Either saith he it is a part of the Contents or not If not we must not consent to that falshood that it is If it is O far be it from us that believe a God a Judgment a Life to come and the sacred Scriptures to Assent and Consent to that Act with all its penalties silencing and ruining such as Conform not Answ The Act for Uniformity naming the Book of Common-Prayer always names that Book as distinct from it self and as a thing annexed to it and if the Parliament had injoyned the Use of some New Translation of the Bible and prefixed their Act to that Translation and required our Use of the same under penalties our Assent to such an Act could not suppose the Act it self to be a part of the Canonical Books Secondly The design of the Act in these words To the intent that every person may certainly know the Rule to which he is to Conform in Publick Worship and Administration of Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England c. be it Enacted c. Plainly shews what are the parts to the use of which we are to declare our Assent which particulars are Enumerated more than once but not a word of the Act for Uniformity or the Act 1. Eliz. which in the Contents is mentioned with it whereof Mr. Baxter ought to be minded for under the Contents of the Book the First thing mentioned is The Acts in the Plural for Vniformity of Common-Prayer whence I argue If the Parliament intended that this last Act should be taken as a part of the Common-Prayer Book because it is in the Contents for the same Reason it may be thought they intended that other Act 1. Eliz. to be a part also which were very unreasonable For then we must subscribe our Assent to the use of Two Common-Prayer Books viz the Old and the New 3. That Act of Queen Elizabeth explains what is meant by Open or Common Prayer By Open Prayer in and throughout this Act is meant that Prayer which is for others to come unto or hear either in common Churches or Chappels or Oratories commonly called the Service of the Church and the intent of that Act was that no Minister should refuse to Vse the said Common-Prayers and Administer the Sacraments in such Order and Form as they are mentioned in the said Book or willfully or obstinately standing in the same Use any other Rite Ceremony Order Form or manner of Celebrating the Lords Supper c. than is mentioned in the said Book This Act was Printed probably to give Light to the other and to shew that the same thing was formerly required of Ministers And if the Conformists heretofore did not take that Act to be part of the Common-Prayer Book then there is no reason why they should take the New Act to be a part of the New Book 4. The Book of Common-Prayer was compleat before the Act was made it was first presented to the King who approving it offered it to the Parliament who approved of it and afterwards made their Act for Uniformity in the Use thereof And whoever gathered the Contents of the Book did no more intend to have all things named therein to be parts of the Book than they that set forth the Bible with Contents to the Chapters and Psalms intended that we should take those Contents for Canonical Scripture The Contents of Ps 149. says the Prophet exhorteth to praise God for that Power which he hath given to the Church over the Consciences of Men. But that is no part of the Text neither the Acts Prefaces Rubricks c. which come not into Use in the Administration of Prayer Sacraments c. any part of that Book to the Use whereof we give our Assent and Consent This Act doth exclude the Use of any other Forms when it injoyns those prescribed in the Book for publick Worship but it doth not include those previous Acts Prefaces and Instructions which only tend to justify and inforce the Use of the Common-Prayer But Mr. Baxters Dilemma may be answered to the advantage of Conformity thus Either the Acts for Uniformity and the Prefaces are parts of the Book to which our Assent is required or not if not then our Assent to them is not required if they be then our Assent will be more facile upon this account First because in that Preface concerning the Service of the Church it is thus said for as much as nothing can be so plainly set forth but doubts may arise in the Vse and Practise of the same to appease all such diversity if any arise and for the resolution of all doubts concerning the manner how to understand do and execute the things contained in this Book the Parties that so doubt or diversly take any thing shall always resort to the Bishop of the Diocess who by his discretion shall take order for the quieting and appeasing of the same so that the same order be not contrary to any thing contained in this Book And if the Bishop of the Diocess be in doubt then he may send for Resolution thereof to the Arch-Bishop Here is a way opened to such as think that the Acts and Prefaces are to be Assented to to clear their doubts to their satisfaction the several Bishops within their Diocess have a Power by Law to explain any doubts that may arise concerning the Use and Practise of Uniformity and their determinations are declared to be as Valid as the Law it self Now doubtless if sober Dissenters did consult their Diocesans in such Cases as concern their Practise in the publick Worship they might easily obtain satisfaction Again it is said in the Preface before the Liturgy We are fully perswaded in our Judgments and we here profess it to the World that the Book as it stood before established by Law doth not contain in it any thing contrary to the Word of God or to sound Doctrin or which a Godly Man may not with a good Conscience use and submit unto or which is not fairly defensible against any that shall oppose the same if it be allowed such just and favourable Construction as in common equity ought to be allowed to all humane Writings especially such as are set forth by authority and even to the best Translations of the Holy Scripture it self If these Mitigations be admitted a great many of the Objections made by Mr. Baxter and others would vanish And if they be not admitted Mr. Baxter himself will grant that they cannot safely subscribe this Assent and Consent to all things contained in the Bible according to any Translation But says he if they might but say we Assent to all things contained that are not by humane frailty mistaken they would soon conform herein See the Plea p. 166. Now the Church of England declares here and in the Preface to the Articles 1564. that they prescribe not these Rules as Laws equivalent with the Word of God and as of
necessity to bind the Consciences of the Subjects in the Nature of them considered in themselves but as Temporal Orders meerly Ecclesiastical without any vain Superstition and as Rules in some part of Discipline concerning Decency Distinction and Order for the time So that the Law leaving it to the Bishops to remove doubts and explain difficulties and the Preface desiring that things may be candidly and favorably interpreted they are greatly to be blamed who will take that with the Left which their Superiors offer with the Right-hand and seek how to make that a Snare and a Net to intangle and ruine themselves which was intended only as a means to keep the Unity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace Secondly It is granted by the Non-Conformists That the Common-Prayer Book as it is now amended and abstracted from the Declarations and Subscriptions required by the Act for Uniformity is better to be Assented to than as it stood formerly Yet evident it is that in the days of Edward the 6. when it was much more liable to exceptions there being in it Prayer for the dead Chrysme in Baptisme extream Unction c. which it is supposed Mr. Calvin called tolerabiles ineptias many Learned Men and Godly Martyrs did readily Conform to it And in the days of Queen Elizabeth King James and King Charles the Body of the Clergy as Learned and Pious as any in the World to which the few Non-Conformists in each Age were no way comparable for Parts Piety or Number and at the beginning of the Wars there were not in the Assembly as Mr. Baxter observes above Five or Six Non-Conformists Now ever since the Confirmation of the Canons by King James the 36 Canon injoyned Subscription to the 39 Articles and the Book of Common-Prayer as containing nothing contrary to the Word of God which is one of the greatest Objections now and this the Subscriber was to do lubens ex animo which in English may be rendered with unfeigned Assent and Consent and that he would use the same and no other Who can think but that Cranmer Ridley Latimer Davenant Jewel Whitgift the two Abbots Vsher Hall Prideaux Brownrigg Doctor Jo. Reynolds Preston Moreton Sibs Fenner Whately and many more named by Mr. Baxter himself were both Pious and Learned Men and subscribed according to judgment and Conscience And if the Liturgy had not been accompanied by the Acts for Subscriptions c. it is Mr. Baxters opinion that multitudes would have Conformed to it though it were an ill sign of the readiness of those Men to Conform to the whole who when they were as Probationers on their good Behaviour did not at His Majesties desire in his Declaration yield to the use of any part of it so that it seems there is no such sinfulness in the Use of the Forms c. prescribed the great quarrel is against the Parliament for requiring such Subscriptions as they cannot consent to because they fear God p. 191. of the Plea It is not the sense of the Liturgie but of a Statute of Parliament which we doubt of saith Mr. Baxter 3. Non-Conformists grant that it is better to submit to the practise of a doubtful small evil than to forbear a necessary and great duty especially when greater good than evil may be procured to our selves and others by such submission there is no command against the Cross Kneeling Surplice c. nor is there any intrinsecal Turpitude in them and therefore the practise of them may be submitted to rather than to break the known Commandments of God for Obedience Peace and Charity and to suffer Deprivation when they conceive there is so great necessity and there may be so much benefit to the Souls of the people as well as to the peace of the Nation by the exercise of their Ministry Thirdly let that Rule be observed which Mr. Baxter quoteth from Bishop Sanderson p. 329. of the Plea We must take heed that the strict Interpretation of words or things turn not into a rigid one Many Men by mistake and wresting of other Mens words do draw Blood from that which would have naturally yielded Milk or Food we owe Candour to all Mens Writings especially to those which are set forth by Authority and most of all to publick Laws In that particular of Promissory Oaths these exceptions and conditions are ever of common right to be understood 1. If God Permit 2. Saving the right of others and as far as is Lawful 3. Things standing as they do or in the same state 4. As far as I am able c. See the Plea p. 329. It is excellently said by Bishop Sanderson that if our Lawful Superiours command us any thing whereof we have just cause to doubt we may and ought to enquire into the Lawfulness thereof yet not with such anxious curiosity as if we desired a Loop-hole whereby to evade but with such modest Ingenuity as may witness to God and the World the unfeigned sincerity of our desires both to fear God and to honour them that are set over us And if having used ordinary Moral diligence bonâ fide to inform our selves there appear nothing unlawful in it We are then to submit and obey without more ado Bishop Sandersons judgement in one view p. 145. But evident it is that the Non-Conformists who strain at every Gnat which they fancy to be in the commands of their Lawful Superiours did glibly swallow down Camels in the impositions of Usurpers the Covenant the Negative Oath the Ingagement and many other unlawful Impositions were generally taken without any Scruple A Fourth thing to be premised is That Practice is the best Expositour of the Law many Laws are worded so strictly and injoyned under such rigorous penalties as may serve for greater terror to evil minded Men they do iniquum petere ut quod aequum est ferant command and threaten what is very severe that they may obtain what is just and equal And the practice of our Superiours in the case of Conformity shews that they intended the weightier matters of the Law Obedience Uniformity and Decency in the publick Worship If there be no contempt of Authority no neglect of the established Liturgy by bringing in other Prayers in the room of those that are prescribed Lex non curat minima neither the Law of God or Man is sollicitous about circumstances and the lesser punctilioes There are in most Laws some doubtful words and expressions which the practise of Law and the Judges do interpret some Casus omissi which the practice doth admit as in the present Law it admits the Forms of Prayer and Praise on extraordinary occasions for Fasting and Thanksgiving It admits of Singing the Psalms as translated in Metre and of other Forms of Prayers before and after Sermons If the Law should be strictly executed according to the rigour of it there are but few Men would go unpunished God himself doth dispense with many things expresly enjoyned for
Solemn League and Covenant being read the King Swore that for himself and successors he should consent and agree to all Acts of Parliament injoyning the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant c. in the Kingdom of Scotland as they are approved by the general Assembly of that Kirk and Parliament of that Kingdom And that he should give his Royal Assent to Acts and Ordinances of Parliament passed or to be passed injoyning the same in his other Dominions And in the Declaration set forth at Edinborough in His Majesties name 1650. But penned as it seems by the Covenanters He declares That if the Houses of Parliament of England sitting in freedom shall think fit to present unto him the propositions of peace agreed upon by both Kingdoms he will not only accord to them and such Alterations there anent as the Houses of Parliament in regard of the Constitution of Affairs and the good of his Majesty and his Kingdoms shall judge necessary but do what is further necessary for the Prosecuting the ends of the Solemn League and Covenant Especially in those things which concern the Reformation of the Church of England in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government And p. 107. He doth also declare his firm resolution to manage the Government of the Kingdom of England by the Advice of his Parliament consisting of an House of Lords and an House of Commons there All which His Majesty hath punctually performed and the Parliaments of both Kingdoms having rescinded the Covenant and condemned it as an unlawful Oath and settled the ancient Government of the Catholick Church I speak with all humble submission His Majesty is not at all obliged by that Covenant thus taken much less to make any alteration in the Government of the Church of England unless he would act not only contrary to the established Laws but contrary to that very Oath and Declaration by which the Non-conformists suppose him to be obliged which oblige him to agree to such alterations as the Houses of Parliament in regard to the Constitution of Affairs and the good of His Majesty and his Kingdoms should judge necessary and to manage the Government of the Kingdom of England by advice of his Two Houses of Parliament And this will answer the first Question in the Negative that neither the King who was injuriously and unlawfully as is acknowledged drawn to declare for it and consequently no other person that took it afterward are bound by it to make any alteration c. If any alteration be found necessary there are lawful means to be used for that end But there is no obligation from this Covenant being so repealed to use even lawful means much less such unlawful ones as the Covenant implies i. e. for Subjects to reform without and against the Magistrate and his Laws By this also a second question is resolved p. 215. which Mr. Baxter calls the main question Whether every Minister must or may become the Judge of all other Mens Consciences and Oligations in three Kingdoms For let it be remembred that the case is only whether they are obliged by the Covenant to endeavour any alteration c. Any lawful endeavours are not denyed but the Covenant being Condemned as an unlawful thing cannot lay an obligation on any to act against the Laws whereby the Church Government is established Against this a third question is urged whether this League and Covenant were a Vow to God and not only a League and Covenant with Men which cessante occasione and by consent of Parliaments doth cease Mr. Baxter affirms that it was a Vow to God and a League and Covenant of Men with one another that they will perform it and instead of Proof he says it is notorious to any Man that readeth it with common understanding Answ 1. The Title of it is a Solemn League and Covenant there is no mention of a Vow to God And in the Preface a mutual League and Covenant 2. And in the Renunciation it is to be declared that there lyes no Obligation from the Oath commonly called the Solemn League and Covenant If any part of it be a Vow to God that is not mentioned to be disclaimed for 3. The particular Case wherein its Obligation is to be disclaimed is to endeavour any alteration c. Now how can it consist with the nature of a Vow to God to make unnecessary alterations against the Laws of the Land Would not this cause the Christian Religion in a short time to be exploded out of all Kingdoms 4. It is notoriously known that the few things that make the Contract as Mr. Douglas calls it or Covenant between the Rebel Scots and English to seem as a Vow to God were used only as a pretence to draw on that part of the Covenant which is acknowledged to be unlawful and which is the greatest part of the Covenant the intent whereof was to strengthen the Rebellion against the King as by the negative Oath and the general actings of both Nations which followed doth evidently appear And what Rebellion or Heresie may not be Covenanted for under pretence of such Vows If therefore there had been any thing of a Vow to God in the Covenant it was a horrid Profanation of Gods name to make it subservient to such unlawful ends And it is rightly observed that it binds to the Extirpation of Bishops out of other Churches as well as out of ours alone 5. The most part of those who took the Covenant when it was first imposed had declared their approbation of the established Government and sworn Obedience to the Bishops so had generally all the Assembly and fixed Ministers and as I presume Mr. Baxter himself and whatever contrary Oaths they took afterward are rightly esteemed to be as Null the pretence of a Vow notwithstanding 6. It is inconsistent with the nature of a Vow to be forced as the Covenant generally was as hath been observed from Mr. Baxter That the Scots taking advantage of the straits to which the King had reduced the English Parliament brought in the Covenant as the condition of their help and that the House of Lords complained of the Parliament as Mr. Baxter calls the House of Commons which tyed them to meddle with nothing but what they offered to them And though the Covenanters pretended for this Vow the Example of Gods people in other Nations and the commendable practice of these Kingdoms in former times yet there never was the like Oath for matter and manner taken by any people fearing God in any Age of the World I conclude with a Concession of Mr. Baxters p. 213. of the Plea It is not in the Subjects power by Vows to withdraw themselves from Obedience to Authority which is proved from Numb 30. And the Reason of it is because Obligatio prior praejudicat posteriori God hath first injoyned Obedience to our Superiours They therefore lawfully requiring our submission to the established Government there can lye