called is truly consistent with the Condition in which we are called? otherwise why [Page 158] should we abide in it?

3. Is not the state of all persons, called to be Chri­stians, (except supream Magistrates) a state of sub­jection and servitude?

4. Doth it not then most cleerly follow, that Christian liberty consisteth with, and obligeth unto all, kind of duty to all kind of Governours, to Fathers, Masters, Husbands, (as the very Quakers acknowledg) Pastours, Kings, and to God himself (as all good Chri­stians have cause to glory) and that upon the firmest bonds and ties imaginable, of Wrath, of Conscience, and the Lords sake.

Nam etsi conscientias proprie solus Deus [...]ig [...], &c.

‘For (saith Beza) al­though Bez. ep. 20. God alone can properly bind the consci­ence; yet so fat as the Church, with respect to Order and Decency, and thereby to Edification, doth rightly enjoyn, or make Laws concerning things Indifferent, those same Laws are to be ob­served by all pious Per­sons; and they do so far bind the conscience as that no man [Sciens & pru­dens & rebellandi animo] wittingly and willingly with a purpose to diso­bey, can either do what is so forbidden, or omit what is so commanded, absque peccato, without sin.’

CASE III. What are we to do in case such things are comman­ded us, as though we judg them lawful, yet others judge them sinful, and will be offended at our doing of them?
Resol.

VVE have already considered what is to be done, if things sin­ful in themselves, or judg­ed so by us, be injoyned: We are arrived to the ul­timate scruple, touching the offence that others may be likely to take at our pra­ctice, who conceive those things which are injoyned [Page 161] to be unlawful, and that we shall sin if we do them. And the Question is, What is to be done in this Case?

The scruple is evident­ly grounded in the Apostles Directions about scandal; the sum of which is, that we must not use our liber­ty in indifferent things to the offence of our weak bro­ther.

For satisfaction to this great and present doubt, we must have liberty a little to distinguish.

1. We must distinguish of the object of scandal; it may be such as offends only one way; and it may be such as offends both ways; that is, first the do­ing of a thing may offend some, when the not doing [Page 162] of it offends none: This was the Case in the Apo­stles time; the taking of meat offered to Idols was apt to offend the weak bre­thren; but the not eating of such meat was not like­ly to offend any body: In such a Case 'tis evident, we ought not to eat to the of­fence of our brother.

But in some Cases there is a necessity of offence, whe­ther we do the thing, or whether we do it not; as in case of Conformity, our very case, some, you say, that are weak will be of­fended if we do conform; and you cannot say but that some whom you judg weak also, will be offended if we do not.

Now in this case there [Page 163] is no remedy, seeing I must do one or other, conform, or not; but to fly to that excellent Rule of Polanus, and to consider the persons offended on both sides, and to weigh the nature of the offence.

Hereupon we must rest satisfied in this issue; where most, and of most conside­ration are offended; and where the nature of the of­fence is most haynous, there we must forbear to use our liberty, and either do or not do the thing in questi­on; and so on the contra­ry.

Let us then apply, and faithfully answer our selves whether the doing a lawful thing enjoyned by Autho­rity, that will offend our [Page 164] weak brethren be likely to offend more persons and persons of more considera­tion, and give offence of a more heinous nature, than the not doing of that law­full thing against the com­mand of Authority.

Here seem to be three branches of the Compari­son: 1. Where more are likely to be offended. 2. Where more conside­rable persons. 3. Where the nature of the offence is foulest.

Truly, I soberly think, that Conformity in such lawfull things need not fear to compare with Non con­formity, in any one of these three.

1. If the Question be, Whether Conformity or [Page 165] Non-conformity be likely to offend most individual persons in the Nation, it will not be difficult to an­swer. Its possible, the im­posing of such things [...] offend many more then t [...] not practising; but when things are once imposed, so wise a Nation will, I con­ceive, leave little room for the comparison betwixt the extent of scandal by Obedience and by Disobedi­ence.

2. And much more, if the Question be touching the considerableness of the persons offended on both sides. 'Tis too true, that Obe­dience in such a case is like­ly to stirr up trouble, envy, discontent & murmuring in the mindes of many of the [Page 166] ordinary sort of people; but whether, as to the great ends of the peace and good of the Church, the ordina­ry sort be the more consi­ [...]able, will hardly brook [...] inquiry. Whereas, our Disobedience, besides the offence of ordinary peo­ple, is too likely to offend the King, the Court, the Councell, the Parliament, the Bishops, the Lawyers, the Nobility, the Gentry, or beyond controversie the greater part of them all; but even thus farr the Ar­gument is invincible (à Minore ad Majus): If we must forbear our liberty in case of offence to our weak brother, much more in case of offence to Autho­rity.

[Page 167] 3. Especially, if we consider the nature of the offence also on both sides. Where, first, we may com­pare the offence on both sides with the offence the Apostle mentions, and then weigh them one against ano­ther.

1. First, comparing the scandal likely to happen upon our obedience, with the scandal of the weak mentioned by the Apostle, there seems to be this great difference: the scan­dal mentioned by the Apo­stle, was, chiefly, if not (as an eminent person asserts) onely, unto sin. And the great reason the Apostle gives, why we must not use our liberty to the offence of our weak brother, is, lest [Page 168] we lay a stumbling-block Rom. 14. 13, 15, 20, 21. 1 Cor. 8. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. before him, whereat he may fall: that is, least he pre­sume after our example, to do something against his Conscience, and so sin a­gainst Christ, and be likely to perish or to be destroyed; the danger, therefore the Apostle tells us, lies not so much in offending our bro­ther in the English sense, as in one making him by our evil example to offend. Wherefore, the Apostle concludes, If meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh, &c. 1 Cor. 8. 13.

But now the offence that is most likely to ensue up­on our conformity, is quite of another nature, there is litle fear of drawing our [Page 169] offended brethren to like the waies of Conformity by the practice of Confor­mists; but rather they will like Conformity and the persons conforming so much the worse, and grow the more bitter against them.

The reason of this diffe­rence, I conceive, lies thus; In the time of the Apostle, those were genera [...]ly loo­ked upon as the strongest disciples that knew their li­berty best; and the others, that were weak, were apt­est to be offended; but now, those that pretend offence are the strongest in their own opinion; and they judge it a weakness in those that do conform: and no doubt, if any be likely [Page 170] to follow our examples in conformity, out of an opi­nion of our ability to judg better then themselves; they will as easily follow our Judgment too, if we first use due means of sa­tisfaction to them; and then all the scruple is va­nished and gone.

2. Secondly, let us weigh them one against a­nother; and compare the offence received by our weak brethren upon our obedience, with that recei­ved by Authority upon our disobedience.

If we onely do that which we may lawfully do, and which we are com­manded to do, we do not give our weak brother any offence, though he take it: [Page 171] there is not that per [...]se, or naturally flowing out of the use of my liberty, or the doing of my duty, that would hurt my brother, or tempt him to sin; he takes occasion of himself, not at all given by me.

But now, by disobedi­ence, (if the thing be law­full that is injoined) we give offence to Authority, directly and properly so; and, as we have shewed, we can hardly escape sin herein against the fifth Commandement; which, in every iota, as well as all the rest, our very liberty it self establisheth.

The sum is this; by refusing to conform in such a lawfull case, lest we should offend our weak [Page 172] brother, seems directly to sin our selves, to avoid an occasion of sin to him; to offend God, the King, the Law, the Church, and con­science too, by not doing our duty, lest we should offend our brother by doing it.

Therefore, we must di­stinguish betwixt things Indifferent, that are not un­der the actual command of Authority; and such as are, before they are comman­ded, things Indifferent, are in our liberty: and then, the Apostles Rule holds, we must not use our liberty to the offence of our brethren; but what is required by Authority, if it be no lon­ger in our liberty, we must minde our duty.

This Rule therefore [Page 173] greatly concerns Magi­strates in th [...]ir Impositi­ons, who ought still to fol­low the weighty advice of M ^r Calvin: Let Charity submit to Faith, and Liber­ty to Charity; but Subjects must not sin, that they may please their Prince, much less their brother.

Besides, we may distin­guish of offence, with re­spect to our brother offen­ded; if we offend him by doing our duty, we one [...]y tempt him to do his duty, though against his consci­ence; on the other side, if we omit our duty, lest we offend our brother, do not we offend him more in the Apostles sence, by tempting him to continue in sin, and [Page 174] to embolden himself in sin with a worse conscience?

CASE. The Apostle hath laid down a Rule, how we are to use our liberty in things In­different, towards our weak brother: can Man by his commands alter this Rule, or take off the force of it?
Resol.

THe Apostles Rule is absolutely unaltera­ble, where the reason of it holds; and the object is the same that is where the matter is still indifferent.

2. Man cannot make things Indifferent to be­come necessary in their na­ture; yet lawful Authority may and ought to judge when the exigencies of the Church make any thing necessary, as to its present use, or forbearance. These necessary things (saith that Councel, Act. 15.) though v. 28. they were not all necessa­ry in their nature, yet the Councel judged them ne­cessary as to the present good of the Church.

3. In such Cases, for the publick good of the Church, Governours may and ought to determine the use of Indifferent things by their prudent im­positions; It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us 28. [Page 176] to lay upon you no other bur­then then these necessary things.

And no less remarkably we finde St Pauls power put forth, in 1 Cor. 11. and o [...]her places, in determi­ning many Indifferent things, for order and decen­cy in the Church of God.

4. But what doth all this signifie, if these Apo­stolical Injunctions have no force, when a disconten­ted person shall say he is offended?

Put case that after the decree of the Synod in Act. 15. a particular mem­ber should have been of­fended, that his brother refused to eat meat of­fered to Idols, pleading that it was superstition in [Page 177] him, or a losing or be­traying the Christian Li­berty: Or that others had been offended at those particulars of De­cency and Order injoined by the Apostle to the Church of Corinth; ur­ging that they were not commanded of the Lord, that therefore they were Humane Inventions, New Ordinances, Additions to Gods Word, and Will-Worship. Can any ima­gine, that the rest of the people had been dis­charged of their duty, ei­ther to that famous Sy­nod, or that excellent Governour the Apostle Paul, or that they were bound to suspend their [Page 178] Obedience, lest they should offend such scrapulous per­sons? I cannot think it.

We must not oppose Liberty to Necessity; Charity to Duty; or the Offence of the Weak, to the Higher Powers.

CASE I. But it is vehemently urged by my brethren in the▪ Mi­nistry, that even their credit and reputation will not suffer them to con­form; they shall thus be­come vile to the people, as men that will do any thing to save their Live­ings; and then their Ministry will be fruitless, and do no good among them; What is to be done in such a Case?
Resol.

1. THis Case seems to arise from pru­dence and not conscience: Herein we not pretend to [Page 180] fly from sin to suffering, but from one sort of suf­fering to another, that is judged rather to be cho­sen; from suffering in our Reputation by Conformity, to the Penalties of the Law for disobedience; which, when all things are cons [...] ­dered, will be found to savour more of the stout­ness and Magnanimity of an Heathen, then of the meekness, humility, and self­denial of a Christian, or a Minister of Christ.

2. A good name indeed is a very pretious thing; [...]nd to blot and stain it with any thing that is sinful is to be abhorred more then death; for a good name is better then life; but to suffer therein without a cause, or [Page 181] in a good cause; to suffer therein for well doing, as the Apostle speaks, the more precious it is, the more thank-worthy are such sufferings, & the more like Martyrdom.

3. But if the things be lawful that are required, & the Authority be lawful that requires them, and God commandeth you to o­bey them that rule over you, in things that are lawful; if the publique Peace, the good of souls, the safety of the Church, as well as your own prosperity, do truly depend upon your confor­mity; and upon these, or like respects of Peaaee, Du­ty, and safety, you do con­form, and are therefore re­proached and wounded in [Page 182] your Names, I see not but that you suffer in a very good cause, and your Names are Martyrs of the Church of God, and the souls of the people; in such a case doubt not to commit your souls and names into the hands of your God in well-doing, as into the hands of a faithful Crea­tor, who will find a time and a way to wipe off the dirt from his Jewels, and make your Righteousness shine as the light, and your innocency as the noon-day: When all men speak evil of you (such a time there may be) for Christs sake, rejoyce and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in hea­ven.

4. But let us take a [Page 183] more steady view of the danger which your reputa­tion is really in, by confor­mity in lawful things. In order thereunto let us weigh the state and temper of the people with whom your credit and reputation lieth, and whom you fear; they are usually divided in­to three sorts, two ex­treams, and a middle more staid and sober sort of peo­ple; the two extrams are the profane and the giddy, i. e. such as are zealous, but without knowledge.

5. Now let it be serious­ly reckoned what our repu­tation with these two ex­treams is worrh, further then it may help us to save their souls. Again, How difficult and almost [Page 184] impossible it is to have and keep a good Name, and a good Conscience, with either of these: If we be faith­ful to their souls in reproof of sin, and pressing the power of godliness, will not the profane hate us and speak evil of us? And let one put it home to you, What considerable part of Reputation have you left (if you have indeed been thus faithful) with them, to hazard or lose by your conformity? Yea, Whether you are not more certain to contract the reproach & revi [...]ing of such persons by your Non-conformity? and whether your Conformity may not afford you more opportunity. (by being a means of your continuing [Page 185] in your places) and also more advantage (bringing your practice nearer to their principles and desires) of winning, reforming, and saving the souls of the profaner sort of your peo­ple, then your Non-con­formity, throwing you out of the Ministry, and far­ther from the way and af­fections of those people, is likely to do.

6. As for the zealous part, I mean such whose knowledg is but small, and their zeal much; I confess your interest in them is de­servedly prized, because they mean well, and in the main are many of them truly pious; yet I judge it very unreasonable to prize your interest in their favour [Page 186] and aff [...]ction above the in­terest of their souls, the in­terest of the Gospel, and of God himself; which is to set their good opinion of us (falssy taken too) above our Ministry and the pub­lick Peace, above our duty to God and man. It is pos­sible we may suffer from good people, not on [...]y for well doing, but for doing, or endeavouring to do them good; and a Peter through ignorance may act Satans part, towards Christ him­self; but our Saviour hath encouraged us with his own example, to sacrifice not only our Names, but our Lives, to save, if possible, the very persons that would take them from us.

[Page 187] 7. Besides, when the Law for Conformity ex­tends to the People, as well as to the Ministry, perhaps, by their own necessity, they may learn more modesty & charity towards us.

And in the mean while these censures are far more obnoxious to the censure and reproof of their Mi­nisters, and all sober peo­ple, for their rashness and uncharitableness, then their Ministers▪ can so much as seem to be, by doing their duty in a just Conformity: and, if meerly to gratifie them, we suspend obedi­ence to our superiors, wee seem to sacrifice Church, and State, our selves, and all, as far as in us lies, to the very humours of our people.

[Page 188] 8. Our own experience (many of us I am sure) hath sufficienly reproached us already, for our being so much lead by the foolish fire of the strange zeal of such kind of people; wee have seen that there is no measure in their principles, no bounds in their practis­es, and many of us have once already, by making them our guides, lost our way, our selves, and our credits, and reputation, as well with our selves, as with all sober and well temper­ed persons; and shall we now take sanctuary there to save our credits, where our reputation hath bled, and our Names have suffered e­ven to death already? Is not the good of the [Page 189] Church, the service of Souls, the protection of the Laws, and just obedience to God and the King, a bet­ter refuge, and of better reputation, then the opinion of a few inconsiderate cen­sorious persons? Let it be wisely considered.

9. Let us ponder a little the sentence of Calvin, pas­sed long agon upon such Galv. Ad­vers. Ana­bapt. Art. 2. kind of people, the truth of which much late experi­ence hath sealed unto; Cum sub specie studii perfectio­nis imperfectionem nullam tolerare possumus, aut in corpore, aut in membris Ec­clesiae, tunc Diabolum nos Tumefacere Superbia, & Hypocrisi seducere monea­mur; in which words he plainly fathers such blind, [Page 190] rash; and censorious zeal upon the Devil, and upon the works of the Devil, Se­duction, Pride, and Hypo­crisie.

10. Now if we do in­deed so highly value the love of such people, have we not reason to answer their Love? And how can this be better effected then by endeavouring to reco­ver them out of the snare of the Divel, both by Doctrine or good example; I mean the rather for their sakes, to yield obedience to those things that our people ought to know we judge to be lawful; and that they may also be truly satisfied how ready we are to do any thing that is not sinful, ra­ther then to lay down the [Page 191] Ministry and service of their Souls; a far better way, I think, to express our hearty affection to them, then by indulging their prejudices, gratify­ing their vices, or out of a sensless tenderness of our interest in them, to suffer our selves by the power of the Tempter to be seduced with them into a state of wretched separation.

If all that hath been said cannot satisfie, let it also be seriously considered, how often our Saviour hazard­ed his Name with the Peo­ple, that he might fulfil his Ministry, until he had gotten the slander of a friend of Publicans and sin­ners; that his Apostle Pe­ter ventured his credit even [Page 190] with the Church, the pu­rest of the Church, that he might answer his call from heaven, and dispense the Gospel to his new charge the Gentiles: And lastly; How doth Paul also run the ven­ture of a scandalous reputa­tion, of time, and compa­ny serving, of men-pleas­ing, &c. When to the Jew he becomes a Jew, and to those without Law, as if without Law; even all things (lawful) to all men; which yet he sticks not at, as himself glories, for the Gospels sake, and that he might obtain opportunity and advantage to win souls.

But besides these two ex­treams, 11. there's a midle sort of people, that are sixed [Page 193] upon sober and staid Prin­ciples of a better reputati­on by far then either or both of the former; indeed if our Conformity should forfeit our credit with these; I should much suspect it.

12. But here you must not understand by this so­ber sort of people, only the sober people of your own Parishes, that is too narrow and short a measure of them; but the sober and moderate part of the King­dom, as you may find them in all ranks and qualities, degrees and callings of men, as hath been before more largely observed.

13. Now, I think, I may say with confidence, that [Page 194] these you will finde either professedly for Conformity themselves, or else so wise, so just, and charitable to you, as (unless you have formerly forfeited your cre­dit and reputation with them, by some notorious appearances of your time-serving) to put a better in­terpretation upon your humble and peaceable sub­mission to Authority, then you seem to hope for.

Yea, though your name and esteem should seem to 14. be consumed in the zeal and rage of the giddy and pro­fane sort of the people (with whom it cannot long live) yet despair not, but by your wise and sober conversations, your dili­gence and labours in the [Page 195] service of the Gospel, your peaceable demeanour in o­bedience to the Laws, there will arise, as it were, out of the ashes of the old, a New Name, and better re­putation to you, in the good opinion of this better generation, the wise and so­ber sort of the people.

15. However cast the worst; thou hast thus sacri­ficed thy Name for the dis­charge of thy duty to God and the King, to the Church and thy Charge, & no doubt to thi [...]e own con­science, if this be all thy scruple; for I cannot be­lieve that he that so much values the good opinion of the vulgar, can ever have a good opinion of himself; or he that dare hazard the [Page 198] peace of the Church for his credit with the people, can have much quiet in his own breast; or one that hath more confidence in the esteem of the multi [...]ude than in the favour of his Prince, or the protection of the Laws, can easily satisfie his own con­science.

For I must needs confess 16. with that famous Church, Civilibus legibus, quae cum Confes. Suev. c. 14. pietate non pugnant eo quis­que Christianus paret prom­ptius, quo fide Christi est imbutus plenius; That eve­ry Christian, by how much the more he savours of the faith of Christ, by so much the more prompt and ready he is to conform to the Laws of men, which are not contrary to the Laws of God.