The judgment of M. Cartwright and M. Baxter concerning separation and the ceremonies

THE JUDGMENT OF Mr. Baxter CONCERNING CEREMONIES AND CONFORMITY.

THose Modes or Circumstances of Worship which are Necessary in Genere,* 1.1 but left undetermined by God in Specie, are left by God to humane Prudential Determination: (else an Impossibility should be ne∣cessary.) But many such there are, that are Necessary in Genere, but left undetermined of God in Specie; therefore many such are left to humane Prudential Determination.

§. 5.* 1.2 Yet it is in the power of a man to determine of such Modes and Circumstances as are necessary to the performance of that Worship which God hath instituted in his Word; and therefore lawful Gover∣nors may in such cases bind us by their Commands.

1. It is left to humane Determination,* 1.3 what Place the Publick Assemblies shall be held in.

2. It is left to man to determine of the Time of Holy Duties,* 1.4 except only where God hath deter∣mined of it already.

3. It is left to the Determination of humane Pru∣dence,* 1.5 what Vtensils to employ about the Publick Worship of God.

Here therefore we must thus conclude,

1. That every misordering of such great affairs,* 1.6 is the sin of them that do it.

2. But yet that the Subject is not exempted from Obedience by every such mistake of the Governor: but by some he is.

§. 67. If the mischoosing of such Circumstances, by Church Governors, be but an Inconvenience, and do not destroy the Ordinance it self, or frustrate the Ends of it, we are to obey: 1. For he is the Judge of his own work, and not we: 2. The thing is not sinful, though inconvenient: 3. Obedience is com∣manded to our lawful Governors.

We must obey in all things lawful.* 1.7

And when we do obey in a Case of Miscommand∣ing, it is not a doing evil, that good may come of it,

as some do misconceive: but it is only a submitting to that which is ill commanded, but not evil in him that doth submit. It is the Determiner that is the cause of the Inconvenience, and not the Obeyer. Nor is it inconvenient for me to Obey, though it be worse perhaps to him that Commandeth. While he sinneth in Commanding, he may make it my Duty to Obey.

§. 6. Dist. 4. We must distinguish between Cere∣monies imposed by a Lawful Magistrate,* 1.8 or Church-Governors; and such as are imposed by Vsurpers, or Men without Authority.

§. 25. Prop. 12. It may be very sinful to command some Ceremonies, which may lawfully,* 1.9 yea, must in Duty be used by the Subject when they are commanded.

§. 27. Prop. 14. Yet certain things that are commonly called Ceremonies, may lawfully be used in the Church upon Humane Imposition; and when it is not against the Law of God, no person should disobey the Commands of their Lawful Governors in such things.

Of Set-Forms, and the Book of Common-Prayer.

• Prop. 1. A Stinted Liturgy is in it self Lawful.
• 2. A Stinted Liturgy in some parts of Publick Service,* 1.10 is ordinarily necessary.
• 3. In the parts where it is not of Necessity, it may not onely be submitted to, but desired, when the Peace of the Church requireth it.
• ...

• 7. The safest way of Composing such a Publick Form,* 1.11 is, to take it all, for Matter and Words, out of the Holy Scriptures.
• 8. Yet is not this of such Necessity, but that we may joyn in it, or use it, if the Form of Words be not from Scripture.

Prop. 1. A Stinted Liturgy is in it self Lawful

This is thus proved:

Argument 1. That which is not directly, or conse∣quentially forbidden by God, remaineth lawful: A stinted Liturgy is not directly, or consequentially forbidden by God; therefore it remaineth lawful.

The Major is undoubted's because nothing but a Prohibition can make a thing unlawful. Sin is a transgression of a Law: where there is no Law, there is no Trangression: And yet I have heard very Re∣verend men answer this, That it is enough that it is not commanded, though not forbidden. Which is plain∣ly to deny both Scripture and Civil Principles.

Now for the Minor,* 1.12 That a stinted Liturgy is not forbidden, we need no other proof, than that no Pro∣hibition can be produced.

Argument 6. If it be lawful for the People to use a stinted Form of Words in Publick Prayer,* 1.13 then is it in it self lawful for the Pastors: but it is lawful for the People: for the Pastors prayer (which they must pray over with him, and not onely hear it) is a stinted Form to them, even as much as if he had learnt it out

of a Book. They are to follow him in his Method and Words, as if it were a Book-Prayer.

Argument 7. It is lawful to use a Form in Preaching: therefore a stinted Liturgy is lawful.

• 1. Because Preaching is a part of that Liturgy.
• 2. Because the reason is the same for Prayer, as for that, in the main.

Argument 8. That which hath been the practice of the Church in Scripture-times, and down to this day, and is yet the practice of almost all the Churches of Christ on earth, is not like to be unlawful: but such is the use of some stinted forms of Publick Service: therefore, &c. That it was so in the Jews Church, and approved by Christ, I have shewed. That it hath been of ancient use in the Church since Christ, and is at this day in use in Africk, Asia, Europe, even among the Reformed Churches in France, Holland, Geneva, &c. is so well known, that I think I need not stand to prove it: yea, those few that seem to disuse it, do yet use it, in Psalms, and other parts of Worship.

As for the Common-Prayer it self, I never rejected it because it was a Form,* 1.14 nor thought it simply unlawful because it was such a Form; but have made use of it, and would do again in the like case.

Of Ceremonies.

The Ceremonies controverted among us,* 1.15 were especially, The Surplice, the Gesture of Kneeling in re∣ceiving the Lords Supper, the Ring in Marriage, Laying the hand on the Book in taking an Oath, the Organs and Church-Musick, Holy-dayes, Altars, Rails, and the Cross in Baptisme.

Of the Surplice.

Some decent Habit is necessary; either the Magi∣strate,* 1.16 or the Minister himfelf, or the Associatcd Pa∣stors must determine what. I think neither Magi∣strate nor Synod should do any more than hinder Undecency: But yet if they do more, and tye all to One Habit (add suppose it were an undecent Habit) yet this is but an imprudent use of Power. It is a thing within the Magistrates reach; he doth not an aliene work, but his own work amiss: and therefore the thing in it self being lawful; I would obey him, and use that garment, if I could not be dispensed with. Yea, though Secondarily the Whiteness be to signifie Purity, and so it be made a teaching sign, yet would I obey.

Of Kneeling at the Sacrament.

But yet,* 1.17 as sinfully as this Gesture was imposed, for my part I did obey the Imposers, and would do, if it were to do again, rather than disturb the Peace of the Church, or be deprived of its Communion. For God

having made some Gesture necessary, and confined me to none, but left it to Humane Determination, I shall submit to Magistrates in their proper work, even when they miss it in the manner. I am not sure that Christ intended the example of himself and his A∣postles, as obligatory to us that shall succeed. I am sure it proves sitting lawful; but I am not sure that it proves it necessary: (though very convenient.) But I am sure, he hath commanded me Obedience and Peace.

Of the Ring in Marriage.

And for the Ring in Marriage,* 1.18 I see no reason to scruple the lawfulness of it: For though the Papists make a Sacrament of Marriage, yet we have no reason to take it for any Ordinance of Divine Worship; any more than the solemnizing of a Contract between a Prince and People. All things are sanctified and pure to the pure.

Of Organs and Church Musick.

And for Organs,* 1.19 or other Instruments of Musick in Gods Worship, they being a Help partly Natural, and partly Artificial, to the exhilerating of the spirits, for the praise of God, I know no argument to prove them simply unlawful, but what would prove a Cup of Wine unlawful, or the tune and meeter, and melody of singing unlawful.

Of Holy-Dayes.

Nor for my part do I make any scruple* 1.20 to keep a Day in Remembrance of any Eminent Servant of Christ,* 1.21 or Martyr, to praise God for their Doctrine or Example, and honour their Memorial.

But the hardest part of the Question is, Whether it be lawful to keep Dayes, in celebrating the Memorial of Christs Nativity, Circumcision, Fasting; Transfiguration, Ascension, and such like?

And yet for all this I am resolved,* 1.22 if I live where such Holy-days as these are observed, to censure no man for observing them; nor would I deny them Li∣berty to follow their judgments, if I had the power of their Liberties; provided they use not reproach and violence to others; and seek not to deprive them of their Liberties.

Yea more,* 1.23 I would not onely give men their Li∣berty in this, but if I lived under a Government that peremptorily commanded it, I would observe the outward rest of such a Holy-day, and I would preach on it, and joyn with the Assemblies in Gods Worship on it. Yea, I would thus observe the Day, rather than offend a weak Brother, or hinder any mans salvation, much more rather than I would make any division in the Church.

Of Altars, and Rails.

And for the next Ceremony,* 1.24 the Name and form of an Altar; no doubt it is a thing indifferent, whether the Table stand this way, or that way: and the Pri∣mitive Churches used commonly the names of Sacri∣fice,

and Altar, and Priest, and I think, lawfully: for my part I shall not be he that shall condemn them.

I conceive that the dislike of these things in Eng∣land (the form and name of an Altar,* 1.25 and the Rails about it) was not as if they were simply evil.

Whether we shall receive the Lords Supper at a Table,* 1.26 or in our Seats; and whether the Table shall be of wood or stone? whether it shall be round, or long, or square? whether it shall stand in the East or West-end of the Temple, or in the middle? whether it shall have Rails, or no Rails? All these are lest to Humane Prudence.

Of the Cross in Baptism.

But of all our Ceremonies, there is none that I have more suspected to be simply unlawful,* 1.27 than the Cross in Baptism.

Yet I dare not peremptorily say, that it is unlawful:* 1.28 nor will I condemn either Ancients or Moderns that use it: nor will I make any disturbance in the Church about it, more than my own forbearance will make.

I presume not to censure them that judge it lawful; but onely give the Reasons that make me doubt, and rather think it to be unlawful, though still with a sus∣picion of my own understanding.

FINIS.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Disp. 4. P. 361.
• * 1.2

  Disp. 5. P. 400.
• * 1.3

  Ibid.
• * 1.4

  P. 401.
• * 1.5

  Ibid.
• * 1.6

  P. 423.
• * 1.7

  P. 424.
• * 1.8

  P. 396.
• * 1.9

  P. 398.
• * 1.10

  Disp. 4. P. 358.
• * 1.11

  P. 359.
• * 1.12

  P. 361.
• * 1.13

  P. 364.
• * 1.14

  P. 421.
• * 1.15

  P. 409.
• * 1.16

  P. 409.
• * 1.17

  P. 411.
• * 1.18

  P. 411.
• * 1.19

  P. 412.
• * 1.20

  In point of Lawfulness; For Conve∣niency is ac∣cording to se∣veral acci∣dents.
• * 1.21

  P. 412, 413.
• * 1.22

  P. 416.
• * 1.23

  P. 417.
• * 1.24

  Ibid.
• * 1.25

  P. 417.
• * 1.26

  P. 401, 402.
• * 1.27

  P. 417.
• * 1.28

  P. 418.