compass of some general prohibitions the Unlawfulness of them upon that account will be to be consider'd in what next follows If they shall be denied Indifferent in their own Nature and yet no one Text of Scripture can be produc'd that speaks one word about them they who shall so deny do both bring an Unanswerable prejudice against all the particular establishments made by the General Rules of prudence whether by the Presbyterians or Independents and do also quite mistake the nature of a thing Indifferent If we descend to particular Instances I desire to know why the Surplice is not as Indifferent as a Gown or Cloak Not because it is a white Garment for then why are not Bands Unlawful And where is the Text that forbids white more than black Nor because it is of such a fashion for the Scripture gives no more directions for the shaping of a Cloak than a Surplice Why then Surely either because it is thought decent or significant or because it is appropriated to divine worship 1. If it be decent then is it no Errour to think it so then the Apostolical Canon let all things be done decently justifies and maintains it And is it not decent Does nature teach so to whom St. Paul appeals We do 1 Cor. 11. not find any inbred shame as if we did somewhat Unnatural in the use of it Does Scripture pronounce it uncomely We cannot find it There is no other Rule for Decency but either common estimation or the pleasure of our Governours for the latter we are secure and set peevishness aside fear not being condemn'd by the former 2. Peradventure it is thought significant therefore not Indifferent I answer that a significant Ceremony if this should be such only as such is not superstitious But who told our men of scruples that it is urg'd as significant of Candor and Purity By what Canon or Rubrick is any man oblig'd to have such an Opinion of it Whatever others who may have a better Opinion of significant Ceremonies may think of it he who is satisfied to wear it as a decent Garment transgresses no Law if he think no more 3. Is it unlawful and not Indifferent because it is appropriated to Divine Service This it seems is Dr Collings Exercit. of Opin Consc p. 80. scruple who thinks it Unlawful to wear any habit peculiarly appropriated to the worship of God I wonder then how it can be lawful to lean on a Pulpit Cushion or to use a Communion Cup if the Church-Wardens should be so superstitious as to lock them up and preserve them from all other uses If there be any thing in Scripture that forbids the use of a Garment upon any of these accounts somewhat will be offer'd worth considering till then we continue to believe it Indifferent and free from superstition 2. Why is not Kneeling c. Indifferent not because it is a posture for so is sitting but because it is such a posture And what is it A posture us'd upon any superstitious Opinion Let us know what that is Is it suspected to signifie our Adoration of the Elements The Declaration of our Liturgy delivers us from that suspicion and authorizes us to reckon them pitifully Ignorant or monstrously Uncharitable who after so plain a Declaration will suspect it What it signifies we there read This Order Order for Adminis H. commun is well meant for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ and for the avoiding of prophanation and disorder If it be unlawful to signify humility and thankfulness why do we at any time kneel or lift up our hands and eyes to Heaven Or if it be unlawful to avoid prophanation and disorder then let St. Paul be reproved for setting 1 Cor. 11. things in Order in the Church of Corinth Till I can find some Text that forbids Kneeling or till I can be satisfied that some superstitious Opinion gives occasion to it I must continue to reckon this also Indifferent 3. And to the same purpose I say of the Cross at Baptism How superstitiously the Papists use it I shall have occasion to say but our use of it being to where in Scripture forbid unless it can be proved that our 30th Canon of which before gives a false Account of it unless there be some Popish or other superstition or error from which it is not sufficiently purg'd it remains in its nature Indifferent Our general Answer in all is as before Where no Law is there is no Transgression What is not forbid is allowed is not Unlawful 2. There may be some who will Sect. 18. grant that some Indifferent things may be Impos'd yet will not yield that our Ceremonies therefore may because of some objections against them which have not equal force against all matters Indifferent Such are these two thought to be 1. The case of Scandal and giveing offence to weak Brethren 2. Because they have been abus'd among the Papists I should be asham'd to mention these things where in the N. C ts have been so often answer'd did I not consider that till this be clear'd the prejudice which I desire to remove will still remain for if for these reasons Conformity be Unlawful then may it seem that they who either impose or practise it have an undue opinion of that which is so unlawful and that opinion shall be suspected of superstition I proceed therefore to say If they who impose these Rites did not in truth judge them expedient and decent in the worship of God only because they think them barely lawful they urge them as believing many scrupulous minds will be offended at them and therefore they lay them as Snares and take advantage to incommode and bring under a penalty those who scruple them this might be called Tyranny but not properly superstition and so would not rach our Case I make not this supposition as if I would tempt any dissatisfied man so to judge of them for assuredly it is no less than a blaspheming of Dignities to think they enact Conformity for this reason But I find they who pretend to be dissatisfied will thus suspect And Mr Bagshaw thus expresses it Whoever obtrudes his conceits Two great Queries concerning things Indiff p. II. upon others who perhaps are not so well satisfied as he is becomes impious to God by invading his sovereignty and lording it over another mans Conscience and likewise injurious to men by pressing such things as are only baits to the careless and traps for the Conscientious Unless there be more hypocrisy than superstition in our Governours this cannot be the case for they profess to have done that which to their best understandings Preface to the Liturgy they conceiv'd might most tend to the preservation of peace and unity in the Church the procuring of Reverence and exciting of Devotion in the publick worship of God and the cutting off occasion from them that seek
Thousand Ignorant Protestants and of Confirmation of many Infinites of wilful Papists in their Idolatry He concludes the Treatise thus The Ceremonies in Controversy are either excellent parts of our Religion which he not yielding must believe the other part of the Disjunction or notorious parts of Superstition This is the dirt that was cast upon the Church of England in the beginning of King James his Reign that he might be out of love with her A reproach of which the Convocation of 1603. was so sensible for though that Treatise came first out a little after the Convocation yet the suspicion was rife before that they pass this Canon among Canon 6. others Whosoever shall hereafter affirm the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England by Law established are wicked Antichristian or Superstitious c. Let him be Excommunicated c. This Canon did not restrain the petulancy of Censorious men for besides Mr. Bradshaws confidence in the defence that Dr Burges makes for Bishop Morton it appears Burges Answer Rejoined Chap. 4. §. 1. that the N. C sts of those times did thus argue The Ceremonies of the Church of England have been and still are abused to Idolatry and Superstition by the Papists And that we Id. ib. §. 4. cannot be thought sincerely to have repented of that Idolatry and Superstition except we cast away with detestation all the Instruments of it Once more they say That a superstitious construction is Id. ib. ◠79. made of our Cross not only by the Papists but by our own Canons and Canonical Imposers of it These Jealousies did but fly in the dark during King James his Reign but soon after Charles the First came to the Throne he received divers Complaints of this nature The Parliament Anno 1628. Rushworth Historical Collections p. 526. complains of Idolatry and Superstition as some of those heinous and crying sins which were the undoubted Cause of those evils that were fallen upon them The Remonstrance which the Commons Id. ib. p. 621. of the same Parliament made against the then Duke of Buckingham expresses their fears concerning Innovation of Religion A while after Mr. Rouse makes a Speech concerning Religion wherein he desires it may be considered what new paintings are laid on the old face of the Whore of Babylon How the See of Rome does eat Ib. p. 645 646. into our Religion and fret into the banks and walls of it for a remedy of which he propounds the expedient of a Covenant to hold fast God and Religion to which Covenant he would have every man say Amen This man does not it is true speak of Superstition but he is understood to mean it by another Orator of the same House Mr. Pym who complains that the Law Ib. p. 647. was violated in bringing in superstitious Ceremonies After whom another in the same Session Sir John Eliott apprehends a fear of some Ib. p. 649. Bishops then in place that if they should be in their power they might be in danger of having Religion overthrown because some of them were Masters of Ceremonies and laboured to introduce new Ceremonies into the Church After those eager Debates the motion for a Covenant slept for some years but was renewed again in the Unhappy Times of the Fatal Parliament In the times when it was a great part of the Impeachment against the Great Arch-Bishop of Canterbury that he had traiterously Artic. of Impeach 7. 10. endeavoured to alter and subvert Gods true Religion by law established in this Realm and instead thereof to set up Popish superstition and Idolatry and that he traiterously endeavoured to reconcile the Church of England with the Church of Rome In these times it was that Mr. Rouse's motion ripen'd up to a Solemn League and Covenant wherein they obliged themselves to endeavour the Extirpation of Popery Prelacy and Superstition By which words the Covenanters as some of them have since declar'd believe themselves obliged against Conformity for this reason they give in a Book they call a Sober and Temperate Discourse concerning the Interest of words in Prayer c. in which the Title of one of their Chapters is The Ministers Third Reason viz. Chap. 10. why they do not meddle with the Common Prayer as are the words of the Chapter is because they have sworn to endeavour a reformation in worship and to endeavour to extirpate Superstition Nothing now can be more evident than that both of old and in our times Superstition is objected to us It does not come in my way to condemn nor do I take upon me to justify the practises of all particular persons I concern my self only in the legal Establishments of our Church and they would little need a vindication if men would take the pains to enquire into the nature of Superstition for they would soon find the Innocence of our Rites would defend themselves from this suspicion But it is our Unhappiness that we have to deal with men who take things upon trust who are not easily undeceived because they will maintain a Conclusion before they have examined the premises observing Superstition to be a word that signifies somewhat bad they condemn us without a Tryal and before they know what it means conclude us guilty of Superstition I have waited some while in expectation that some abler Pen would engage in this Argument but not finding that of late days the Nature of Superstition has been particularly and fully discovered or described I have now undertaken the task in which because I desire to be understood I labour for no other ornament of stile than perspicuity And without farther Preface I proceed to enquire what is this Superstition with which the Church of England is so much upbraided There is no Precept in the Holy Scripture that forbids Superstition by that name nor does any sacred Author mention it except St. Luke in two places to be considered in due time when I examine how the word is used in other Authors For by this Method I conceive I shall best accomplish my design if First I enquire into the use of the Word And secondly into the nature of the thing signified by such a Word 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which the Greeks Sect. 2. express'd that which we now commonly call Superstition signifies most literally a service perform'd to God or to a Daemon rather out of fear than love An over-timerous and dreadful apprehension of the Deity as the learned Smith who also calls it Select Discourse of Superstit p. 26. 36. a compound of Fear and Flattery such an apprehension of God in the thoughts of men as renders him grievous and burdensome to them But however this may be the primary sense of the word yet that it hath been transfer'd to signifie more largely is evident from Greek Authors Plutarch in his Tract 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 constantly discourses of it as of an extream to
make Determinations in things Indifferent 4. Therefore people are bound to obey their Governours in such their Determinations 5. It is not unlawful for Church-Governours to appoint some significant Ceremonies These are the foundations upon which we stand upon which our Governours require and upon which we practise Conformity and none of these are superstitious Opinions Wherefore in the application of these Generals to our Times and state of things we conclude the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England not being for their number burdensome of which in due time are not in their nature and kind superstitious 1. He who judges all Circumstances relating to the publick worship of God not particularly determined in the word of God is not superstitious in that Opinion For this is so plainly and manifestly true that it is a shame for any man to deny it There hath been I know an Axiome among Cartwrights Disciples That nothing ought to be established in the Church which is not commanded in the word of God This they thought plainly warranted by the manifest words of the law about adding to or diminishing from the word of God Now adds Mr Hooker these Eccles 〈◊〉 Book 3. §. 5. men having an eye to a number of Rites and Orders in the Church of England such as the Ring in Marriage the Cross c. thought by the one only stroke of that Axiome to have cut them off And T. C. is quoted as arguing thus You which Ib. §. 2. distinguish and say that Matters of Faith and necessary to salvation may not be tolerated in the Church unless they be expresly contained in the word of God or manifestly gathered But the Ceremonies Order Discipline Government in the Church may not be received against the word of God and consequently may be received if there be no word against them although there be none for them You I say distinguishing in this sort prove an evil divider To all which there needs no other Answer than what Mr Hooker gives Let that which they do hereby intend be granted them let it once stand as consonant to reason that because we are forbid to add to the Law of God any thing or to take ought from it therefore we may not for matters of the Church make any law more than is already set down in Scripture Ib. §. 6. who sees not what sentence it shall enforce us to give against all Churches in the World in as much as there is not one but hath had many things established in it which though the Scripture did never command yet for us to condemn were rashness He goes on to give the Example of the Church of God in the time of our Saviour instead of all others If this ratiocination be weak they who suspect it have great reason to shew us out of Scripture an exact form of Church-Government but instead of doing so they only argue that so it must be without directing us to the place where it is To which I again oppose Mr Hookers words As for those marvellous discourses Ibid. ad finem whereby they adventure to argue that God must needs have done the things which they imagine were to be done I must confess I have often wondred at their boldness herein When the question is whether God hath delivered us in Scripture as they affirm he hath a compleat particular immutable form of Church-Polity why take they that other both presumptuous and superfluous labour to prove he should have done it There being no way in this case to prove the deed of God save only by producing that Evidence wherewith he hath done it But if there be no such thing apparent upon record they do as if one should demand a Legacy by force of some written Testament wherein there being no such thing specified he pleads that there it must be and brings Arguments from the love of the Testator imagining that these proofs will convict a Testament to have that in it which other men can no where by reading find It will appear in the process of our arguing that the very men who would insinuate to the disparagement of our Rites that Divine Worship must have a Divine Warrant for Circumstances as well as for substance have not themselves been guided by this Opinion but have taken a liberty in their Directorian or Dictatorian way which they have denied to others And because I shall by and by bring them as witnesses for us and against themselves I respit yet a little their farther Conviction in this matter 2. Notwithstanding the Determinations Sect. 6. of the Holy Scripture there do still remain some things in their own nature Indifferent and in this Opinion there is no Superstition It might reasonably be thought that this Proposition is so evident that no man who pretends to learning will deny it But so it is that the power of Church-Governours may be reduc'd in a manner to nothing some there have been who will not own any thing Indifferent in these matters I meet with two who have maintain'd this Assertion and I presume they are the same whom Bishop Saunderson means when he speaks of some of Saunderson de Obliga Conscient praelec 6. §. 23. this Opinion Duo praesertim alter alicujus nominis apud suarum partium homines Theologus alter è proceribus Regni laicus Those Two I conceive must be Mr Bradshaw and the Lord Brooke I shall not do Mr Bradshaw right if I do not acknowledge that Dr Burges Answer Rejoin'd Ch. 2. §. 9. Burges tells us he revers'd his Opinion of things Indifferent Surely he had great reason to do it That he was once of the Opinion which I fasten on him must not be denied One of his Treatises Reprinted 1660. is Of the Nature and use of things Indifferent Where he states the Case thus A Chap. 2. thing Indifferent is a mean between good and evil so that whatsoever is Indifferent is neither good nor evil whatsoever is either good or evil is not indifferent After this he avers that no Action of Religion Chap. 8. whether it be Moral or Ceremonial is Indifferent but either good or evil and again No Ceremony of Religion is Indifferent Ibid. A gross and palpable mistake and unworthy of a man so cryed up for his learning the more pardonable indeed because he acknowledged his Error but because they who Reprinted him were not so just to his Memory as to insert that acknowledgment and because they for whose sake he was reprinted have not it may be that respect for Dr Burges as to read him I must animadvert on it as I find it and answer That no considering man can think that when we use an Indifferent Rite we mean that we do neither good nor evil No sure that which is Indifferent in its Nature may be in its use Necessary We use it as being by sufficient Authority commanded thereto and therefore upon such
Body and to an expectation of Christs coming to Judgment the belief of which was declar'd by this significant Ceremony But that which I urge is this They against whom we argue contend for sitting at the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and that for this reason because it is a significant posture That it is any where in the New-Testament commanded to receive the Sacrament sitting no man in his Wits will say Yet the Presbyterians have often argued for it upon the account of its significancy So I have heard it out of the Pulpit That gesture which ought to be kept above all the rest is Sitting because though it be but a Circumstance yet it hath some significancy in it because it is a supper gesture And secondly and chiefly because it signifies the familiarity that is between Christ and Believers Luke 22. 30. This Supper is a Type of the Everlasting Supper in Heaven where one shall not sit and another stand I name not my Author because he is long since dead but I am certain I do him no wrong And to make it appear that this is their Doctrine I add a Printed Testimony Among the Treatises that bear Mr Bradshaws name one is a Proposition concerning Kneeling at the Sacrament wherein are these words Whereas Bradsh several Treatises p. 104. the end of a Sacrament is to inform the outward man by sensible demonstrations it pleased our Master to use such a gesture as agreeably with Bread and Wine setteth out our Communion and spiritual familiarity with him and rejoicing in him and therefore as he says If any man hear my voice c. I will come in to him and sup with him and he with me So he says Many shall come from the East and West and shall sit with Abraham c. By which place it appears that as by Supper so by sitting familiar rejoiceing or rejoicing familiarity is expressed Therefore not kneeling but sitting is for receiving It is plain then that sitting is reckon'd a significant posture It is also plain that it is required in the Directory Direc Celebra Commun The Table being decently covered and so conveniently plac'd that the Communicants may orderly sit about it or at it c. I know the pretence is that they do not Institute a significant Ceremony they only retain it as having warrant from the Example of our Saviour So says the foremention'd Proposition Kneeling is contrary to Ibid. the Example of Christ and his Apostles who ministred and receiv'd sitting or in such a gesture as in those Countreys was most used at eating from which Example to differ without warrant from Gods word cannot be without fault seeing the Examples of holy men much more that of Christ are to be followed except there be some reasonable cause to the contrary In Answer to which I oppose three things First If the Example of Christ were as they say yet it does no more conclude for our sitting than for our receiving at Supper time c. Secondly They have not the Example of Christ for that manner of sitting which they now urge Thirdly It is not absolutely certain whether they have his Example for any manner of sitting at all 1. Suppose the most that the Sect. 14. Apostles at the first Institution of the Sacrament did receive it sitting where is the Argument because they did therefore so must we Let this be proved Where is the particular Command that makes it our duty to follow this Example Cedo locum and we yield That must not be said What then Will they argue from the Equity of the Example Let us go on then and say Because of the same Example we must receive at night in an upper room and only Males For either the whole Example binds in all Circumstances or in none or some difference must be assign'd between this Circumstance and the other of Time and place c. And what I pray shall that be Is it because which is a sufficient reason they were but Occasional there was no design in Instituting and administring the Sacrament in such a place but because it was judg'd by our Blessed Saviour a convenient place Or at night but because the Pass-over was first to be eaten and that night our Blessed Saviour was to be betrayed therefore that time of night was most proper because it could not be sooner or later Now let it be consider'd was it not also Occasional that they receiv'd it sitting so as their Master found them at the Pass-over as is now suppos'd so being in hast he administers this Sacrament Why therefore should this come into Example rather than the other Circumstances unless which can never be proved there be some indications in the Gospel that it was the pleasure of our Lord that this part of his Example should oblige and not the rest Oh! but this gesture signifies as was before said and does it so Who can tell that Who may be bold to say that the posture which was used upon occasion was intended for signification when no such thing is said only the wits of men have devised this reason and imagin'd a significancy in it But be it so May not then also some signification be fasten'd upon the time and place It is best to receive in an upper room this signifies the exalted state to which Believers are receiv'd and by which they are dignified whereby also they are rais'd up to a nearness to Heaven in that holy Ordinance Again it is best to receive at night this signifies after a poor Sinner hath been wearied in his days of sin as men at night turn to their rest after the labours of the day so now after the labours of sin Return to thy rest O my Soul for the Lord hath dealt bountifully with thee Psal 116. and Come unto me all ye that labour c. and I will give you rest Math. 11. I dare say as good Texts to prove receiving at night as sitting with Abraham in the Kingdom of God proves the posture Thus is it easy to devise and imagine and if this shall be thought a worshipping God after our own devices as the men who seem so much to abhor Superstition will be ready to say I see not but they who contend so much for sitting will be guilty unless they can make it appear that the Holy Scripture hath rather recommended one than another Now if I should repeat those Tragical Declamations against adding to the word of God Will-worship and mens devices in the worship of God of which their writings are full how would they all fit here For what is if this be not worshipping God after mens Imaginations when they will make differences where our Blessed Saviour hath made none And yet this is the best that can be said of this Case for this supposes that Christs Example recommends sitting 2. Whereas this is farther to be said They have not so much as Example for that manner of sitting
which they now urge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 26. Luke 22. the two words used by the Evangelists upon this occasion do not signifie such a sitting as is now in use It is therefore generally agreed that their posture was more like to lying than sitting So that the best of their Argument can be but thus Because our Blessed Saviour gave the Sacrament to his Disciples in that gesture which they used at Meals which was a kind of lying therefore we ought to receive it in the gesture now used at Meals which is sitting where we must desire their Logick to tell us what degree of necessity is in this sequele because they did one thing we must do another Yet neither is this the worst of it all this is but a supposition of that which they are never able to prove For 3. It is not absolutely certain in what posture they did then receive the Lords Supper Probably they continued in the same posture but who can peremptorily conclude it Who can demonstrate to the contrary but that when our Blessed Saviour while they were eating solemnly betook himself to the Institution of a new Sacrament they to address themselves to a new service might betake themselves to a new gesture I cannot prove they did nor for ought I can find can any body prove they did not There is nothing conclusive in any of the Evangelists that they did certainly continue in the same posture Unless the Order of St. Luke be insisted on who Chap. 22. after the Institution of the Sacrament hath these words But behold the hand of him that betrays me is with me at the Table Which Order signifies little to those who will not yield Judas to have been at the Sacrament as divers of our Adversaries will not but admit he was there as seems very probable yet though they were all at the same table as before and who can demonstrate but it might be another table yet it does not appear certain that they were in the same posture as before This doubt I move not as a thing in it self considerable but to represent how strongly some men and even the same who call so much for Scripture grounds and for a divine warrant for Circumstances of worship as minute as this will build upon probabilities when it serves their turn Because it is not said they rose up it is by consequence gather'd they sat still If they did it was not our manner of sitting but another If they had sate as we yet this Example is no more obligatory than it is to other Circumstances of the same Institution Yet through all these If 's and Consequences and Suppositions they conclude to the expedience if not to the necessity of a significant Ceremony though in us they call it Superstition The lifting up the hand at the Covenant the laying the hand upon the Book in swearing and other like Ceremonies have been objected to them by others I urge not that but add another Instance whereby it will plainly appear that many of the N. C ts though they suspect so much superstition in a significant Ceremony yet can themselves allow and urge the use of a Ceremony and that in a Religious matter and because it is significant although the particular Ceremony be no where in Scripture commanded They who have endeavour'd to Sect. 15. settle Presbyterated and Associated Churches have determin'd to do it by way of Covenant so consenting to be a Member of such a Church The Agreement of the Associated Churches in Worcestershire will give us light in this thing who thus express themselves Because Ministers should Agreement of the Associated Churches in Worcestersh §. 18. have a particular knowledge of their Charge which now is uncertain and for divers other reasons propounded and debated among us We judge it very fit if not of necessity to desire a more express signification of our peoples consent to our Ministry and Ministerial actions and in particular to submit to this discipline as the members of that particular Church Afterwards they tell us in what form of words they require this consent to be given I do consent to be a Member of the particular Church of Christ at whereof Teacher c. The reasons why this was required Mr Baxter gives in his Explication of that Agreement not as his Ibid. own but as those that mov'd the Association to make that determination The reasons are Twelve In all which there is not so much as a pretence of a divine Institution nay it is confessed in the Preface that the sign it self of this consent is not particularly determin'd and Mr Baxter after the reasons adds this Memorandum Remember yet that I maintain that God does in Scripture require only consent signified a thing which I do not now debate but hath not tyed us to this or that particular sign for signifying it but having given us general Rules that all things be done to Edification decently c. he hath left it to humane prudence to determine of the particular sign whether voice subscription c. So then such a form of words is own'd to be a sign signifying consent It is also own'd a sign requir'd only upon General Rules of Scripture What unpardonable crime is it then if the Church of England agree upon some Ceremonies significant by virtue of the same general Rules of Edification and Decency In which Cases if private men will be so wise as to abound in their own sense whether or no such things be decent and edifying the same Mr Baxter hath determin'd the Controversy in the same place where though he assert that the Pastors are to consult with the people about the convenience yet he positively concludes That people are to obey the determination of their guides And how now comes it to pass that the power which they in their times assum'd should be denied the Church of England viz. Power and Authority to appoint significant Ceremonies If they will distinguish between Discipline and Worship and allow a significant Ceremony in that but not in this I reply that in their contentions for Discipline about Mr Hookers time that Axiome of theirs Nothing ought to be established in the Church which is not commanded by the word of God was applied to Discipline as well as worship and therefore Eccles Pol. Lib. 3. Sect. 5. Degrees in the Universities sundry Church-Offices and Dignities were struck at Yea they did affirm that the Discipline was no small part of the Gospel Survey of the pretended Holy Disciplin p. 440. that without this Discipline there can be no right Religion that they who reject the Discipline refuse to have Christ reign over them However it is clear A significant Ceremony because allowed in Discipline is not in the Nature of the thing unlawful Nor does it deserve the name of a Sacrament properly so called Nor does the Church of England deserve to
people are not satisfied If in truth it shall be believed that the number of Ceremonies enjoin'd is so great that the means disserve the end that what is ordain'd as an help to Piety and Devotion does rather hinder it these persons so dissatisfied about the number are in the same case with those who are dissatisfied about the nature of an Injunction If they scruple without cause and are not duly inform'd their scruples do not render the Injunction unlawful in it self Nevertheless the Doctrine of our Church does not encourage them to act against their Consciences they must peaceably suffer where they cannot act No doubt but it is possible Church-Governours who among us do not pretend to Infallibility may in some things be mistaken Yet such things as these must be left to their determination For is it not so elsewhere There may be too many Ale-Houses in a Town and it may be difficult to determine exactly how many are sufficient and where the number will exceed but is it therefore unlawful for the Justices to licence any There may be in a Countrey or Town Parishes too many for the Maintenance or too few for the people and it may be difficult for Authority to know exactly how many are needful and convenient Shall there be therefore no division made into several for fear lest there should be too many or too few What if there be the same difficulty in adjusting the true number of Ceremonies yet in as much as it is necessary there should be some because else Religion in the substance would suffer and decay therefore is it also lawful for our Governours to make a determination in this matter The Determination of which number must proceed upon the same Rules of Decency Order and Edification which give a law to the kind and nature of Ceremonies And in this General may men rest satisfied till the number shall grow doubtful Then it will concern private persons to take heed as to their own practice that the Ceremony do not devour the substance But because at present there is no reasonable Cause to fear because the Ceremonies that are now requir'd are so few that no man may without peevishness quarrel at their number if they be Innocent in their nature and use therefore I return from this digression to consider that in the next place 2. The Rites and Ceremonies of our Church are not required as things in their nature necessary but Indifferent The use of the Cross at Baptism is Canon 30. thus accounted for as being purg'd from all Popish superstition and error and reduc'd in the Church of England to the primary Institution of it upon those true Rules of Doctrine concerning things Indifferent which are consonant to the word of God and the Judgment of all Antient Fathers c. And upon the same Rules of Doctrine are our other Ceremonies established For so the Preface to the Liturgy expresses it The Ceremonies that remain are retain'd for a Godly Discipline and Order which upon just causes may be alter'd and chang'd and therefore are not to be esteem'd equal with Gods Law And the Preface that was made upon the last establishment says The particular forms of Divine Worship and the Rites and Ceremonies appointed to be us'd therein are things in their own Nature Indifferent and alterable and so acknowledged Words too plain to need a Comment and lyable to no Objection that I can foresee unless one of these two things shall be replyed both upon them and all that hath hitherto been said in this matter First That some things are requir'd under the Notion of things Indifferent which are not so Secondly Be it granted that some Indifferent things may be impos'd yet it does not follow that all may or that the things in controversy may We say the things they scruple Sect. 17. are requir'd but as things Indifferent as indeed they are They are not all satisfied to think so of them The time was when T. C. did oppose our Ceremonies not as unlawful but as inconvenient as hath been already said And Mr Ash in the Epistle to his Funeral Sermon on Mr Gataker when he had named Cartwright and Hildersham and Dod c. he says of them though these men dislik'd the use of superstitious Ceremonies yet they oppos'd their Tenents and practice who separated from the Church of England condemning it and the Ministry of it as Antichristian The separation is it seems now advanc'd for there are men that reckon there is more superstition among us than was believ'd formerly and therefore separate farther from us It is denied Modest Disc of Ceremon p. 8. now that these are things of Indifferency to be us'd as is requir'd in the service of God And whereas it is supposed that we say that the Imposition of Rulers makes Indifferent things cease to be Indifferent they answer They are not Indifferent in the Judgment Petition for Peace p. 12. of Dissenters though they be so in ours Exercit. about an Opining Cansci p. 80. They think they have probable Arguments to judge it unlawful to Minister in a Surplice to sign with the sign of the Cross in Baptism and to kneel in the Act of receiving the Lords Supper Yea these things are so far from being Indifferent that they are thought so Unlawful as that because of them people separate from our Churches For whatever reasons may perswade their Guides not to conform yet the people separate from us that they may not partake with our Ceremonies or for a worse reason I could not altogether omit so necessary a part of my Discourse but because it hath been so often said I pass it in fewer words Where no Law Rom. 4. is there is no Transgression That which is not forbid is not Unlawful Are these Rites and Ceremonies forbid in the word of God By what Text perhaps by the second Commandment or by those words of St. Matth. Teaching for Doctrine the Commandments of men Ch. 15. or by the Text of Will-Worship 2 Colos or because we may not add to nor diminish from the word of God Deuteron 4. Now because the Surplice and Cross and Kneeling are not named in these Texts as was upon occasion said before therefore Consequences must be drawn from them and labour'd so long till the Conclusion must hold as firm as confidence can make it Because the second Command forbids making and worshiping graven Images therefore all devices and Inventions of mans brain must have no place in Divine Worship Ergo what Ergo rend the Surplice c. As if the Bason at the Desk were not as much the device of man as the Font and the Directory were not as obnoxious as the Rubrick If our Church did equal her commands to the word of God then were she guilty of adding to the word and establishing the Commands of men in the room of the Doctrines of God If any accidents may bring our Rites within the
qualiscunque ratiocinatio cogitantis qut quia in vuâ patriâ sic ipse consuevit aut quia ibi vidit ubi peregrinationem suam quò remotiorem à suis eò doctiorem factam putant tam litigiosas excitant quaestiones ut nisi quod ipsi faciunt nihil rectum existimant Words which by a little alteration and paraphrase are but too accommodate to the case of our present Dissenters To the grief of my Soul I have often observ'd how weak and scrupulous minds have been miserably perplex'd in matters of Religion by the contentious obstinacy and superstitious fearfulness of some who seem to be very Godly men Differences arise in matters Indifferent and alterable in their own natures such as the H. Scripture hath not any where particularly determin'd nor hath any tradition of the Universal Church fix'd them in one certain course nor can it be said that for the bettering the lives of men it must be thus and may not be so yet there are Jealousies and scruples in their minds it may be they remember it otherwise in their times and where they have lived It may be they have been as far as Scotland Amsterdam or Geneva and have a greater opinion of what is done abroad For one reason or other they are litigious and troublesome and think nothing well done but what they do themselves From this scrupulosity are men apt to call any thing into question and for fear lest they should err on one hand and run into superstition and Popery they run as far on the other and their Omissions are as superstitious as they fear'd their practice would have been Such was the case of the Jews 1 Machab. 2. when they were assaulted by their Enemies on the Sabbath day rather than violate the Sabbath by defending themselves they tamely suffer'd themselves to be destroyed The law of self-preservation could not perswade them to any resistance and if Mattathias had not been wiser than the rest they might all have perished Such also was the superstition of the Knol Turk History Souldiers in Sfetigrade when Amurath besieg'd it An. 1449. A Traytor in the City had cast a dead dog into the only Well which supplyed the City with Water which when it was espied in the Morning by the Souldiers no Importunity could perswade them to drink of that Water which they reputed Unclean by a dogs Carcass so was the Governour compell'd to surrender the City And such surely was the conceit of that zealous man some while since among our selves who cut out of his Bible the Contents of the Chapters and so would cut out the word of God it self that was on the other side of the page rather than suffer any Humane mixture with the pure word of God Whether the case of our N. C ts be not somewhat parallel is now to be consider'd They suspect superstition in the use of the Surplice and Cross c. and therefore Religiously abstain from them but what if this Abstinence also should be superstitious If the Rites and Ceremonies of our Church be as they imagine it must be either because we judge that lawful which is Unlawful or that necessary which is but Indifferent or because these Ceremonies though granted in their own nature Indifferent yet by reason of some Accident that attends them may not be impos'd and may not be submitted to if impos'd All which things have already had their Consideration after all which I have not doubted to conclude that our Rites may be us'd without superstition But now I move a doubt on the other side to which if they cannot give a better Answer than I am aware of they can't excuse themselves from superstition For what other reasons Conformity may be refus'd I now enquire not If any refuse it because they cannot wear a Surplice or use the Cross and if any private persons neglect the Sacrament of the Lords Supper because they cannot kneel as is commanded I desire to know for what reasons they are not free to join with us in these Usages Either they think them lawful or Unlawful If lawful such as may be submitted to and yet for some politick respects they will not submit this Abstinence of theirs may be free from superstition but some other way it will be as Unaccountable For he who without violating his Conscience can conform but will not let him if he can excuse his disobedience to the Powers which God hath set over him let him if he can deliver himself from the Character of a contentious man If without fraud or guile there be a man who does not act because he dare not who is perswaded in his Conscience he should sin against God and do that which is Unlawful if he should wear a Surplice c. This is the man whom I charge with superstition because he judges that Unlawful which is Indifferent because he proceeds upon a mistake of the nature of things because a false opinion betrays him to this abstinence He declares hereby that he hath a wrong Notion and apprehension of God when he thinks him displeas'd by such an Action against which the Scripture hath not declar'd his displeasure As men may teach for Doctrines the positive Commands of men so may they also teach for Doctrines the prohibitions of men and this is adding to the word of God And in this does Ames condition take place In illâ Abstinentiâ Medul Theol. prius Honor aliquis singularis Deo intenditur They conceit they Honour God by abstaining from that which is no where forbidden It is no where said neither in express words nor in any equivalent phrase That it is the will of God no man should wear a white Garment when he Ministers in Divine Offices that no man should kneel when he receives the Sacrament c. Wherefore what God hath cleansed why should we call Common Where is the man that hath Authority to pronounce that Unclean which God hath not so pronounc'd The necessary use of these things when they are commanded does not take away the Indifferency of their nature and this delivers us from superstition But to abstain from them as Unlawful in their nature does directly contradict the opinion of their Indifferency and leaves the men who so abstain under the guilt and bond of superstition So may men find that at a Conventicle which they are afraid to meet at Church Superstition lodges in the minds of men and they who are inclin'd to it may discover it when they sit still as well as when they move Touch not tast not handle not are not greater Indications of a superstitious abstinence than are wear not kneel not Cross not when the Doctrine of these Ceremonies is known to be Innocent and allowable Wherefore they who are indeed afraid of superstition who are afraid of mixing their own Inventions with the worship of God and doing that which is not requir'd at their hands are concern'd rightly to inform themselves in what they are commanded to do And when they find that the H. Scripture hath no where forbid the use of the Surplice upon those Terms upon which it is enjoin'd only the liberty which they themselves had power to determine is by the Magistrate determin'd for them not lightly or wantonly but for grave and weighty reasons Let them not fear they shall transgress where there is no law Let them not fear superstition in those practices to which they are induc'd by Opinions not superstitious But on the other side let the fear be lest they make the way to Heaven straiter than our Saviour hath made it Lest they scruple and condemn that which does not appear unlawful Lest they split upon Scylla while they shun Charybdis Lest they run into superstition while they desired to avoid it and lest an Innocent Ceremony scare them to an Unjustifyable Separation FINIS