to represent a seale to confirme and an instrument to conveigh grace and I humbly conceive that where any of these are wanting it is no Sacrament A Ceremony may be as a sign to signifie or present to our understanding a spirituall truth or moral duty but being not affirmed of them that they are appointed as instruments to confer Grace or to be as seals of the covenant of Grace such a Ceremony though it may be of morall and spirituull use yet is it not a Sacrament And I humbly conceive to use such are no additions to Gods Word or Sacraments The signe of the Cross is no addition of a Sacrament to a Sacrament as is often said but onely a sign to put us in minde of such a Christian duty wherein if we fail Christ in whose name we have been baptized will be ashamed of us at the last day My argument at present is somewhat considerable I believe that there is no command of Christ forbidding any such mystical and significant ceremonies to be appointed by the Church Sect. 4. I now proceed through divine assistance to offer to consideration what I have propounded to prove concerning the power of the Church about Rites and Ceremonies Desiring such as would be more fully satisfied to consult the judgement of that godly and leaaned man Mr. John Randall who in his most Excellent Lectures of the Church published by that faithful Minister of Christ Mr. William Holbrooke and his Son-in-law Mr. Ithiel Smart late Minister of Ashby de la Zouch doth most clearly and solialy discourse on this subject whom though you shall find very exact and strict in affirming the Church hath no power to decree any mattters of substance in Religion without or besides the Scripture XXV Lecture of the Church pag. 131. which he proveth by clear and pregnant Scriptures and strong reason yet he granteth nay layeth it down as a Thesis or proposition which he proveth by Scriptures and giveth four reasons for it pag. 145. viz. That every particular visible Church hath power from God to ordain some outward rites and ceremonies for the outward carriage of Gods Worship Amongst which rites and ceremonies speaking of the bounds the Church is to keep in ordaining matters of ceremony under this head that they must have no opinion of Gods Worship placed in them as the Surplice and the Cross if the Church so enjoyn them it makes them unlawful if they have been abused so by the Papists That is not their sin now take away the abuse and the things may still be imposed and put in practice Sect. 5. If this be not a sufficient proof or vindication of the Power and Authority of the Church abou ceremonies in general and these two significant ones the Surplice and sign of the Cross I shall presume to give you in my poor and weak observations from the Scriptures of truth by way of furthe illustration And I argue thus That which is a Christian duty may lawfully be done without Superstition or Will-worship and may be subscribed as agreeable to Gods Word Now if Christians might not lawfully make use of terrene and common things to represent to their understandings spiritual and heavenly truths and to mind them of their duties our blessed Saviour would never have repeesented himself to us by such things whereby his spiritual worth and usefulness might be the more evidently presented to our understandings How often doth he by meat and drink by a Vine a door and such like affect our understanding with his usefulness and worth Now that which Christ hath sanctifyed by his own example is a sufficient warrant for us to observe and do Sect. 6. True it is some things there are about Gods worship which are particularly forbidden in the second commandement as to the making to our selves any graven Image though to worship God by or the second person in the glorious Trinity But any meanes that God hath not forbidden whereby we may signifie our inward Worship of God this is warrantable We do not find our Saviour condemning the Publican for using that significant ceremony of smiting upon his heart while he confest his sin Though doubtless it might signifie how angry he was with his wicked heart from whence all evil springs by smiting upon the place of its residence the breast though I can find no command for this in the holy scripture And the like might be said of that against which Mr. Josias Nicholls so excepteth against as a Sacrament that holy Ordinance of Marriage because that it signifieth as the Church expresseth it the Mystical Vnion that is between Christ and his Church Surely we may make use even of this representation by Matrimony to endeare our affections to Christ our spiritual Spouse and yet not be guilty of Will-worship or superstition because the Apostle Paul doth from this very argument presse husbands to love their wives Eph. 5.15 32. and therefore what we know of matrimonial love may teach us to love Christ with a conjugal affection Sect. 7. And might we not lawfully use such common things in themselves to affect our understandings with spiritual things the Spirit of God would never teach us by them It is no superstition calling to minde the affection that we see in Mothers to their children to strengthen our faith in the love of Christ to us If this might not lawfully be done without superstition and Will-worship God himself would never teach us by such representations saith he can a Mother forget her child c. yet will I not forget thee In like manner the consideration of the sign of the Cross which is a representation of all that Christ suffered for us to mind us of our duty of confessing of Christ to which nothing can more engage us then the remembrance of what he endured for us upon the cross when he despised the shame thereof for us as the Apostle speaketh To subscribe to the use thereof in Baptism is lawful Sect. 8. Now though it may be objected that there is a particular Ordinance even that of the Supper to remember us of his death and sufferings upon the cross and therefore the use of this sign of the cross if it be not superstitious yet it is superfluous It may be considered of that besides an Ordinance appointed of God for a general use it is warrantable to make use of particular reembrances of Gods mercy and our duty though we have no particular command for them Many instances of this might be given in the Church of the Jewes who were most strictly tyed to particular circumstances in Gods Worship in matters of Religion yet for to keep up particular remembrances of Gods mercy to them and their duty to witness that they were Members of the true Church to avoid contention in after-ages and such like ends referring to Religion they have without any particular command from God instituted significant signs for the purposes aforesaid Sect. 9. Passing by many I
that are members of our visible Church and I humbly conceive it to be a seasonable Truth to be treated on That obedience to this Act for Uniformity is the way to Unity Sect. 3. The reason in general why it is likely so to be is because that our chief discords dissentions and divisions which we so long have laboured under have been about our modes of Worship and Discipline That they have been so from the very first beginning of the troubles of Frankefort to this very day he is a stranger in our Israel that knoweth it not yet if you will not take it from me be pleased to take it from Mr. Baxter who in the Postcript of his Epistle to the Reader before his Treatise of the Vain Religion of the Formal Hyppocrite having cleared the Doctrine of the Church of England from being any matter of our most unchristian discord he sayes The more is the pity that the very modes of Worship and Discipline should be the matter of such sharp and uncharitable discords Now then if our sharp and uncharitable discords be and have been about the modes of Worship and Discipline then for all to observe one mode or form or rule in publick Worship and Discipline must needs be the way to unity and agreement Sect. 4. This at first view may seem to be Durus sermo a very hard saying who can bear it and I do the more incline to believe it by what I have read which discovers how contrary the apprehensions of some learned men are to this Truth Who have therefore pleaded very much for Non-conformity and a liberty for persons to chuse or refuse what form or mode of Worship they please as the way to peace Now this I say being the general argument against Vniformity with the means conducing thereunto as I find in the Petition for peace and also in Mr. Baxters sive Disputations I shall make bold with all tenderness and meekness and with much respect to those worthy persons to weigh and consider of the truth and strength thereof Sect. 6. The argument I find in the Petition for peace pag. 14. in these or the like words Nothing more affects us then to think of the lamentable divisions that have been caused and are still like to be whilest things unnecessary are imposed and on the contrary how blessed a unity and peace we might enjoy if these occasions of divisions were removed So that here in short lyeth as is said if I mistake not the ground of all these lamentable divisions about modes of Worship even since the Reformation begun in King Edwards dayes to this time That things unnecessary have been imposed And that this is the chief exception against our Superiours commands I find pag. 12 16 17. and others in the said Petition for peace that they are esteemed unnecessary but that I find them not to be charged as absolutely sinful in themselves in all that book is worthy of observation For this being acknowledged in the general by those persons of that moderation and piety which were to review the Book of Common Prayer c. That they are but unnecessary and not sinful Sect. 7. I humbly conceive that it should put a great stand to the thoughts of such who are methinks too forward to consider Whether onely for non-obedience to unnecessary things in their own judgment or in the judgment of some others that have taken up this tradition from the troubles of Frankfort it be lawful for them to lay down their Ministry or to do that which might by Law deprive them of the same Before I proceed further I shall crave leave to ask this modest question Whether or no this argument against obedience to the commands of our Superiours because we judge the things commanded to be unnecessary is not onely a principle of division but of confusion in all Government Sect. 8. I remember that I have somewhere read that Licurgus the Law-giver to the Lacedemonians being moved by one to establish a Democratical Government in the Commonwealth he bid him go home and exercise it first in his own family And surely if we do but seriously consider of it we shall find that were but this objection brought against our commands as we are Parents or Masters in the government of our Families that they are unnecessary what can be expected but disorder disobedience division and confusion Sect. 9. And had the converted Gentiles whom the Governours of the Church Acts 15. enjoyned to abstain from bloud and things strangled as necessary not to salvation but for the setling of the peace which was broken by the Jewish Teachers ver 2. and to propagate the Christian Religion which are the two professed ends of the framing this Act for Vniformity pag. 71. had they but pleaded This is an unnecessary Imposition and so have been non-conformable how had the Christian Religion been interrupted in 〈◊〉 first plantation and the dissentions and divisions occasioned by the Jewish Teachers been propagated and continued I humbly conceive therefore that this argument or objection against the commands of our Superiours That their Impositions are unnecessary is a very unnecessary objection and a principle of confusion and division in Church State or Family But now that a universal agreement in one mode and form of publick Worship and Discipline is the way to peace and unity and therefore no unnecessary Imposition I thus argue Sect. 10. First that which doth deliver us from dividing sins must needs be the way to unity Secondly that which tends to the Honour of Religion the edification and building up of the Church that must needs be the way to unity Now to have one form and to agree universally in the modes of Worship and service of God doth conduce to both these and therefore Uniformity is the way to Unity I shall begin with the first and shew what are these dividing sins naming but the principal ring-leaders amongst them and they are Pride and Error Sect. 11. First Pride that it is a dividing sin and the spring of division if not of disobedience the Wiseman tells us Prov. 13.10 onely by pride cometh contention as if this were the spring of all division and disobedience But besides from this root spring many more dividing sins as self-conceitedness and thinking of our selves more highly then we ought to think a sin forbidden with an unusual preface Rom. 12.3 a sin whereby we are apt to think our selves wiser then seven men that can render a reason Prov. 26.16 and more holy then the rest of our brethren as did the proud Pharisee From whence also floweth the judging censuring condemning and despising of each other which are all dividing sins and exceedingly tend to the tearing of that Badge by which Christ would have all his Disciples to be known even by their love to each other Sect. 12. Secondly as Pride so Error is a dividing sin for though Truth be but one yet Error is the seminary of all
find that judicious and learned King of Divines as Mr. Ford of Northampton styleth King Charles the First Prognosticating this Covenant would be very dangerous because the ma ter doubtful Sect. 13. There being therefore no remedy now but to be more wise and careful for the time to come taking heed of being too dogmatical in what we hold as to matters of modes of Worship and Discipline because that other holy and good men are of that mind For likewise one of our opinion as to the binding power of the Covenant let us not Juraere in verba magistri any more neither lean too much to our understanding but consult with the Laws of God and of the Land especially in this case Sect. 14. The Act you know that requireth that we should declare that in this particular the Solemne League and Covenant layeth no tye or obligation upon me or any other to endeavour to change the Government of Church or State On the other side many are of this opinion that though it be the judgment of the major part of the Judges that are learned in the Laws of many great and learned Divines some that have written De Juramento and therefore well know the binding power of an Oath and of the major part of the representative body of the Kingdom yet notwithstanding are perswaded the Covenant that they have taken bindeth them to endeavour the alteration of the Government of Church or State Sect. 15. In this case therefore as I said before the Laws of the Land are to be consulted with for there being no other judge in this case but the known Laws of the Land we must stand to their determination as to the satisfying the conscience about the binding power of the Covenant For if by the Law of the Land it appeareth that the matter of the said Covenant as to this particular be by the Law unlawful and the Imposers thereof without a power by Law invested in them we may safely and with a good conscience declare That we hold that there lyeth no obligaaion upon me or any other person from the same I do verily believe that as to the Government of the State the altering it from a Monarchical to a Democratical Government could never be subscribed to by the Engagement even by such persons who do yet believe that the Covenant bindeth them to endeavour to alter the Government of the Church Now be pleased to consider whether the reason be not the same They would have altered the Government of the State without Law and others the Government of the Church without Law And that you may be the better perswaded of this give me leave to impart that little smattering that I have of the Law as I have learned from the Learned in that Science Sect. 16. Concerning therefore the Laws of the Land you may please to observe this in the general That the Law hath three fulcimenta or grounds and they are these First Custom or Usage Secondly Judicial Records Thirdly Acts of Parliament Now Judicial Records and Acts of Parliament they are but Declarations of the common Law and customs of the Kingdom Law is is not known but by usage and custom and usage proves the Law 10 Eliz. Plowden 316. Now if this be so and it being evident that the Government in this Kingdom as to Church and State as now it is established having been of so long continuance as the Histories of this Kingdom do tell us This custom and usage of Government so long exercised maketh it to be a Fundamental Law Plowdens Commentary 195. Sect. 17. To alter therefore a Fundamental Law as to the Government of Church and State can never be done lawfully but by those persons whom Use and custom Judicial Records and Acts of Parliament have invested with Authority so to do Now who these are the Law must tell us not the two Houses alone not the King alone but both together make up the Body politick that make Laws for the Government of Church and State Dier 38. fol. 59 60. The King is the head of the Parliament the Lords the principal members of the body the Commons the inferiour Members of the same 1 Ed. 6. cap. 2. All Authority and Jurisdiction spiritual and temporal is derived from the King And every Member that sits in Parliament taketh a corporal Oath that the King is supreme over all persons the King therefore must needs be above the two Houses of Barliament which is evidenced further thus That as the power of their Assembling is by virtue of his Writ so the time of their staying is determined by his Royal will and pleasure according to the usage and custom of the Land The two Houses therefore are not above the King and there being no Law to be made without the King and both Houses neither alone according to the Fundamental Laws and Constitutions of the Land can alter or endeavour to alter the Government either of Church or State So that the altering of the Government except by such persons who have Authority by Law is an unlawful act in it self and the imposing of it upon others by an Oath makes it still more unlawful if the Imposers have not Authority by the Law of the Land so to do Sect. 18. Now I beseech you consider but as to matter of fact who did impose this Covenant and by the Law of the Land you will soon be resolved whether either the matter were lawful or the power lawful That the matter was unlawful thus appeareth not onely by what is already alledged but by what followeth That matter of an Oath is unlawful that is contrary to the Law of the Land The Government of the Church as it now stands being in the general secured by Magna Charta which great Charter is confirmed by 32. Acts of Parliament as I have read the first Article whereof runneth thus Salvae sint Episcopis omnes libertates suae Sect. 19. Now these general Laws of the great Charter of our Liberties and the Petition of Right there being no particular Laws against what is there contained such I say as are not repealed by a lawful power it is not the first Article of the Covenant as to the extirpation of that Church-government maketh the great charter void as to that particular I am apt to think in this case that an Oath imposed by persons that by their Oaths acknowledge the King supreme and above them that can make no Law therefore without the King and consequently can impose no lawful Oath by their Authority an Oath also as to the matter of it being unlawful as you have heard cannot make void a known Law or bind the conscience of the taker to endeavour the same But these Laws being in force do relatively bind the conscience to observe them and to endeavour by any power but those that made them to change and alter them I humbly conceive is above the sin of Disobedience and to swear to it maketh
things Mr. Ball saith pag. 11. Antichrist hath unjustly usurped the Church of God may lawfully lay claim unto And therefore if our Book of Common prayer saith he pag. 12. please the Papists it is but in some things wherein in reverence to Antiquity we come too nigh them in some Rites and Ceremonies But with the substance of the ministration it self they cannot be pleased unlesse they will be displeased with their own service and will renounce their own Religion Sect. 12. Surely methinks the judgment of this learned and moderate man might very much defend us against not onely the fear of Popery he having affirmed that the Papists cannot be pleased with our Book of Common prayer as to the substance of its Ministration unless they will renounce their own Religion But may cause such a day-break of light to shine upon some of our understandings as that we may be perswaded that it is lawful to declare they will conform to the use of the Common prayer of the Church of England it being no false and Idolatrous Worship as too many might apprehend from what hath been within this year or two written to exasperate mens minds against it But that I may make the lawfulness thereof to appear more evidently I shall proceed to consider of the English Liturgie and ceremonies as they are by some apprehended to symbolize too much with the Mass-book and being too like the same and that therefore upon this account conformity is unlawful it being absolutely affirmed Plus ultra pag. 30. We say it is unlawful for the Church of England to retain either in Doctrine Worship or Discipline any conformity to the Church of Rome Sect. 13. I do profess before the searcher of all hearts out of any desire to abstain from all appearance of evil When I first saw this Book I desired to take great notice how this Authority did by the authority of the Scriptures convincingly prove the same For to conform to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is doubtless unlawful to conform to the Worship and Discipline of the Church of Rome in statu corrupto in that stace wherein it was before Reformation and is now in at this present time is sinful and unlawful But that to conform to the Common prayer book of the Church of England and those few retained ceremonies because that they symbolize with the Church of Rome That this should be sinful and unlawful notwithstanding so confidently affirmed I leave to the determination of the wise and learned upon the examination of the proofs of Plus ultra for the same Sect. 14. I do find indeed that Mr. Ball doth speak to this purpose That if any have mistaken the book of Common prayer because that it hath too much likelihood to the Mass-book he saith that hath not been the judgement of the Non-conformists alone others have said and written so much that never condemned the use of the book or all things therein contained pag. 9. From whence I observe that there is a great deal of difference between the disliking of a form that doth in something as is supposed symbolize with that form that is in a corrupt Church and the condemning of it as sinful and unlawful as Plus ultra doth And yet that I may deal faithfully before I come to speak to the arguments of Plus ultra I think I should do a good work tending to our healing if I should offer but some honest inferences from Mr. Balls conclusions and concessions that may take off that dislike may be in the minds of men which may hinder an unfeigned assent and consent in declaring their confo rmity Sect. 15. For it being granted that a form of prayer is lawful and this of the Church of England so much vindicated as you have heard and may find further in pag. 3. where Mr. Ball saith that the Non-conformists can prove the Religion and the Worship of the Church of England to be of God and that by such plain Texts of Scripture against which the gates of hell shall never prevà il I humbly conceive that the offence taken at its too much likelihood to the Mass-book pag. 9. may be taken away by the very reason that Mr. Ball giveth for the same pag. 12. which he saith is in Reverence to Antiquity To avoid the imputation of novelty in a Church it is necessary to keep to those externall modes as to phrases of speech and rites for comeliness in Gods Worship which have been most ancient in the Church But if this do it not sufficiently deferring to answer what I find alledged but not proved by Mr. Ball pag. 7. as exceptions against the said book as in some points disagreeing with Gods Word pag. 7. for which they judge it unlawfull to subscribe as agreeable to the Scripture which doubtless may lawfully be done by Mr. Balls own Doctrine Sect. 16. I say forbearing to speak further to these particulars being but the same objections made by Mr. Josias Nicholls and other Non-conformists long before which I shall through divine assistance speak more particularly to in the next Chapter I shall desire that what Mr. Ball doth declare in the name of all the Non-conformists to his time that did judge the book in the form thereof so nigh the Papists pag. 15. may be considered who saith that herein they shew but what they judge most convenient not condemning the book for the substance thereof So that some of the Non-conformists of our time are gone much beyond this pious and prudent man who upon this argument doth but onely shew what was the judgment of the Authors of the Admonition and others in this case that it was not convenient to use a form so near the Papists but he saith no such thing himself being more wise then to judge in a case already determined by the Law of the Land which God had not determined against by his Law in his Word Sect. 17. But though Mr. Ball is so modest yet Mr. Plus ultra is more magisterial who as you have read out of the place before quoted affirmeth that it is unlawful for the Church of England to retain any conformity to the Church of Rome in Worship or Discipline Come we therefore to examine his grounds for it pag. 30. And because we know from whence I observe many heads were laid together to form this argument this will hardly down by any reasons we can lay before you we shall commend this argument to you under the credit of your right learned Prelate Jewell please you to peruse pag. 325 326. of his Defence The learned and godly men at whose Persons it pleaseth you so rudely to scoffe saith Jewell to Harding Mr. Doctor Harding used to scoffe at Calvin and Zuingliùs and to upbraid Jewell with them that refuse either to go in your apparel or otherwise to shew themselves note Sir like unto you have age sufficient and can answer for themselves notwithstanding thus much I 'le
and decent But the placing of holiness in them and the abusing of the people by them this was the evil in them that Bishop Jewell doth condemn but no the use of them This Reverend Prelate you may observe speaketh confidently of the Non-conformists of his time that as they did not commend Ministers garments as holy so they did not condemn them as unholy or sinful And were the Non-conformists of these times but of the same mind that they did not condemn a Cassock or a Surplice as unholy and that it were no sin to wear such vestures when commanded the case would soon be resolv'd that to wear a Cassock Surplice Gown Canonical Coat c. were lawful for distinction sake and decency in Gods Worship Sect. 23. And thus now having shewed though somewhat at large the true scope of the place brought by Plus ultra to prove his argument by in pag. 30. and that it proveth no such thing for which he doth produce it I shall onely shew how much he is mistaken in the reason that he giveth why the Church of England ought to reject conformity to the Church of Rome in matters of Worship and Discipline that have renounced communion with her in all material points of Doctrine pag. 27. Saith he the reason why we reject communion with the Church of Rome is for that the Popes Supremacy Infallibility Transubstantiation Merit of good works Invocation of Saints Purgatory Latin-Service Worshippiag of Images half communion and such like which are the Pillars of the Romiâ—h Fabrick cannot be proved and made good out of the Word of God And is not this reason of like force against the ceremonies of the Church yet in use amongst us Is there a scriptum est for one of them c. Sect. 24 To which give me leave to say the reason is not of like force for the things before named which are the Pillars of Popery Gods Word is expresly against them and the Scriptures of truth shew the Doctrine to be faelse and so ne to be the Doctrine of devils And if you could bring as clear Scriptures against using a form of prayer wearing garments for distinction and decency in Gods Worship as may be brought againâ—t Lain-Service Worshipping of Images Merit of good works c. Then there were some shew of reason in yours And as for your argument that there is not a scriptum est for one of them I shall give you a very ancient answer that was given to your very objection by the Reverend Martin Bucer to Joannes à Lasâ—o who argued against vestures and other ceremonies as holding conformity with the Charch of Rome therein and as having no scrip um est for them saith the said Bâ—â—â—er in his Epistle pag. 6. If therefore you will not admit such liberty and use of vesture to this pure and holy Church because they have no commandement of the Lord nor no example for it I do not see how you can grant to any Church that it may celebrate the Lords Supper in the morning c. for we have received for these things no commandement of the Lord nor any example yea rather the Lord gave a contrary example Sect. 25. Behold here you that have made a challenge in pag. 13. in the name of all the Non-conformists that if any learned men of our Adversaries be able to bring one sufficient sentence out of the holy Scripture or any one example of any Bishop or Minister in the time of King Edward the sixth that doe directly or ex professo plead for the wearing of Caps and Surplices c. the Zuinglian Gospellers will be then content to yeeld and subscribe Here is the authority of a great learned and pious man in the time of King Edward the sixth defending the lawfulness of these vestures you so much argue against and also condemning your very argument pag. 10. Saith he Many things which the Antichrists have made marks of their impiety may be tokens of the Kingdom of Christ as the signs of Bread and Wine the water of Baptisme the Laying on of hands Preachings Churches Holy dayes and many other things All these places of Scripture are of a great scope The earth and the fulness thereof is of the Lord not of the Devil not of Antichrist not of the wicked This colourable craft of Sathan saith he must be taken heed of by the which he bringeth to pass oftentimes that either we reckon those things which are no sins and those that be sins indeed we seem not to regard them in our selves c. Sect. 26. If the Authority of this holy man in King Edwards dayes satisfie not your conscience that these things may be continued and prevail not with you to prevail with all other Non-conformists in whose name you made the challenge and also have promised to yield and subscribe I shall in answer to your challenge produce the Authority of Bishop Jewell whom you so much quote ex professo commending the present Liturgy in the frame of it And this you will find written in pag. 162. of the Defence of the Apology occasioned by the reproachful speeches of Dr. Harding against it calling the Liturgy in Queen Elizabeth's dayes as you do now A devised Service c. but saith Bishop Jewell to him appealing to his own conscience You know that we serve God according to his holy Word and the order of his primitive Church we administer the holy Sacraments in pure and reverent sort though I suppose the signe of the Crosse was used in one and Kneeling at the other We baptise in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost we receive the Sacrament of Christs body and bloud from the holy Table we make our humble confession and prayers together we pray with one heart and one voice c. And of all these things what one is contrary to the Catholick Faith Oh Mr. Harding is it not written The man that lieth destroyeth his own soul and Christ saith the Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall never be forgiven in this life or in the life to come Sect. 27. If Bishop Jewell did not plead for the present Liturgy in the frame of it his zeal burning so hot that he accounteth Hardings calumnies of the Common prayer to be as a blasphemy against the Holy Ghost I leave to the consideration of all judicious Christians and consequently whether the Authors of the challenge are not bound to conform and subscribe especially considering what the said Bishop Jewell saith of the said Communion book or Common prayer book pag. 198. The holy Communion book and Order of the holy Administration standeth and by Gods mercy shall stand still without any change Observe I pray whatever you have said of the Liturgy of the Church that it is Tantum non the Masse-book yet if you had searched into Jewell as you ought for truth you would have found the Jesuite frequently depravi g the book of common prayer and that
for the very thing for which you plead the changing of further reformation thereof which occasioned this Reply of Jewell which cleerly evidenceth that he did so much approve of the present frame of the Liturgy that he said by Gods mercy it should not be changed no more And therefore I pray remember your promise yield and subscribe to the book of common prayer according as the Act requireth Sect. 28. And that this may be done with an unfeigned assent and consent I doe beseech you all who are zealous haters of Popery seâ—iously to weigh what is the judgement of the most judicious Jesuited Papists of this our present Liturgy as I find it published long since by their great champion Harding saith he that which ought to be written upon the heart of every true Protestant Every good man and zealous keeper of the Catholick Faith will never allow the Service devised in King Eâ—wards time now restored again not so much for the Tongue that it is in as for the order it self and disposition of it wanting some things necessary and having some other things repugnant to the Faith and the custome of the Carholick Church Reply of Jewell to Harding pag. 162. Let me intreat all Non-conformists especially to ponder upon this passage The Liturgy and Service of the Church of England to which we are to conform though some account it Popish Idolatrous and at the best too like the Mass book in the order and disposiâ—ion of it which is the great exception of the wisest Non-conformists at this day yet this Harding with the Separatists against whom Mr. Ball hath written agree together in calling it a Devised Service an Humane Invention Now consider what is predicated of this subject that the good men and zealous keepers of the Catholick Faith viz. the hottest rankest and most violent Papists they will never allow of this devised Service I think very good news Sect. 29. But to proceed to the reason that he giveth for this not so much for the tongue in which it is being now English whereas the Service of the Romish Church is Latin to this day which some make to be the onely difference between the Mass-book and the English Liturgy grounded upon a politick Proclamation in King Edwards time to quiet an Insurrection about it But saith Harding for the order it self and the disposition of it that which is a great exception of the Non-conformists why they cannot allow it is given as the reason why the good and zelous Catholicks cannot allow it also But how doth it appear further that the good Catholicks cannot nay he saith will not allow it because that it lacketh some things necessary as prayers to Saints to Angels to Images and for the dead to bring them out of Purgatory a thing very necessary to make the Popes Pot boyle together with many of those Bables Trifles and Follies which Bishop Jewell reckons up in his Sermon at S. Mary's quoted by Plus ultra to another purpose But to make our English Liturgy completely different from the Romish Mass-book he saith that it hath many things in it repugnant to the Faith and customes of the Catholick Church For these reasons the zealous Catholicks will never allow of our book of common prayer and therefore for these reasons the Book of Common prayer devised as they say in King Edwards time restored in Queen Elizabeths time confirmed since by King James King Charls the First and the Second should be worthy of a better acceptation then yet it hath received from those that declare themselves to be the most zealous professors of the true Reformed Protestant Religion Sect. 30. And thus now having proved it to be very lawfull to declare conformity to the Book of Common prayer having by the help of an old Non-conformist uncloathed it of that Idolatrous dress in which it hath been presented to the World by the Author of the Temperate Discourse and Plus ultra who having thereby but new-vamâ—t the arguments of the old Brownists and brought them forth as new lights to mislead weak people I shall through the help of the said Mr. John Ball give you but one general answer to what the said Author of the Discourse of Liturgies and others are very copious in cha ging the Common prayer with many particular defects and errors and so conclude Which answer you shall find part 2. pag. 22. Your long Catalogue of corruptions to be found in our Liturgy is to small purpose unlesse you could prove so e of them to be sundamental heretical and really Idolatrous Suppose saith he pag. 30. the seventy errors which you reckon up were all true and justly taken against the Book and as many more to them might be named yet the quotation that he giveth out of Usher de Success Eccles Chapter 1. answers all That the main truths which concern the very life and soul of Religion be few and the failings which may stand with the substance of Religion many Sect. 31. To conclude therefore with this Memorandum to the Authors of Plus ultra who upon the Authority that I have brought in King Edwards time from the Reverend Martin Bucer in Q. Elizabeths time from the Reverend Bishop Jewell that they are under an obligation to yield to subscribe and turn conformists even all the Zuinglian-Gospellers as he calleth them pag. 13. And that it will be expected they should shew themselves to be as good as their words I shall be a further help unto them in endeavouring to remove what may be an impediment to the subscribing of the 39. Articles of Religion with what followeth in the Act for Uniformity pag. 83. hoping in the following Chapter to make it appear that the particular ceremonies and rites of the Church by Law enjoyned together with the Books of Ordination c. which are part of the 39. Articles may lawfully be subscribed and conformed to CHAP. X. That to subscribe to the 39. Articles of Religion and to declare an unfeigned assent and consent c. is not contrary to any command of Christ but lawful and warrantable notwithstanding all the objections made of old by Mr. Josias Nicholls against subscription which are in this Chapter laid down and modestly removed Section I. THat we may be the more clearly informed and more fully resolved in this case the matter of this question being the subject matter of that obedience which the Act for the Vniformity of publick prayers c. doth require That we may the better judge of the iniquity or equity of what is required I humbly conceive it would be worth our time to make a particular inspection into this Act concerning what is enacted about these things aforesaid To which end I shall offer these three particulars to your consideration First what is required Secondly of whom it is required Thirdly after what manner the things required are to be done Sect. 2. First that which is required is a Subscription or Declaration of an
sign of Gods favour and gracious goodness towards them And that Matrimony signifie h to us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church Sect. 24. To begin now with the examination of the first proof Though this be granted that confirmation is appointed as a means whereby persons baptised may receive strength and defence against all temptations to sin doth it therefore follow that it is ascribed to Imposition of hands to be a sign and seal of the covenant This is a very great mis-apprehension and huge mistake about this ordinance of confirmation To evidence this I desire what I now offer may be considered and compared with the holy Scripture Sect. 25. Imposition or the Laying on of hands upon persons that have been baptized is not of meer humane invention but of divine authority and therefore the Author to the Hebrews 6.2 he doth reckon it amongst one of the beginnings of the Doctrines of Christ joyning it with the initiating ordinance of Baptism I say this Doctrine of Laying on of hands followeth next in order after the doctrine of Baptism Now for the warranting of this practice now in the Church I shall do two things first give example from Scripture secondly from the practice of the Christian Church in former Ages In Acts 8.14 when the Apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the Word and were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus ver 13. they sent Peter and John which were Apostles also from whence by the way if Peter had been the Prince of the Apostles he would have sent some of those Apostles that sent him to Confirm the people of Samaria in the profession of the Christian Faith Now when they came thither they prayed for those baptised persons ver 15. that they might receive the Holy Ghost both in its extraordinary gifts and saving graces by which they might be confirmed and receive strength against all temptations Now after this prayer what did they they laid their hands upon then ver 17. Behold here a Scripture-warrant for Imposition of hands and prayer for the Holy Ghost the giver of all grace whereby we may receive strength and defence against all temptations to sin Sect. 26. Now that this Ordinance continued in the Charch of God after the Apostles dayes what I have read alledged by St. Jerome doth prove the same saith he in his book advers Lucifer cap. 4. I deny not the custom of the Church was that the Bishop should go abroad and imposing hands pray for the gift of the Holy Ghost on them whom the Presbyters and Deacons for off in lesser Citie had al ealy baptised I desire that this proof may be well considered of for it is serviceable besides the end for which I bring it to inform also in that which is the subject of the third scruple about Deacons and that it may be the better understood I shall make it into these Propositions First that the Imposition of hands by Bishops was the custom of the Church before St. Jeromes time Secondly that this ceremony was attended with prayers as in the Apostles dayes Thirdly that the persons thus confirmed by this sign and prayer were such as were already baptised by the Deacons and Presbyters To all which let me adde but this observation being of great use in what followeth That in the Church of God in St. Jeromes dayes there were three degrees of order in the Gospel-Ministry or Ministerial Function viz. a Bishop a Presbyter and a Deacon Sect. 27. And thus having communicated my thoughts upon a diligent search of the sacred Scriptures as to this ordinance of Consirmation by the Imposition of hands and prayer I suppose it will appear to be a great mistake in those that are offended at what the Rubrick mention before Confirmation As to the second proof I shall say the less for having so fully cleared what is done by the Church of England to be according to the example of the holy Apostles as they affirm in their last prayer at confirmation and therefore this sign of Laying on their hands being no sign or ceremony of their own devising but by divine right it may charitably be concluded that such persons who are made partakers thereof may thereby be certified of Gods favour and gracious goodnesse towards them that they have not onely been baptised but have had an opportunity to make profession of their Faith and have had the prayers of the Church for them to receive strength and defence against all temptations to sin c. Sect. 28. And thus now having examined the proofs brought by Mr. Nicholls for making the sign of Imposition of hands and what is said of Matrimony to be a sacrament or seal of the covenant I leave it to your serious consideration whether this were a ground sufficient for refusal of an universal subscription CHAP. XI That to subscribe to the use of those Ceremonies which have significancy in them as the Surplice and Cross in Baptism is lawful and warrantable proved by the judgment of Forreign and our own Modern Divines both Conformists and Non-conformists Section 1. BEcause that I find this Principle so well improved once that this charge is fastned upon all such rites and ceremonies as have any significancy in them as the Surplice and Cross in Baptism and that to this day though so much be granted That the civil power or Church besides the circumstances of time and Place may order an hundred things which Reason and Nature it self teaches all sober persons to be such as that without some order to be observed in them the Worship of God would not be performed or would be undecently performed Discourse of Liturgies pag. 88. Yet it is denyed that they have any Authority to appoint significative ceremonies which are sensible signs to affect the understanding this is to give them Authority to institute Sacraments as Mr. Nicholls said of old Sect. 9. pag. 88. For the proof of this denyal I find not a word of Scripture or any other reason but this against significant ceremonies We believe them reducible to no command which is his great argument against an Imposed Liturgy We find no command of Christ for it Sect. 2. I am in great hopes that if I can by Scripture or the judgement of such as have been accounted for godly and learned now above all interest or right reason prove the contrary It may be a blessed means of inclining those that are concerned unfeignedly and universally to assent consâ—nt and conform to all the Book of common prayer with all the rites and ceremonies according to the Act for Unformity But before I begin I shall lay down this distinction concerning Rites and Ceremonies viz. of Morall and sacramental A rite or ceremony may be significative and represent spiritual objects to our understanding and yet not be a sacramental ceremony Sect. 3. For a Sacrament according as I learned when a child is thus defined to be a signe
402. Sect. 9. and in pag. 405. having granted that God hath not tyed us to any one particular gesture but that it is left to humane prudence to order our gesture by the general rules of order decency and edification in preaching praying hearing singing and whether the Ministers habit be black or white linnen or wollen or of what shape and fashion this he saith is left to humane prudence Sect. 21. pag. 405. and in 406. he that hath commanded us joyfully 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 or choristers c. and in Sect. 23. the use of the Ring in Marriage In all these cases it is no usurpation or addition to the word or institution of God for man to determine it is but obeying of Gods commands all these are necessary in their genus and commanded us of God and the species no where by the Word of God determined of c. Sect. 15. Yet in pag. 417. he saith that of all our ceremonies there is none that I have more suspected to be simply unlawful then the Crosse in Baptism The rest as I have said I should have submitted to rather then hinder the Service or Peace of the Church saying pag. 418. yet dare I not peremptorily say it is unlawful nor will I make any disturbance in the Church about it more then my own forbearance which I fear will not be a little considering what is published against the same by these following reasons pag. 418. Sect. 53. This is not saith he the mere circumstance of a duty but a substantial humane Ordinance of Worship c. There must be some time some place some gesture some vesture some utensils but you cannot say that there must be some teaching symbols some mystical signs c. Sect. 16. To which I shall crave leave to reply That I can say so because that I have read so much affirmed by your self pag. 404. Five Disput being as much if I mistake not as the Church of England doth declare For there I find Sect. 18. Though the tongue be the chief instrument yet not the onely instrument to express the mind And though words be the ordinary yet not the onely signs as the Prophets of old were wont by other signs as well as words to prophesie to the people Sect. 19. And therefore I durst not have reproved any of the ancient Christians that used the sign of the Cross meerly as a professing signal action to shew to the Heathen and Jews about them that they believed in a crucifyed Christ and were not ashamed of his Cross Sect. 17. Now I beseech the Christian Reader to consider whether the sign of the Cross so used was not a teaching symbol or a mystical sign And therefore it seemeth strange to me that though this worthy person durst not reprove the ancient Christians for the use of the sign of the Cross yet seemeth to reprove the Church of England upon the same account and no other who do use it onely as a professing signal action who also granteth significant signs warrantable pag. 410. secondarily though not primary speaking of the Surplice Sect. 40. saying he would use that garment if he could not be dispensed with Though secondarily the whitenesse be to signifie purity and so it be made a teaching sign yet would I obey for secondarily we may lawfully and piously make teaching signs of our food and rayment and any thing that we see And if so why not of the sign of the Crosse Sect. 18. Now that the sign of the Crosse is instituted by the Church onely as a teaching sign and that according to Mr. Baxters distinction secondarily and not primary not as a humane sacrament as is said before Sect. 54. I argue first from the words quoted by Mr. Baxter in the Form of Celebration pag. 421. We receive this child into the congregation of Christs flock and do sign him with the sign of the Cross in token that he shall not hereafter be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucifyed c. Two things I desire may be observed from hence and then it will appear to be no covenanting sign as is said Sect. 60. pag. 420. Sect. 19. First the order of the use of this ceremony it is after the child is baptized according to Christs own institution by water in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost after that the Infant is externally admitted into the covenant by the seal thereof and thereby made a visible Church member Then it followeth We receive this child into the congregation of Christs flock and do sign him with the sign of the Cross But to what end to be an instrument to convey grace No but for the very end that Mr. Baxter durst not reprove any of the ancient Christians that used this sign viz. as a professing signal action that they should not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified c. So that the secundary end of this ceremony or sign of the Cross being onely a teaching sign to remember us of a moral duty as I have said before The Sacrament of Baptisme it self being the primary one the investing the listing and the covenanting sign The sign of the Cross as I said before being onely a teaching sign of a duty of so much moment that if we perform it not Christ will be ashamed of us before his Father Methinks this should encline all peaceable minds to encline to the use of this ceremony when commanded it being only a sign and token to mind us of a moral duty Sect. 20. But secondly that it is onely and no other then a teaching sign I argue from what I find brought to endeavour to prove the contrary pag. 419. Sect. 57. by those words prefixed before the Common prayer Book of ceremonies where they say That they be not dark and dumb ceremonies but are so set forth that every man may understand what they do mean and to what use they do serve and that they are apt to stir up the dull mind of man to the remembrance of his duty to God by some notable and special signification whereby he might be edifyed This ceremony therefore amongst the rest is declared to be but of that teaching significancy which is allowed in Five Disput. to the Surplice and therefore being onely for the remembrance of so Christian a duty being a means no where forbidden may lawfully be used The Ring in Marriage though acknowledged Five Disput. before quoted to be a symbolical sign and lawful to be used pag. 406. yet I humbly conceive that it is appointed for to remember the party that weareth it of the covenant of her God which she hath entred into with her husband at the publick celebration of Matrimony before many witnesses The engaging covenanting act in the
solemnizing of Matrimony lyeth in the Promise the Ring amongst other uses is to be a token for to remember the promise that was then made Sect. 21. Now that the sign of the Cross after Baptism is appointed for the same use and is no Sacramentum in Sacramento as I have I hope fully proved before appeareth best by the Church who declare it not onely in her Preface before the ceremomies but also in several Canons of the Church to which I refer you If after all this it may be objected that though this sign of the Cross have onely this signal professing signification and so was lawful in the primitive times when the Church lived amongst Jews and Gentiles but now the reason for the continuance of the same holdethout we live not now amongst Pagans Heathens and Jews as they did Sect. 22. I answer It is true but do not many Infidels and enemies to the cross of Christ live amongst us I name them not such as do still look upon our blessed Jesus as an Impostor the Gospel as a fable and Christs crucifixion as a just demerit for his seduction of the people And therefore judge I pray you whether there be not the same if not better reason for the continuance in the Christian Church of this Ceremony of the sign of the Cross at the celebration of Baptism which ordinance of Baptism is to us as circumcision was to the Jews Whether all be true in every circumstance concerning the sig of the Cross that appeared in Constantines time with this Motto In hoc vinces By this thou shalt overcome I determine not Sect. 23. But considering this sign of it as used in the Reformed Church of England who can tell but that by an universal conformity to the use of it throughout His Majesty's dominions we may In hoc vincere by this very significant sign overcome them into Christs fold It is not irrational to think but that the Jews observing how much we all from highest to lowest glory in the representation of that opprobrious instrument of death which their Forefathers used viz. The cross so as that even at our Baptism when we are listed among the number of Christs souldiers we are by that sign and token to remember that we be never ashamed to own Christ before the Jews as well as the Gentiles Did I say they But understand it aright it might be a great means to make them ashamed of their obstinacy in which they continue to this day they being a people led so much by signes and ceremonies for although if I mistake not the manner how the Jewes shall be converted is obscurely laid down in the holy Scripture yet if there be any truth in the opinion of the learned Mead about it who from 1 Tim. 1.16 maketh the mystery of St. Pauls conversion to be a Type of the calling of the Jews shewing that as Paul was converted by an extraordinary meanes so pag. 27. The Jewes not to be converted to Christ by such means as were the rest of the Nations by the Ministry of Preachers sent unto them but by the Revelation of Christ Jesus in his glory from heaven whose coming then shall be as a Lightning out of the East shining into the West and the sign of the Son of Man shall appear in the clouds of heaven Mat. 23.39 and 24. ver 27 30. Sect. 24. I say if there be any truth in this conjecture who can tell but this simple conjecture also referring to what is said before may not be a Prodrome in this Kingdome where it is supposed so many Jewes are and prepare for it But whether this be true or no yet it is much to be feared that the divisions which are amongst Christians about the modes of Worship is a great hinderance to their conversion And therefore we should lay it to heart and as much as in us lieth to follow the things that make for peace Rom. 14. Sect. 25. Hoping therefore that what I have written in the sincerity and uprightness of my heart may be useful to this end and purpose and helpful also to take away those scruples and doubts hindering an universal subscription to the 39. Articles of Religion the Book of common prayer and all the rites and ceremonies whose sinfulness as is supposed lieth in their Sacramentality by Mr. Nicholls the Author of the Discourse of Liturgies and others CHAP. XII The general arguments against Subscription to the Book of making Bishops Priests and Deacons because the Deacon we are to approve his description is not to be found in the Book of God answered The weaknesse of which argument is evidenced from the example of Christ and his Apostles also the great evil of urging this argument at large that nothing is warrantable but what is expresly commanded Section 1. I Shall proceed to the consideration of the third great instance presented by Mr. Nicholls in the behalf of the Non-conformists of his time why they could not subscribe because that in the Book of Orders there is an Office of Ministry called the Deacon whose description is not be found in Gods book pag. 27. and that he may Preach and Baptize and not be of the Order of Priesthood as they call it We therefore think that in subscribing hereunto we should offend the holy Canon of Scripture and allow that which is contrary to the same Book by our subscription Now for the removing of this scruple which remaineth in the minds of many I fear at this day and that very much encreased since his time I shall make bold to weigh this general argument here brought against subscription viz. That the Deacon whom we are to allow of according to the Book of Orders his description is not to be found in the Book of God Therefore to subscribe is a sin Sect. 2. Now though it be a truth in general yet no general truth That to do or to allow of that which hath no description or prescription in the Word of God that is without a command from God is a sin Which is as you may observe Mr. Nicholls argument against Deacons Yet this truth taken without the distinction of Mr. Ball before quoted of matters substantial and circumstantiall not onely of Worship but of our humane converse nay in the very Function of the Ministry as you shall find from Mr. John Ball when I come to speak of the Deacon in particular is not to be approved of the argument drawn from it being of dangerous consequence Sect. 3. Now observing this argument generally propounded that I do not find this or that particular command by God in his Word was a principal pillar of Non-conformity in Bishop Hoopers time and in Mr. Nicholls time and probably began the troubles at Frankfort is also the Anabaptists great argument against baptizing Infants and the originals of the Quakers sad delusion that would therefore wear no lace or hatbands c. because not commanded in the Word and is
Function of the Ministry and that particular Order whereby in this or that society he is to execute this Function Which distinction as I said before serveth not onely for a very good answer to the Brownists that deny Lecturers to be true Ministers but likewise to justifie against the Non-conformists the execution of the Ministerial Function by this order of Deacons And indeed if it be considered the very term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Scripture doth signfie one that ministers to another in a degree above him Saith our Saviour He that will be greatest amongst you let him be your Deacon in the Original And in this sense the supreme Magistrate being under God and serving in a place below him yet above the people he is called Rom. 13. The Deacon of God And there is some hint for this even out of 1 Tim. 3. he that diaconiseth it well gets himself a * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 compar'd with the Arabick Syâ—ack doth much confirm this sense good degree Implying that this Order of Deaconship is preparatory to further degrees of order in the Ministry viz. such as I have before quoted were executed in the Church in St. Jeromes time that is of Presbyter and Bishop Sect. 3. The ground therefore of this mistake I humbly conceive lyeth in this Plea 27. In that they call this order of Deacon to be an office of the Ministry called the Deacon whereas according to Mr. Ball in the title of Lecturers saith it is only that order in which the Ministerial Function is executed Therefore it may be fitly said of the Deacon the acceptation of whose name in the Scripture doth much justifie his imployment according to the practice of the Church of Engl. viz. what Mr. Nicholls saith is to be in helping the Priest in Divine Service c. And thus now having considered of these three great impediments to subscription in Queen Elizabeths time with whatsoever I have met with in the Writings of the ew Non-conformists in these times I hope it will appear to all sober Christians what I at first propounded to evidence upon inquiry That Subscription to all the 39. Articles the book of Common prayer and to all the rites and ceremonees there in is lawful and warrantable and may be done without sin Sect. 4. As to all the particular exceptions not here spoken to against several passages in the Common prayer and Rites of Administration mustered together in the Discourse of Liturgies I shall for brevities sake forbear to answer particularly having answered all by taking away the nail upon which they all hang. For whosoever shall seriously review that Discourse and observe his proofs may find that Mr. Nicholls argument against Deacons because their description in every circumstance is not to be found in the Word of God is brought in not onely against forms of prayer in this present Liturgy but all the circumstantial and ceremonial parts therein they are reducible to no command No warrant in the Word to use or stand up at Gloria Patri and the Creed no warrant to kneel at the Communion for the people to answer the Priest in prayer as in the Letany and other responds c. with more of that kind many of which I believe might be warranted from Scripture particularly and such as are included in general Texts thereof I desire therefore this may be considered that the Scripture is no way to be accused of insufficiency because that there are not particular commands for every mode in Worship for every order rite and ceremony in divine Administrations neither are they who command or they which obey and conform to the use of them to be accused of superstition and Will-worship My reasons for it besides what I have said before being the same both from Reverend Mr. Calvin and Mr. Ball before quoted which were very good in their dayes and are like to stand so while Christ hath a visible Church upon earth Sect. 5. Now before I go off from this subject I hope I may do good service in this momentous business to offer to your consideration the use that the pious and Learned Mr. Randall in his Lectures of the Church teacheth us to make of what hath been the subject of my Discourse being co-incident with his Saith he pag. 148. If we live in a Church where such things are ordained which are not simply unlawful we must take heed that we resist not this power or the things thereby ordained 1. This is the first rule and the Lord encline our hearts to keep it as a means to this followeth another 2. We must bridle our selves from distike this is the second unto which it should seem we are naturally subject even to dislike the commands of our Superiours about things not determined by God in his Word 3. But thirdly saith he bridle thy self specially from refusal Good men had need to have an especial care of themselves and that by the severe commands of God they bridle themselves from disobedience to the lawful commands of men Write therefore this golden saying of Reverend Calvin upon your hearts Nihil humano ingenio magis adversum est quam subjectio vere enim illud olim dictum est regis animum quemque intra se habere Calvin 1 Pet. 5.5 There is nothing to which the wit of man is more averse then subjection and therefore do men naturally bend their wits and parts in disputing the commands of their Superiors what is said of old is very true Every man hath within himself the heart of a King he would rule but not obey Follow therefore let us the counsel of this holy man especially to bridle our selves from refusal But yet saith he in the next place which I name the fourth Direction 4. Yield with some perswasion of conscience Sect. 6. For though we may not refuse to yield obedience in matters simply lawful in themselves yet every one is to yield with some perswasion of conscience it being surely a very dangerous thing for fear or any carnal respect to act doubtingly Considering therefore that scrupulous persons about doubtful things to them commanded by lawful Authority are in so great a strait that if they yield obedience doubtingly they sin if they do not conform they sin some perswasion of conscience is absolutely necessary Sect. 7. Now that which must perswade the conscience of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of an action either sacred or civil as to the substantials of Gods Worship and our humane converse must be the Word of God rightly understood and applyed And that which must perswade the conscience in circumstantials referring to the duties of the first and second Table not determined by God or left to our own liberty must be the Laws and commands of our superiors which though they bind the conscience yet not absolutely as the Law of God doth but relatively with respect to those general precepts which command us to yield obedience for conscience sake