The SECOND PART OF THE GREAT QUESTION CONCERNING THINGS INDIFFERENT IN Religious Worship, Briefly Stated; And tendered to the Consideration of all Conscientious and Sober men. By the same Author.  Mr. Hales in his Treatise of Schism. When either False or uncertain Conclusions are obtruded for Truth, and Acts either unlawful, or ministering just scruple, are required of us to be performed; in these Cases consent were Conspiracy, and open Contestation is not Faction or Schism, but due Christian Animosity. 
LONDON, Printed in the Year, 1661.   

THE PREFACE TO THE Christian and Candid Reader.  
IN the Business, not of Decent or Natural, but of Devised and Unnecessary Ceremonies in the Worship of God, there are, Christian Reader, two Questions at this day more hotly disputed then ever: The one is Whether they may lawfully be Imposed? The other is, Whether when they are Imposed, they may lawfully be observed? The first of these I have already handled; with what success and satisfaction to others, becomes not me to determine. The Second is now the Subject of this present Discourse; upon which indeed the whole stress of the Controversy lies; and that because of the Opinion of many Conscientious and sober men 
a B. Morton. D. Burges. M. Sp. in., etc. , who, though they are ready to acknowledge, that the Magistrate ought not to clog the Worship of God with uncommanded Traditions and Inventions of his own, yet they conceive, that when such things, as are not expressly forbidden by the Word of God, are Imposed, they may and aught to be practised, rather than by the forbearance of them, men should be forced to quit the exercise of their Ministry, which is so great a good, that they think it ought to be preserved, though with the undergoing of some inconvenient Observances.  
To those who either in their Writings do affirm, or by their practice do own this persuasion, I desire to be very tender; but withal, I must take leave to profess, that I am not as yet satisfied, either with the Assertion, or with the Argument which is brought to back it. For the Question is not, Whether it be convenient or Inconvenient, but whether it be lawful or unlawfulto comply or not? And therefore it should first be enquired, quo jure, before we ask cui bono? that is, in all things which concern our Practice; we should first be satisfied, that the thing we do is lawful, before we state to ourselves, that we have a good end in doing it: For since the least evil may not be done to obtain the greatest good, and since our Lord Christ hath sufficient power to propagate his Gospel without our sin; it is to be feared, that at the last day he will not accept this as a sufficient answer; that we mingled his Worship with the, otherwise unlawful, Commands of men, merely to maintain our Liberty of preaching; since he can make our suffering for his Truth, to be as effectual a means for the Conversion of others, as our open and free declaringit. As the Apostle Paul confesses, that his Bonds did beget many to the Faith of Christ. I wish therefore that too many do not indulge themselves a dangerous Latitude, not so much to preserve their Ministry, as to retain their Maintenance, and so to their sin of Compliance, and a secret distrust of God's Providence.  
But what others may be induced to do, concerns not me at all, who have nothing to do to judge another's Conscience; but having myself been frequently? importuned to conform, and that by persons whom I very much respect and honour, I have adventured to publish my Reasons, why for the present I cannot think it Lawful: Which is a work so liable to censure and misconstruction, that I should never have undertaken it, but that I would make it appear, it is not humour, but Conscience, that hath guided me unto this resolution. And though it is possible I may be suspected to favour the irregular Fancies of some, with whom every slight and trivial difference is a sufficient ground of separation; yet I can assure thee, Christian Reader, I do so much abhor the Practices and Opinions of those men, that though I may forbear the usage of our Ceremonies, yet no occasion shall make me forsake the Communion of our Church, whose Doctrine, in the most material and disputable Points of it, I have already asserted; and if I do not in all Particulars comply with her Discipline; it is not because I would eclipse her splendour, or lessen her Authority; but because I take some of the things Imposed to be of that Nature, as no Power how great and lawful soever, can justify and warrant the use of them.  
I shall conclude therefore, with what I find in the Oxford Reasons, excellently argued against Imposing the Covevant: Thus have we, say they, clearly and freely represented our present judgement, which, upon better Information in any particular, we shall be ready to rectify. Only we desire, it may be considered, that if any one fingle reason or scruple remain unsatisfied (though we should receive satisfaction in all the rest) the Conscience also would remain still unsatisfied; and in that case, it can neither be reasonable for them to press us, who cannot satisfy us; nor lawful for us, that cannot be satisfied, to submit unto the said Covenant, This Passage, if in stead of the word Covenant, we read Ceremonies, contains as much as I have to say: And I am not without hope, that those who were so scrupulous of being Imposed upon then, will be as tender of Imposing now; since the Ceremonies in question, are by many thought to be as contrary to the Law of God, as they had reason to think the Covenant was to the Law of the Land.  
Ch. Ch. Sept. 10. 1661. Edward Bagshaw.   

THE SECOND PART Of the GREAT QUESTION Concerning INDIFFERENT THINGS IN RELIGIOUS WORSHIP, etc.  
Quest. Whether it be Lawful to submit unto the Use and Practise of things, commonly supposed to be Indifferent, when they come to be Imposed and made Necessary in Religious Worship?  
FOR the righter Stating and clearer Understanding of this Question, I suppose these two Things.  
1. By Things commonly supposed to be Indifferent, I do not mean such things as are purely, and in their own Nature Indifferent; such are the Time and Place of Religious Worship. Nor, 2. Such things, as in their own nature, though Indifferent, yet seem to have a greater Aspect and tendency unto that which is Natural Decency and Order, than otherwise; as, to stand or kneel, at time of Public Prayer, and the like: In both these Cases, though perhaps the Magistrate doth ill to interpose his Command, because things of a Religious Concernment belong not properly and immediately to his Jurisdiction; yet I see not why his Command should make us scruple or forbear the doing of them: For whatever, either in itself, or in common estimation among sober men, is more decent and comely, though it gains no strength from the Command Imposing it, yet there can no reason be given, why it should lose any. Therefore by Things Indifferent in the Question, I mean such things, as being considered at large, and divested from all Circumstances, may perhaps be done or not done, and that lawfully; yet pro hic & nunc, with reference to the power which imposes, and to the end which continues them, it is questionable whether they be Indifferent or not; such are, the Surplice in time of Public Prayer, Music in Churches, Prescribed Forms of Prayer, the Cross in Baptism, Kneeling at the Sacrament, Bowing at the Name of Jesus, and the like; which are not so purely Indifferent, but that they offend the Weak, who doubt; and cause many fierce and vehement Contentions, even amongst the Learned, who dispute, whether they be lawful or not: And about these things alone, do I desire to be understood in my following Discourse.  
2. By Submitting, I do not mean, a being present at such time and place, where these Rites are used, but actively concurring to, and personally doing them ourselves: For as Mr. Hales excellently observes, What if those to whom the Execution of the Public Service is committed, do something either unseemly or suspicious, or peradventure unlawful? What if the Garments they wear, be censured, nay indeed be suspicious? What if Gesture or Adoration be used to the Altars, as now we have learned to speak? What if the Homilist have preached, or delivered any Doctrine for truth, of which we are not well persuaded? Yet for all this, we may not separate, except we be constrained personally to bear a part in them ourselves. And therefore the Question doth not so properly concern the People, who, for aught I know, may be present where these Ceremonies are used, 
1 Kings. 19  without being defiled by them, as Elijah was a looker on upon Baal's Priests; and the Apostle tells us, we may eat meat, 
1 Con. 8.  and therefore hear the Word, though in an Idols Temple. But I chief mean the Preachers and Ministers of the Word, upon whose Personal Practice all these things are commanded, and this I hold utterly unlawful for them to submit unto.  
First, Because the Magistrate hath no power to impose things doubtful and disputable upon the Practice of any in the Service of God; Arg. 1 and therefore it cannot be lawful for any, to obey him, when he so imposes: For the clearing of which Reason, two things are to be explained.  
1. That the Magistrate hath no Power to impose things doubtful and disputable in the Service of God.  
2. That if he doth impose, we cannot lawfully obey him.  
The first Assertion is this; That the Magistrate hath no Power to impose things doubtful and disputable in the Service of God: And the Reason is clear, because God hath given him no such Commission: For since it is most Equal and Reasonable, that God should be the sole Orderer of his own Worship, and if in his Revealed Will (which the Magistrate is as much bound to obey, as the meanest Christian) God hath not authorized any to enforce upon the Practice of others, things which are of a doubtful and disputable nature; then cannot the Magistrate lawfully take to himself that power, because in so doing, he goes beyond his Bounds, and exceeds those Limits, which God hath set all that profess Faith in him, viz. of not being wise and holy above what is written. Besides, our Saviour while he was upon Earth, though he had all Power committed to him, as Mediator, yet he neither exercised himself, nor entrusted to his Apostles such Power, that they should force or compel any to obey him, because his Kingdom is not of this world, i. e. not to be acquired or enlarged by those Arts and Policies which humane Princes use; but Converts only are his Subjects; and those he alone owns for Members of his Church, whom Preaching and sound Persuasion hath won over to him. And therefore it is very incongruous for the Magistrate, who pretends to act for Christ, to take more upon him then Christ himself did, and by enforcing things dubious, make Religion a very uneasy and unpleasant yoke, and thereby fright Conscientious and Sober men from the Service of him, whose honour he would seem to promote; which is directly contrary, both to the Nature of Religion, and to the Ends of Christian Government.  
Against this, in behalf of the Civil Magistrates Power, it is urged.  
1. Obj. 1 That Jehosaphat, Hezekiah, and other Kings of the Jews, are commended for repairing and beautifying the Temple and Worship of God; and likewise David made Musical Instruments, appointed the Courses of the Priests, prescribed their Garments and manner of Service, none of which were provided for by the Law of Moses; from whence it follows, that Christian Magistrates have still the same power, which the Jewish Princes had; that is, to regulate and order the outward Circumstances of God's Worship, though over Substantials, and Articles of Faith, it is acknowledged they have no Power at all.  
But I Answer: Answ.  
1. 
Deut. 17.18, 19  That whatever the Jewish Princes did in regulating God's Worship, they had a particular and express Law, which did exact it from them; and which in all, even the smallest Punctilios and Circumstances, had so provided, that they could not fail of knowing their Duty; whereas Christian Religion is in most Particulars of dat moment, more free and undetermined, and therefore there is not the same parity of Reason, that the example of the Jewish Princes then, should be obligatory to our Magistrates now, because the Law is altered, and that accurateness in small things needs not so much be insisted on. For now the Magistrate most consults God's honour, and his own duty, if he leaves the Christian Law as large as he found it; and doth not urge, either little, or much less doubtful things, because God, in not requiring them, shows, that the pressing them, will not be a work pleasing or acceptable to him, because it lays an Imputation upon his Wisdom and Holiness, as if he had not in his Word sufficiently provided for his own Worship.  
2. And more particularly, to that Instance of David, I Answer, That whatever David did in regulating the Service of God, in appointing Musical Instruments, Priests Garments. and the like, he did it not by his Authority, as King; but by God's Command, as a Prophet; as will appear from these Places of Scripture: One is, 2 Chron. 8.14. Where it is said, that Solomon appointed according to the Order of David his Father, the Courses of the Priests, to their Service, and the Levites to their Charges, to praise and minister before the Priests, as the duty of every day required: For so, saith the Text, David the man of God commanded. Where that Expression, The man of God (which is a Name given only to Persons extraordinarily inspired, such (were the Prophets of old) sufficiently shows in what capacity David ordered these things; not barely as a King, but as a man of God, i. e. by God himself excited and inspired to do it. Again, when Hezekiah restored the Purity of God's Worship, which his Father Ahaz had polluted, it is said, 
2 Chron. 29.25.  that He set the Levites in the House of the Lord with Cymbals, with Psalteries, and with Harps, according to the Commandment of David, and of Gad the King's Seer, and of Nathan the Prophet, For, saith the Text, so was God's Commandment by the Prophets: Whence it plainly appears, that David did no more in these Particulars, than what God himself had by his Prophets commanded. And therefore when David gave to Solomon his Son the Pattern of God's House, and of all the Rooms and Apartments in it, it is said to be, the pattern of all that he had by the spirit, among which things are reckoned, 
1 Chron. 28.12. V 19  the Courses of the Priests and of the Levites, and for all the work of the Service of the House of the Lord: Of which the Text says, All this, said David, the Lord made me understand in Writing, by his hand upon me, even all the works of this Pattern. From whence it evidently follows, that not the least Circumstance which David then ordered, came from his own motion, or was established barely by his Kingly Authority, but it did proceed from the infallible Directions of God's Spirit, and therefore Magistrates cannot urge his Example, unless they will pretend at least to his Divine Assistance, and not Regal, but Prophetical Authority.  
Lastly, Since the Objecters allow that over Substantials, as for example, to make or command Articles of Faith, Magistrates have no power; methinks it demonstrably follows from their own Concessions, that over Circumstantials they have much less: Since Substantials concern the Essence of Worship, and therefore may seem to be a just ground for Imposition; upon which, the Apostles found the Equity of their Canon, about forbidding things strangled, Blood and Fornication, 
Acts 15.28.  because they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, things very necessary; but Circumstantials may very well be omitted, without any prejudice either to God's Worship, or to the Magistrates Power; and the very needlesseness and superfluousness of them, may seem justly enough, to make it unlawful to impose them: For if in general, the Magistrate hath nothing to do, whether I am a Christian or not, since as a man, I have a Title to his Protection: then sure, when I acknowledge myself a Christian, in what kind of Habit, Posture, or Words, I will worship God, the Magistrate hath much less to do, because Charity, Forbearance, Doing as he would be done by, not to lay a stumbling Block before his Brother, and the like, are as much Parts of the Christian Magistrates Duty, as Obedience to the Magistrate in all lawful, and therefore not disputable things, is the duty of a Christian Subject.  
2. Obj. 2 It is objected again, That there are many Prophecies in Scripture, that Magistrates should own and defend Christian Religion, 
Isa. 49.23.  and in particular, that Kings should be Nursing Fathers, and Queens Nursing Mothers to the Church; and therefore certainly they may employ their Authority for the beautifying and adorning it in all such outward Circumstances of Worship, as merely appertain to Decency and Order.  
But I Answer: Answ.  
1. There are indeed many Prophecies in Scripture, that Kings and Inferior Magistrates shall submit to the Faith of Christ; yet it doth not follow, that therefore they are to take upon them to model and regulate any part of his Worship. 
C. 7.18.  For as in the Opinion about the Reign of the Saints, it is clear from Scripture, that a time will come when the Saints shall rule the world, as in Daniel, The Saints of the Most High shall take the Kingdom, and possess the Kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever: Yet it doth not follow, that therefore they ought to take Arms, and by violence possess themselves of an Earthly Kingdom, because this contradicts so many other places, wherein Patience, Self-denial, and Waiting upon God, is enjoined them. So in this case, there is a vast difference between a Magistrates becoming Christian, and his meddling with Prescribing Forms of Christian Worship, which no Prophecy did ever mention: Nay on the contrary, in stead of foretelling any such Imperious and authoritative Rule of Princes, in Religious matters, the Scripture mentions their lowly and humble deportment; as in David's Prophecy concerning the Messiah: All Kings shall fall down before him, all Nations shall serve him. And in Isaiah, Kings shall see and arise; Princes also shall worship. 
Psal. 72.11 Isa. 49 7.  Nay in that very place, where there is mention of Kings being Nursing Fathers, it is added, they shall lie down to thee with their Face towards the earth, they shall lick the dust of thy Feet: Which places do rather argue the Magistrates awful Reverence of, and respectful submission to the Church of Christ, than their exercising Authority over it. At least thus much may be evinced, that, though Magistrates lose no power by becoming Christians, yet they gain none, but in every thing are to act as Servants to the Law of Christ; from which, as nothing may be taken, so to it nothing ought to be added; no, though it may be patronised under the names of Decency and Order; which if we make to signify, not Natural, but Devised and Fancied Order, it is that which all Superstitions plead, to defend their unwarrantable Traditions and Inventions by. And therefore to pursue the Simile a little farther, it were to be wished, that Kings would so far prove Nursing-fathers', as to use their Christian Subjects in this particular, as Nurses do their Children, i. e. only to put into their Mouths, that which the Apostle Peter calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
1 Pet. 2.2.  Reasonable and sincere or unmingled Milk, i. e. only God's Word in its Native Purity, without being soured by the Harshness of Impositions, or corrupted, rather than sweetened, by the undue mixture of Humane Fancies and Imaginations.  
2. The best way for Christian Magistrates to advance and beautify Religion, is not by the Prodigality of their Purses, in stately Structures, Choice Music, Curious Pictures, and the like, wherein Superstition will be sure to outdo them; or by the Severity and Rigour of their Laws in small things, but in the Piety of their Lives, and strictness of their Civil Government. For let Magistrates once cleanse the Soil of Humane Nature, by making sharp and wholesome Laws against Vice and Immorality, and then weed it, by impartial punishing of Drunkenness, and other Disorders, which the Apostle calls Works of the Flesh; then Religion will make its own way into men's hearts, and produce an outward Composure in Service, suitable to its own inward Worth and Excellence: Whereas the Magistrates meddling with Outward Forms, begets only a Face of Religion, which is so much the more loathsome, in that it is used commonly as a Cover, to hid many foul Enormities, which without that Mask, no sober Magistrate could have the heart to tolerate. I conclude therefore since, 1. God never gave. 2. Christ never exercised. 3. The Examples of the Jewish Princes, nor Scripture Prophecies do warrant such an imposing Power, especially in things doubtful, as some contend for, it follows, that the Civil Magistrate hath no such power, and ought not to take it upon him: Which was my first Assertion.  
The Second Assertion was this, That if the Magistrate doth impose things doubtful, we cannot lawfully obey him: And the Reason is clear, from what is already argued: For no man can lawfully do any thing in the Worship of God, but what he is satisfied he might do, whether it were by men commanded or not; therefore he that hath no other warrant for his doing any thing, than the Command of the Magistrate, when it is clear the Magistrate hath no Power to command him, must needs sin in what he does: And that,  
1. Because thereby he visibly disowns, and detracts from God's Sovereignty, who is sole Lord of the Conscience, whose Honour is then given to another, when by our submitting to them, we seem in fact at least, to acknowledge, that they have Power to impose: For in the Church of Christ, by an Overt Act, to own and countenance the Jurisdiction and Authority of another, this is to lessen Christ's Legislative Power, and to make Two Heads of the Church, a Visible and Invisible, or a Political and Spiritual one, which is a distinction that the Scripture knows not; and only the Popish, that is the Antichristian Church makes use of.  
2. Because by obeying what is in itself doubtful, and in the Imposer unlawful, we shall consent to, and approve the Magistrates sin, and so harden him to continue more fierce and peremptory in it. Now if it be a Rule in general, that we ought to reprove our Brother, and not to suffer sin upon him, much less to consent, 
Leu. 19  and to partake with him in it: How much more is it our duty, to prevent, so far as we can, any sin in our Magistrate, (whose happiness we are bound in especial manner to procure and pray for) and this must be done, by our modest and humble, but yet resolute and constant refusing to obey his Impositions; wherein we are so to proceed, as to evidence both by our Language, and Actions, that it is not Peevishness or Petulancy, much less a disobedient and contradicting humour, which puts us upon it, but merely Conscience of our Duty, both to God and Him; namely, because the Magistrate, as to these matters, is not in God's stead, God not having committed unto Christian Magistrates, but unto his Son, the Government of his Church, and that in the Outward Policy, as well as in the Inward Purity of it: For where the inward Purity is not wrought, there outward Conformity is not a serving God; but men, and proves a Service, which as God requires not, so neither will he at all accept. And therefore since even the highest Magistrates on earth are accountable to God, who hates Oppression, under pretence of advancing Piety; this, as it ought to make all Magistrates afraid how they meddle with imposing, without any warrant, so it ought to make us wary too, lest by active submitting, we do abet and own their sin, and so become Parties in the Transgression; There being but little difference, in the sight of God, between him that commands a doubtful thing, and him that doth it, upon no better argument, then because another, who had no power, commanded it: For in that, or in no case, God calls for Suffering, and not for Submitting.  
3. He that obeys in such a case, must needs sin, because he cannot act in Faith, i. e. in a sound and thorough, Persuasion, that it is lawful for him to obey. For since no Conclusion can have in it greater certainty than the Premises which infer it, I would fain know, how it is possible for him to have any clear satisfaction, who thus argues.  
1. The thing commanded, as for example, the Cross in Baptism, is in its own nature very disputable, whether it be Lawful or not?  
2. The Magistrate who commands it, hath no power to do it, and therefore sins in enjoining; must not then the Inference be, therefore I shall sin in obeying him, since his Command, when he wants Power, can never make a doubtful thing warrantable or safe to a doubting Conscience. From all which, it follows, that if it be unlawful to command a thing doubtful in Religious Worship, it is equally unlawful to obey it; which is the sum of my First Argument.  
My Second Reason shall be taken from the Necessity and Nature of Christian Liberty; Arg. 2 which as it consists especially in the free use of Indifferent, or Forbearance of doubtful things, so are we bound entirely to preserve it. To clear up which, we must consider, that the whole stream of the Gospel, in reference to these outward things, doth run in such Expressions as these; If you be my Disciples, saith our Saviour, you shall know the Truth, 
John 8.31. etc.  and the Truth shall set you free. And again, If the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed. 
Gal. 3.1. V 13. James 1.25. & 2.12.  So the Apostle Paul, Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made you free. And again, Brethren, you have been called unto Liberty, So James calls the Gospel the perfect Law of Liberty: and, so speak, saith he, and so do, as those that shall be judged by the Law of Liberty. All which places, with many others, to the same purpose, do evince thus much, that it is not a thing merely arbitrary, and at our pleasure, whether we will preserve our Christian Liberty or not; but we are strictly commanded to do it: and the same obedience which we own to other Divine Precepts, we are obliged to pay unto this, because it is dictated by the same Spirit. Now since this Liberty, as it is mentioned by our Saviour and his Apostles, is only to be exercised in things of Religious Concernment (for as to Civil matters, no doubt, the strictest Obedience to the Magistrates Command, is our Duty) it follows therefore, that when once things, otherwise perhaps Indifferent, yet indeed Doubtful, come to be made necessary, and forced upon our practice, we are then bound by a meek and Christian, but yet magnanimous Refusal, to assert our Freedom, and not suffer ourselves to be entangled by a Yoke of Bondage, which is so much the more heavy and galling, because it is confessedly needless, and hath no holier end to ratify it, then merely an undue will of the Imposer; which if we obey, 
1 Cor. 7.23.  we then become Servants of men, and cowardly desert that Freedom which Christ came to purchase for us: which is quite contrary both to the Command & Practise of the Apostle Paul, who though he held Circumcision, in some cases to be Indifferent, and accordingly used it; yet when once False Brethren came to spy out their Liberty, 
Gal. 2.  and by their subtle Discourses sought to bring them into Bondage, Paul would not yield to them in the least, but constantly opposed the Insinuations of those crafty men (with whom no doubt, Arguments from Decency and Order were not wanting) that so he might transmit the Truth, i. e. the Liberty of the Gospel unto his Followers: And for his own, both Judgement and Practice, he gives this General Rule, All things, i. e. which are not forbidden by God, are Lawful, but, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. I will not be domineered over by any, 
1 Cor. 6.12.  or, I will not suffer any to exercise Authority over me, as that I should upon his Imperious and unlawful Command, forbear the free use of that which the Lord hath left free unto me.  
Against this it is Objected, Obj. 1  
1. That Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians, speaks only of Circumcision and Jewish Ceremonies; and therefore the Liberty he mentions, must only be understood in reference to them, which all acknowledge to be abolished, and without sin, cannot be revived; but this doth not concern other Christian Rites, which are introduced, as by another power, so upon another Score, sc. not as Parts of Religion, but as Circumstances of mere Decency and Order. But I Answer.  
1. Answ. The Apostle Paul doth not so confine his Discourse to Circumcision, but that in other places he extends it to Meats and Drinks, to Observation of Days, and such like, which are much more indifferent, than those now contested about: Concerning which, the Apostles Assertion is, That he would not be brought into bondage by any, but be left as free in the use or forbearance of them, as the Laws of Charity would permit. And therefore whatever the Apostle says, though properly and immediately it relates only to Jewish Customs, yet since his words are general and indefinite, they must be understood equally to concern all things, that are of a like, and much more those that are of a more doubtful Nature.  
2. Though the Apostle did speak only of Circumcision and other Legal Rites, yet the very same Reason which served to take them away, may easily be improved, to keep back any other from being either imposed or observed in their room. For, 1. Since God himself was the immediate Author of all Mosaical Ceremonies. And 2. Since they were afterwards abolished, not because they were sinful, but because they were unprofitable; not because they were inconsistent with Salvation, but because they did not sufficiently promote it, as the Apostle witnesses: There is, 
Heb. 7.18, 19  saith he, a disannulling of the Commandment going before, for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof; for the Law, i. e. of Ceremonies, made nothing perfect: Then it follows, that things, 1. Which have not the same Divine warrant and Prescription. And 2. Which are equally, if not more unprofitable, as to what concerns the Conscience, ought not to be introduced or practised; for else we should be very little Gainers, if being set free from Gods, we might be made subject to man's Law, and if in stead of Divine, we might own and practise Humane Impositions: This would not ease our Yoke, but only alter it, nay make it much more insupportable than the Jewish Burden was: For they, in what they did, obeyed a Righteous and Infallible God, and therefore were sure, they could not err: But we must obey the Arbitrary Fancies of Unrighteous, and Fallible men, concerning whose Authority in imposing, or the Usefulnesse of the things which they impose, we can never be satisfied; since they seem, not only to go beyond their bounds, but likewise by enjoining such poor things, to play with, rather than to adorn Religion, and in stead of consulting God's Honour, to provide only Traps and Snares for their Conscientious and soberly dissenting Brethren.  
2. It is objected again, That the Church was not in the same condition in the Apostle Paul's time, Obj. 2 that now it is in; for then there was no Civil Magistrate that did so far countenance Christian Religion, as to interpose and meddle with it, and therefore none could enjoin those things, in the use whereof Paul bids them be free; but now the state of things is altered: For Magistrates have taken upon them the care of Religion, unto whose Injunctions we are to yield obedience, according to that of the Apostle, Let every Soul be Subject to the Higher Powers.  
I Answer, Answ. 1. It is assumed gratis, and without the least pretence of Proof, that the Christian Magistrate hath any thing to do to impose in things of Religion: For which, I might bring many Sentences out of Tertullian, and especially Lactantius, who affirm the same: but the thing is clear; For Civil Government is properly and adequately concerned only in Civil things; but Religious matters belong only to him that is Inspector and Lord of the Conscience; and therefore that Text, Let every Soul be subject to the Higher Powers, is in this debate impertinently alleged; since it is evident, that the Apostle wrote it, with reference to Nero, who was then Emperor, and certainly did very little trouble himself with things of Religion, except it were to persecute it; and even then when the Magistrate doth so, I acknowledge that we are to be subject to, i. e. not to resist him; Nay, further, it follows from the Text, that should our Magistrates become, what they then were, Heathen and Infidels, yet in all Civil Matters, we were bound to obey them; which I am ready to assert against all, whether Papal or other Encroachments. But that the Magistrate either hath power to prescribe Religious Rites, or that if he doth prescribe, we ought to submit to him, neither that, nor any other Text of Scripture doth evince, as I have already demonstrated.  
2. I deny, that any upon Earth, now hath greater power to impose upon the Church, than those had in the Apostle Paul's time. For I take it for granted, that Peter was, if not the greatest, yet one of the greatest Persons, that ever was since our Saviour's time, and yet when he, by his suspicious and inconstant carriage, gave occasion to the Gentiles, to think, 
Gal. 2.  that the Jewish Rites ought still to be continued, Paul openly reproves him, in these words, Why compelest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? i. e. Why dost thou seem to lay a constraint upon them, and by the Authority of thy example, induce them to believe, that those Ceremonies are still to be practised? From whence I infer, that if in one who was so great an Apostle, Paul would not brook the least scruple of carriage, which might seem to abate and lessen the extent of Christian Liberty, than it follows.  
1. That no Magistrate can lawfully take upon him that power, since the greatest Magistrate on Earth, in things appertaining to Divine Worship, is much inferior to Peter, both for Knowledge and Authority.  
2. That if the Magistrate doth take upon himself that power, we are to be so far from complying, as rather, by Paul's example, openly to reprove him; at least we are to let him know, that we stand engaged to another Master, who hath commanded us to be free; and that it is not out of disobedience to the Magistrate, but out of duty to God, if we peaceably assert and maintain our Liberty.  
3. The last objection is this, Obj. 3 That Christian Liberty consists not in Freedom of Practice, but in the Freedom of Judgement: And therefore many acknowledge, that if these doubtful things were so imposed, as that thereby we should be obliged to think them necessary to salvation, than it was our duty not to do them: But since they are merely enjoined by the Magistrate, as things of Outward order, so long we may freely do them, and still retain our Liberty of Conscience. And this is the Sum of what many Learned men, both in their Writings and Discourses do affirm. But I Answer:  
1. That the Distinction is merely coined to serve a turn, Answ. without the least Foundation, either in Scripture or Reason. For, 1. It is not grounded on Scripture, since all those places wherein we are commanded not to be the Servants of men, to stand fast in our Liberty, and the like, do principally respect the freedom of our Practice, in reference to the Imposer, whom we ought not to submit unto. Neither, 2. Is there any colour of Reason for it; for Liberty of Judgement, without Liberty of Practice suitable to that Judgement, is not only a vain and ludicrous, but a burdensome and vexatious thing; and especially in the Service of God, while we always outwardly do that, which inwardly we do not approve, is nothing else but direct Hypocrisy.  
2. The Question is not, Whether any may impose upon our Judgements; which it is evident none can; but whether our Practice, ought not to be left as free as our Judgements, in those things which in reference to his own Worship, God himself hath not determined. The Distinction therefore which supposes, that our Practice may be bound up, and yet our Liberty, which Christ and his Apostles were so tender of, preserved, doth not prove, but only begs the Question: And like such kind of stuff, is merely so much dust thrown into our eyes, that we might not read, and make use of our Royal Charter.  
I conclude therefore, 1. Since Christian Liberty is entirely and indispensably to be preserved, because the same Authority which forbids Murder, doth command that, and it is the Authority of our Law giver, which gives each Law its Sanction. 2. Since Christian Liberty hath place only in the use of Indifferent, or forbearance of doubtful things (for things necessary are already enjoined by God, whom we are to obey, whether the Magistrate do command them or not) therefore it follows, 1. That whoever takes away the liberty of Practice from us, directly contradicts so many places of Scripture, which do expressly enjoin it: and then, 2. We cannot without dishonour to God, and violation of one of the greatest outward Privileges that the Gospel doth indulge us, consent to, or by our Practice seem to approve of any thing which doth so immediately entrench upon our Christian Freedom: Which is my Second Argument.  
The Third Argument shall be taken from the Nature of the things Imposed, Arg. 3 which are not purely and in their own Nature Indifferent; for than we need not, and I believe, few would scruple at the practice of them) but, as I stated above, they are things very doubtful and disputable, and therefore no Command can make them Lawful. For to instance only in one of them, and that is, the Cross in Baptism, I may affirm of that, which I find the Learned Hales asserting concerning Images. 1. It is a thing acknowledged by all, that it is unnecessary. 2. By most, at least in this Nation, it is suspected. 3. By many it is held utterly unlawful: Can then the enjoining of such a thing, be aught else but Abuse? Or can the Refusal of (he says, Communion, I say) Submission, be aught else but Duty?  
I am not ignorant that many specious Arguments are brought for some of our Ceremonies, as particularly, for Set Forms of Prayer, and for kneeling at the Sacrament which, because they are obvious, I shall not insist upon: For allowing, but not granting, the utmost of what is said, that to pray by a Book, is a more rational and Composed way of Divine Worship, then to pray from the strength of ones own Meditation, and the Assistance of God's Spirit; who, because of those Enlargements and quickenings he gives, is peculiarly styled the Spirit of Prayer. 2. Granting that to kneel, is a more humble, and therefore a more decent Posture, at the Sacrament, then to sit, as our Saviour and his Apostles did; (whose Example sure we may follow without sin) or at least, to stand, which is a posture of Prayer, and therefore of Reverence, and less subject to harden the Papists, who have so monstrously abused Kneeling, by their Idolatry: But granting the Decency and Conveniency of both, yet,  
1. Since they are either Parts of, or Additions to Divine worship, unwarrantably devised, and forcibly obtruded.  
2. Since the Imposers do lay so much stress upon them, that, it is evident, though they call them Indifferent, yet they think them Necessary.  
3. Since in these Forms of Prayers, there are those Mixtures, which make our Liturgy, though not simply unlawful, yet highly questionable.  
4. Since they are joined with some other Ceremonies, as the Cross in Baptism, which are of a more doubtful Nature.  
Lastly, Since many, as sober and as Pious Christians, as any are in our Nation, are infinitely grieved at the use of them, and are upon the point of forsaking our Assemblies, because of them. It follows hence,  
1. That it doth not at all become the Piety and Prudence of Christian Governors to impose these things which grieve and disturb very many, and in their own nature are grateful to very few? besides such who make use of their Conformity, as the way to Preferment.  
2. That no Conscientious Minister, so far as I yet see, can personally bear a part in all these Ceremonies, because he cannot act in Faith, as doing that, 1. Which God requires not. 2. Which his, perhaps weak, but yet Christian Brother, taketh offence at, and if the Apostle Paul says, he would never eat meat (which is always lawful, and to some tempers necessary Food) rather than offend his Brother, sure he would have forborn a Cross, or a Surplice much more.  
If any Answer, as some do, that it is Scandalum acceptum & non datum, Obj. i.e. an Offence only peevishly taken, but not justly given.  
I answer, Answ. It is Scandalum datum, an Offence justly given: For he that upon any pretence whatever, doth consent, not only to quit his own Liberty, but likewise in so doing, doth violate and injure the Conscience of another; he gives just occasion to have his action censured, as if he chose sin rather than Affliction, since they are only Motives of Convenience, which seem to lie at the bottom, and make him stoop to so mean a Bondage.  
Some object, That it is true, by doing these things, we offend our Brother, Obj. but then by refusing, we should offend the Magistrate, who is something more than our Brother, to whom we own not only the duty of Love, but likewise of Subjection; and therefore the less Offence must give place to the greater. But I answer.  
1. Answ. That if the Magistrate hath no power to impose, as I have already proved, than he hath no reason to be offended at my refusal to obey him; since eatenus jus non habet, and therefore I should more scandalise, i. e. give him a greater occasion of sinning, by submitting to, then by quiet disowning of his Authority. For by submitting, I shall beget this Opinion in him, that he doth well to impose, which is undoubtedly sinful; whereas by disowning his Authority, I only make myself liable to suffering, which every good Christian ought at all times to be prepared for.  
2. Our Saviour hath already taught us how little we are to care for the offence which men take at that sober and just use which we make of our Liberty: For when he refused to wash his hands before meat, (which by the way, was a Rite much more innocent, than those I now dispute of) and gave this for his ground, that it was a plant not of his Father's planting; his Disciples seem to importune him to condescend unto the Pharisees, who were his lawful Governors, by urging, that they were offended at his Saying: But our Saviour in stead of assenting, cries out, let them alone, they are Blind Guides, with other words, showing, that while they made use of their Authority, to press such needless Toys, it was his duty to disobey them. Which carriage of our Saviour is so much the more remarkable, in that, when they came to demand Tribute-money, though he alleged, that by his Birthright he was free from any such Tax, yet, saith he, rather than offend them, let us pay it; plainly implying, that in Civil things, not to stand too nicely upon our terms, but for peace sake even to part with some of our Right, is honest and commendable; but in Religious things we must not yield a tittle, because in them, the honour of God is immediately concerned: For, as being Lord of the Conscience, and sole Dictator of what way he will be served in, he expects, we should upon all occasions, openly assert his Right, and neither teach for Doctrine, nor solemnize for Worship, the Commandments of men. For, that I may obviate an Exception of some, who allege, that these things are not imposed as Doctrines: When a Ceremony comes to be urged and pressed, beyond the bounds of a thing Indifferent, here though no Doctrine be mentioned, yet there is a Doctrine couched under it, and that is, this which I have been all this while speaking against, That the Magistrate hath power to impose in Religious Worship. So that when things doubtful come upon that score to be obtruded, we must resolutely refuse to do them, lest we should seem to own and assent unto the Doctrine. To conclude therefore, Since the things in question, are so pressed, as if the Imposers thought them necessary. 2. Since many of them are very disputable. 3. Since most of them are very scandalous and offensive to our weaker Brethren, it follows, that they are not in their own nature Indifferent, and therefore it cannot be lawful to practise them. And so much for the Third Argument.  
The Fourth and last Argument shall be taken from the Resemblance and Correspondency which these things have to others, which we have already renounced in the Popish worship; as likewise from the impossibility, that any rational or sober account can be given why we descent from those, if we assent to these. For, I would fain know, wherein lies the true ground of our separation from the Church of Rome, if not in this, because they obtrude such conditions of Communion, which Gods Word doth not warrant us to assent to? For let men speak as much as they please against Images, Crucifixes, Praying to Saints, or for the Dead, etc. at last it will be found, that the only firm and solid Argument to overthrow all these things, is this, They are not written. God hath no no where in his Word commanded such things, and therefore we may safely reject them. But on the same score, the Cross, the Surplice, Bowing Kneeling, and the rest, must be rejected too, as being equally uncommanded,: For how can we satisfy any inquisitive man, why in Baptism, we have cast off Oil, and retain the Cross? why in the other Sacrament, we retain Kneeling, and refuse Adoration? Why we bow to the Name of Jesus, and yet are offended at a Crucifix? In short, why we have pared away some Rites, either as Idolatrous, or else as superfluous, and yet have retained others, that are equally scandalous, equally indefensible? If we answer, that we did it, because every National Church hath power to judge of Ceremonies, and to impose upon her Subjects, as few or as many as she thinks fit; Will it not inevitably follow, that our Church may when she pleases, bring in all those exploded Rites upon us, and when she doth so, we are bound to submit unto her Authority? So that all the advantage we have got by our Reformation (which at the beginning of it, was the best and the most stupendious that ever the world saw) is only this, that we have lopped off some Branches of Popery, but left the Root untouched; as owning that Doctrine of Impositions, which may whenever the Magistrate pleases, bring in the outward practice of that Religion again upon us. I do not speak this, as if I did in the least imagine, that our Governors do so much as dream of any such thing, but I argue merely as a rational man, and considering the nature of things; for since every man than acts rationally, when he acts conformably to the Principle he holds; therefore he that first mistakes things doubtful, for things Indifferent, and then maintains, that the Magistrate hath power to make even things Doubtful, Necessary, when he imposes them; he leaves the Magistrate free, to bring in as much of the Popish Worship, as he is pleased to think is either decent or convenient.  
Since then the Cross, the Surplice, etc. are all of the same Idolatrous Nature and Original, with other parts of Romish Worship, which we have worthily rejected, as being coined in the unlicensed Mint of men's Brain, without the stamp of Divine Authority; it follows, that either we must not use them, or else we must acknowledge, that if Oil for Infants, Holy Unction for the sick, Exorcisms, etc. were enjoined, we could lawfully submit to them too, and so never fix ourselves a certain point of Religious Practice, but depend altogether upon the Beck and Pleasure of our Magistrate.  
Against this, I know not what can be objected, except as some affirm, that the Pope is not Antichrist, so others will take upon them to prove that Popery is not Idolatry. If any Protestant be of that mind, I hope he thinks of returning speedily to their Communion, but till I understand, how Pictures may be made and placed, if not as Objects, yet as Helps of Devotion; how Saints can first be Canonised, and then prayed to, how the Bread can be confined to a place, and yet adored as god, how the Virgin Mary besides being prayed to, can be entreated to command her Son; till I say, I understand how these, and many more such things can be done, and no Idolatry committed, I must take leave to affirm, that if that Church be not Idolatrous, there never was, nor can be such a thing as Idolatry in the World.  
To conclude therefore, I will acknowledge, that using the Cross, though not in Baptism, is very ancient, and mentioned more than once by Tertullian 
a Apolog. , that a peculiar Reverence to the Name of Jesus, is asserted by Origen 
b Lib. adv. Cells. , that the Worship of Angels, or something very like it, is maintained by Justin Martyr 
c Apolog. 2.  Prayer for the Dead, as I remember, by Cyprian, I am sure by Tertullian 
d Apolog. , Purgatory by Arnobius, etc. But yet these Opinions, which in those Excellent Writers (who were newly recovered out of Gentilism) were very tolerable Mistakes and Errors, did neither hurt them, nor the Church of Christ, till the world was grown lazy enough to believe, and the Bishop of Rome had force enough to impose them, as Necessary Doctrines. This is that which not only diffused, but so far fixed the fatal Poison of Error, that the world can never expect to be freed, till it pleases God to raise up some generous and truly Heroic Prince, who may be convinced of the truth of Christian Religion, not by hear-say from others, but by a through search and enquiry into the Causes of it himself, and growing from thence assured, that nothing can more hinder the Progress of the Gospel, then to disguise and alter its simplicity (for a strange dress must needs render it suspected) will resolve to give it a free and undisturbed Passage, and never draw his Sword, but when Malice and Ignorance do join together, not only to oppose, but to persecute it; how will Truth then, being unfettered and set free, from the Clogs of pretended Decency, but indeed Antichristian Tyranny, run through this Nation, and chase Error before it, as the Light doth Darkness? This Great and Glorious work I dare almost prophecy that his Majesty is reserved for, whose pious and unequalled Declaration, hath already indulged as much Liberty, as any sober-minded Christian can pretend to: and which will then undoubtedly be made a Law, when by our constant and cheerful Sufferings for this Doctrine of Liberty, we have expiated and washed away those Scandals, which our many odious and unparallelled Abuses have cast upon it.  
FINIS.