the imposing and using indifferent ceremonies is not varying from the will of God, nor is there made thereby any addition to, or detraction from, the holy duties of God's worship. Nor doth the same any way hinder the communication of God's grace or comfort in the performance of such duties. § 22. The ceremonies were never esteemed sacraments, or imposed as such; nor was ever any moral efficacy ascribed to them, nor doth the significancy (without which they could not serve to edification) import or infer any such thing. § 23. Ceremonies have been retained by most of the protestant churches abroad, which have rejected popery, and have been approved by the judgment of the most learned, even of those churches that have not retained them. Every national church being supposed to be the best and most proper judge what is fittest for themselves to appoint in order to decency and edification, without prescribing to other churches. : § 24. That the ceremonies have been matter of contention in this or any other church was not either from the nature of the thing enjoined, or the enjoining of the same by lawful authority but partly from the weakness of some men's judgments unable to search into the reason of things: and partly from the unsubduedness of some men's spirits, more apt to contend than willing to submit their private opinions, to the public judgment of the church. 25. Of those who were obnoxious to the law, very few (in comparison) have been deprived, and none of them (for aught we know) but such as after admonition and long forbearance finally refused to do, what not only the laws required to be done, but themselves also formerly had solemnly, and (as they professed) willingly promised to do. § 26. We do not see with what conscience any man could leave the exercise of his ministry in his peculiar charge, for not submitting to lawful authority in the using of such things as were in his own judgment no more than inexpedient only. And it is certainly a great mistake, at the least, to call the submitting to authority in such things, a bringing the conscience under the power of them. § 27. The separation that hath been made from the church, was from the taking a scandal where none was given ;—the church having fully declared her sense touching the ceremonies imposed, as things not in their nature necessary, but indifferent;-but was chiefly occasioned by the practice, and descended from the principles of those that refused conformity to the law, the just rule and measure of the churches unity. § 28. The nature of things being declared to be mutable, sheweth that they may therefore be changed, as they that are in authority shall see it expedient; but it is no proof at all that it is therefore expedient that it should be actually changed. Yet it is a sufficient caution against the opinion (or objection rather) of their being held by the imposers either necessary, or substantials of worship. Besides, this argument, if it were of any force, would infer an expediency of the often changing even of good laws, whereas the change of laws, although liable to some inconveniences, without great and evident necessity, hath been by wise men ever accounted a thing not only imprudent, but of evil, and sometimes pernicious consequence. § 29. We fully agree with them in the acknowledgment of the king's supremacy, but we leave it to his majesty's prudence and goodness to consider, whether for the avoiding of the offence of some of his weak subjects, he be any way obliged to repeal the established laws; the repealing whereof would be probably dissatisfactory to many more, and those (so far as we are able to judge) no less considerable a part of his subjects. Nor do we conceive his majesty by the apostle's either doctrine or example obliged to any farther condescension to particular persons, than may be subservient to the general and main ends of public government. The Lord hath entrusted governors to provide, not only that things necessary in God's worship be duly performed, but also that things advisedly enjoined, though not otherwise necessary, should be orderly and duly observed. The too great neglect whereof would so cut the sinews of authority, that it would become first infirm, and then contemptible. As we are no way against such tender and religious compassion in things of this nature, as his majesty's piety and wisdom shall think fit to extend; so we cannot think that the satisfaction of some private persons is to be laid in the balance against the public peace and uniformity of the church. CONCERNING PARTICULAR CEREMONIES. § 30. It being most convenient that in the act of receiving the Lord's supper one and the same gesture should be uniformly used by all the members of this church; and kneeling having been formerly enjoined and used therein, as a gesture of greatest reverence and devotion, and so most agreeable to that holy service; and holy-days of human institution having been observed by the people of God in the Old Testament, and by our blessed Saviour himself in the Gospel, and by all the churches of Christ in primitive and following times, as apt means to preserve the memorials of the chief mysteries of the Christian religion; and such holy-days being also fit times for the honest recreation of servants, labourers, and the meaner sort of people : For these reasons, and the great satisfaction of far the greatest part of the people, we humbly desire (as a thing in our judgment very expedient) that they may both be still continued in the church. § 31. As for the other three ceremonies, viz., the surplice, cross after baptism, and bowing at the name of Jesus; although we find not here any sufficient reason alleged why they should be utterly abolished: nevertheless, how far forth in regard of tender consciences a liberty may be thought fit to be indulged to any, his majesty, according to his great wisdom and goodness, is best able to judge. § 32. But why they that confess that, in the judgment of all, the things here mentioned are not to be valued with the peace of the church, should yet, after they are established by law, disturb the peace of the church about them, we understand not. § 33. We heartily desire that no innovations should be brought into the church, or ceremonies which have no foundation in the laws of the land imposed, to the disturbance of the peace thereof: but that all men would use that liberty that is allowed them in things indifferent, according to the rules of Christian prudence, charity, and moderation. § 34. We are so far from believing that his majesty's condescending to these demands will take away not only differences, but the roots and causes of them, that we are confident it will prove the seminary of new differences, both by giving dissatisfaction to those that are well pleased with what is already established; who are much the greater part of his majesty's subjects; and by encouraging unquiet spirits when these things shall be granted, to make further demands. There being no assurance by them given, what will content all Dissenters: than which nothing is more necessary for the settling of a firm peace in the church. VIII. A Defence of our Proposals to His Majesty for Agreement in Matters of Religion.' - Reliquiæ Baxterianæ, by Sylvester, pp. 248-58. CONCERNING THE PREAMBLE. 1. We are not insensible of the great danger of the church, through the doctrinal errors of many of those with whom we When the presbyterian divines had received from the bishops the foregoing answer to their proposals, instead of a statement of concessions which they were expecting, "the brethren," says Baxter, "at first desired me to "write an answer to it. But afterwards they considered that this would "but provoke them, and turn a treaty for concord into a sharp disputation, "which would increase the discord; and so what I had written was never seen "by any man: lest it should hinder peace."-Reliquiæ Baxterianæ, pp. 241–2. are at difference, also, about the points of government and worship now before us. But yet we choose to say of the party, that we are agreed in doctrinals, because they subscribe the same Holy Scriptures, and Articles of Religion, and Books of Homilies as we do. And the contradictions to their own confessions, which too many are guilty of, we thought not just to charge upon the party; because it is but personal guilt. As to the differences (which in charity and for peace, we had rather extenuate than aggravate ;) it is of objective conceptions that we speak, there being a difference in the things, as well as in our apprehensions. And we conceive that the ancient form of church-government, and the soundness of the liturgy, and freedom from corrupting unlawful ceremonies, are matters that are worthy a conscionable regard and no such little inconsiderable things as to be received without sufficient trial, or used against the dissuasions of our consciences. No sin should seem so small as to be wilfully committed; especially to divines. He that will sin for little or nothing, is not to be trusted when he hath great temptations. "Whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do, and teach them the same, shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven" Matt. v, 19. And whether the imposer or the forbearers do hazard and disturb the church, the nature of the thing declareth. To you it is indifferent before your imposition; and therefore you may, without any regret of your own consciences, forbear the imposition, or persuade the law-makers to forbear it. But to many of those that dissent from you, they are sinful; and therefore cannot be yielded to by them without the wilful violation of their duty to the absolute Sovereign of the world. If, in the church of Rome, the conscience of a subject forbid the use of crucifixes, and images, and chrism, and holy water, &c., is it therefore they, or is it the pastors, that needlessly impose these things that are the disturbers of the church? The princes might have forborne to make a law restraining Daniel three days from prayer; but |