THE QUESTIONS Between the CONFORMIST AND Nonconformist Truly stated and briefly discussed Dr. FALKNER the Friendly Debate c. Examined and Answered Together with a Discourse about Separation and some Animadversions upon Dr. STILLINGFLEET's Book ENTITULED The Vnreasonableness of Separation Observations upon Dr. Templers Sermon Preached at a Visitation in Cambridge A brief Vindication of Mr. Stephen Marshal Sed hoc nimis doleo quia multa quae in Divinis libris saluberrima praecepta sunt minus curantur tam multis presumptionibus sic plena sunt omnia ut gravius corripiatur qui per octavas suas terram nudo pede tetigerit quam qui mentem Vinolentia sepelierit August Epist 119. Cum Apostolus testetur mysterium hoc iniquitatis suo etiam tempore agi caepisse hinc intelligimus opiniones omnes Traditiones a Sacris Scripturis dissidentes quas Pontificis urgent tanquam a Patribus acceptas ad Apostasiam hanc quam praedixit Apostolus esse referendas Downham de Antichrist p. 151. LONDON Printed for Tho. Cockerill at the Three Legs in the Poultry over against the Stocks-Market 1681. THE Reader may please to take notice that this Discourse was drawn up long before now Doctor Falkner took his Degree else I had given him his Title And so something of Schism was spoke to before the Epistle to Dr. Stillingfleet could be written To the Reverend and my much Honoured Brother Dr. Edward Stillingfleet Dean of St. Pauls SIR I Hope it is no offence unto you though you be a Dean Unreas Separat p. 62. that I call you Brother since you have taught the Press how to speak soberly and amicably calling us Dissenting Brethren this is better language than Sots Rogues Fools Knaves Rebels Schismaticks which we read and hear from others As for Rebels if they be all Rebels that break the Kings Laws I believe the King will have but a few loyal subjects He hath Laws against Drunkenness Swearing Whoring Sabbath breaking and these are agreeable to the Law of God besides Laws about Hares Partridges Pheasants and against Papists c. we see men can live in opposition to these Laws yet these are not called Rebels But if the Laws of men concern the House and Worship of God concerning which God himself hath given us his own Laws to which all Princes and men are bound and unto which all their Laws ought to be conformable as we shall hear your self speak presently but that conformity we cannot see and therefore dare not assent and consent c. now we are called Rebels Schismaticks and what not Aug. Epis 119. Thus it was in pious Augustines time and this he complains of Sir speaking of your Church you tell us p. 302. Our Church is founded upon a Divine Rule viz. the Holy Scriptures which we own as the basis and foundation of our faith and according to which all other Rules of Order and Worship are to be agreeable 2ly Our Church requires a conformity to those Rules which are appointed by it agreeable to the Word of God Twice you tell us agreeable to the Word of God to which we agree also this being the affirmative part of the second Commandment that all things in our worshipping of him be agreeable to his will and word Now Sir had you proved that all the things imposed upon us had been agreeable to the word of God you had put an end to this Controversie But though I honour and love you for the great service you have done to the Church of Christ against the Papists yet in proving the things Imposed upon us to be conformable to the word of God I humbly conceive you fall very short therefore are we still Nonconformists Several things are imposed upon us but in your whole Book I find not one Scripture you produce to shew the agreement of them with it Till then our Separation is reasonable That Schism is a great sin I agree with you and wish Christians were more convinced of it than I see they are But the Questions are 1. What is schism 2. Who is the cause of schism For the first Sir I presume you will grant that the separation against which you preached and now printed do suppose there was a union with that body from which you tell us we are now separated For how can there be a separation from that to which we were not united Now Sir I think by what you have said to remove the mighty stumbling-block as you call it pag. 359. of the Cross there will be found many thousands in England who were never admitted into your Church and if not admitted into it then not united to it as such a Church no members of your body how then can you charge them with this sin of separation from it Thus then Sir you speak of the Cross in Baptism p. 351. when the Minister uses these words We receive this child into the congregation of Christs flock and sign him with the sign of the Cross c. the Minister now speaks in the name of the Church We receive c. then follows as the solemn rite of admission and do sign him with the sign of the Cross All publick and solemn admissions into societies having some peculiar ceremony belonging to them And so as Baptism besides its Sacramental efficacy is a rite of admission into Christs Catholick Church so the sign of the Cross is into our Church of England in which this Ceremony is used without any prescription to other Churches Thus you have interpreted the Cross Whether this will satisfie Mr. B. I leave it to him it doth not me the Imposers of that Ceremony in their Canons do not tell us that it is the Rite of admission into your Church but by this ceremony the Infant is dedicated to the service of him that died upon the Cross And that Book being of publick authority must carry it I had thought that in our Baptism we had been Dedicated to the Father Son and Spirit But it seems this is not enough you annex to his words Another sign to dedicate us to the service of Christ that died upon the Cross This Sir I hope you will prove to be agreeable to the word of God as you told us your Impositions are I am very ignorant of the Text that proves it and you have named none But this is not the thing I aim at it is your interpretation I mind and from it I gather that you and all others who charge us with separation from your Church must prove That we were received and that by this rite of admission the Cross into your Church which you call the Church of England This is clear from your own Interpretation and also from the page before 350 where you illustrate it from the Independent Churches Thus Suppose say you an adult person to be baptized and immediately after Baptism to be admitted a member of an Independent Church and the ceremony of this admission to
several houses at that time where they had prepared in one house such bitter herbs as Sichory Wild Lettice which they say they used in another house Wormwood and Horehound in another Centory Germander in another bitter Almonds and Gentian c. so mention twenty more differences yet if Bitternesses were observed the rule was kept Again shall these bitternesses be boiled or raw beaten into a sawce like our Mustard as Scaliger saith the Churoseth was here is nothing determined be sure there be bitternesses and the general Rule is kept Again here is no mention made of drink but to have a Lamb and unleavened bread eaten and bitter things and not drink it had been a dry Feast fit to choak them Again the Lamb must be roast but how must it be without a Spit as we use sometimes or with a Spit and if so whether with a Spit made of Iron c. or Wood and that of a Pomegranate tree as a Learned man supposeth who can tell there is nothing determined or expressed and I prefume that Learned Author was not there to turn the Spit Again it must be roast but must the fire be made of wood or coal or turff or other combustible matter not a word of any such thing Thus I might reckon up many more circumstances that I wonder at this Author and another of his party answering for their Ceremonies telling us This is the difference between the Law and the Gospel that under the Law all ceremonies and circumstances are exactly prescribed not so under the Gospel How true this is the Reader may judg Leaving then this Author a while let us come to the stating of the Questions and for the first about Forms of Prayer Mr. Carre begins his Book and states the Question thus 1. Forms of Prayer are lawful thus it was stated in the Commencement-house when Dr. Fern was Vicechancellor and moderated I yield it being my own practice to compose Forms for my Children and for others who could not express themselves in fit words in their families before their servants and what then what is this to our business 2. For the Ceremonies The Church hath power in circumstances and who denies it 3. For Government some Episcopacy is lawful The Proposition must not be universal for then we shall setch in a Universal Bishop which as yet our opponents do not like Make it particular for my part I yield it I shall therefore now give the true state of the Questions and then leave it to the judicious Reader to see whether any one argument the Conformists use conclude the Questions For the First about imposed Forms of Prayer the question is this Quest The Question about Forms Prayer stated Whether the Lord Jesus hath given such power to any ordinary persons Civil or Ecclesiastical to compise and impose their Forms of Prayer upon his Ministers in the Gospel-church whom he hath sufficiently qualified for his work unto which he hath called them so that in their ministration and worshipping of God by prayer his Ministers must be tyed up to those very Forms and Syllables and not vary from them Let me open the Question 1st That Christ is Lord of his House King of his Church having the only power over it to institute what he please no Christian will deny 2ly True Ministers of the Gospel are his Ministers they have their talents and abilities from him their call and authority from him Their Laws and Doctrine what they must preach and how they must order all things in the Church from him They have a promise of his Presence and unto him must they give an account of their work 3ly These Ministers being his are sufficiently qualified in one sense it is true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 2. 16. who is sufficient but yet again Timothy is charged that those whom he takes into the Ministry be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sufficient men Praying and Preaching are the two great works of a Minister Act. 6.4 to declare the will of God to the people and to open and present the wants of the people unto God is their business and whom Christ sends of his errand he fits them for both or never sends them Ephes 4.8 11. He prepareth gifts for his If your Forms of Prayer will make a man sufficient I know not who shall be insufficient if he can but read well 4ly These are Christs Ministers in the Gospel church I hope 't is no strange thing to put a difference between the Ministers of the Old and New Testament Gal 4.1 2 Cor. 3 c. that the Spirit is given by Christs Ascension in a greater measure both as to gifts and grace to the body of the Gospel-Church than to the old Church hath been unquestioned Divinity by the Conformists 5ly For ordinary persons to impose such as cannot dare not lay claim to an extraodinary Mission as the Prophets and Apostles had Yet the Apostles never imposed their Prayers on the Churches 6ly For these to tye up Christs Ministers to words and syllables in Prayer from which they must not vary This is the practise indeed but this is the question by what right this is done What I have heard in answer to it is that the Church allows our own Prayers before and after Sermon 1. Whether the Church allow it I cannot tell the genuine Sons of the Church say no and will use only the Canon-prayer The Arch-Deacon in his Visitation did dehort the Ministers from the use of their own prayers with these words Though I do not command nor enjoin you yet I advise you to it it is more out of fear it would cause such an Odium among the people should they take them off from their own prayers wholly in places where there is any knowledg in ignorant places they use none at all but the Common-Prayer as I have certain intelligence of divers places The Fathers of the Church in their Conterence with the other Ministers at the Kings first coming in thus express themselves Account of the Proceedings c. p. 19. VVe heartily desire that according to this Proposal great care may be taken to suppress those private conceptions of pray ers before and after Sermons As the Judges are the Interpreters of Statute-Laws so surely the Bishops of the Canons Now it is clear they would take away all but Book-prayer The judgment of Bishop VVren and Bishop Cozens is well known 2ly But if superiors being but ordinary persons have power to impose their Forms at Baptism the Lords supper c. all but before and after Sermon is it because their power of imposing is limited by God where I pray certainly by what power they take away the use of our own prayers before and after Sacraments they may before and after Sermons and that we see they desire it might be done but that they fear the consequence Let us come to their reasons for this One they draw from the Scriptures and that is
ordained before Pauls journey to Jerusalem Acts 20. for he tells Timothy 1 Tim. 3.14 he hoped to come unto him shortly but Act. 20.25 when he sent for the Elders of Ephesus he tells them they shall see his face no more If Timothy then were Bishop of Ephesus before this time then he was there now and was now sent for which I shall never believe that Paul would not mention him in particular whose Name he uses to joyn with his in several Epistles But if Timothy did come with the other Elders here is no difference made of this Prelate from the other Elders but 28. ver he gives the same alike to them all Therefore I deny your Consequence If Timothy were Bishop of phesus what need Paul tell him in his second Epistle to him Chap. 4.12 Tychicus I have sent to Ephesus he might have spared that line for Timothy must needs know it if he came to him there But you add for a further Confirmation p. 28. the words of Christ Joh. 20.21 As my Father sent me so I send you But the Commission of Christ as an Apostle did undoubtedly extend to a superintendency over the Clergy and the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 justifie the same as to the Apostles c. A. Undoubtedly Christs Commission did extend as you say without limiting it to any precincts which you tell us several times the Apostles were and especially in p. 6. you would labour to prove it from 2 Cor. 10.16 Though that Text I conceive will not do it But if the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will force their superintendency over the Clergy it will as well force it without limitation to such precincts for his Father did not so send him and how their Commission runs we read But I shall not give my thoughts about this now you tell us pag. 34. that among the Bishops Peter leads the Van in the Church of Antioch Pope Innocent this does not make for you I pray tell us in your next in which Church did Paul lead the Van among the Bishops But if Peter were Bishop at Antioch indeed Paul went beyond his Precinct when he dealt so roundly with a Bishop in his own See as he did with this Bishop of Antioch Gal. 2.11.14 2ly I conceive you stretch this Text beyond the intent of our Lord. For the work which our Lord undertook he had a Call from his Father who sent him Heb. 5.4 Joh. 6.27 and 10.36 His Father had Authority to send him and was with him Joh. 16.32 So he the Head and King of his Church having all power given to him in Heaven and in Earth Math. 28.18 had Authority to send forth his Apostles to their work they might show their Commissions or Credentials He promised also to be with them and their Successors to the end and I think all Gospel-Ministers are their Successors but that the Lord intended in these words the setling of a Superiority of one person above his brethren in the Ministry to the end of the world this is but Petitio pincipii your gloss and I deny it for the Reasons and Scriptures before mentioned 3ly Those Apostles had Superiority over Bishops if there were such then as you say there were yea Arch-Bishops who is now over them His third Text is Eph 4.12 13. Apostles were given and their Suffregans as you call them Prophets and Evangelists for the perfecting of the Saints hence pag. 30. you conclude for the duration of Prophets and Evangelists to this day Thus then we have to this day Apostles Prophets and Evangelists in the sense of this Text unless he will abuse the Text a rare sight I would go many miles to see such persons and to their Superiority willingly submit Calvin Gerhard Beza Zanchi the Leyden Professors c. tell us these were Ministri extraordinarii Temporarii but they were men of no Acuminated Intellects their judgements signifie little Well Sir what Apostles were you tell us not neither need you we know them well but where you can find such I know not but such you must find if your proof hold For the Prophets you tell us they were such as had an excellent skill to preach the Gospel out of the Books of the Old Testament 1 Cor. 13.2 Evangelical Doctrines locked up in the Figures of the Law and Predictions of the Prophets If this were all we shall find many such Prophets amongst the Nonconformists But Sir you have spoken very short of the Prophets Dr. Hammond Zanchy and Gerhard add two things more 1. A foretelling things to come 2ly They spake all from the Spirit from a Divine Afflatus These three are somewhat like I pray shew us these Prophets now The Evangelists you tell us are such as had a profound insight into the Gospel as contained in the Writings of the New-Testament and could with singular dexterity open and explain its true importance Such there are also amongst the Nonconformists But Sir what if there were Evangelists before there was any part of the New-Testament writtens how then does your description agree I question not if the Ancients say true of the time when John wrote his Gospel but Timothy was an Evangelist long before and in that Gospel are the deep Mysteries contained more than in the other three If the first Epistle to the Thessalonians were the first Epistle that Paul wrote as Divines generally think Timothy is joyned with Paul in the 1. ver so that very little was written when he first was made an Evangelist I see by some of your own and those Learned men Philip was an Evangelist when he preached the Gospel at Samaria and wrought Miracles Acts 8.5 6 7. but at that time no part of the New Testament was written For Matthew wrote first and that was eight years after the Ascension as our Divines for the generality of them agree But for the Evangelists Eusebius l. 3. Chap. 37. a fitter man to tell us what an Evangelist was than you gives us another description and that which agrees with Philip in Acts 8.5 6 7. and other Scriptures I shall note only these 1. That they watered the Churches every where planted by the Apostles 2. They preached Christ to them which as yet heard not of the Doctrine of Christ 3. Having planted the Faith in new and strange places they ordained there other Pastors committing to them the Tillage of the new ground pressing themselves to other People and Countries 4. By the power of the Holy Ghost they wrought miraculously Show us these Evangelists now His last Text is 1 Tim. 6.14 Keep the Commandments until the appearing of the Lord Jesus c. A. 1. By the appearing of the Lord c. exitus vitae is meant thinks Austin and some others But if not yet this appearing is an Argument used not only to Timothy but to all Christians to look to their duty Col. 3.4 Tit. 2.13 1. Pet. 17. 2. What Commandment this was if we well
which have come to my hand but all were not written with the same Spirit As they came to hand so I perused them to see if I could find any thing to convince me And whereas there are five things imposed upon us 1. The Liturgy with stinted forms of prayer 2. Mystical Ceremonies 3. Subjection to such Episcopacy 4. Re-ordination 5. Renouncing the Covenant I applied my self to the three first Questions chiefly For if it can be proved that these are agreeable with and conformable to the Laws of God as the Friendly Debate and Dr. Templer would perswade their Readers then Re-ordination may be admitted and the Covenant renounced As to the two first Quest Mr. Carre was the first man I met with that argued for them after him I met with the Friendly Debate next with the Serious and compassionate Enquiry c. Dr. Goodman the Author as I hear Nemine contradicente but last of Mr. Falkner a man of an excellent spirit whom I shall honour and one that hath said more than all before Before he came forth I had drawn up my answer to all the former and was loth to throw away all I had done because I saw there were some things in these Authors which Mr. Falkner had not else I would wholly have attended him but where I saw they all agreed there I considered them conjunct where one had what the other had not there severally As to the third Quest something I found in a piece Entituled Samaritanism As to the Learned Dr. Stilling fleet by throwing down the Jus Divinum of any form of Church Government he prepared the way for our subjection to such Episcopacy if his principle be sound For the serious and compassionate Enquiry I found little in that piece as to our questions unless a man were so simple to take fine words for strong arguments and Rhetorick for Logick For his Discourse about schism I shall consider it in its place But the chief things I observed in him were his odious comparisons between the Conformist and Nonconformist begun at p. 21. and continued some pages His slighting that worthy Father blessed Austin the contempt he throws upon the Synod of Dort which I did never expect from the pen of a Son of the Church of England But I see this Church of England and the famons Church of England are not the same I need not say any thing there is an acute pen hath given him so full and solid an answer that I ver expect to read his Reply To what he saith pag. 3. That the Nonconformists blame the Doctrine of the Church viz. the 39 Articles are not so punctual in defining the five points debated at the Synod of Dort c. I think I may say I have been in the company of as many Nonconformists as that Author but I have not heard them blame the Articles therefore But this fault I have heard found and do find that we are commanded to affent to the 34 35 36. Articles with the same faith we do to the fundamental Articles of our Faith and Salvation therein contained I thought among the Confessions of Faith these 39 Articles were looked upon as the Confession of the Faith of the Church of England but I find it otherwise now for Dr. Stillingfleet in his defence of Bishop Laud p. 54. being pinched by the Jesuit who in this point is not answered tells us The Church of England makes no Articles of Faith but such as have the Testimony of the whole Christian world in all Ages acknowledged to be such by Rome it self And in other things she requires subscription to them not as Articles of Faith but inferiour truths which she expects a submission to in order to her peace and tranquility Afterwards p 82 104. He distinguisheth between the internal assent of the mind and the external act the Church doth not require the first but the latter To confirm his saying he quotes Archbishop Bramhall often expressing the sense of the Church of England as to her 39 Articles thus Neither doth the Church of England define any of these questions as necessary to be believed either necessitate medii vel praecepti which is much less but only bindeth her Sons for peace sake not to oppose them And in another place more fully We do not suffer any man to reject the 39 Articles of the Church of England at his pleasure neither do we look on them as essentials of saving Faith or Legacies of Christ and his Apostles but in a mean as pious opinions fitted for the preservation of unity neither do we oblige any man to believe them but only not to contradict them Thus the Archbishop And this is not his opinion alone but generally of the Grandees of this Church as an intelligent and sober Conformist tells me When I read these lines first I read them again and again to see if I were not mistaken they were so strange unto me at the first reading when I saw I was not mistaken I turned to the beginning to see who did License it and was amazed when I saw the name According to this Cerinthus Pelagius Arius Socinus Turks Jews yea Vaninus may all subscribe the Articles and be Sons of the Church of England if they can but keep their tongues from contradicting them though they do not believe one of them Though I am a Nonconformist yet I am such a friend to the Church of England as to her Doctrine that I abhor these lines and charge that Bishop Bramhall with doing wrong to the Church It seems when other Churches abroad read these 39 Articles as the Confession of the Faith of the Church of England and suppose we do believe them to be true they are grosly mistaken it may be we believe not one the Church do not oblige her Sons to it but only not to contradict them They are deluded the Church reproached and God is mocked Several things I could say to the disproving of this sense but to what worthy Dr. Stilling fleet hath said I should desire him to name that Book of publick authority to warrant what he saith 1. The Kings Declaration prefixed for the confirmation of them and with that I question not but the Bishops did agree * The Declaration expressed With the advice of so many of our Bishops c. makes no such distinction of superiour and inferiour Truths but speaking of all the 39 Articles jointly taken together thus declareth The Articles of the Church of England do contain the true Doctrine of the Church of England agreeable to Gods word c. requiring all our subjects to continue in the Vniform profession thereof Again requires all Clergy men to submit to every Article in the plain and full meaning thereof and shall not put their own sense and comment to be the meaning of the Article but shall take it in the literal and Grammatical sense Again doth not the fifth Canon say Whosoever shall hereafter affirm that
to other Churches and future times after what way and manner we worship God c. Answ 1. But Sir cannot that be done unless we leave them the words and syllables of our prayers to which we were continually bound up will not the Confession of our Faith and a Directory for Worship if the Assemblies Directory be not sufficient I pray let your party mend it do this sufficiently 2ly If this reason be forcible was it not as strong in the Apostolical Churches and much more than now Why did they not leave their Liturgies that all Churches after them might know their way and man ner of worshipping God all their words in prayer So name you but one argument that was not of as much validity in the Apostles time as now Vniformity prevention of errors of rude and slovenly words and expressions and what else you please Then do but bring us forth their Forms which they imposed upon the Churches and give us but infallible ground for our faith to believe that these they were and no alteration in the least then Sir we shall listen to your reasons From other men I have heard other arguments One I heard from a Learned Physician who had it from Bishop Sparrow in a Sermon and was much taken with the strength of it Suppose said he their own prayers were better than the prayers of the Church yet obedience is better than sacrifice Saul 's obedience had been more acceptable than the fat beasts he spared for sacrifice The strength of this argument let us see Here is a King commanded to give obedience to God immediately and that absolutely without any question Our case is we are called to give obedience to Superiours but creatures and that in such things which concern God immediately concerning which the Lord hath given us Commandments to which all Superiours are as strictly bound as that King was to Gods command Shall not we then first try whether Creatures commands agree with the Creators commands must not obedience to the Potter take place of obedience to the potsheard if not then Ephraim did well when he willingly obeyed the command of Jeroboam Hos 5.11 and Israel did well 2 King 17.8 in obeying the statutes of their Kings Whence in matters of God we are bound to try all things though the Commands be not sub codem gradu yet if we suspect them to be sub codem genere let us have leave to examine But in short were it not for God we could with as much ease give obedience to mens commands as you can But this instance is against the Bishop 2. If there be a Betterness and we deny to give it to God then give us leave to take heed of the curse Mal. 1.14 Another common saying is this All your conceived prayers are Forms to us Ergo these Forms are lawful Ans So is every mans Sermon a man may make one Sermon and in that comprehend all that is requisite to a mans Salvation but if a man should only read that Sermon every Lords day you would discern a difference between this Form and the Sermons you hear daily and think him worthy to be cast out of his Ministry All mens speeches are but Forms in your sense 2ly Therefore you do but Ludere Homonymia in the word Form In every effect there must be a Form though hard to find out But Prayers composed of Confessions Petitions c. in such syllables words sentences to which men are tyed up in the Worship of God this is the Form in question I grant by these your Prayers differ from others and so you make a formal difference So we can allow there will be Forms in every mans Prayer 3ly A man that improveth the gift which Christ hath given him resting upon the promise of the Spirit to help his Infirmities he doth as he ought Let his Prayers seem what they will to you they are not Forms according to the question he is not tyed up to syllables but hath his liberty to vary according to the subject-matter before him Occuring Providences and spirits assistance The Scripture grounds which have made me judg this unlawful are these 1. That Text Ephes 4 8 11 12. Christ when he ascended gave gifts unto men v. 8. and these men amongst others are Pastors and Teachers v. 11. the end of these gifts and officers For the perfecting of the Saints c. v. 12. True indeed these gifts differ very much in men So the 7th v. tells us But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ But though the measure differ yet so much is given to every Pastor and Teacher let him but be saithful in the improvement of it as shall serve the end Christ intended Thus Rom. 12.6 Having gifts c. I am sure among these gifts the gift of Prayer is one so requisite in a Minister and so common to all true Christians yea to Hypocrites But this practise renders Christs act but various and crosses him in what he did and doth in giving gifts for though he doth give them they must not use them nor improve them why then did he purchase them and give them it seems he gave gifts to one or two in a Nation composing of Prayers is not the work of a multitude to compose Prayers and these must be imposed on all the Ministers in a Nation with a stamp of Authority though Christ hath given gifts to all his Ministers and many of them as able and more able than are the Composers and Imposers but their gift must lye dormant they are tyed up to words It was a silly answer he gave They may use their gifts at home The Text confutes him 2ly That Command 2 Tim. 2.2 that Timothy look to it that those whom he admits into the Ministry be faithful men and able to teach others is any man so absurd to think that an ability to pray for others is not included remembring 1 Tim. 2.1 Act. 6.4 and a gift so common to all Christians But this crosseth the Command for though they be never so able to pray they shall not use their gift or ability but be tyed up to other mens words and syllables Why not before Sermons as before Sacraments give us a Text. But your own party think even those prayers are taken away or wish they were even before Sermon 3ly As Christ purchaseth and giveth gifts and requires gifts ability in those whom he calls to his work so no doubt but he will require an account of the use and improvement of those gifts That Ministerial gifts are comprehended in the Talents given forth Mat. 25.15 I think no understanding Divine will deny in the 19 v. he will reckon with them What account then shall we give for this when one Talent we neglected contenting our selves meerly with other mens words 4ly It renders the promise of the assistance of the Spirit in prayer Rom. 8.26 but vain in great
the Church and Worship of God to the end of the world would have hindered our Pocket Bibles Individua sunt Infinita But for significant Ceremonies all the Mosaical Ceremonies were set down to the pins of the Tabernacle and if God had liked Ceremonies as we do he could have set down twice as many as Popery affords 8ly These mystical ceremonies are external worship as I said before but so are not circumstances Mr. Falkner evades these Texts in Deut. 12 c. telling us as the Author of the Er. Deb. that the Text concern'd the Judicial Law as well This I have spoken to before Also he tells us That divers things referring to the worship of God Pag. 360. were allowably under the Jewish dispensation ordered as matters of decency and expediency by humane prudence But Sir this reaches not our Question we are inquiring for a warrant for such Ceremonies as your Preface and our Question from thence treat of else I yielded before that the Jews were not determined in every particular circumstance But M. Falkner refers us to a former Section where he had instanced in such things At p. 311. I find there he begins First With the discumbing gesture at the Passover which they changed from standing To this I spake before 2ly He instanceth in the white garments that the Levites did wear 1 Chron. 15.27 For which there was no direction given in the word yet the Scripture speaks of the allowableness of these Levitical garments Answ 1. But the Question is Whether these Levitical garments were ordained by men to signifie a spiritual duty they owed to God and were to stir up their dull minds to their duty and to edifie them If not they reach not the Question but of this not a word in Scripture Sanctius 1 Sam. 2. conceives and others with him that these were not holy garments which Samuel while a child did wear and David also wore when he danced before the Ark who was not of the Priests Order And certainly they knew the garments of the Levites to be according to the mind of God else they would not have dared to have used them when God had so lately made a breach for want of due order they had ways to know Gods mind that we have not 2. For the Levites 1st They were of the same Tribe with the Priests 2ly Their work was about the holy things of God as was the Priests 3ly There was nothing determined about the apparel or garments of the Levites by God Numb 8. neither for matter whether linnen or woollen nor for the colour 4ly But yet black colour was not I conceive allowable about the Temple worship The bread of Mourners Hos 9.4 was but unclean hence the Text Deut. 26.14 and that of Aaron Levit. 10.19 when there was such a cause of mourning did not eat God required cheerfulness in his worship and service Deut. 12.7 Whiteness was the colour that betokeneth cheerfulness in all sorts of persons Eccles 9.8 Let thy garments be always white We find a threatning against the Chemarims Zephan 1.4 those black Priests Atrati because clothed in black So Schindl Pagn Buxtorf Vatablis Drusius Jun. Tremel God had appointed white in his Priests and Worship Lay all these together and we may see good reason why the Levites chose white garments and so David partly for lightness and the joy now dancing befor the Ark. So that this instance doth not yet prove the question Besides I do not see how the carrying the Ark or Davids dancing were parts of Worship His third instance the Altar of Witness made by the two Tribes But I know not how this reaches the case for that was not intended with any respect to Divine worship the ten Tribes feared it and sent their messengers about it but the two Tribes protested against it they had no such intent Josh 22.29 God forbid c. There was no worship and our question is about Religious humane Ceremonies appropriated to Worship His fourth Instance the Temple it self designed by David and approved by God 1 King 8.17 18. Ans 1. If this be followed then you will tell us that something essential to the Worship of God may be invented by man as I touched before will you Sir affirm it I am sure the Temple was essential to their Worship 2. Place is but a circumstance of worship if the place were more splendid and sumptuous it was but a place still But I pray did David intend to build a place to have that mystical signification that the Temple had prove this I pray else you reach not the question there is nothing of this appearing in the Chapter David was moved from the zeal he bare to the honour of God the want of this the Lord reproves Hag. 1.4 9. 3. David did ground his design upon Deut. 12.10 VVhen he giveth you rest from all your enemies round about c. then there shall be a place which your God shall chuse To which Text 2 Sam. 7.1 answers When the King sate in his house and the Lord had given him rest round about from all his enemies c. then David is thinking to prepare a place so that David had ground for his enterprize only he was mistaken as to his enemies for he had much War after this and that Solomon renders as one cause why he could not build the House 1 King 5.3 And in the 4th v. But now the Lord my God hath given me rest on every side so that there is neither adversary nor evil occurrent So that David and Solomon had respect to that Law 4ly I know no error in it if I should say God also inspired David God had a great councel a decree of his to reveal to David of building him a House and of Christ to come of him after the flesh Rom. 1.3 Act. 13.23 he puts David upon it having also declared his purpose before in the Law Deut. 12.10 11. and takes occasion from this love of his to God to open his love and decree towards David that God did inspire him Bradwardin doth intimate de caus Dei l. 1. c. 25. those words in the fifth vers Shalt thou build me c. Diodati thinks to be words of admiration rather than reprehension And the 7th v. Spake I word c. God had often said in his Law that he would chuse himself a place but had not expressed where or when it should be and therefore lovingly admonisheth David to wait for this expression Thus Diodati But this still intimateth that David took the word for his ground Hence Psal 32.5 Vntil I find a place for the Lord. David useth the same word which Moses doth in Deut. 12.11 His next Instance is in the Synagogue-worship in which they were left in some particulars to their own prudential determinations which the Christian Church is not Instance is given in their Synagogal Officers admitted by imposition of hands when neither their office and authority nor
Form then I hope they will not blame us though we refuse to subject unto it as we would refuse subjection to one in the Commonwealth who is not an Officer according to Law Professing withal for my self and I dare say for all the Nonconformists in England that if it can be made good that Christ hath appointed such a Government in his Church we will most willingly subject unto it being glad we are eased of such a burden Pride shall never hinder us though that be so much charged upon us For the first the Doctor meets with several arguments that some have produced to prove there must be a Form appointed and he answers them but his answers do not satisfie I had prepared a reply to his answers but lay it by To their Arguments I would add one or two more First if Christ hath determined no form of Government in his Church then the Form may be Monarchical and Bellarmine's argument to prove it for the prevention of Schism will carry it a simili saith he c. de Rom. Pontif. l. 1. c. 9. Dr. Stillingfleet might have spared the seventh Chapter of his Rational Account wherein he labours to disprove the Jesuit arguing for the Monarchical Form Kings are supream in all cases Ecclesiastical says the Church of England the supream Magistrate may determine the Form says Doctor Stillingfleet then the Ten Kings may give their power to the Beast without any error A Pastor and a Deacon may serve at first while believers are few but when the Church is enlarged to a whole Nation there must be another Form of Government saith the Doctor p. 180. Irenic Go on Sir when the Church is enlarged to many Nations there may be another Form and why not then Monarchical Christ having determined none as the Doctor saith Above one thousand Presbyters in a Diocess may devolve the exercise of that power which Christ hath committed to them actu primo to one person according to Dr. Stillingfleet so may ten thousand as well for ought I know to one Bishop and he may exercise it by his Arch-deacon Chancellor Commissaries as well as now 2ly If God determine a Form of Government in the Jewish Church then Christ in the Christian Church Christs Kingly-Government in the heart is secret none can see that his visible Government by which he is made known to the world is known by his Ordinances Government of his House as our Courts at Westminster Sessions and Assizes shew our Kings Government with the Profession of the Christian Faith and conversation of Christians accordingly He is faithful in his house Heb. 3.6 that House is his Church which he builds not the Commonwealth qua sic 3ly To determine a Form of Government argues more Soveraignty more Perfection more Wisdom in the supream Governour than to appoint only an unformed Government as it were a meer materiae prima If a Prince give a Charter to a Corporation a Patent to a Colony he appoints the form of their Government He that gives the form in other things gives the perfection of the thing Christs Form in the Church carries authority and hath an awe upon the hearts of Believers this notion brings Christ in his wisdom and Soveraignty below an earthly Prince 4ly Dr. Stillingfleet hath affirmed Christ hath appointed a form of Government in his Church for whereas the Jesuit is pleading for the Monarchical form of the Church-Government because wise men have thought that to be best the Doctor answers What is this to the proving what Government Christ hath appointed in his Church for that is the best Government of the Church not which Philosophers and Politicians have thought best but which our Saviour hath appointed in his word Ration Account p. 464. then Christ hath appointed a form in his word and I hope that is Jure Divino else the Jesuit is not answered We need no more proof 2. For the second Quest What then is that form A. I shall lay several Propositions and clear them by Scripture First Prop. In all Churches in the New Testament where we read of Elders we read of several Elders in one Church we never read but of one Elder in a Church that I call to mind 1. In the Church of Jerusalem one Church but divers Elders Act. 15.6 23 v. 16. ch 4. 2ly In the Church of the Romans one Church but several Elders as Rom. 12.6 c. 3ly In the Church at Antioch one Church but more Elders Act. 13.1 4ly In the Church of Corinth there were divers Elders witness the Schism 5ly In the Church of Ephesus divers Elders Act. 20.17 6ly In the Church of Philippi were several Elders Phil. 1.1 So Polycarpus's Epistle to the Church declares 7ly In the Church of the Colossians several Elders Col. 1.7 4.17 Epaphras and Archippus we are sure of the Dutch say Onesimus also from Ch. 4.9 8ly In the Church of the Thessalonians were several Elders 1 Thes 5.12 Let any man that opposes me produce one Church where there was but one single Pastor though if it were so it will not save us for the Churches then had the Apostles living among them and could help that single Pastor if the Church were but new planted 9ly In Act 14.24 The Apostles ordained them Elders not an Elder in every Church Mr. Thorndike one of your own joining this Text with Tit. 1.5 crosses Dr. Stillingfleet's gloss on the Text i. e. saith the Doctor no Church wanted an Elder not that every Church had more Elders but Mr. Thorndike thus not meaning one Elder in a place but Presbyteries Colledg of Presbyters with common advice to order the Churches planted in those cities This agrees with the plain Gramar of the Text 2. with eight examples I gave before 3ly The Syriack is full for our sense The Doctor while he labours to darken this Text forgets himself strangely for p. 239. He lays this for a foundation to clear the Apostolical practise viz. that the Apostles in framing Churches did observe the customs of the Jewish Synagogues And p. 248. Having cleared that there was a peculiar form of Government in the Synagogues and that the Apostles copied out the Government of the Christian Churches by them Now p. 429. he tells us there were divers Rulers in a Synagogue is evident from Act. 13.15 he supposes Ten wise men did jointly concur for ruling the affairs of the Synagogue p. 250. so many Elders to make a Bench. Strange the Doctor should forget his foundation For Act. 20.17 Dr. Stillingfleet Dr. Hammond with Irenaeus darken that Text. I might have shown how cross Dr. Hammond and Irenaeus are one to another Forsooth the Bishops of Asia not only the Elders of Ephesus were sent for according to Hammond Grotius is clear against Hammond de Imper. p. 343 393. But I should answer thus 1. Consider how many miles Philippi was distant from Jerusalem the way Paul sailed c. according to Bunting who gives an account of
them in the Apocalyps only to Asia Was not Rome a Metropoles and there a Church 2ly Are you sure these were all Metropoles It seems there is some question about Philadelphia and your solution does not satisfie So for Thyatira it seems Pliny doth not give it this honour but Ptolomy doth So that we must rest upon a Humane Faith and prove which of these was the truest Writer 3ly But are you sure there were no more Churches in Asia than fell under the seven Archbishops Which of these was Archbishop to the Churches in Galatia that was a Province in Asia but none of these Cities Metropolis there for Ancyra was Antioch a Metropolis then under none of these yet there a Church To which I pray did Colosse belong Cappadocia Pontus Bithinia were all Provinces in Asia and in these were Churches no doubt for the Apostle writing to the Believers in these Provinces 1 Pet. 1.1 in the 5th Chap. v. 1 2. He charges the Elders to feed the flock Yet none of the seven Churches were Metropoles in any of these Provinces I could instance in divers more This I suppose the Doctor Preached to make amends for the fault he committed in being ordained first by Presbyters for now he talks of Archbishops in the Apostles days whereas Mr. Thorndike pag. 45. Prim. Gov. and the old Episcopal men tell us Archbishops came in long after As for your discourse from p. 60. to the end in which you tell your Reader something concerning Rules about Order Decency Circumstantials in Religion Adiaphorus matters c. and what the Church may do to preserve it self against opposers that thereby p. 62. you might justifie the punishment inflicted upon us for our Nonconformity Sir this is but the old Cheat to blind the people as if we opposed Order Decency and Circumstantials in Religion and for the punishment inflicted will you justifie it that Governours may for every errour in things pertaining to God punish their people for not conforming to them as we are punished but how much less then for non-conforming to Humane Inventions in the Worship of God which as yet all the Pulpits and Presses have not proved to be our error I mean our non conformity to them but our Duty And for that which p. 61. you would bring as a proof viz. That the Churches Determination upon some particu ars in conformity to the general command is no addition to the Rule c. It is very true if there be a conformity to the general command but if you will undertake as here you implicitely assert to prove that the Forms of Prayer Ceremonies Prelacy Re-ordination Abjuration of the Covenant all which are imposed upon us are all of them but particulars conformable to the general command of God Sir let us but have the liberty of the Press and you shall soon find one that will answer you I suppose there are but few pious Conformists in England that will justifie the casting of about two thousand Ministers out of their work because they could not submit to these Impositions in the matters of God had it been in things concerning the Commonwealth that had been another case then let him blame us Whence we are quite mistaken in Dr. Templer A POSTSCRIPT to the Reverend Dr. STILLINGFLEET SIR THE former pages were printed off sooner than I was aware of but give me leave to add these lines to clear my self from that sin of Schism which which you charge me among my Brethren a little further since I still continue the same love and honourable respects to you Three cases there are you tell us p. 213. in which the Sripture allows of Separation 1. Idolatrous worship 2. False doctrine imposed 3. Indifferent things made necessary to salvation of this latter one word by and by But there are two others wherein Paul gives particular directions but such as do not amount to separation viz. 1. Different opinions about meats and drinks observation of Jewish Holy-days In these points he advises not to censure one another but notwithstanding this difference join together as Christians in the duties common to them all Thus you A. Sir This is very true accordingly as I meet with Christians of different apprehensions Episcopal Presbyterian Independent Anabaptists some few of which I have found sober men and sound in all points but that let these men be sound in the faith and walk with a Gospel-conversation subjecting to Church government though in their different ways I give the Lords Supper to them all refusing communion with none for these opinions 2. But my good Brother are you not beside the question Did they in those duties which were common to them all as Christians impose such things as the Lord never imposed as terms of Communion This is our case both in Prayer Baptism Lords Supper Discipline which are duties common to us all in all these you impose your own inventions not our Lords injunctions so did not they And what if they would impose their Jewish Holydays which yet were once Gods own appointment upon the Gentiles to observe them who knew they were abrogated Sir you impose Holydays of mens appointing upon us which is far worse God's Authority is higher than yours 2. The second thing you mention is the corrupt lives of men in the Church c. where you explain 1 Cor. 5.11 No not to eat but Sir I prefer your Hammond's explication to which I refer the Reader see his Pararaph and his Notes As to that third ground which may warrant Separation you say viz. The imposing of things indifferent as necessary to our salvation A. Sir is our salvation all that we should regard Is not the glory and honour of God a thing to be attended Is not this glory and honour of his the first thing to be intended in his Worship Is it not his honour when his Soveraignty and Wisdom alone commands in his Worship In case he be deprived of his Worship is this honour to him Sir you make your Inventions though in themselves indifferent yet being commanded by mans Authority to alter in some sort their natures they are the words of your Canon upon the Cross and so necessary you make them that without these God shall have no worship at all Witness Barthol mewday As to the Liturgy which you impose you tell us p. 332. you will say nothing Dr. Falkner having so well defended it A. I know it is imputed to our pride and conceitedness of our own gifts that we use it not Sir I do profess in words of sobriety if you or Dr. Falkner can assure me infullibly that I should be pleasing to God and that I should discharge my Office as I ought only by reading Forms of Prayer I will be as ready to use nothing but Forms as you are ready and resolute to impose them I would use also that Form of prayer before my Sermon which your 55th Canon does command to be used before Sermon and