SOME Necessary & Seasonable Cases of CONSCIENCE About Things Indifferent in Matters of Religion, Briefly, yet faithfully stated and resolved: wherein the the just bounds of Imposing on one hand, and of Obeying on the other, are truly Fixed,  
By an Indifferent Hand.  Rom. 14. 19 
Let us therefore follow after the things that make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.  Bernard. Pacem contemnentes & Gloriam quaerentes, pacem perdunt & gloriam. 
London, Printed, and are to be sold at the Sign of the George in Fleetstreet, and the first Shop in Westminster-Hall. 1661.   

A   

The Preface.  
SAd experience in every Age, especially in ours, hath taught us, that the Interessed Wits of men, on every side, having found so much to be said for their own Opinions, and against another's, have widened differences to so vast a distance, that the Wit of man may even despair of a perfect closure. Indeed, the Wisdom from above, that is pure and peaceable, and the Grace of Self-denial and Brotherly love can only do it.  
Yet, methinks, where there are two great Bodies divided and engaged in a Church or Kingdom, even Moral wisdom should foresee the evil, and make timely Application of preventing Remedies.  
For which, there seem but three ways open to us: Conversion or Subversion of one of the parties, or a Concession of both. The first is hardly to be expected; the second is not to be desired; but, how happy were England, if the last were obtained!  
But yet I humbly crave leave to distinguish, betwixt that Cause & Party which the Law owneth, and that which it doth not; neither, do I ask such a Concession from the present Law, as would maintain and uphold both these parties, as they are parties; only, this I apprehend as a thing , that the way might be made so fair, or at least (considering the Temptation) passable, that the dissenting party might come over to the other, and remain no longer a distinct body from it. So that the persons that uphold that which is called the illegal party, or at least the main body of them (for some will be unreasonable) might be preserved, though the party be lost; and upon a fair compliance, and as it were, adding or adjoining themselves to the Church, may be united and embodied with it, and have the same protection and kindness of the Law.  
If one of the parties should be contented thus to sacrifice itself to the peace of the Church, and the honour of the other; it is pity, but that the surviving party, that enjoys the Inheritance, should cover the nakedness of its 
judaicam Synagogam cum honore fuisse sepeliendam.  brother deceased; and, as St Augustine speaks of the Jewish Church, allow him a handsome and honourable burial.  
Herein, I humbly conceive, consists the INTEREST of the Church of England; which also I have made my design and labour in this small Treatise, by making the Rule of Imposition as low and narrow, and the Rule of Obedience as high and large as the Scriptures, the measure of both, would allow me.  
And 'tis happy that Our Interest is also our Duty; for, if, on the one side, nothing be required, but what is expedient in ●ts due latitude; and on the other, nothing be refused that is not unlawful according to Scripture, doubtless the way of Peace would not be so much unknown unto us.  
I do much Revere that grave saying of Seneca; Non expedit concutere felicem Statum; it is not safe to shake a happy State: yet, by the same line of reason we are all led to use the best of our Counsels for the settlement of the State, and making it happy.  
The Sentence of St Augustine is also weighty; Ipsa mutatio Consuetudinis, etiam quae adjuvat utilitate, novitate perturbat, the very change of a Custom may sometimes spoil any other good that may accrue by it, even by its Novelty; but, I think, none will affirm the Rule to be universal, and to extend to all customs, and to all seasons and exigents of the Church; and if that be acknowledged, what remains, but that the conveniences and inconveniences of some small alterations for the gaining of some, yea many brethren, and the establishment of the Church in quietness, be equally considered, and then the conclusion be made and not before?  
I acknowledge, there is much of Wisdom, much of Peace in that notable Adage; Malum bene positum non est movendum, an Evil that is only so, because inconvenient, being placed well, is not to be removed; lest by plucking out a Rusty nail the whole Fabric fall about your ears: yet its possible, a malum, a little inconvenience ill placed may be the cause of a great mischief, as the smallest error in a curious Watch may happen to check the whole Motion.  
Yet, I am absolutely averse from that ancient Petition, Tolle Legem & fiet certamen, take away the Law and we will dispute: that were, indeed, to begin in confusion, and most likely to end in devouring and consuming one another: but, I humbly offer, Whether something of the Rigour of Law might not be abated, or some small matters un-injoined; not, that we might fight, but that we m●ght agree, and rejoice together, as the sons of Peace, in Zions prosperity. I mean, not in two distinct bodies, and parties in the Church; but, thus united, and of two made one; that under one and the same Prince and Law; one and the same Ecclesiastical Government; professing one and the same Doctrine and Liturgy, we might all as one man jointly prosecute one and the same glorious ends, the defence of the Gospel, and the saving of Souls.  
But it may not be unseasonable, to put the Case, that the Supreme Authority will not admit of any alteration of that which is already established by Law, or at least not so much as is desired: if it should be so, I humbly crave leave to offer my Advice to my Reverend Brethren in the Ministry, in a few words, and I have done.  
1. That, as they fear the God of heaven, and love the Lord Jesus Christ, and have any bowels of compassion towards this poor people; and as they would obtain the ends of their Calling, and advance the peace and settlement, the safety and salvation of the Church of God committed to their charge, and of which they must one day give an account, that they would instantly (seeing their contests and heats of Altercation may sooner inflame the Nation, then altar the Laws, when once established) that they would instantly throw away their envyings, hatred, malice, and variance, their evil surmisings and animosities, their evil speaking and reproaching one another, and fall hearty to their great business the work of the Gospel, abounding therein with love and peace one towards another, and amidst their people, that the God of Love and Peace may be with them, and bless their endeavours for the common salvation; for why should it be said to their eternal obloquy, That the Church of England was destroyed by the Builders, or died of the Doctors?  
My Dear Brethren, let me breathe out my soul in St Augustine's words: Ut moneor, ut doleo, ut timeo; procederem ad pedes vestros, flerem quantum valerem, rogarem quantum amarem; nunc unumquemque pro seipso, nunc utrumque pro altero; & pro aliis, & maximè infirmis pro quibus Christus mortuus est, qui vos tanquam in Theatro vitae hujus cum magno sui periculo spectant; ne de vobis ea conscribendo spargatis, quae quandoque concordantes delere non poteritis, qui nunc concordare nolitis.  
2. To my dissenting Brethren, my humble and solemn Request is, that if the case be like to be thus, they would in season think it adviseable, seriously to consider what they have to do; to study that which is likely to be enjoined, with all severity and impartiality, as they would do or suffer with knowledge and comfort.  
The great Case will be, Upon what grounds you may warrantably lay down your ministry; and, upon what, Not? or how far you may lawfully obey the Imposition of Authority? For your more ample satisfaction herein, give me leave to say, That after the Scriptures, Bucer, Calvin, Melancthon, Zanchy, Polanus, Beza, etc. are of undoubted credit in such a case as this, and worthy to be conferred with; as also St Augustine his 118, 119. Epist. ad Janu.  
If this poor Piece shall have the honour of your perusal, I beseech you remember, that by two Errors we are very apt to weigh things amiss:  
1. When we take up the scales & weigh over-hastily.  
2. When one end of the balance is heavier than the other; perhaps by prejudice, or something else that should not be there.  
Do the Book no wrong, do the Church no wrong, do yourselves no wrong.  
For your own preservation, your people's edification, the Church's peace, prosperity and salvation, be not averse to any just satisfaction.  
Let no Society, no Condition, no Temptation with error and suffering be more dear and pleasant with you then the Church of God, the discharge of your trust, the fulfilling of your Ministry, with duty and liberty, truth and felicity.  
Farewell.   

Twenty Four Necessary and Seasonable CASES of CONSCIENCE about things Indifferent in Matters of Religion.  

CASE I. What are Things Indifferent?  
Resol.  
THINGS Indifferent have their place in the middle, betwixt things Necessary and things Sinful; things that aught, 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 Mixed 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 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 clearer satisfaction herein, let us consider Actions and Circumstances.  
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 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 instance in lifting up, or casting down our eyes, in lifting up or spreading abroad our hands in prayer, etc. 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, before they are determined, and in a general 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 easy, if not needless. I shall only instance the reasonableness of it, under one part of Divine Worship, viz. the Sacrament, in the judgement of Mr. Calvin, So 
Calv. I●sti. lib 1. Sect. 43.  much (saith he) as concerns the outward form of Ministering 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 add almost so many 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 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 comeliness in the Churches.  
4. Yea, that Famous Synod, and truly Apostolical, 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. Aims himself having ventured to say, That nothing aught to be commanded but that which is good, or forbidden but which is 
Aims, 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 calvin's Authority; 
in 1 Cor. 11. 2.  We know, (saith he) that every Church is left free to appoint a form of polity and government fit and profitable for itself, because the Lord hath prescribed nothing certain: to whom we might add the pertinent (if alike weighty) Testimony of Philip Melancton; who tells us, That because the Ministry divinely ordained aught to be public and external, there is need of some humane 
In Com. Loc.  Ordinances.  
Vid etiam Danae. Judic. etc.   

CASE IU. Whether may things Indifferent conduce any thing to the order and decency of God's 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 than others: which happens, either from their better readiness and aptness for order, as applied; or because they may have more repute or show of goodness reflected from the temper of the place where they are used; and consequently, are more eligible than those that approach to vice or superstition, or are blemished with appearance or repute of evil, or are alien and unapt for the present service.  
Again, divers Accidents that are equally indifferent in their nature, and left so 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 Custom 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 itself, may be most uncomely, and consequently most inexpedient in another; which adds no little cleverness 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 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 polity 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 show itself in three great Instances. The forming of a Government, of a Liturgy, and the ordering of the Manner of public Worship.  
1. I must (though with all respect and condescension 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, that there was Episcopal Jurisdiction (in the common acceptation of it) exercised 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 persuasions 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 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 Zion, 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.  persuasion, they conceded to a Regulate Episcopacy; desiring also at the hands of the King that their grand grievance of too large Dioceses 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 itself 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.  hath found no other foundation for the whole Fabric 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 public 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 of the moderate Presbyterians allow the lawfulness and the usefulness, yea and the Imposition of forms of public Prayers, of Administering the Sacraments, of Catechism, Confirmation, and of reading of the Scriptures; as also of reprehending offenders, etc. 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 public 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 extraordinary times of fasting and thanksgiving; all which, seeing Scripture hath left them to the Church's liberty, in reason they ought to be ruled and fixed by prudent Authority, as we would avoid Confusion and Ataxy 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 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, Uniformity 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 merely because they are such?  
Resol.  
I Humbly conceive they have no such power, no such Arbitrary & strangely unlimited power, which, if exercised with any extent, is not likely to edify, but to destroy the Church.  
For,  
1. If we should grant that the Governors 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 to his Word. Then they have power to clog God's Worship with things altogether incongruous to it, provided they be indifferent in general, (as Dancing, Bowling, etc.) 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 rendered the Christian Liberty worse 
As Aug. complained  than 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 well as Governors.  
And though many are too apt to give Flattering Titles to men in Authority, I have not met with any that Writ 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 of them in the Worship of God.  
For, as Thomas Rogers, 
Against Seffray: Obi. 4.  (that notable Adversary to Nonconformity) in this Case said, Authority in making Laws must always respect the Common Good. And though Church-Governors, saith Francis Mason, 
Authority of the Church, etc. 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 becomes Christianity, neither can it be inimicous to Christian Discipline; it hath the suffrage of highest conformity, which affords its liberty still to challenge great consideration in all impositions of things Indifferent. Clapham, an earnest and Learned Opposer of Nonconformity, 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 Indifferent?  
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 ordinem ad bonum common. Aquinas.  good of our Neighbour. Quatenus ad Dei Gloriam, & proximi salutem faciunt: 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 Catholic Rule of Expediency. All things, (saith 
1 Cor. 6. 12  the Apostle) are Lawful for me; but all things are not expedient. Some lawful 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 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 extrinsic circumstances, of Time, Place, Occasion, etc. 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 sense, all things that are indifferent are lawful, yet in this latter sense, all things that are indifferent and not expedient, are not lawful, but sinful: And it being against the Rule of the Apostle, and indeed against common reason; it is not warrantable for Church-Governors to impose any thing about God's Worship, that is only indifferent and lawful in itself, 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 itself 
Authority of the Church, p. 13.  indifferent shall to their Wisdom seem most expedient.  
2. The second special Ru●e is the public Peace. 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 wisdom (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, Fellow 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 for peace sake, and the avoiding of the offence of the weak: so, I humbly conceive, that the rigour of imposition may be warrantably abated for the same causes.  
Mr 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, showeth, 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 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 refer 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 Gospel's 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 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 show victory over them, or dominion over their faith or actions; things, I doubt not, sincerely abhorred by our present Governors as well as by our former; but forbearing one another in love, and forgiving one another, as Christ also hath given us example, showing all bowels and tenderness in all ways and means of an happy accord and accommodation.  
5. Fiftly, the most noted 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 God's 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 showeth, that decency and order must be observed; but for particulars, he hath no particular injunction from the Lord. Chron. cap. 9  
Provided always, saith Mr Mason, that all things 
pag. 13.  be done honestly and in order.  
6. The sixth Rule is Custom: of very great use to indicate what is decent and orderly; seeing by the force of Custom, that is comely in one Country, that is plainly absurd in another.  
Custom is the Umpire 
1 Cor. 11. 26.  in indifferent things: If any man seem to be contentious (saith the Apostle) we have no such Custom. No doubt, 'tis dangerous to introduce innovations, and by new impositions to force against the Usages and Customs of the place where 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 Custom, 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, 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 custom 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.  
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 burdensome 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 St 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 good consciences and burdensome to the Church: yet we retain and have liking, 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 comeliness 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 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 cumbered with such follies. Thus that most excellent Man. The sum 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 hurtful to the Church, not troublesome to good consciences, not burdensome: And he adds, that our own Church in the first Reformation had regard to the said Rules.  
Let me conclude with an humble Petition, that I be not misinterpreted to prescribe to Authority in what I have said: I have only marked the general Rules in Scripture, leaving particulars to the liberty and wisdom 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 comeliness and expediency.   

CASE IX. How are private persons to demean themselves under such impositions of Authority in religious Exercises?  
Resol.  
WE have hitherto, rather, laboured to discover the reason of Imposing, and the due extent of Ecclesiastical Authority in things indifferent; endeavouring also to draw that as narrow and strait, 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 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 Design, and labour to disentangle 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 ready with a pardon, though I fail of success, or too imprudently manage the Attempt; especially, while my Aim is leveled at so  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 myself, with all conscience and fidelity, to answer, breaking it into several particular cases, according as the Object of humane Injunctions may be distinguished.  
The Object of humane Injunction, or that which is enjoined or commanded, may be proceeded upon, by a gradation or descent of five steps: for that which is enjoined, is either necessary, expedient, purely indifferent, inexpedient, or unlawful. 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 unlawful are required by Authority in the exercises of Religion: to all which we address our 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 itself, this need not be put to the Question.  
For though some have thought they have seen reason enough, not so far to countenance an Usurpation, as to do their duties when commanded thereunto by unlawful powers; from the liberty of that trite Rule, Affirmative Precepts do not bind to every particular instance of time: yet, it were a strange perverseness in any, not to do that which God requires, because his Vicegerent, lawful Authority requires it also, even in the things of God's 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 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, than 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 only as men, but as they are Kings) serve the Lord, if in their Kingdoms they command that which is good, and prohibit 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 rendered it impossible only excepted) wherein God did not allow, & Governors both Temporal and Ecclesiastical did not assume the power of governing & giving Laws to the Church, for the discharge of their duties in matters of Religion?  
As soon as the black and bloody cloud was dispelled, by the favour and power of glorious Constantine, he assumed this Supremacy; he put down Idolatry, he established the Truth; he composed differences among Bishops, suppressed Heresy 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 Overseer or Bishop ordained of God; and I may add, as an excellent Example to all Christian Princes to the end of the world.  
Doubtless, if he that resists a lawful power shall receive to himself damnation, he shall hardly escape that resists his command in lawful, 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 commanded, Christ commands by them, and we are called to obey not only 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 enjoined 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 commanded by God. And the Question is, When such things are required by lawful 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 God's 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 enjoined to do things in order:  
Such things as we know to be fitted for the decency and order of God's Worship if enjoined by a lawful 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 judgement of all sober men; to contract a triple 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 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 
Confess. Suev. in Harm. Confes. 8. 17. pag. 290.  into their very Confession, That they deserve to be esteemed Divine rather than Humane Constitutions.  
For, saith Mr 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 come. loc. 16.  liquid approbation, as it were, of Christ's own mouth.  
Beza, therefore, concludes, 
Beza Epist. 24.  That things that make for order, being commanded by Authority, do so far bind 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, which impartially retains a mid place betwixt things necessary and things sinful, and betwixt things inexpedient and things expedient; more plainly, we take a thing to be purely indifferent, here, that is neither necessary or sinful 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 sinful or unlawful, 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 commanded by lawful 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 enjoined 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 kind 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; Submit yourselves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake: though it be but a mere humane Ordinance, yet, (as such) if not sinful or forbidden by God, you seem commanded to submit unto it.  
Consequently, we have discovered a third kind of sinfulness, where the primary and secundary is wanting: so that, where a thing is not sinful in itself, or by any inconvenience in its use, yet it may become so, by disobedience to lawful Authority: Obey them that have the Rule over you, and submit yourselves:  
'Tis necessary we observe a difference in the reason of 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 preobligation 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 inquire 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 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, etc. 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 Testimony in the Case.  
But we need no more, seeing the thing hath been granted long agone 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 enjoined 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 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 public Peace, and whether it should obey such injunctions, or not.  
This is indeed the burden; but how to remove it, hic labour, 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 God's Worship?  
There are but two that can bid for it; the public prudence of lawful Authority, or our own private discretion: in things necessary, the Word of God is our Rule; in things expedient, Prudence: the Question is, Whether private or public? that is, (pardon my plainness) where God hath left the matter to men, whether the People or the Governors 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 St 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, 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, etc.  
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 Judgement of what is fit and orderly to private persons, and that this aught to be the Rule of every one's practice.  
I must beg leave of the people to judge with Plato, Nullun sensus privatus rerum mensura est. I mean no more, but that every one is to judge what is necessary according to God; but public 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 Judgement of Discretion, the guide and measure of every one's 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 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 than Man: But where God is silent, and Man commands, Obedience to our Governors 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 fixed by his own appointment all the Essentials of his Father's Worship, left the Circumstances of Decency and Order in the manner of performance, as things too small to engage the Wisdom of Heaven to the Church, as if there were some thing in this regard in that common saying, Non vacat exiguis rebus, etc. 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 easy to show, that was not calvin's meaning, no more than it was the Apostles, who denied that liberty to the people, and gave them particular Orders himself, than which there is nothing more evident in Scripture.  
Consult agit qui praecepto legis obtemperat, saith the Civilian: And no doubt when it is not sin, 'tis wisdom 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 fit that Laws should govern Men, than that Men, private men, every private man should govern the Laws: still I must be understood in things not determined by God, for than we are pre-obliged 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 Judgement of discretion, to object inconvenience and inexpedience, and to resist the power, savours but little of either Judgement 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. Whether any thing that in our private judgement is unfit and inconvenient to be used in the exercise of Religion, may be warrantably practised by us when commanded thereunto by Authority?  
Resol.  
I Would be very far from the guilt of winding the conscience of the plain Reader into any needless intricacy in this practical Case; yet I must presume a little upon him, to make way for my Answer hereunto, by a few plain distinctions.  
1. There is a fitness or expedience with respect to Governors or private persons; their command or our obedience: whence arise two great Cases, that must be distinguished and not confounded; 1. What is fit for Authority to require? 2. What is fit for us to do?  
No question, our Rulers may possibly require that which is not fit to be required; and consequently, that which they ought not to require: and such their impositions may be sinful as to them; which yet I doubt not may be lawful and fit for us.  
Whether Rulers exert their power in things Indifferent as they ought, or not, I judge, more immediately concerns the conscience of Rulers, rather than of us private persons: with us, the great and next and most concerning Case is this; Not so much what Rulers may require; as what we may do; or rather, not so much what it is fit for them to impose, as what is fit for us to do.  
2. There is again a fitness or expediency quoad rem, and quoad nos: Or more plainly, fitness is considerable in a more large and general sense, as applied to its subject, that is, to the Service that is to be performed, without any farther considering of any other circumstances of it; as the fitness of kneeling, standing or sitting at the Sacrament: or in a more strict and qualified application to my particular action of kneeling, standing or sitting, etc. as it is accompanied with all the circumstances and entanglements of my private Case.  
And thus we discover two Cases more: Whether in general & quoadrem, or according to the nature of the thing to do this or that; e. g. to receive the Sacrament kneeling, or sitting, or standing? or 2dly, What is fittest for us to do, a●l the circumstances and obligations of our private and particular Cases first duly pondered? for I little doubt, but that at length it will sufficiently appear, that that which is not so fit in itself, may yet be expedient for us to do: And therefore give me leave once again to state you the Question thus.   

CASE. Whether, if Authority require that which is lawful in itself, but not expedient, all things considered, it may not be both lawful and expedient to obey and do it?  
Resol.  
THere is nothing more plain & certain, then that the same lawful things, at divers times and to divers persons, were judged by the Apostle to be both expedient and inexpedient, both in his doctrine and practice; who became a Jew to the Jews, and a Grecian to the Grecians; and even all things to all men, that he might win some.  
Upon the like ground Ambrose, Augustine, etc. held that expedient for themselves and others to practise in one Church, which they judged altogether unfit in another of a different usage.  
Now what should be the reason of this mutability of Indifferent things? This well pursued will carry us far towards a solution of this great difficulty.  
No doubt Polanus hit upon it, whose words are weighty and justly worthy of all acceptation by such as desire satisfaction about the nature and use, the fitness or unfitness of things Indifferent.  
Adiaphorae res sunt licitae 
Polan. tom. 2. pag. 376.  vel illicitae pro circumstantiarum ratione: Things Indifferent (saith he) are lawful or unlawful, by reason of their circumstances; for which he citys Rom. 14. 20, 21. 1 Cor. 8. 13. But, put case that circumstances allow or dissuade on both sides; that there are either inconveniences to deter, or advantages to invite on both sides; What is to be done in such a case? Polanus therefore adds, Hîc autem in Circumstantiarum pugnâ & contrarietate; minoris momenti, iis quae major is momenti, pauciores pluribus cedant: i. e. Where there is a contest and contrariety of circumstances, those that are less in weight and fewer in number must give way to those that are greater and more, Rom. 14. 21.  
So that, would you know, whether it be fit to obey Authority in things that are lawful be inexpedient, bring the Case to the Test. Where is the overbalance of expedience and fitness? Consider & weigh the Circumstances on both sides, and examine whether to follow our own judgement and disobey Authority in an inconvenience, or to do that which is inconvenient in obedience to Authority, be really attended with the more or fewer, the greater or less inconveniences. I speak as unto wise men, judge ye what I say, and answer yourselves.  
Yet, that I may minister all my assistance to my Readers Conscience, let us in earnest put the question, Whether the Conveniences of Obedience in such a case may not greatly over-bear the expediency of the thing required?  
Truly, in my most serious pondering of this weighty matter, there are three things of so great concern, & even indispensable conveniency, if I may so undervalue them that offer their attendance to such an Obedience, that the ordinary inconvenience of any lawful thing enjoined seems very light and inconsiderable to them; the very mention of them, one would think, is of weight sufficient to sway the balance: they are Peace, Duty, Safety; in the behalf of each of these, we shall venture to engage a particular comparison.   

Sect. 1. Of Peace.  
When we must either conform to an inexpedient indifferent thing; or by our nonconformity break or but hazard the peace, let such as have been scorched in the flames of contention, or carry about them the scars of War, or have any way learned to value peace, judge what is to be done.  
PEACE (as the Naturalists say of the Radical Moisture) is the Root of allthings; but by the heats of trouble and public contention, (alas!) how soon does our glory and goodliness whither, and all prosperity die away? Who trembles not ●●at the thought, yea at the very motion towards a thought, of being guilty of throwing the least brand into this fire; lest (as a Reverend Divine adds) he should be made a firebrand in hell? Say not, Thy particular, or thy party is inconsiderable; a spark unthought of, unseen, and almost invisible, turns a City into ashes: How great a matter a little fire kindles!  
Therefore saith one, Sicut vita in homine, ita pax 
Aqui. in Mat. 12.  in regno, etc. Peace in a Kingdom is as life in a man: and as health is nothing but a temper of the humours, so there is Peace where every thing keeps its own Order; and as when health fails, the man tends to death; so when Peace departs, a Kingdom tends to desolation; whence the great and last intention, is, to keep the Peace.  
O that men would a little consider; what do they lose by doing that which they judge inexpedient, if it be lawful? Not Peace with God, he hath not forbidden it; not Peace of Conscience, that allows it; not Peace with Authority, that commands it. What then? A little pleasing of ourselves, a small portion of private satisfaction, and the enjoyment of our liberty in a thing indifferent, because we judge it not to be expedient.  
Again, Oh that it were well considered, what is lost with the Peace of the Church, what we hazard when we hazard this.  
Ah! what convenience is offered to balance the necessity of Peace? what can satisfy the loss of Peace? where is our liberty when Peace is gone? how dreadful are the fruits of Contentions? who sails to the Indies in hopes of a people; or would venture all in the hazard of so necessary a thing as Peace, for so small a matter as his private content in a bare expediency? Can this expediency that we desire warrant us against all the Precepts, persuasions, beseechings of the God of Peace, to pray for, study, seek, pursue, and follow after peace? Can this defend us from the threaten denounced against the troublers of Israel? or make up the loss of all the comforts of the sons of Peace, and the blessedness promised to peacemakers?  
Yea, let it be considered, whether in things Indifferent, if there be any hazard of the peace of the Church one way or other; the question must not be so much, What is expedient, and what not; but What makes for peace, and what not: And if this be the case indeed with us, let that weighty advice of the blessed Apostle sink deep into our conscience, and decide the Controversy; which if sincerely heeded, it being so throughly fitted to this very case, I dare be bold to say, must needs do it. Let us follow after the things that make 
Rom. 14. 13  for peace; q. d. in these indifferent things (of which he was treating) trouble not your selus overmuch: some may think this expedient, some that; but in these things, let me persuade you to make peace your Rule; and while others, with too much hea●, inflame their contentions, about what is fittest, to the breach of the peace, and the trouble of the Church; be you sure, to mark those things that make for peace, and follow them. Fly contention, and too much scrupilosity in such things, and follow after things which make for peace.  
Upon the like grounds, no doubt, St Augustine received that grave advice of St Ambrose, as if it had been an Oracle, To conform to the Usages of every Church where he came, as he would neither take nor give offence. St Augustine 
Epist. 118.  also gives the like advice upon somewhat the like reason; for the sake of the Society of those, with whom we live.  
That which Beza reports of Calvin is very remarkable. In calvin's 
Bez. in vi●. Calv.  absence, it seems, the Wafer-cake was brought into the Sacrament at Geneva: now, though Calvin judged it very inconvenient, yet he judged the peace more needful, and did earnestly admonish them not to be contentious about a thing indifferent. And in so good a temper his words took them, that they, both Ministers and People, so lowed his Counsel.  
This was nothing but the Application of that General Rule which Calvin commended to Christians in his own writings, with which we shall seal up this particular: Though 
Calv. Epist 379.  a thing (saith he) be imposed, should bring offence, and draw ill consequences with it, (that is, be inexpedient) yet if in itself it be not repugnant to God's Word, it may be yielded unto, especially where the greater part prevaileth; in which he is but a member of that body, and can proceed no farther: and by consequence▪ nonconformity would hazard peace.   

Sect. 2. Of Duty.  
THe second thing that lies in scale against the Inexpediency of things imposed, is that weighty thing called DUTY.  
Here there seems to be so much odds, that the Question is no longer what we may do, or what is fit for us to do, but what we must: So that may is over-weighed by must, fit by just, liberty and expediency by duty and necessity, with respect to God and to the Magistrate.  
1. There is a must from God; a necessity laid upon us from heaven, and woe be to Ministers if they preach not the Gospel; and woe be to the people if they attend not the Ordinances; besides, the necessity of obedience to Magistrates on both.  
But now there is no must not perform such Indifferent things, as we scruple at for their inexpediency; yet, we fear, that so it may happen, that refusing to obey Authority in such indifferent things, may incapacitate us for the discharge of those necessary duties, necessàry with respect to God's command, and the great salvation of immortal souls:  
This very consideration turned the scale in that old but most Eminent Nonconformist T. C. his judgement 
Third Book.  long agone about the Surplice. The truth is, faith he, (though in another Book of his before he had called the Surplice a Mark and Sacrament of Popish Abomination) I dare not be Author to any to forsake his Pastoral Charge for the inconvenience; and giveth this very Reason, Because Preaching is the absolute command of God, and therefore ought not to be laid aside for a simple inconvenience or uncomliness of a thing which in its nature is indifferent.  
2. There is a must also from man. Our Rulers, under God, do also give us our Care of Souls, which we accept from them; they command us to Preach, and feed the Flock: they lastly enjoin us to dispense our duty with such and such circumstances, which they judge most convenient: God also adds his command, that we should for conscience sake, yea, for his own sake (Magistrates being his Vice-gerents) submit ourselves to every Ordinance of man, that is not contrary to the Ordinance of God.  
Now this is the very Case: and surely it must be a very great inconvenience, attending a circumstance of our duty, that can outweigh our duty; our duty to God, to our Prince, to our Places, to our Consciences, and to the souls of the people.  
Let me humbly enter this caveat, take heed of resisting the Ordinance of God while you contemn a humane Institution. The Ordinance of Man may be inconvenient; but resisting the Ordinance of God is plainly sinful, and sadly attended.  
I shall therefore commend the fatherly Counsel of Augustine unto you, and therewith also seal up this Particular. In those 
Aug. Ep. 86.  things (saith he) in which the holy Scripture hath made no certain appointment, let the custom of the people of God, or instituta majorum, the injunctions of Governors, be held for a Law.   

Sect. 3. Of Safety.  
THe last great conveniency that I shall leave in the balance against the expediency desired and stuck upon, is that of Safety and Preservation.  
Besides our own, which haply we little regard, the safety of our party, which we may too much value, the safety of the people, their great salvation, yea, the very concern of Religion, and the power of Godliness; these, no doubt, are things of weight with all prudent and good men.  
But I humbly request, my discontented Brethren, May not such things as these, these very things, yea, all these things be hazarded by checking at obedience in things inexpedient, barely inexpedient?  
Do not you fear? do not you say that you certainly fore see, that you already begin to feel the loss of your interest in a gracious KING, in the Laws of the Land, the laying down of the Ministry, and the committing of the precious souls of your poor people to the care, or rather neglect of a blind and sottish, careless and scandalous Ministry? Is there nothing in these, in all of these, can recompense the loss of a bare expediency, or the trouble of the contrary? God forbidden.  
Do not you fear, (forgive my plainness) do you not say you fear that your Nonconformity may tempt the Conformists to lean to Popery for support? If so, my Brethren, (though others fear it not) may not this endanger the Church of God among us, yea, all the Reformed Churches in the world, (which may somewhat depend upon ours) to be swallowed up by the Common Enemy? Is this the case, my brethren? do you indeed judge it so? and will you be at no trouble to save them? will you part with no convenience, to preserve them? is your own content and private liberty, in so small a matter, of greater moment than all the Churches? Alas! had our LORD valued them at no higher rate, they 
Certum e●●, omnia licere pro Patria Quintill.  had hardly been the purchase of his Precious BLOOD.  
What hope of expediency can repair the danger? yea, what expediency, if obtained? which yet is but our aim, and can hardly be secured in the accident, if the substance miscarry; our admired expediency being equally hazarded by our Nonconformity with all the rest, viz. the Peace of the Church, our duty to God and Man, the favour of the King, the Gospel of Christ, the service of the Church, the salvation of souls, the safety of the Kingdom, and the Protestant Cause in the World.  
Who can so fond imagine that the God of all these can have any regard to the loan Sacrifice of our expediency, with so much prodigality, so little regard to mercy and charity, and such dreadful hazards?  
But to bring it closer to ourselves; I doubt not to affirm, that our own private safety, the safety of our persons, our families and estates, may justly challenge some influence, when concerned, upon our conformity in lawful things, though somewhat inexpedient. But seeing so many are preparing themselves to glory in such kind of sufferings, though attended with all the hazards lately named, we shall put the Case.   

CASE. Whether is it fit or lawful to expose ourselves and ours to sufferings, rather than conform in things lawful but inexpedient?  
Resol.  
TRuly to me it seemeth a strange prodigality, neither fit nor lawful, but more, far more unfit and inexpedient than the very things that are scrupled at, be they very inexpedient, as some conceive, if they be but lawful.  
In such kind of sufferings to me appeareth little or no good, but much evil.  
1. I see but little good in them, because I can find no call unto them.  
We are indeed invited to hazard, yea, to suffer the loss and pain of a●l things for Christ his sake, and the Gospels, and for Righteousness sake; this is, for the Testimony of Jesus; this is the one thing necessary; all other things are not necessary in comparison, in competition with this: Alas! this is far from a bare expediency; 'tis the substance, and more than the Accidents and Circumstances that God calls us to suffer for.  
If we suffer for things expedient, we suffer for our own apprehension of what is so, and not for the Word of God, that hath left it undecided what is so; and consequently, what ever we tempt ourselves withal, such Suffering is far from Martyrdom, which lies in the Cause, as well as the Occasion and Intention.  
We find no command requiring, no example of Christ, his Prophets of Apostles foregoing, no Promises encouraging us in such kind of suffering; and how then can we expect any comfort in them, support under them, or reward for them?  
Yea, do not we meet with a check to the contrary, for such zeal and forwardness, from a prudent person? Be not righteous overmuch; why shouldst thou destroy thyself before thy time?  
2. As little good, so, much evil appears in them: for such causeless call-less sufferings injure God, the Church, our selves.  
1. God, on whom we father our private opinions for which we suffer, as if they were his Cause; usurping also the honour and dignity of suffering for Christ, which he hath not yet given us.  
2. The Church, thus denying her our Ministry, putting our candle under a bushel, or being thiefs to her light; sempting the weak that understand not our Reasons, to suffer with us without a cause; and doing our part to make such breaches, and to raise such a storm as may shipwreck all.  
3. Ourselves; from whom, as one says, God calls for the calves of our lips, but we offer him our lives, our liberties, our wives, our children, etc. before he requi●es them at our hands; wherein I tremble to put it to a question, Whether there be more of Martyrdom or Murder.  
If my advice be any thing to be regarded, rather obey as far as God and Conscience will permit; and when they check you, suffer, and suffer cheerfully; suffer for God, suffer for Conscience, and suffer comfortably; but if you stop your course of obedience before God call & conscience checks, be your private reasons what they can, I think there is cause to fear lest such hasty sufferings are of your selves, and rather punishments of your inconsiderateness and disobedience, than any degree of Martyrdom.  
Give me leave to end in plainness, as dealing with Conscience, and aiming at the safety of my Brethren. If we throw away the Talents that God hath lent us, and pay him in Coin he will not own, he may justly send us, for our wages, to those we have served, our evil surmises (I speak it soberly) and the jealousies and fears of our brethren.  
'Tis plain, that a promise of outward prosperity gives just encouragement for obedience to Authority; Honour thy Father and thy Mother, that thy days may be long upon the Land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.    

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 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 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 do when things sinful in themselves are required. Or,  
2. When such things are required as appear sinful to ourselves. Or,  
3. If not to ourselves, 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. St 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 King's Reign, it is void of itself ipso facto.  
Hereupon the conclusion 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 than 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 Sovereign Authority both Kings and Subjects and all 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 remembering, that ignorance and prejudice make snares sometimes, and Zeal without Knowledge sets the Church on fire.  
3. When thou hast thoroughly 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 error, and the lawfulness 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 suspicion 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 mayst 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 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 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, etc. 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, God's Vicegerent within thee, and thou mayst not obey.  
Yet it may be worth thy pains to search again; thou canst not suffer upon too sure grounds; and perchance, yet, thou mayst be in an error, 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 thoroughly to examine, & satisfy yourself in these four Cases.  
1 Wherein Real Superstition, or the show 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 Superstitious or sinful?  
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 Doctrine or superstitious opinion▪ that superstitious persons have of them.  
Polanus, with many others of unquestionable credit in this particular, hath reduced those errors that constitute circumstances of Worship truly and really superstitious, to four heads.  
1 Meriti: When we 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 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.  

Quest. But when may a thing be said to appear Superstitious, or to have the appearance of Superstition; for that also must be avoided?  
Answ. We must distinguish: There is an evil surmise, and an evil appearance; and the first is condemned as well as the latter. Many may judge that to be superstition that is not; their error doth not make it to be so indeed, or in appearance; for then what should escape when you have tried it by the measure of all men?  
Therefore we must conclude, that a thing may appear to me to be superstitious, that hath not the appearance of superstition or evil, properly so called.  
Indeed, when upon evident and undeniable grounds of general practice, it appears to the sober and  sort of Christians, that a thing is used superstitiously, that is, as before, with a superstitious conceit either of merit, worship, perfection, or necessity, than no doubt there is an appearance of Superstition.  
But I say, grounds of general practice; for it is not the superstitious use of some few particular private persons among us (much less of other Countries) that makes a thing appear superstitious; the practice must be general with us.  
Or rather, would you have an undoubted Rule in this Case? Look to the Doctrine of the Church, whence the grounds of imposition and practice are drawn; if that, as I have said, be false and superstitious, and it appears that upon those false and superstitious grounds the imposition was raised, then there is an appearance of evil to be avoided; but if you find otherwise, you must otherwise judge.  
If it should be possible that private Christians have reason to reply, We know not the minds of our Rulers; for aught we know they may require those things which we scruple, upon some superstitious ground unknown to us.  
To this it is easy to answer,  
1. If the Doctrine of the Church declars the grounds of such imposition in general, that is visible, and that must be your rule in judging the grounds of particular things imposed, till the contrary is declared, or till you have some unquestionable reason to suspect the designs of your Governors to betray the Church to superstition and Idolatry, contrary to the known Doctrine of it.  
In the mean while, if nothing savouring of superstition aforesaid be declared in the imposition, as Augustine saith, Quod neque 
Epist. 118. ad Januar.  contra fidem, &c: That which is neither against faith or holiness ought to be held indifferent; and for the society of those among whom we live, to be conformed unto.  
Suppose you do not know the minds of your Rulers, yet you own them charity as well as obedience, and that thinks no harm, but welcomes every thing, especially from Superiors, with the best interpretation. There are (saith Augustine, full to our purpose) 
Aug. l. 2. de Serm. in Mont.  certain middle or indifferent actions, which we are ignorant with what mind they are done (because they may be done either with a good or evil intent); de quibus temerarium est judicare, maxim ut condemnemus; which things it is a rashness to judge, much more to condemn.    

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, than superstition cleaves no longer to any thing, when the thing is purged and freed from the superstitious doctrine and use, opinion and practice aforesaid.  
2 None can reasonably doubt but that upon this ground Superstition is separable from a thing that hath been thus abused; as one says well, Nothing can be so far gone into the devil's power, but may be reduced to God's 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 ways; 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 wisdom and zeal of Governors; yet Reason judges so far, Frustra fit per plura, etc. 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 than 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, broke the Images, cut down the Groves, broke the Brazen Serpent; thus he endeavoured with all pious zeal to reform by the first course, the abolition of the things abused; yet he spared the Chapel 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 wisdom 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 have no indulgence; the Serpent itself in such a case must be broken in pieces. Here that famous Rule of Pope Stephen is appproved by all; Per hoc, Magna Authoritas, etc. 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 error 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, etc. 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 Lord's Treasury. 
De 〈◊〉 Vest. ad Nop.   
Because (as the Learned 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; & enjoin us by their commands 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 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 signify 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 only Seven but Seventy times seven, if not entire, yet, Semi-Sacraments; the Church and service of God being thereby obnoxious to all the antic and conceited crotchers that the vain imaginations of overcurious men can cumber them with, until they become stench in the nostrils of all sober and stayed men, and of God himself with the Church of Rome.  
But, if by Rites and Ceremonies we mean only the Circumstances of Divine Worship; by Scripture left to the liberty and prudence of the Church: and by the significancy of them, we intent 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 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 than 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 than inexpedient, aught to be imposed, as all moderate men allow; and, 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 lawful (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 he) the very Apostle himself used that liberty, when he taught, ut illis signis, that with those signs they should be admonished of their duty. Again, Rerum significationes, etc. 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 the iver his mind in the point: There are (saith he) Rites which draw Veneration to holy things, etc. with such little helps we are provoked to piety.— They are adapted to the reverence of holy Mysteries; thereby the exercise is suited to holiness.— They are not without fruit.— Thereby the faithful are admonished with what modesty and religion they are to worship God.  
Kneeling (saith Beza) when we receive the Signs, hath a show of Godly and Christian Veneration.   

CASE IU. Whether it be a sinful 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 Liberty 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, 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 (which 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 Church's order, by lawful 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 order's 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 fulfil, Matth. 5. and 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 Commandment 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 comeliness of all which lies not a little in the due order of things Indifferent.  
Yea, how often is the Apostle himself the great Assert of Christian Liberty, thus made an Invader of it? how Injuriously did that famous Synod, Act. 15. bind 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 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 freemen in our 
1 Cor. 7. 20, 22.  public 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 ourselves from legal penalties, for our maintenance and livelihood, we may be subject to the commands and laws of men, I take to be a 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) wherein he is called; that is, to be a Christian: Art thou called a servant, etc. 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 should we abide in it?  
3. Is not the state of all persons, called to be Christians, (except supreme Magistrates) a state of subjection and servitude?  
4. Doth it not than most clearly follow, that Christian liberty consisteth with, and obligeth unto all, kind of duty to all kind of Governors, to Fathers, Masters, Husbands, (as the very Quakers acknowledge) Pastors, 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●●, etc.  
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 enjoin, 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 judge them lawful, yet others judge them sinful, and will be offended at our doing of them?  
Resol.  
WE have already considered what is to be done, if things sinful in themselves, or judged so by us, be enjoined: 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 enjoined 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 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 judge weak also, will be offended if we do not.  
Now in this case there 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 heinous, 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 ourselves whether the doing a lawful thing enjoined by Authority, that will offend our 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 lawful 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 lawful things need not fear to compare with Non conformity, in any one of these three.  
1. If the Question be, Whether Conformity or Nonconformity be likely to offend most individual persons in the Nation, it will not be difficult to answer. It's possible, the imposing of such things 〈◊〉 offend many more than 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 stir up trouble, envy, discontent & murmuring in the minds of many of the 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 considerable, will hardly brook 〈◊〉 inquiry. Whereas, our Disobedience, besides the offence of ordinary people, is too likely to offend the King, the Court, the Council, the Parliament, the Bishops, the Lawyers, the Nobility, the Gentry, or beyond controversy the greater part of them all; but even thus far 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.  
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, chief, if not (as an eminent person asserts) only, 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 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, lest 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, etc. 1 Cor. 8. 13.  
But now the offence that is most likely to ensue upon our conformity, is quite of another nature, there is little fear of drawing our offended brethren to like the ways 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 generally 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 to follow our examples in conformity, out of an opinion of our ability to judge better than themselves; they will as easily follow our Judgement 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 only 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: there is not that peruse, 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 lawful that is enjoined) we give offence to Authority, directly and properly so; and, as we have showed, we can hardly escape sin herein against the fifth Commandment; which, in every iota, as well as all the rest, our very liberty itself establisheth.  
The sum is this; by refusing to conform in such a lawful case, lest we should offend our weak brother, seems directly to sin ourselves, 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 mind our duty.  
This Rule therefore greatly concerns Magistrates in th●ir Impositions, who ought still to follow the weighty advice of Mr 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 sense, by tempting him to continue in sin, and 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 aught to judge when the exigencies of the Church make any thing necessary, as to its present use, or forbearance. These necessary things (saith that Council, Act. 15.) though 
v. 28.  they were not all necessary in their nature, yet the Council judged them necessary as to the present good of the Church.  
3. In such Cases, for the public good of the Church, Governors may and aught to determine the use of Indifferent things by their prudent impositions; It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us 
28.  to lay upon you no other burden than these necessary things.  
And no less remarkably we find St Paul's 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 signify, 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 him, or a losing or betraying the Christian Liberty: Or that others had been offended at those particulars of Decency and Order enjoined 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 God's 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 Governor the Apostle Paul, or that they were bound to suspend their 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 livings; 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 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 considered, will be found to savour more of the stoutness and Magnanimity of an Heathen, then of the meekness, humility, and self-denial of a Christian, or a Minister of Christ.  
2. A good name indeed is a very precious thing; ●nd to blot and slain it with any thing that is sinful is to be abhorred more than death; for a good name is better than life; but to suffer therein without a cause, or in a good cause; to suffer therein for well doing, as the Apostle speaks, the more precious it is, the more thankworthy 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 public 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 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 noonday: When all men speak evil of you (such a time there may be) for Christ's sake, rejoice and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in heaven.  
4. But let us take a 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 extremes, and a middle more stayed 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 extremes is worrh, further than it may help us to save their souls. Again, How difficult and almost 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 Nonconformity? and whether your Conformity may not afford you more opportunity. (by being a means of your continuing 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, than your Nonconformity, 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 knowledge 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 prise your interest in their favour and affection above the interest of their souls, the interest of the Gospel, and of God himself; which is to set their good opinion of us (falsely taken too) above our Ministry and the public 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 Satan's 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.  
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, than their Ministers▪ can so much as seem to be, by doing their duty in a just Conformity: and, if merely to gratify them, we suspend obedience to our superiors, we seem to sacrifice Church, and State, our selves, and all, as far as in us lies, to the very humours of our people.  
8. Our own experience (many of us I am sure) hath sufficiently reproached us already, for our being so much lead by the foolish fire of the strange zeal of such kind of people; we have seen that there is no measure in their principles, no bounds in their practices, 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 ourselves, 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 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, than 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 agone 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, rash; and censorious zeal upon the Devil, and upon the works of the Devil, Seduction, Pride, and Hypocrisy.  
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 Devil, 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 than to lay down the 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 senseless tenderness of our interest in them, to suffer ourselves by the power of the Tempter to be seduced with them into a state of wretched separation.  
If all that hath been said cannot satisfy, 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 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, etc. 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 Gospel's sake, and that he might obtain opportunity and advantage to win souls.  
But besides these two extremes, 
11.  there's a middle sort of people, that are fised upon sober and stayed 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 these you will find 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, than 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 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 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 multitude than in the favour of his Prince, or the protection of the Laws, can easily satisfy his own conscience.  
For I must needs confess 
16.  with that famous Church, Civilibus legibus, quae cum 
Confess. 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.  
FINIS.    

The Table.  
I. WHAT are things Indifferent? page 1. II. Whether is any thing Indifferent in the exercise of Religion? p. 3. III. Whether may things Indifferent be imposed? 8. iv Whether may they conduce to order in God's worship? 13. V What are those things Indifferent that may be imposed? 16. VI Whether may things Indifferent be imposed quatenus such? pag. 25 VII. What doth render things indifferent fit to be imposed? 30 VIII. What are those General Rules of Scripture that limit the imposition of things indifferent? 32 IX. How are private persons to demean themselves under such impositions of things indifferent in the worship of God? 51 X. What are we do, when things in themselves necessary are required by Authority? pag. 55 XI. What are we to do, when things expedient are required? 61 XII. What, when things purely Indifferent? 65 XIII. What, when things inexpedient? 72 Where it is enquired,  1. Whether a thing that we judge inexpedient may be done in obedience to Authority? 81 2. Whether it may not be expedient, aswell as lawful, sometimes to obey in things lawful but inexpedient? p. 85 3. Whether the consideration of Peace, Duty, and Safety, may not render such Obedience both lawful and expedient? 91, 99, 104 XIV. What are we to do, when things sinful are imposed? 116 Where inquire,  I. When things materially and really sinful? 119 II. What are we to do, when things are required which we judge sinful? pag. 121 Where inquire,  I. Wherein the reality and appearance of Superstition consists? 129 II. Whether things formerly used with superstition, are to be accounted superstitious still? 137 III. Whether the significancy of things imposed render them superstitious? 144 IU. Whether to obey the Laws of men in things Indifferent, be to betray our Christian Liberty? pag. 151 III. What we are to do, when we conceive the thing required to be lawful, but others judge it to be sinful, and will be offended at our obedience? 160 2. Whether a humane Law can take off the Force of the Scripture-Rule, not to use our Liberty to the offence of the weak? 174  
FINIS.