ObjeC/. An[w. ~eft. Anfw. Wbetbtr one {crupling ti,e Mode l>imfelf, may yet giw m1 Oat/1 to mlother ? Anfw. The Ceremony fignitieth that I love and approve the Gofpel, and placet he hopeof my fal– Vation in it. .And t~e publick DoCTrine of the Kingdom .before cited, fh~~eth as a. full expofition what we afcnbc to 1t. Bur. as ~ome fcrupulous Brethren m ~cot land gnuhe the Paptfis by rejedirg theOuh of Supremacy, whrch IS the moll thorny_hedge agamlt rhem, and this w4ile they cry out •f'tgamil Popery; fo others would graufie the Papliis, by fuggejlz.Jfg that we give too much m the Bible, and adore it; w!1en the very fum of England! Pr~teltantifm, is their jult afcribing to the Holy Scriptures its fufficiency asto all things necdfary to lalvation. Thus Satan undoeth llill by overdoing. I V. Objetf. Laying on the hand, and kj[Jing the Boolt, feem of the fome nature wit!> the Croft in Baptifm, and other figuificant Ceremonies: And an Oath iJ pari of the Warjbip ofGod: Tberefort not to be talzm, with theft Ceremoniu, or elfe rvill fiem to jujlifte the other• . Anfiv. t •. ~ignificam words, geHures, or actions are not therefore evil, becaufe they are fignificant, ( unlefs brultlfimefs be a Vertue ) : Nor becaufe any call them by the name ofCerem;nits ( clfe that name might be put on any thing by an enemy to deprive us of our liberty ). Therefore I can judge of no Ceremony by that General name alone, till it be named it felf i11 fjecie. 2.0f the Crofs in Baptifm, fee my DifputationJ ofChurch-Government ofCeremonieJ written long a 'go. There are thefe uotorious differences in the Cafe: 1. The Cro[1 is an Image ufed in Gods Wor!hip : Though not a Permanent, yet a7'ranfient Image, and ufed M an !m.Jgt of the Crofs ofChrilt, though but in JYattr or OJ•I•· And God hath more fpecially f01b:dden Images ufed in his Worfliio, rhan he hath done a Profeffing fignilicanr Word, Gef\ure or Ad: ion, which is no Image, nor ufe( fuch. 2. The CtolS feemeth to be a third Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace, while it is ufed a) ~Symbol ofChrillia– nity, and a dedicating Sign ( as the Canon callerh it) by which before the Church, there is made a [olemu ftlfobligation., as SacramenttJUy, to Renotmce the Devil, tbe 1Yorld and the Fle.fo, and nunfuUy to fight u.ndcr C,hrijl! ka.nncr ,u bU faithff!l ferva~ti and {ouldicf! to. ou!' livu end: Implying our trujl and hepe mChni\ cruCihed for the benehts of hts dearh. So that tf tt be not a compleat third Sa– crament, it harh fo much of that which is proper to a Sacrament ( like the SacramentumMiliurt whence the name came into the Church) that for my part, I dare not ufe it, though I prefume no; to cenfure thole that do, nor to condemn a11 other ufes of the Crofs which the Antients abounded in, as fuddcn particular profdfing Si~ns, much below this folemn covenanting ufe. Ap.d as lthink the King would not rake it well, whcQ he hath made the Star the Badg;e of the Knights of d 1 e /Garter, ( if any Subjetf will prefume to make another Symbolum Ordinit (though yet many a 6gni– ficant Geflure or Atf may be ufed without offence). So I fear Chrill would not take it well of me it I prefume to make or u{e another Symbole or 'teffera of Chrillianity, Efpecially with 10 muchofa Covenanring Sacramental Nature. But whats this to th"ings or Gefiures fignificant of no fuch kind ? You fee then the difference of thefe Cafes. . Bur if you were able to prove ~he Crofs as harm1efs as rhe Swearing Ceremony, I would be for the Cro[1, and not aEainfi the laying the hand on the Book and kifiing it ; For I· I am not oftheir mind that form their judgement of ocher particulars to fuit with their preconceived opinions of things of the fame rank or quality : nor make the lntcrefi of my former conceptions, to be the meafu.rc of my after judging. 2. Nor do I think it fo great an honour to be flrid: in my opinions, as dif– honour to be fuptrjfitiour, and to add to Godt Law, by faying that he forbiddeth what he dorh not, or to be affed:edly (ingular in denying Jawful things, With a Toucb not, tajle n~t, handle not, &c. Nor do I eflecm him tobe the wi(efi, beft or holiefi perfon, who is narrowcfi or flrid:ef\: in his epinions but who is Rightefi ; nor him that ma~tb moft things to be fin:, but him that cornmitteth leafi lin: which is fuch indeed; nor him that makcth mol\ Laws to h1mfelf and others, but him that bell obeyerh Gods Laws. · 0 Q:!ell. 1. MAy ont that fcrupleth thU< fw.-ring him[elf, yet Commif{ioned, givt an Oath tiJJit to an· other that [rrupltth it not l An[w. 1• If the thing be (as is proved) lawful, his frruplc will not make him innocent in neg– letfing the duty of his place. 2 .If the fubflanco..of the O~th were lawful~ and only. the M'tk or Ct– remony were finful (as fufpe8ed ), then r: lf tbe-Co~mlffJOner mult hllnfelf p~rtzcul.zrly command that Mode, it were unlAwful for him to do Jt. 2· But tf he only command, and gtve the Oath as an Oath, leaving the Mode without his Approbation Qr Comma~d, to the Taker, and the Law, he may fo· give the Oath: And thus Chriflians in all Ages have taken tt for Lawful to make Covenants even with Infidels and Idobters and to take a 'turlq Oath by Mahomet, when it is only rhe Oath that we demand, apd the Modt is 'his own, which we had rather be withour, and give no approbation of. And if a King may thus demand an•Infidels or Idolaters Oath ( as God himf~lf d~th mens dury, when he knowcth that they will fin in doing it) much more may o~e do {o,. 10 c..t~ of a.doubtful Ceremony, which he is neither the author nor approver of. But I thmk this m quefi10n, IS lawful, fit and laudable. ~·7• Ill. As
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=