Answ 1 I answer 1. Those things which are really innovations and imposed and not required by Law surely we are not bound to obey nor do I know any that affirms we should sin if we submit not to them nor will it be charged upon those that deny them but upon such as impose them if the peace of the Church be violated Yet let it be considered also Sect. 38 Answ 2 2. Though such and such particular Rites may not be specially ordained by a positive Law for them yet if there be a general Law impowring the Bishops to order appoint and require what shall be for the peace of the Church and order in it what shall be for the conveniencies solemnity and decency of Administration and of all this leave them to be the judges what they now do so require they cannot be said to require without or against Law And if these particulars which they require be not manifestly against the Word of God I cannot see how we can be excused from sin if we disobey considering that establishment which by Law they have among us Sect. 39 Answ 3 3. But may we do nothing but what we are bound to do yea are we not bound for peace sake to do all that we lawfully may do Suppose our Governours should lay the peace of the Church upon such slight matters as are of no consideration in comparison with it and this be indeed their imprudence and possibly their sin Yet when this is done if we submit not supposing the things to be lawful in themselves I see not but that the violation of the Churches peace will be laid upon us as well as upon them nor will their imprudence excuse our sin There may perhaps be some kind of sin in them requiring but I am sure when the things required are not materially evil there can be no sin in us in obeying Let us not therefore so much consider what they must or may require but what we may and should do when it is required and we shall have peace Sect. 40 Except Partic. 5 5. The next great Exception is The Bishops claim to be Spiritual Lords contrary to the Royal Prerogative of Jesus Christ the only Lord and King of the Church The same which Johnson the Separatist made against our Churches See Unreason of Separat p. 47 48. and expressly contrary to that rule of the (b) 1 Pet. 5.2 3. Apostle where they if those Elders be supposed to be Bishops are only to oversee the Flock and not as Lords over Gods heritage but as ensamples to the Flock Yea contrary to the Royal dignity of the King and temporal Magistrate both in civil and ecclesiastical causes For they have their voices and authority in Parliament for enacting Laws for the Common-wealth They are Rulers of Provinces and Diocesses in ecclesiastical causes in civil State and dignity some of them above all all of them above some of the Nobles Justices and other Magistrates of the Land They and their Courts handle and determine civil causes and affairs that appertain to the Magistracy they inflict civil mulcts and penalties give Licences in several cases all the Priests and Deacons are exempt from the Magistrates Jurisdiction in divers things and answerable only or chiefly to the Prelates and their Officers Sect. 41 For Answer Here is a great charge indeed but it signifies nothing as to the business before us viz. our submission for Peace sake For Answ 1 1. Should they claim to be what they are not for there is a vast difference between to be and to claim to be may we yet not lawfully obey them in things honest though we own not their claim I judge we may The claim may be unjust in them and yet the things which they require of us may be fit to be done by us Sect. 42 Answ 2 2. Though they should claim more than belongs to them yet this makes not a nullity of that authority which is their due What they may justly require as Bishops and Governours of the Church they may require had they not those Titles of Spiritual Lords and then the addition of that Title destroyes not their power of Bishops Sect. 43 Answ 3 3. But They neither are nor claim to be such Spiritual Lords as the Objection implyeth as even the (c) Bradsh unreas of Separ p. 65. learned Non-conformists have acknowledged and which their Canons and practice shew For those things which are antecedently necessary by the Law of God they do command and press not as their own but as the Laws of Christ. And for things which are of another nature the practice whereof is made necessary pro Hic Nunc by their constitutions they prescribe them not so as to bind the conscience of any to the acknowledgement and approbation thereof as necessary things but only to obey them in practice and for external order and as things indifferent in themselves which we are no longer obliged to than they are commanded And therefore they cannot be said to arrogate such an Office of Spiritual Lords as the Apostle condemns nor in that sense wherein Christ alone is Lord of his Church They never attempting to introduce a new worship of God or enjoyning subscription to new Articles of Faith But requiring only the same Articles to be believed which Christ hath revealed and ordering only the external mode and circumstances of worship the substance of which is only from Christ as to decency order and edification of which they as the Governours of the Church here must be in a very great measure acknowledged the Judges and which are by Christ left free to the Church to order according to the condition of Time and Place and other Circumstances Sect. 44 Answ 4 4. And as they encroach not upon the Prerogative Royal of Jesus Christ so neither do they infringe the Authority of the King and Civil Magistrate And to evidence this I need say no more than that which the forecited (d) Unreas of Separ p. 47. Mr. Bradshaw though no friend to the Bishop hath said in answer to this very objection 1. That the Prelates claim their voyces in Parliament not as Divine Ordinances appertaining to their Prelateships but as an honour annexed to the same by the Civil Magistrate 2. Their Authority in causes ecclesiastical over Provinvinces c. is either such as the Magistrate himself may execute and administer in his own person if he please or such as is not for Him as a Magistrate to execute The first sort The Bishops administer only by vertue of the Magistrates own Commission and therein they impair not either his dignity or supremacy much less in the other part of their authority which belongeth not to the Magistrate himself to execute especially when they use not this neither without his consent licence and approbation 3. That all are above some some above all the Nobles Justices c. is a free and voluntary honour
no transgression if no Law commanded them we were not bound to use them and to what purpose then should we make a stir and raise Disputes about them But 2. Suppose no particular Law or Act of Parliament to establish these in specie yet we cannot properly say they were forced if forced without Law for there was a standing Law an Act of Parliament in force untill 17. Car. 1. impowering the King to call together and commissionate the Bishops and Clergy to consult and determine about the affairs of the Church and this confirmed by the Royal Assent to be valid and binding So that if these things were Imposed by the Bishops so assembled with the Authority of the King we cannot call them illegal because they are clearly founded in the Law This therefore was no ground of dislike where the things Imposed are confessed not to be simply evil But § 6 2. They were disliked also saith he because the way of those things did cause men to suspect that somewhat worse was intended to be brought in by such preparations Here I cannot but take notice of the much want of Christian Charity that should be in men who study the interest of the Gospel and Religion It is not the property of Charity to be suspicious for as it c 1 Cor. 13.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thinketh i.e. plotteth or casteth no evil so it suspecteth none causelesly d Vers 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it believeth all things hopeth all things it believeth all good hopeth all good of our neighbour untill it evidently see the contrary It could not be well done to be suspicious of worse when the things enjoyned were confessed not bad Object But the way of those times did give ground of suspicion § 7 Sol. But what was the way of those times was it not in these very disliked things the Name and Form of an Altar the Rails Adoration c and these all acknowledged not evil in se and how then were they the cause of suspicion of worse of these we have this full expression e Baxt. ibid. For the Name and Form of an Altar no doubt it is a thing indifferent and the Primitive Churches used the names of Sacrifice Altar and Priest and I think lawfully for my part but Metaphorically as the Scripture doth 2. §. 8. Adoration and Bowing towards the East As to Adoration or Bowing towards the East c. hear again the same Mr Baxter f Baxt. ibid. §. 17. God who hath commanded us to express our minds in several cases about his worship as Profession of Faith Confession of Sins c. hath by that means made it our duty to signifie our consent by some convenient sign And the special sign is left to our own or our Governours Determination g Id. ibid. §. 18. And to this end and on these terms saith he among some other things there mentioned was Adoring with their faces toward the East used heretofore by Christians as a signification of their own mind instead of words This then also is lawfull in his judgment 3. As to Organs and Church-Musick §. 9. Organs and Musick the same Author speaks as much as is desired and thus far consonant to truth h Baxt. ibid. §. 22. He that hath commanded us chearfully to sing his Praises hath not told us whether we shall use the Meeter or any melodious tune to help us or whether we shall use or not use a Musical Instrument or the help of more artificial Singers and Choristers These are left to our reason to determine c. And again i Id. ibid. §. 45. The Organs or other Instruments of Musick in Gods Worship being an help partly natural and partly artificial to the exhilerating our spirits for the Praise of God I know no Argument to prove them simply unlawfull but what would prove a Cup of Wine unlawful so the Tune and Meeter and Melodie of Singing unlawfull But these things are but the particular practises of some certain places and if enjoyned yet not generally only in Cathedral and Collegiate Churches and Chappels We need not therefore busie our selves in Disputes of this nature when they are not nor are like to be matters of general imposition § 10 2. But the main of our enquiry is into those Ceremonies which are generally Imposed and by the Law required in all our Assemblies and these are of two sorts 1. One purely Civil though used in a sacred Action §. 11. Of the Ring in Marriage this is the Ring in Marriage What imaginable scruple can be in this I cannot divine Hear by Mr Baxter himself k Baxt. ibid. §. 23. In Civil Actions that are Religious only finally and by participation it is lawfull to use Symbolical Rites that are in their kind near of kin to Sacraments in their kind and may be called Civil Sacraments such as the sealing and delivering of Indentures or other Covenant-Writings the delivery of Possession of an House by a Key of the Temple by a Book and Bellrope of Land by a Turfe or Twig and of Civil Government by a Crown Scepter or Sword c. And again l Id. ibid. §. 43. For the Ring in Marriage I see no reason to scruple the lawfullnesse of it for though the Papists make a Sacrament of Marriage yet we have no reason to take it for an Ordinance of Divine Worship any more than the solemnizing of a Contract between Prince and People The Ceremonies of a Kings Coronation might as well be scrupled as those of Marriage c. The truth is I could never yet see any thing that had a shadow of reason against this use nor can I imagine what any sober Christian who hath not a mind to quarrel can have to say against the use of such a Symbolical Rite as the use of a Ring in such a businesse as Marriage I passe this therefore as not worth a Dispute But § 12 2. Other Rites there are enjoyned to be used in Actions purely Religious prescribed in the offices and parts of Divine Worship These are they which are the matters of most doubt and made the Subjects of the sharpest contentions and they are The Surplice Kneeling at the Lords Supper and the Crosse in Baptism For two of these we have enough yielded but the third stiffely opposed Let us examine them severally 1. §. 13. The Surplice justified For the Surplice I cannot but wonder what any rational man should in this make a matter of scruple when any garment of any colour is a thing perfectly indifferent by the confession of all and perfectly lawfull in genere to be worne and therefore if a particular garment in specie be determined and prescribed to some persons in some actions how should the use of that become unlawfull when the constant practice and custome of all times persons and places hath justified in some cases such a determination We never scruple the use
severally At once together three times then each severally apart once then again once and thrice and afterwards thrice and once with a Crossing of himself between all this first with his hand then with the Host he Crosseth the Chalice three times then two odd times more to make up the five wounds of Christ then with the Patin he Crosseth himself once and the Chalice three times with a piece of the Host and once himself again with the Host over the Patin and lastly once himself again with the Chalice All which vanities stand not with the simplicity of Christs holy institution but take their beginning from Sorcerers and Magicians who do glory in one three and five and the like g Necte tribus nodis ternos Amarilli colores Virg. Eccl. 8. See more in Vierg de praestig daem l. 5. chap 4. Corn. Agr. de vanit scien c. 47 48. de occult Philos l. 2. c. 4 6 8. odde numbers § 30 2. But in Baptisme we still allow the Signe of the Crosse because Antiently generally received and simply applied and though abused by the Papist yet we could separate and have done so the corruption that is among them from the lawfull use that is retained with us Though they and we both us do use the Signe of the Crosse and that in the Sacrament Baptisme yet to a man of understanding the difference is great For indeed the Popish corruptions are all purged out of it as we see in the particulars sc For 1. They hold that with it they h Greâ—z de crnce l. 4. c. 36. 59. Consecrate Baptisme it self we only use it on the child Baptized 2. They make it a part of Divine worship we do not 3. They in an unknown tongue not giving a reason why nor to what end we in an known language giving all to understand that we are far from Popery or superstition 4. They hold the Sacrament of no force or very small many of them denying a child without the Crosse can have his Christendome as they call it we disclaime that Doctrine 5. They make it a matter of merit to deserve by we neither know nor preach any but the merits of our Lord and Saviour 6. They judge the Signe of the Crosse i De consecrat dist 5. c. nuuquid a matter of necessity unto salvation we only a thing indifferent in its own nature that may be left or retained as Authority seeth good 7. They as of the k Gretz de cruce l. 4. c. 13. essence that without sin may not be omitted we as an accident that upon lawfull cause may be separated 8. They l Bellar. de sanct Imag. l. 2. c. 30. worship it we do not 9. They use it m Gretz de cruce l. 4. c. 36. to drive away Devills we ascribe no such virtue to it 10. They use it daily hourly every moment upon every occasion we but once in Baptisme 11. They in every Part of the body we only in the Childs Forehead and but once only in token he is not to be ashamed c. 12. They write it satisfies for sin and n Per crucis hoe signum depellitur omne malignum preserveth from evill we prove the contrary 13. They teach it an infallible marke to distinguish a true professor from an Hereticke 14. They teach that nothing can be consecrated without it we disavow that Doctrine 15. They say it can and doth o Gretz l. 4. c. 49. cure bodily diseases we find no such thing 16. They teach it hath a virtue against all Inchantments we rather doubt it as they use it an Inchantment it selfe 17. Some among them p Gersom serm de B. Virg. part 3. consideratione 2. Cajetan in Thom. c. hold it may stead children in place of Baptisme we deny it Here we see then there are such and so many differences between us and the Papists that though we use the same Signe once yet we are far from owning their superstitions nor can our Church be therefore charged with Popery in this thing nor indeed q Duo cum faciunt idem non est idem to do the same thing as they do So that possible it is to retain as we do a lawfull use separate from all superstitious or Idolatrous abuses Therefore whatsoever abuses have been or yet are in the Church of Rome they are not chargeable on us who deny them nor is it necessary for us to lay aside the use of this Signe of the Crosse when we have thus purged it from the Popish corruptions and may keep it so purged still nor nor do the abuses of others of which we are not guilty former abuses among our selves if any have been which are not continued sull necessarily engage or oblige us to do it § 31 3. Hence are we helped to a ready answer and easie solution to that Analogicall Argument drawne from Hezekiahs act in Breaking the Brazen Serpent for indeed the Analogy holds not the case is different For § 32 1. The Brazen Serpent was not a signe only but that very materiall numericall Serpent r Num 21 8-2 King 18.4 which was made by Moses and was the instrument of the deliverance of their Fathers and was preserved to that day and people therefore were more ready to worship that as if that had saved them and so it was a more difficult thing to separate the Idolatry from the memoriall But in this Rite we have only a transient resemblance of a Crosse and nothing remains visible after the Action and so nothing to be objected to our eye or in danger to be abused or so to be worshipped § 33 2. That Brazen Serpent was so abused and Idolized not by others but by themselves and there was reason therefore to take from them that object of their own Idolatry But this Signe of the Crosse was not so abused by us but by the Romanists who widely differ from us in many main points and practices of Christianity Though there may be some Argument from this Act of Hezekiah to take away the Crosse and the use of the Signe among them who do so abuse it but it concerns not us who are not chargeable with such abuses § 34 3. Farther The Idolatry about the Brazen Serpent was not only sometime the sin of that people but it continued among them till the very time of the breaking of it That Zealous King therefore justly removed that Monument because the Idolatry accompanying it could not otherwise be removed Had it been free from that abuse it might have stood and served still as a remembrance of Gods goodnesse but being not so it must away it is but Nehushtan But there is no such thing in our use of the Crosse no superstition in the practice of the Church of England cleaving to it or continued among us Therefore from Hezekiah's destroying that to which they still burned incense to argue the necessity