Ministry on such terms V. They never accused the use of Holy dayes as dayes of Thanksgiving to God for giving such Holy Apostles to the Church and whose memory we honourable commemorate VI. They never accused our Kneeling at the Lords Supper as unlawful but only the casting Godly persons from Communion for not using it when they take it to be sin About the Kneeling the old Nonconformists were not of one mind some thought that every objectum motivum of Adoration was forbidden that was a Creature But others said that every Creature in the World may be such an object Our Meat is objectum motivum when we pray for a Blessing on it If I see the Relicts or Picture of a Friend that I wronged while he was alive I may well be moved by it to beg pardon of God. All his works must move me to adore and praise him But we may not make any Image objectum terminativum or ad quod to which we direct our Divine Worship as a Medium of our sending it to God. The only great difficulty about this is from the argument of scandalous hardening the Papists that live among us Though indeed our Doctrine avoideth that scandal VII They never accused the Ceremony of laying the hand on the Book and kissing it in taking an Oath VIII They never spake against the Ring in Marriage IX They meddled not with the Surplice Tippet Hood Rochet Cope but only the casting men out of the Ministry that dare not use them thinking them unlawful Though we justifie them not X. They accused not all significant use of the Cross but only that in Baptism it seemed to have all or most of the nature of a Humane Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace as it is expounded in the Liturgy and Canon XI They spake not against Episcopacy as it is a presidency among and over Presbyters differing in Degree and not in Office called ORDER and that in a Church of the lowest Species XII They opposed not Arch-Bishops as over many such Churches and Bishops nor Diocesans as Arch-Bishops ruling but by Gods Word XIII They said nothing against Metropolitans Patriarchs Lay-Chancellors Commissaries Officials Surrogates Archdeacons c. as Officers of the King appointed to do nothing besides the Sacred Ministry if they be Clergy-men but what belongs to Magistracy XIV They said nothing against any promise of Obedience to them only in the capacities and in the exercise of the power forementioned XV. Much less did they ever oppose or question Swearing to the King according to the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy And I with divers others also being for some ends entered as his Chaplains in Ordinary took also that Oath of Fidelity which the Kings Houshold Servants take XVI We never were for any dishonouring of Kings by publick Excommunications much les by Subjects or Forreigners whom Kings never choose to be their Pastors but only in case of necessity for such a denyal of Sacramental Communion to them as Bishop Andrews in Fortura Torâ— and Bishop Bilson plead for which is but to forbear our selves a sinful act XVII We never pleaded for any Elders or Chancellors power of the Keys who are but Lay-men XVIII We never held that Magistrates are bound to add their force by the Sword to the censures of the Church as such and to punish men more because the Church hath by Excommunication cast them out or because they are not reconciled XIX We never thought that things indifferent do become unlawful to us because the Magistrate commandeth them XX. We never held that the Scripture is a particular Rule commanding every accident and circumstance about Gods Worship but only a general Rule requiring all to be done in Love and Peace and to edification and decently c. in those circumstances which must be some way determined and God hath left to variable Humane determination Such as are Time Place Utensils Translations Sections Metres Tunes Methods and Words in Preaching and Prayer Habit Gesture and many such XXI We never held it unlawful to do one of these actions though it were by mistake unlawfully commanded e. g. If the Rulers prescribe a Time Place Metre Tune c. unfit if it be not so bad as to overthrow the ends and use of the Worship the fault of the Commander will not disoblige us from the duty of obeying And whereas some argue that no man hath authority to sin ergo we are not bound to obey that which is no act of authority I answer Rulers have authority to command that which is good though not in a faulty manner and when we cannot do the good without the faulty manner it is their fault and not ours e. g. If an inconvenient Time Place Text Tune c. be chosen the Union and Concord which is held by agreeing in those Modes is necessary He that will not joyn in them cannot joyn in the Worship So that we obey the Ruler or Guide as a determiner of the means of Concord which is necessary and not sub ratione erroris as misdetermining though in that which is misdetermined If a Master bid his Servant go at an unseasonable time about his work it 's his duty to go at that time We never pray without some fault in the manner and yet must rather do it so than not at all The mistaken Ruler bids us not sin It 's his sin to choose a mis-mis-circumstance and it is not his own action that he bids us do but ours And it s to us a lawful circumstance because necessary to Concord and commanded though mistakingly XXII We never held it unlawful to joyn with a Church or Minister that hath some faults both Personal and in their acts of Worship as if all that joyned were guilty of all the faults there committed No not though we knew before hand that some false Doctrine would be uttered or fault committed Else we must separate from all the world and all from us XXIII We never thought it a duty to separate from every Church that culpably neglecteth Discipline and hath open wicked men therein If we be not guilty of it and cannot lawfully live in the Communion of a more obedient reformed Church XXIV We never judged needless affected singularity a duty but judge it best in lawful things for Concord sake to Conform to the custom of the Churches where we live or come XXV Though we think not that men may command us to destroy our Neighbours Souls by scandal yet when disobedience to a Rulers Law is like to do more hurt than the scandal taken at it comes to we are for avoiding the greater hurt XXVI We never separated from any tolerable Parish Ministers or Churches as if they were no true Ministers or Churches nor perswaded any so to do nor to take the Communion of such Churches for unlawful to us either occasionally or constantly when we can have no better without more hurt than benefit to our selves and others XXVII We hold
Canon tells you it is a dedicating Sign and Badge of our profession So that I see not what is wanting to a Sacrament as far as man can make one by presumption which we cannot consent to L. But it 's said that Baptism is perfect without it M. So it is without the Lord's Supper and yet that is justly added It saith not that mans covenanting with God is perfect without it For it seemeth a Sacrament of man 's added to that of Christ to tie men faster to him L. Ancient Christians did use the Cross without scruple M. 1. It is not all use of the Cross that we speak against but using it as a Sacrament of the Covenant and badge of Christianity The King would not take it well if Subjects presume to make a new Badge of the Order of Knights of the Garter and add it to the Garter and the Star. To shew by an action as well as by a word to scorning Heathens that they were not ashamed of a crucified Saviour might be more excusable that this And they foresaw not to what abuse it would be after turned 2. But suppose we mistook in these our fears of sinning 1. Do you think that the case hath not difficulty enough to excuse a man for fear of sinning 2. And do you think that for such fear and not acting against them we deserve to be cast out as heinous uncapable delinquents CHAP. XIII Point X. Of denying Baptism to them that refuse the Cross. M. BUT the practice of Crossing is disputable and I lay not so sharp a censure on them that differ from us in it But what excuse can be made by a man of Christian charity and consideration for denying Baptism to all that refuse this crossing I confess I cannot imagine nor could ever hear L. Their excuse is that Crossing being lawful the Refusers are disorderly Schismaticks and they and their Children as theirs uncapable of Baptism They say it is not they but you that are the Refusers They offer to baptize you or your Child and you refuse it M. 1. They know that it is not Baptism but Crossing that is refused And if they will not administer one without the other they are the refusers If one refuse the Papists Exorcism Salt Spittle c. and they will not baptize without it do they not deny to Baptize unless one will receive all these If God will justifie them for rejecting all that think it a sin to receive their Crossing then it is not them to whom it is to be imputed But can that be true 1. Christ that instituted Baptism ordained the conditions of it and the qualifications of such as shall be baptized Mat. 28. and Mark 16. 16. He that believed was to be Baptized Act. 28. If thou believe with all thy heart thou mayest No saith the Canon you shall not though you repent and believe unless also you will take the covenanting Badge of the Cross. Is not this to alter the terms of Christ's Covenant and Sacrament and directly to contradict his very fundamental Law of Christianity Baptize all that are made disciples saith Christ and all that repent and believe No saith our Convocation baptize none of them that will not take the transient Image of a Cross for their farther obligation 2. Do you that think it is necessary to Christianity and Salvation know that this Federal Crossing is lawful if you affirm it you must say the same of all ceremonies of the same importance and so must make a hundred new Articles of Faith even of Ceremonies and such little things and make them all necessary to Christianity and Salvation And is not this to make a new Gospel Christianity and Church and to turn Christ's easie Yoke into a worse than the slavery of Pharisaical Traditions And is not this to shut all or almost all men out of Heaven No one on earth doth know that this and all such ceremonies and inventions of men are lawful And must every one know it that will be a Christian or have his child made one Or must we all as necessary to Christianity believe all such things lawful if the Clergy do but say they are And what if the Clergy in one Land say it is and in another say it is not Must both be believed Have wise Bishops no fitter penalty to enforce their usurping Canons by than denying Christendom and Salvation One would think it should be enough for the Preachers of humility to say We are so wise that he that differeth practically from us in that which we call an indifferent ceremony and he calls a sinful corruption of baptism shall be punished as much as Swearers Drunkards and Fornicators be or shall be made a slave with his Children without denying them Christianity and Salvation But the best is all cannot keep men out of Heaven that boast of the power of the Keys and there is one Lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy L. You make a heinous cruelty of it as if it were oppression and tyranny to souls and they say that they impose nothing on you but things indifferent M. Must their indifferent things be enforced with so great penalty as damnation If every one cannot love every Dish that they love or get down every Pill that they give him but he be famish'd therefore or have his thro at cut wider I had rather live and die a Chimney-sweeper or a Channel cleanser or a Keeper of Swine than a Bishop that should put Christ's Disciples and their seed whom he commandeth them to baptize Mat. 28. 19. from his Covenant and Church and specially when themselves make Baptism more necessary and certainly saving than it is L. But you may venture to baptize such if you will. M. What when I have covenanted Assent and Consent to all things in their Book and subscribed to use no other form in baptizing and also must be cast out for it CHAP. XIV Point XI Of rejecting from Communion all that dare not kneel in the act of Receiving L. I Hear that you receive the Eucharist Kneeling your self and take it for lawful what then have you against the Canon or Liturgy for this M. I am my self for the lawfulness of Organs Railes and Coming up to them and for the lawfulness of Kneeling when we sing Psalms or read the Scripture or hear the Preacher But I am not for the lawfulness of hanging or damning men that herein are not of my mind Nor for turning unnecessary things because they are lawful into conditions sine quibus non of Church Communion and Engines for Satan to divide Christ's Flock by and persecute men for fearing sin Paul was for the lawfulness of using or not using the meats and days mentioned Rom. 14. 1 2. But he was not for either judging or despising one another about them much less for casting men from the Church and Heaven for them nor for saying except ye be Circumcised ye cannot be saved L. Nor
nullifie the Baptismal Vow 10. If the King's Souldiers at once swear to fight for the King and to destroy or plunder some innocent men or the Papist Souldier should swear to be true to the King and to pull down the Protestant Ministry and Bishops the former Part binds them though the latter doth not L. An Oath unlawfully imposed binds no man. M. That 's only the Doctrine of Perjury contrary to all sober Christian Casuists An unlawful imposition that is made by an Usurper without true power binds no man to take the Oath imposed but if he take it without being bound to take it the Oath binds him to the lawful part of the matter 1. If a High-way Robber make me swear to be true to the King that Oath binds though he had no Authority to impose it on me 2. If an Usurping Minister Baptize a man and make him Vow himself to Christ his Vow binds him though the Usurper had no authority 3. If a man make many voluntary Vows which no man bound him to make he is bound to keep them if the matter be lawful And the want of authority in the imposer doth but leave you as a volunteer unobliged to take it 4. And I would not have a Popish Clergy tempted to say The King and Parliament had no authority to impose the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy on us without the Pope therefore we be not bound to keep them L. But the Covenant was forced and no man is bound by a Promise or Oath which he was forced to make M. That 's a Doctrine of gross Perjury It 's true that no man that without authority forceth another to promise any thing to him can lay any just clame to that which he forced a man to promise For no mans own Crime can give him right to a Commodity Nemini debetur Commodum ex propria culpâ and the promiser is not bound to give it him because he hath no right to receive it but if you be injuriously forced to promise or vow your Duty to GOD or the King or your Neighbour that vow and promise doth bind you to perform it 1. If it be done without right by Prince or Prelates that force men to be Baptized yet that forced Vow doth bind them 2. If Bishops unjustly force unfit men to the LORD's Supper their Vow there made obligeth them 3. As I said if a High-way Robber force you to swear to be true to the King or to restore ill gotten goods or to recant a slander that Oath doth bind you 4. If the King should unjustly force you to Marry a Woman the Covenant binds you The Reason is because man hath free will and doth all that he doth by that choice which is true freedom It 's no proper force of his will that moveth him though we call it force from anothers act who doth his best to force him a man may refuse though he die for it He that casteth his goods into the Sea to save the Ship is urged to it but may choose He that giveth a Thief his purse to save his life might have chosen Do not the Martyrs freely lay down their lives and if any deny Christ or his Cause to save his life and say I was forced that will not save his Soul. 5. And your Doctrine will set up all unfaithfulness and rebellion All men that under Penalties are commanded to swear Allegiance or to take this Corporation-Oath or the Militia-Oath or the Oath to the Bishops are hereby taught to say We were forced to it by the King and Prelates and did it all against our wills and therefore are not bound by it Such principles loose the bonds of all Societies Loyalty and humane Converse and married men will put away their Wives when they are weary of them and say I was forced against my will by my Parents or by Poverty c. L. But this Covenant was unlawfully taken as well as unlawfully imposed and therefore bindeth not M. This also is Pernicious Doctrine against all sober Casuists If the matter be good the causeless and unlawful act of taking it doth not nullifie the obligation to perform it He that voweth an indifferent act should not have done it for a vow must not be causeless but he must keep it when it is made He that sinned in marriage when he ought not yet must perform his marriage Covenant He that in meer hypocrisie maketh the Baptismal vow did sin and yet is bound to keep it The truth is wicked men have so much of ill principles and ill ends that they do all sinfully that they do oft as to the substance and ever as to the manner But they are not disobliged from all their Contracts and Vows because they sinfully made them Else they will purposely do all sinfully that they may not be obliged So that 1. If the Act of Imposition 2. The Act of Swearing 3. And part of the matter Sworn be all unlawful yet a man is obliged to that part of the matter that is lawful But part of the Vow in question was good L. What part of it was good as to the matter M. 1. The renouncing of Popery 2. And of Schism 3. And of Prophaneness 4. The Obligation to defend the King. 5. The Profession to Repent of sin c. L. But all this we are bound to otherwise before M. Then you confess that it is good and then the Vow in question binds us to it I hope you are not so ignorant as to think that 2 Vow binds not a man to do that which he is bound to before I told you before tho' a man be bound by his Vow in Baptism to Christ his renewing it at every Sacrament layeth more and more Obligation on him If a man have taken the Oath of Allegiance every time he taketh it he is again bound to the same thing One may have a thousand Obligations to one and the same Duty L. But one thing is unanswerable No man is bound by a Vow that had not a self-obliging power But the Subjects of England and Scotland had no self-obliging power to take that Covenant because the King was against it The 30. of Levit proveth this at large M. Indeed if the Act of Vowing were not only sinful but a meer nullity that Vow being no Vow could not bind But that Levit. 30. doth no whit prove this I have fully manifested in my Christian Directory in the chap. of Vows to which I referr you part 3. cap. 5. Where the whole case of Vows is so largely opened that I will here only say this little The text of Levit. 30. doth expresly speak only of Women that are in a Parents or Husbands house and only of Vows made freely to God of doing or offering something to him Yea it seemeth limitted to them of which many reasons may be given And many reasons I have there mentioned pag. 33. why it doth not extend to Princes and Magistrates for releasing
their Subjects from their Vows tho' some pretend a parity of reason But these things are certain 1. That even the Parents make not the Vow null at its first making but only relax it after and stop the Confirmation of it vers 4 5 7 8 9 11 12. 2. That this Power is about vows to God as good or hurtful to the inferiours and that some Vows are so certainly necessary to the inferiours good that the Father or Husband whose Power is only for their good and not their hurt cannot dispense with it As Dr. Sanderson saith Praelect 4. § 5. p. 104 105. it belongeth only to that matter in which one is under another Government which hath § 6. a double limitation One in the person of the Swearer viz. There is scarce any one that hath the use of reason that is so fully under anothers Power but that in some things he is fui Juris And there every man may do as pleases himself without consulting his Superiour so at that by his own Act without his Superiours Licence he may bind himself 2. As to the consent of a Superior a tacit consent antecedent or consequent suffices Quasi diceret si dissensum suum vel uno die dissimulet votum in perpetuum stabilivit And it is certain that to oppose Prophaneness Schism and Popery and to Repent of Sin are things so necessary and so much for every persons good that no Parent or Husband can either forbid or nullify such a Vow No man can hinder any from Vowing in Baptism to be a Christian and to forbear Murder Adultery Theft Idolatry c. nor can disoblige them after It is certain that if a superiour dissent and after consent or he die and the next superior e.g. a Husband do consent when a Woman makes the same Vow it remaineth obligatory And it is certain that if a Parent or Husband make the same Vow himself he cannot disoblige himself And if once he consent he can never after nullify it And as to our case de Facto it is agreed 1. That Parliament-Men took and imposed this Oath when they were neither constrained nor acknowledged the Kings Power to dissolve it 2. That thousands in the Nation knew not of the Kings published Profession against it 3. That thousands yea the far greatest number in England took it after the death of the King. 4. That they thought the present King took it himself and owned it by a Declarantion In which tho' for my part I doubt not but the Scots sinfully abused Him and the Kingdom yet that alters not the case of the Subjects obligation by that Vow 5. That multitudes of Lords Knights and others took it that had adhered to the King in his Wars All which undoubtedly puts it out of the case of dissolution in Levit. 30. Besides the common Protestant Doctrine is that neither Popes Princes or Prelates can dispense with Vows made in re necessaria Could Kings disoblige all their Subjects from their Oaths and Vows it would make a great change in the Religion Morality and Commerce of the World So that hitherto we have no satisfaction L. But this was a League and Covenant between man and man who are dead or changed and not a Vow to God as you pretend on which you lay the stress of the Obligation M. I have nothing to do with it as a League of Men to do any action towards each other but only as a Vow to God and Covenant of Duty to God And tho' the name of a Vow be not in it I think him not worth the disputing with that on deliberation denieth it to be a Vow to God. Whom think you else do men make these promises to of Repentance and Reformation and opposing Prophaneness c. The words signifie as solemn a Vowing as can well be made by words L. You would make all the Corporations of England constituted by the grossest Perjury that men can be guilty of even by disobliging or justifying themselves and all others in three Kingdoms whom they never saw in the violating of a Vow against Heresy Schism Popery and Prophaneness and Impenitence When as you know that our Clergy cry down Schism every day M. I leave all Men to answer for their own actions I only tell you why the Dissenters dare not take these Oaths I meddle not with other Men. And you know a man that saith This Vow binds not may yet hold that something else binds us against the same thing But if I were for Schism and should argue from this topick of the non-obligation of the Vow I know not how you could answer me L. Let us try What is your Argument M. That which is no sin is not to be avoided as sin Schism is no sin Ergo Schism is not to be avoided as sin Remember that I do but plead their principles L. I deny the Minor. M. That which a man Vowing to avoid it is not by that Vow bound to avoid is no sin But Schism and so Prophaneness and Popery is that which a man vowing to avoid it is not bound by that Vow to avoid Ergo Schism is no sin L. I deny both Major and Minor and first the Major M. A Vow to avoid sin alwaies bindeth Ergo that is no sin which a man vowing to avoid is not thereby bound to avoid est non est are contradictory Terms L. I deny the Major and distinguish a lawful Vow to avoid sin ever bindeth an unlawful one doth not M. Vnlawfulness is 1. In the Act of Swearing 2. In the Act of Imposing 3. In the Matter Sworn An Oath unlawfully Imposed and Taken bindeth to a Lawful Matter But for an Oath against sin to be Materially unlawful is a contradiction For to be Sin and to be Vnlawful is all one L. I deny that a Vow against Schism binds not M. The Vow called the Covenant bindeth no man. The Vow called the Covenant is a Vow against Schism Propaneness and Popery Ergo a Vow against Schism Prophaneness and Popery binds not L. You argue à particulari Tho' this Vow do not another may M. I argue ab essentia particularis ad communem essentiam If this Vow have all that is essential to a Vow and yet binds not then no Vow as such essentially doth bind If the anima hujus bovis vel ovis be not anima rationalis and yet have all that is essential to the anima brutorum then it is not essential to any anima bruti to be rational And it cannot be accidentally so here If the Vow against Schism and Prophaneness have all essential to a Vow and yet bind not then no Vow bindeth qua talis as a Vow And if Vows bind only by accident or by something else that 's an adjunct that 's nothing for their own essential obligation And so much of the Corporation-Declaration CHAP. LVI Of many agreed Tremendous Circumstances and Principles which affright many from Conformity M. THere are