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
hereafter To conclude this If foundness of Doctrine purity of Worship and a conversation in some measure becoming the Gospel be any true notes of a Church of Christ then there have been and I know are such Churches where no Forms of Prayer are composed much less imposed upon the Ministry that it was but a bold assertion of him to say All Churches had them I find no more in Mr. Carre nor the Fr. Debat I see Mr. Falkner hath summed up five Reasons which have been used by others most of them His first The security of the Worship of God This we had before His second That needful comprehensive petitions for all common and ordinary spiritual and outward wants c. with fit Thanksgivings may not be omitted c. Ans Surely Sir he is but a mean Minister that cannot do this without a Book though I know there is a vast difference in gifts yet there is no true Minister but is able in some good measure to do this the different Congregations are to be considered some mens gifts may serve for some places well that will not for others His third That the affections and hearts of pions men may be more devont c. when they may consider before-hand what particular prayers they are to offer up Ans Who are further off from these and care less for them than your most truly pious men who walk most with God such as can pour out their souls before God in prayer I speak of private men in another manner than most of your Ministers can do how have I heard them complain of these as deading their spirits That truly Sir your argument from pious and religious hearts was quite beside the business they are your formal Christians who sooth up themselves in their outward performances that are the most devout at these But 2ly since I see you have twice quoted the Liber Ritualis in the Bohemian Churches on your side and against us let me give the Reader an account of it out of Comenius the same Author and Book which you quote When a Minister is ordained the Ritual-book is given to him so far you say true but then he goeth on which you conceal this Ritual-book the common people were not to see when the Minister died the Book was returned to the Elders again Not that the Ministers were bound up to those words and syllables in the Book saith Comenius but they were left free This is quite against you He goeth on By this means the hearers were made more attentive and greater admirers of the grace of God For to rehearse only Forms or things prescribed what will there be to excite attention Quite cross to you The reason why they suffer not the people to have these Books is that the people might not slight or despise them Had the people the Books as ours the Common-Prayer Book they would more observe whether the Minister read right c. saith Comenius Thus we see when we go from the Scriptures to Humane Reasons how Reasons clash against one another Comen in Annotat. ad Rat. Ord. Discipl Frat. Bohem. p. 100 101. who adds more that makes against you Something I may say as to the Walacrian Classis whose judgment * Thus in the Dutch Churches Minister preces vel dictante spiritu vel certa sibi proposita formula concipiet Har. Syno Belg. Cap. 11. Canon 21. Apollon p. 172. Comment on Exod. 28. Def. of B. Land pag. 102. you produce against us 't is true what you quore but withal if you please to read the latter end of the first Paragraph you will find them rejecting the ceremonies and forms of publick worship in England introduced in these latter times And in the second Paragraph condemning Forms of Prayer and publick worship though materially well disposed if imposed as absolutely necessary and essential parts of Divine Worship with a certain tyranny and violent command upon the consciences of men I could also quote Rivet whom you quote on your side for Ceremonies he mentions your Surplices in England which you retain ex reliquiis Papismi and saith if you do it in imitation of the Jews or for some mystical signification which you do then 't is not to be born saith he In his pious and learned Homily de Orig. errores grounded on the 2 Cor. 11.3 he saith Mens departing from the simplicity of Christ is the original of all error Christs wisdom is too low for men There you will find something more Dr. Stillingfleet according with him in this tells the Jesuit piously and truly If your Church had kept to the Primitive simplicity and moderation the occasion of most contreversies in the Christian world had been taken away I may say the same for England I will not deny but you may quote many against us But 1. I am of that Faith concerning Churches which the Church of England is concerning General Councils Act. 21. when General Councils are gathered together for so much as they be an assembly of men whereof all be not governed by the Spirit and Word of God they may err and sometimes have erred in things pertaining to God c. even good men may err We know but in part 2ly We have Churches if there be any true in the world that are against these things so that here is the Testimony of Churches against Churches 3ly The Holy Scriptures are the Rule of all Churches to which they ought all to conform Wherefore Constantine said right and as became a Christian in the Council of Nice Let us take our resolution of questions out of the Books that are Divinely inspired To be sure they do not err Mr. Falkner's fourth Reason From the difficult parts of Church-offices of Baptism and the Lords-Supper there a Form is needful c. Ans He that doth not understand the nature of those Ordinances and is not able to unfold them to his people is not fit to be a Minister Christ doth not send fools of his Errand he hath provided for those whom he sends Now if they do understand them and be found in the Doctrine of them which is best known by Confession of their Faith they may be able to compose prayers suitable to the Ordinances 2ly Or if such be composed for your Tyrenes when they first come into the work must they needs be continued when they are grown more able the ablest and oldest men in England must be tyed up to words and syllables as if they were still Novices 3ly Truly Sir you must not much boast of your Form in this Administration for the Parental-Covenant which is the only foundation of the administration of that Ordinance to Infants the God of Abraham and his seed this is not at all taken notice of in your Form Besides many other things which I shall not meddle with now for I do not aim at your Liturgy more than any other in my discourse 5. His last reason To be an evidence
their admission were determined in the Scripture For their Ordination by imposition of hands this he proves out of Mr. Selden For their power and office he proves that Christ owned it Mat. 23.2 3. Though the Scripture had determined nothing about it Ans This Sir belongs to another question viz. Whether in the Jewish Church and if there then why not in the Christian Church Christ did approve of any Officers in the Church that were not of Gods but Humane appointment to preach his word Authoritatively this is a very considerable question but 't is not ours at this time so that this is not ad idem 2ly Yet as to the thing it self Imposition of hands upon men set apart to office was no Humane Invention that Sir you know it was Gods own appointment But whether all that taught in the Synagogues were first Officers 2. And those that had only mans authority for th eir Institution 3. And these had admission by Imposition of hands These are different questions and here we must have Scripture-light to convince us as for Mr. Selden we regard him not nor Scaliger whatever he saith of our ignorance which Quotation of yours out of him I observed well when I read him We are upon things that concern God Humane Quotations and so whatever you bring from Fathers and others I look on them as a Cypher as the Cypher may stand it signifies much and as it may stand it signifies nothing First give me a Scripture then give me Humane testimony suitable to it and it signifies much Yea if there be a Scripture not so clear and plain as some are yet may fairly carry such a sense and there be not another Scripture that doth plainly oppose that sense here the practise of the Churches next to the Apostles and so long since shall carry me into that sense Which I desire the Reader to consider and judg of my opinion because I shall make use of it afterwards but all mens opinions and Churches practises without a Scripture are but a Cypher before or without a figure to me they signifie nothing I know very well that Jews and Gentiles too have a nature that is cross to God in every Commandment our enmity will not let any command escape but even in his Instituted Worship where there is the least temptation there it will shew it self 't is not handsome enough as God appoints it unless we like Apes may dress it If Selden and Scaliger could have given us the practises of such a Church where this root of enmity was not then I should have listned to them very much But to the Argument 1. That all those who did teach in the Synagogues were Officers thus constituted as Mr. Selden tells us I suppose Mr. Falkner will not affirmit the example of our Lord Luk. 4.16 17 c. so of Paul Act. 13.15 16. shews the contrary Grotius we can believe for he speaks with the Scripture De Impor p. 374 saith he Notandum in synagogis Judaicis unicuique exercitato in sacris literis erant autem ferme omnes exceptis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 375. qui mos hodie apud nos viget concessum fuisse sacras Literas Interpretari Afterwards he gives us the difference between the Interpreters of the Law in the Synagogue and of the Gospel in the Church In synagoga docebant quotquot 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 habebant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Ecclesia probati quique honorem testimonio adopti ut Tertullianus loquitur i.e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that according to him they were not Ordained The reasonof the difference he also giveth thus Not only because the Preaching of the Gospel is of more moment than the expounding of the Law but because in the Christian Church the Preachers of the word are likewise dispensers of the Sacraments but the Masters of the Synagogues administred no Sacraments no not Circumcision This is cross to Selden I shall yield to Grotius having Scripture on his side the other not All that teach in the Christian Church are Ordained not so in the Synagogue 2ly Weems exp Cer. Law 122. As to the Pharisees all the Pharisees were not Teaching-Pharisees not Porushim but Parushim Some were but Laick-Pharisees as we may call them saith VVeems Now since all of them were not Teachers and it is agreed by the Learned that many of the Priests and Levites were Pharisees and Gerhard proves from several verses here that these were such no private persons but persons in Office and he with Beza and Hammond ground this Text and Command of Christ upon Numb 11.16 they had Divine Institution 3ly Nor will we refuse to hear those who preach the Gospel soundly as if they expounded the Law truly Christ would have them heard though we judg their Ordination mixed with corruption or doubt whether they be rightly called their Ordination being questioned either because some are Ordained by such who as such are no Officers of Christ and others without Imposition of hands 4ly Dr. Lightfoot understands this Chair de Cathedra Legislativa and tells us that Christ here asserts the Authority of the Magistrates and exhorts to the obedience of them in lawful things And Grotius seems to incline this way and if so this is not to the purpose His second Instance is the habit of the Prophets a rough or hairy garment Ans But was this annexed and appropriated to Divine Worship or was it that garment they wore daily where ever they went so a Minister in his Gown and Cassock if you will make a civildistinction I like it very well but this touches not the question for the Garments in the Synagogal Assemblies out of Suetonius we little regard them if they were used for a Religious mystical signification which doth not appear and so reaches not the question if so you may tell us of the Fact but our question is de Jure His third Instance is from the decent gestures commanded and used in Nehem. 8. ch 9 Standing up c. Ans We like decent gestures very well and if that were all we will stand up at the reading of the Law of the Gospels and Epistles too we shall make no difference being all Divinely inspired Yea if that will content you and our health will bear it we will set uncovered too during the time of holy Worship which in these times is so much in practise and expected over it was in Queen Elizabeth's time though I do not like the ground of their uncovering but the 52 Injunction shews it was their allowance and custom in Sermon-time to sit covered else why do the Injunction require that at the naming of Jesus men should uncover their heads If they sate always uncovered how could they answer this His last Instance is their adding of Baptism or washing to Circumcision initiating their Proselytes Ans I have read indeed of such a practise taken up in the latter time of the Jews
Quia haec scissio maximè perficitur apparet in debita communione Ecclesiastica recusanda id circo illa separatio per appropriationem singularem recto vocatur Schisma Ames Consc Having opened our description for finding out the true Schismatical Church or Persons let me give the Reader my mind under several Propositions First I reassume that which I mentioned before viz. the body of Christ is but one and that Schism is found in the visible body 2ly This body being but one hence then that this one body comes to be divided into so many particular Churches and meeting in so many particular places to celebrate the Sacrament and the other Institutions of Christ it is is but accidental and not essential to this body it being the consequent of that vast number which makes up this one body 3ly Such yet ought to be the Conformity of all these particular Churches unto the Gospel pattern the Law and Rule of their Head in their Faith and Doctrine in their Worship and Discipline in their conversation and practise I may add and constitutions that where-ever the members of this body come they may manifest their Vnity and Christian Ecclesiastical love to and with those particular Churches without any just scruple or doubt It being not in the power of any particular Church to vary in the least from that Rule and Pattern their Lord and Head hath given them for in so doing they deny him to be the Head and make themselves the Head The Head is to direct 4ly If any particular Church shall vary from that Pattern and shall impose upon the members of this body conditions of communion which our Head hath not imposed and such as from the light of Scripture we cannot but apprehend as sinful and yet will force them to subject to such conditions or else no communion that imposing Church is the schimatical Church and the guilt of Schism lyes at their door Let this Imposition be in Faith Worship Discipline or Manners Let the Church be Papal if that be a Church Episcopal Presbyterian Independent Anabaptistical Lutheran Calvinist no matter what the Imposing party is the Schismatick Why do you how dare you if you be members of that Head impose that upon the members of his Body which himself hath not we will not we must not admit any other wisdom or will in things which concern him but his own if we may admit three things which vary from his Rule we may admit three hundred and turn him out from being Head A great stir there is about the power of the Church in circumstances of worship If you mean inseparable circumstances ordering them according to the general Rule our Head hath given for the edification of the Church I know no Nonconformist such a block as to deny it but that the things imposed upon us as conditions of Communion in the Church of England as you call it are such the former discourse hath sufficiently proved the contrary Hence the Church-men of England are the Schismaticks 5ly It is an irrational thing that the Imposers of Conditions in things belonging to God should be the sole Judges of the lawfulness of their Impositions First Because there is but one word or Rule given to which the Imposers and Imposed are strictly bound and the Imposed may understand that Rule as well and better than the Imposfers else how the Protestant party will defend themselves against Rome the Imposer I know not they suppose they understood it better than Rome and so do you now think 2ly The Imposers have sin in them and may sin they are not Infallible therefore their Impositions must be judged by others 3ly If Imposers must be sole Judges and we must obey because they impose then never must the people of God obey the call to come out of Babylon Apoc. 18.4 for Imposing Babylon being the sole Judg will tell you her Impositions are all lawful and therefore you must obey 6ly Christ our Head no where requires but rather forbids our holding Communion with that Church which Imposeth such things as conditions of Communion which his members cannot subject to but with a doubtful conscience Rom. 14 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that doubteth is damned if he eat but not if because of doubting he dare not eat That there are some such giddy Christians who will find such exceptions against any Church that they cannot communicate with a clear conscience though there be no humane invention imposed but only what Christ himself hath appointed I do not deny but then let the guilt of Schism lye at their door But as to your Humane Injunctions we cannot submit to them but with a doubtful conscience at least 7ly There is great difference between a Church in which there are some corruptions but no Imposition and a Church where there is Impösition of Humane Inventions not agreeable to the Word with the first we would not doubt to communicate but not with the second Hence for the examples brought against us out of the Scripture where were corrupt Churches but no command for separation as under the Old Testament It 's very true how could they make a separation there from the Temple and the Levitical Priesthood without going expresly against the Word Might they erect another Temple Is there any such Temple under the Gospel For those in the New Testament 1st Their Churches were rightly constituted 2ly Their Pastors were rightly called 3ly Their Pastors sound in Doctrine we do not read they were charged with unsoundness 4ly For outward scandalous sins we read of none in their Pastors 5ly Their members for the major part sound though some particular members were unsound in Doctrine and conversation yet they were but few 6ly They had Christs Order and Discipline as he appointed to help themselves against those unsound and corrupt members Hence what cause was here for separation what understanding man would scruple communion with these Churches though there were some corruptions Compare yours and these But 1st Where was this Imposition of Humane Inventions in the Worship of God unless some few Schismaticks in the Church of Corinth we do not find the Churches charged with mixing any thing of theirs in the Worship of God 2ly Which of those Churches had sworn to the Great God to reform what was amiss in Doctrine Worship and Discipline and then return to their vomit again 8ly Christ our Head may hold communion with his members living in corrupt Imposing Churches and yet others of his members that see and know these corruptions must not hold communion with them still the Schism lyes upon the Imposer 1st Your Spiritual Courts having Excommunicated many gracious and sincere-hearted Christians for what cause we know a sad thing that such a solemn Ordinance should be so abused But with these gracious Christians Christ holds communion we are sure and will not your Church therefore hold Communion with them 2ly Christ holds Communion with his people in Babylon
observe the 11. and 13. ver going before we may well guess 3. If you refer it to his Office as you do and would thence infer the perpetuity of his Office to the Worlds end I deny that to be the meaning For when the Apostle charges him 2 Tim. 4.5 do the work of an Evangelist c. there the word Evangelist is taken in the same sense with Eph. 4 11. not only Calvin and Gerhard but Scultetus though an Episcopal man yieldeth and it were absurd to think otherwise But that Timothy in the 1. Epistle Chap. 1.3 should be ordained a Bishop as you say and long after this charged to do the work of an Evangelist they must have dull Intellects indeed that know nothing of an Evangelist and a Bishop who beelieve it The Evangelist being one fixed to no place and had the power of Miracles as Eusebius and the Scriptures testifie This was a Commandment so incumbent upon Timothy that his Salvation or miscarrying was concerned in it as he performed it and so it is true of all Ministers but for an Evangelist the French Church the Low Countries Scotland New-England where Mr. Eliot hath more right of Superiority over the Churches of the Indians than any Prelate in the World yet would detest your Doctrine nor any Churches that I know of own an Evangelist As yet then the proof fails Thus we find in Clemens Epistle to the Corinthians a Metropolitan Church forsooth there is no mention made of any such Prelate But pag. 2.62 69. and 73. especially he mentions only Elders without any distinction A Bishop being but Primus Presbyter Primi Presbyteri Episcopi appellabantur Ambros in 4 Eph. as Ambrose calls him it may stand with Episcopus Praeses Thus Polycarpus in his Epistle to the Church in Philippi another Metropolis saith Dr. Hammond there is no menion of any such Prelate but pag. 18. he exhorts them to be subject to the Elders and Deacons answering to Paul Phil. 1.1 For Timothy's being twice ordained and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned 1 Tim. 4.14 which you would have understood of Prophets c p. 45 46. What you aim at in Timothy's twice Ordination I know not whether that we may be twice ordained though first by Presbyters let it first be proved that Timothy was twice ordained to the same Office Timothy first ordained by the Apostle himself you say 2 Tim. 1.6 I pray Sir to what Office say and prove from Divine Writ If the second time ordained not to an inferiour Office I hope the first Ordination by an Apostle the second to a higher Office by Inferiour Officers I pray when was he ordained an Evangelist Nor does your notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 take to be meant of any other Prophets different from Paul for we know that Paul excelled in all gifts 1 Cor. 14.18 as of Tongues so no question of Prophesie Why therefore Paul might not be He to whom the Spirit revealed this concerning Timothy as yet so young and so to take him along for his Companion give us a Reason for it seems there was a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 given 1 Tim. 4.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in 2 Tim. 1.6 he bids him stir up the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was in him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Apostles did convey gifts we know by their imposing of hands though the Presbitery joyned with the Apostle in his Ordination and so I know not above One Ordination that ever Timothy had and that to an Evangelist His third and last Topick to prove the Superiority of this Prelate is the practise of the universal Church pag. 42. To which add his saying pag. 53. As for Prelacy the Essence whereof lyes in a Superiority of an Ecclesiastical person over Elders in a certain precinct it was ever owned by the Church as agreeable to the Canon of Scripture Sir did you deliver this in the Pulpit for a Truth where be sure no man ought to speak any thing but Truth Have not you read Austins Epistle to Hierom Epistle 18. in which Austin writes thus to him Quanquam enim secundum honorum Vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major est c. Surely you have read Hieroms Comment upon Tit. 1. Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam Dispositionis Dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse majores To which A. B. Anselm subscribes in his Comment on the same Chapter What Sir is Ecclesiae usus and Consuetudo the same with Canon of Scripture Have not you read Estius Sent. l. 4. d. 24. calling those Hereticks that are not of your Opinion and undertaking to prove the jus Divinum of Prelacy as you do he saith thus Quod autem jure Divino sint Episcopi Presbyteris Superiores si non ita clarum este sacris Scripturis aliunde tamen satis efficaciter probari potest Have you not read what Medina saith of the Fathers in this point and what our Bishop Jewel naming the same Fathers that Medina did adds Paul himself must be a Heretick if Bishop and Presbyter be not the same according to the Scriptures Much more I might add that I wonder you could write such a line And what Sir will you exclude all those Churches from being parts of the Catholick Church that have not nor do own your Prelacy or what Church do you mean when you say the Church hath owned That so many of the Church were of your Opinion this with your Metropolitan Arch-Bishop brought that Whore in Apoc. 17. to her Chair without which that Prophecy had not been fulfilled to this day so that though it is not true what you say yet if it had been true it had not much prevailed with me but God hath left Testimony against it both in his Word and in the Church As for your notion p. 51. The reason why the Apostles wrote to the Churches that were in the cities which were Metropoles was to shew that all the Churches which were in that Province did depend upon that Metropolis Government and this Bishop was an Archbishop p. 50. I pray Sir which of the Apostles told you this was their reason or where do you find this written The Apostle mentions but but one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Pet. 5.4 This notion I see you are so taken with that p. 51. you tell us this Hypothesis gives the most intelligible account why all the Churches in Asia are reduced to Seven An Intelligible account then we have of that which I had a desire to know but because the Lord had hidden it it became not me to inquire after his secrets but now we have a reason why all the Churches in Asia are reduced to Seven 1. I pray Sir give us since you are so acquainted with Christs secrets an Intelligible account why since there were so many Churches in Europe and those Churches in the Metropoles yet the Lord writes not to one of
discerning it the mystery of iniquity wrought it is no fancy of mine but the Apostles express words The subtil serpent he wrought among the Churches under fair pretences in the second Century some addition made to Worship and Government of the Church in the third Century more in the fourth Century more so increased the Eclipse still under fair reasons till the Serpent had got the man of sin into his Throne and the Prediction fulfilled So hath the Churches coming out of the Eclipse been but gradual in Doctrine Government Worship by our worthy Reformers but as the evil spirit deceived then by Gods permission to bring about the Prophesie so the Spirit of Christ in the hearts of our first Reformers wrought powerfully and so doth the same Spirit still work and will work till the Church be quite out of her Eclipse and comes to be satisfied with the Soveraignty and Wisdom of Christ declared in the simplicity of the Gospel let men call it schism fanaticism or what they please But Sir you tell us of Mr. Ball Mr. Hildersham Mr. Giffard c. worthy men I grant they were so and honour them much and Nonconformists who condemned Separation from your Church and no more was imposed than in their time and this takes up a great part of your Book Sir while some excellent men at home conformed but groaned under the burden as I remember Mr. John Rogers of Dedham an eminent Saint though he did conform I never saw him wear a Surplice nor heard him use but a few prayers and those I think he said Memoriter not read them but this he would do in his Preaching draw his finger about his throat and say Let them take me and hang me up so they will but remove these stumbling-blocks out of the Church How many thousands of choice Christians plucked up their stakes here forsook their dear friends and native Country shut up themselves in Ships to whom a prison for the time had been more elegible went remote into a howling Wilderness there underwent great hardships water was their common drink and glad if they might have had but that which they had given at their doors here many of them and all this suffering was to avoid your Impositions and that they might dwell in the House of God and enjoy all things therein according to his own appointment But what cared your Church for this let Gods people groan at home suffer abroad they shall do it rather than your Church will part with a few trifles as your own Mr. Carre calls the ceremonies Sir is this the spirit of the true Spouse of Christ But as I said the same Spirit will work which acted those holy men till the Church be totally out of her Eclipse what ever those worthy men you mention have said But to speak more close I deny that the state of your Church now is the same it was then when these worthy men condemned Separation from it For 1. There are many thousands now in England who were never admitted into your Church were never members of it then they could not condemn these as Separatists from it This I have proved before from your Interpretation of the sign of the Cross It was not so in their time 2 The Liturgy and the Homilies were then brought in out of necessity because of the want of gifts now it is imposed in scorn and opposition of gifts By what some of your Arch-deacons have spoken in your Courts and others we can conclude no other than it was composed to bring over the Papists to your Church and for several years the Papists did frequent your Divine Service but now it was imposed with such words as in my next that it was made an engine to turn Protestants out of your Church A Member of that Parliament that made the Act for Vniformity visiting his Sister a Lady who told it me related to her what they were about she disliked their Act and told him I see then you are laying a snare in the gate Ay said he if we can find any way to catch the Rogues we will have them 3. Then they were not required to assent and consent c. but now it is imposed with these terms and I am confident that divers who have subscribed with these terms do but lye 4. 'T is true we have the same 39 Articles that was before and those Articles were assented to and assent required in that Church Rational Account p. 54 55. But now you have told the world that Bishop Bramhall gives the sense of the Church of England thus viz. She does not define any of these Questions as necessary to be believed c. Neither do we look upon them as Essentials of saving faith c. Neither do we oblige any man to believe them but only not to contradict them And this is the opinion of the Grandees in this your Church this would have been abhor'd before 5. As those 39 Articles were believed by that Clergy so they did defend them and Preached them but this Clergy can both print and preach against them I mean the great and sound Doctrines in them I do not say all of them I put the question to one of your Clergy and asked him in earnest what he thought of this Clergy as to the Doctrine of the Church of England contained in these Articles he answered me Divide them into three parts he thought two of the three were fallen from it 6. In that Church there were abundance of godly plain-hearted Ministers whose Religion was not confined to a Pulpit but walked among their people as became Ministers seeking the good of their souls I deny not but God hath some such now but for the generality of them I say nothing my self only I can tell you what others have said A learned and pious Divine so far a friend to Conformity that I doubt not but he hath subscribed he told me Though your Church would give him a Living he would not take it because he would not have such an occasion to bring him among your Clergy And discoursing with another of your Clergy whom for learning wit and piety I do honour about Mr. A's Book and his Dialect which you call uncomely writing said he Truly we have such a frothy vain Clergy gone off from that solidity and gravity that become Divine things that if Books come not out in this dress they will but scorn them but in that Book besides wit there is good matter Pridentem dicere verum c. This was his sense of Mr. A's Book But. Sir if such as these be thrust upon us must we own them for our Ministers What Sir will you deny the peoples power of Election which the Papists grant the people had till Charles the Great or till Lewis his Son about 830 years See I pray Pamelius his Annotations upon these words of Cyprian Epist 68. Quando ipsa plebs maxime habeat potestatem vel eligendi dignos
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
Baptism and the Lords-Supper though there was some aptness in the Elements to signifie yet they did not actually signifie till the Ordination and Institution of Christ Such was the washing of the hands De Oratione and putting off the Cloak before Prayer in Tertullian's time which he charges with superstition Such was the girding of their garments about their loins by the Priests in France in Divine Worship Carang p. 150. Concerning which Pope Caelestinus the first wrote an Epistle to the Bishops in France charging the Priests with superstition telling them they might as well hold a burning light and a staff in their hands these having their mysteries and signification as clear as the other For as in the girding of the loins chastity so in the staff your Pastoral Government In the Light-candles the light of good works shining before men are held forth yet Caelestinus reproves them and charges superstition upon them I am sure then these deserve the same Things that signifie by civil custom as the vail did the Womans subjection 1 Cor. 11. in those times have no place in this question the vail was in use many years even among Heathens before Christ was incarnate 3ly These Ceremonies are ordained to signifie some spiritual duty we owe unto God 4ly They are means helps to our spiritual edification being very apt to stir up our minds to our duty 5ly Lastly they are appropriated to Divine Worship yea so that God shall have no worship if these be not admitted Out of this we may make a description of a Ceremony of the Church of England It is an outward sign ordained by men in the time of Divine worship to signifie some special grace or duty we owe to God unto the performance of which and our edification in so doing this outward sign is a mean by its special signification and aptness to stir up our dull minds Before I proceed I observe Mr. Falkner brings many quotations out of antiqutiy to strengthen his discourse about Ceremonies and with these many are taken but for my part I weigh them not at all they signifie nothing to me For the Spirit foretold Apoc. 17.1 there should be a great Whore c. That the Whore there mentioned is the Pontifician or Papal power now at Rome or thus Rome Chriftian not Rome Ethnick I am ready to prove it if Mr. The Whore got not into her Chair per saltum but gradually as the Churches grew more corrupt Falkner deny it That Whore then must be else the Prophecy must be false which cannot be But had all the Churches of Christ and that of Rome which was once a chaste Spouse kept close to the Rule of the Scriptures in VVorship Government and Doctrine it had been impossible for that VVhore ever to sit there Hence the wise God leaves Ministers to their own wisdom and they thought they acted very wisely when they added this and that in the worship of God and formed their Church-Government according to the civil and thus acting freely and wisely as they thought they brought about by degrees the Decree of God the VVhore is set in her Chair as freely as if God had no Decree about her nor reveal'd any Prophesie concerning her So that all Mr. Falkners and others quotations do but serve to shew us how the Churches acted to bring that Whore to her Chair and so sulfil the Prophesie suitable to what Bishop Downham said of Traditions See the Title page But though Mr. Falkner give us these Quotations is he or any man now able to give us a perfect account of the practise of All the Churches in those times some it may be many were far enough from these practises After Bartholomew-day our Church-doors being shut up for a long time I went to hear the Priest in the next Parish He I found was teaching those few that he had present before there used to be a great Congregation and grounding them in conformity and informed them that as God was pleased to institute significant Ceremonies in his Church so the Church thought it meet to appoint her Ceremonies When I heard this that Text Zach. 13.7 came into my mind where God speaking of Christ calls that man his Fellow Indeed for him who is God-man to be called Gods Fellow we can see a reason but how dirty sinful men come to be his Fellows in taking upon them to institute their Ceremonies in his Church because he had done so I could not understand the reason of this Bishop Davenant on Col. 2.20 speaks notably to this point it is too long to transcribe all The sum is this If you be free from the Rites that God did prescribe then are you free from the Traditions of men It is a most wicked thing they should impose this yoke upon you and you are most foolish to submit your necks to it For God would not have abolished the Ceremonial Law instituted by himself that a new one may be invented by men So he goeth on more fully than I transcribe though still he would have Ceremonies for Decency and Order But this is not the state of the Question for the Preface tells us other things wherefore these Ceremonies are invented and imposed Yet that of Decency will not serve the turn of which more presently But to return to that Priest who was thus instructing his people the truth of what he said and what is now in practise you may see in this Parallel 1st God takes things indifferent in their own nature and ordains them to signifie some spiritual grace or duty of man towards God This cannot be denied of seve ral Ceremonies under the Law 2ly God appropriates these to his own Worship the Priests must put off their garments when the Worship is ended 3ly Gods Ceremonies though they had some aptness to signifie yet did not actually signifie but by his Institution 4ly Gods Ceremonies though in their own nature Indifferent yet being commanded by God are now necessary 5ly Gods Ceremonies were so instituted that no Priest must dare to minister without them Exod. 28.43 6ly God punisheth the Priests and that severely if they observe not his Ceremonies Exod. 28.43 1st Man takes things indifferent in their own nature and ordains them to signifie some spiritual grace or duty of man which he ows to God 2ly Man appropriates his Religious Doctrinal Ceremonies to the Worship of God and there only used 3ly Man's Ceremonies though they had some apmess to signifie did not actually signifie but by his Institution 4ly Mans Ceremonies though in their own nature indifferent yet being commanded by humane Authority are now necessary This is their language 5ly Man's Ceremonies are so instituted that no Minister shall perform the Worship of God without them God shall have no Worship without mans Ceremonies 6ly Man punisheth the Ministers of the Gospel severely for not observing his Ceremonies Casting them out of the Lords work spoiling of their goods Imprisonments Excommunications
c. Thus Man runs even with God but if Mr. Carre gives us the true notation of Superstition that which is supra-statutum if here be not superstition and very great boldness with God I am much mistaken Mr. Falkner once or twice tells us though he allows such Ceremonies yet by no means will allow too many for then they would be burdensome But Sir if your Ceremonies have such a vertue in them to stir up our dull minds to our duty towards God where there is one I pray give us ten our hearts are dull enough and we want helps if these indeed be helps He tells us p 419. That all Ecclesiastical Constitutions must be in themselves certainly lawful By lawful I hope you mean agreeable to the Law of God make but this good and they shall certainly be obeyed But this is the thing we much desire which Law of God do these agree with I see and hear enough of the 1 Cor. 14. ult but that this Text will warrant Ceremonies thus instituted by men in the Worship of God I must see and hear more than ever I saw or heard to this day Bellarmine and Vasquez I see make much use of this Text for all their Popish Trinkets and Bellarmine tells us that Holy garments lighting of Wax-candles and their other Ceremonies may be as well proved from this Text as bowing the knee in Prayer But the Jesuit wanted a Candle here I am sure I have often wondered how men of Learning that had read over the 1 1th and the 14th Chap. of this Epistle where we may plainly see what the Apostle points at by his reproving the undecency and disorder in their Congregation should make this Text a ground to set up humane Ceremonies of Doctrinal or Moral signification in the House and Worship of God I shall add but a sew words 1. Decency and Order are no spiritual graces for though the holiness and majesty of the Worship of God is in some measure violated without them yet they are in themselves but external circumstances common to Civil actions Civil Courts and Societies where undecency and disorder are blamed and must be avoided as well as in the Worship of God 2ly Come to Decency how they serve for Decency I know not I think light of Scripture light of Nature and common approved Civil custom should be rules for Decency not mens bare wills For then some men will appoint such Ceremonies of such a colour and such a Form and he saith the worship of God cannot be decently performed without them Another appoints Ceremonies of a contrary colour and different Form and saith the Worship cannot be performed decently without them So many Heads and VVills so many Rules for Decency that we shall never know when the Worship of God is performed decently For the Woman to be vailed as the note of her subjection was the civil custom before the Worship of God was known in Corinth for the woman now to lay it by was undecent 3ly That is decent the contrary to which is undecens but for a Minister to pray without a Surplice is not undecent You know how many foreign Churches will not use it what then is the Worship of God therefore performed undecently in all those Churches Nay appeal to your own Sons the chief Gentleman in my Parish and a Son of your Church told me I think you are as decent and more decent in your Gown and Cassock than you are in a Surplice I have spoken with several Ministers Conformists and they all tell me they would not care if they were all thrown out of the Church only they are commanded therefore they use them But were they such things as without which the Worship could not be decently performed they would not speak so slightly of them and wish them thrown out they are men of reason fit to judg of decency 4ly Decency is of necessity it must be the command and reason for it are clear then we must have a necessity put upon these if Worship cannot be decently performed without them 5ly Decency is as necessary in the Pulpit as in the Desk I hope there is the Worship of God in Prayer and Preaching as well as in the Desk but always I saw the Surplice put off when the Minister ascends the Pulpit unless a Sacrament were to be administred 6ly Decency is necessary in our Family-worship must we then have a peculiar garment to put on when we pray in our Families 7ly They cannot be used to signifie Decency for the thing signified by any outward sign or ceremony does not come into my eye but my understanding but if Decency lye in the whiteness and fineness of the Linnen I see it with my eye As for Order I know not how these help here what disorder there was in the Church of Corinth Chap. 11.33 34. declares and what disorder among the Prophets is intimated Chap. 14.33 there was very great reason for this Rule but I hope very good Order may be in the Church without a Surplice or Cross or Kneeling Mr. Falkner tells us p. 391. that the Surplice properly signifies the reverence we owe to God and the high esteem we have of his Ordinances This Text then for Decency must be layed by The next Text I find in Mr. Carre is 1 King 8.64 Solomon's Altar For which he had no word A. This is Bellarmine's also who joins Jacob's new Ceremony Gen. 28.18 but yet saith Dee quidem impellente sed non expresse mandante novam Ceremoniam excogitavit that is sufficient but for this of Solomon Bishop Hall saith it was by command and instinct from God Diodati that he was divinely inspired I would have added more but Mr. Falkner lays this extraordinary case by as not cogent p. 309. Mr. Carre's next They had no command for building of Synagogues I answer But they had commands for their holy Convocations on the Sabbath day Levit. 23.3 Place must be a necessary circumstance they must meet some where Levit. 26.31 God threatens their Sanctuaries in the Plural number some Hebrews interpret Synagogues Hence Psal 74.4 8. they burnt All the Synagogues The Temple is mentioned distinct v. 7. Sanctuary in the singular number This before their last Captivity it may well refer to the Babylonish not to Antiochus Mr. Palkner p. 311 as I see Mr. Carre and Bishop Morley in his Letter against Mr. Baxter and all our Conformists make use of Christs discumbing at the Passeover to shew Christ his conformity to the Jewish customs departing therein from the first Institution Bishop Morl. pag. 29. words are these It is certain that Christ and his Disciples sate at the Passover and this no doubt was according to the Jewish Church at that time but it is as certain that this was not the manner according to the first institution which was to eat it standing Read Exod. 12.11 thus he proves we ought to kneel at the Sacrament though Christ and his Apostles sate Answ
the Rites of the Institution but doth much violate the second Commandment concerning shunning Idolatry To stand about the Lords-Table doth partake of the Rites and detracts nothing from the Institution But to partake sitting is the most convenient because by this neither are the rites of Institution violated nor doth it attract danger of superstition or Idolatry but this gesture is commended by the example of Christ himself in the first Institution and of the Apostles after the Institution Thus he with whom Maccovius agrees Before I go any further let me make use of one thing I meet with in the Fr. Debate part 2d pag. 397 399. this Author finding fault with us because we charge these Ceremonies as being additions to the word of God contrary to the command Deut. 12.32 yea Sir I own the argument he answers us These words saith he from the old separate Mr. Ainsworth you restrain to worship when as the Text speaks of the whole Law v. 1. Judicial as well but the Jews never thought that no particular Law might be made agreeable to the general Law And again p. 421. To save Christian Liberty saith he in matters of worship Gods Law hath only given us general rules whereby things are to be ordered in the Church according to which our Governours are to make particular Laws and we are to obey them I answer as to Mr. Ainsworth whatever were some of his private opinions his learning and piety command respect Whether the Judicial Law be there included I now list not to examine This you have affirmed 1. There are some general rules which the Lord hath prescribed in his word or general Laws 2ly Our Governours may make particular Laws 3ly But those particular Laws must be according to and agreeable with both which words you have used the general Law of God As when men cut little Creeks to bring water to a place they let in the water in the great River into these lesser Creeks * Pag. 61. Dr. Templer's similitude of gold being beaten out aims at this Now let Conformity stand or fall according to this saying of our adversary 1. Then produce you that general Law of God wherein he giveth liberty in general to ordinary Ministers in his Church to compose and impose their Forms of prayer upon all his other Ministers whom he hath given gifts sufficient for that office and tye them up to their Forms and syllables in their Administrations Upon this general Law your Church in England have made your particular Law and imposed your Forms The French Church have made their particular Laws and imposed their Forms The Dutch theirs and so on I pray Sir keep to the state of the question 2ly Produce the general Law where God hath given men that power to invent institute and adjoin Religious mystical Ceremonies to his worship Upon which general Law Rome makes her particular Laws and impose hers the Church of England makes her particular Laws and imposes hers the Lutherans make their particular Laws and impose theirs I hear but of few of other Protestant Churches that have such Ceremonies if any at all and without these God shall have no worship 3. For the third I know not whether this Author be of that mind that God hath left us only a general Law for the Government of the Church but appointed no particular Form of Government as the learned Dr. Stillingfleet hath asserted But for the two former we expect this Author to tell us where we shall find those two general Laws That common Evasion Though these things be not according to the word yet they are not contrary to the word will not serve the turn Yea this Author quite overthrows that distinction For he tell us Our Governours particular Laws must be according to and agreeable to the general Law of God A Law is a positive thing so are Governours particular Laws then so must the general Law be To say not contrary to the word what Law is this Non ens is no Law How can these particular Laws be said to be according to the Law and agreeable with the Law when no such Law can be found If the Law can be found then that distinction is but vain Though this Author hath said enough yet because this distinction is so common in their mouths I will but add a few Scriptures in which we shall find an injunction laid upon us that in matters concerning God our duty towards him we look that all things be according to his word The first Text is col 2.8 Beware lest any man spoil you through Philosophy and vain deceit according though we read after that makes no difference 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with an Accusative Case secundum to the Traditions of men according to the rudiments of the world and not according to Christ Expositors differ about those words vain deceit I shall not trouble my self nor the Reader about them but by Traditions of men I see generally they understand those superstitious customs which have only mans authority for their institution such as the Pharisaical Traditions So Anselm c. but Baldwin Davenant Beza Gomarus Diodati apply them to the Popish worship What the rudiments of the world are Gal. 4.9 explains This is certain the troubles the Apostles met with in the Churches arose from these three heads Philosophy Superstitious Traditions and Moses Law Now all these are opposed to Christ if they were according to them and not according to Christ then they were contrary to Christ The second Text 1 Tim. 1.3 That they teach no other Doctrine upon which words Dr. Featly glosseth thus Timothy was to forbid any to preach not only Doctrine that was contrary but that which was beside that which the faithful had received from the Apostles And are not the things in question beside that the faithful received from the Apostles The third Text Mat. 28.20 Teaching them to observe what I have commanded you If he hath commanded these things you impose they shall be observed but not else Thus ran the Apostles Commission but we have found an art to interline the Commission and what is not expresly contrary to my command teach them to observe that also This interlining was under a hedg should an Ambassador thus interline his Commission it may cost him dear The Author of the Fr. Deb. here demands of us What command we have to take a Text and gloss upon it to pray before and after Sermon to sing Davids Psalms in English Meeter I see this Author will play at small games rather than stand out he will join with the Quakers for an argument 1st But Sir remember first your own words a general Law will help to serve our turn as to Prayer We have a command for it the time when left to our prudence We think when we are to preach the Word 't is a fit time now to confess sins to beg pardon for sins that they may not stand in the way
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
all the miles from Port to Port that Paul sailed it was two thousand one hundred and fifty six miles if he mistake not 2ly Consider how many days between the Feast of Unleavened bread and Pentecost for Paul to sail these miles 3ly What time Paul set sail from Philippi 4ly How many days he stayed in several places all which I had cast up 5ly When he came at Miletum thirty days at least were spent he had but twenty days of these he stays eight days by the way besides two days journey going and coming between Miletum and Ephesus as they reckon it from Miletum to Jerusalem 844 miles according to Bunting he stays at Philips house Act. 21.8 10. At Miletum Act. 20.16 He hasted if possible c. yet now he sends for the Bishops of Asia this is the fancy of that learned man Besides if he can prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 17 vers and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 28. be words of the Plural Number then his great learning may perswade us to something For his other notion on Phil. 1.1 the Jewish and Christian Bishop Dr. Stillingfleet hath answered him I add 1. In matter of fact one would think Chrysostom and Ambrose should know a little better than Dr. Hammond of yesterday and they could have given other answers than they have done upon the Text. 2ly When Paul Phil. 4.15 saith O ye Philippians he means the same persons in Ch. 1.4 but if one in France should write to the French Church in London would they write O ye Londoners they are but strangers as the Jews in Philippi 3. In the Church of Thessalonica there were Elders 1 Thes 5.12 but none Jewish Christian Bishops 1 Thes 1.9 These turned from Idols c. not so the Jews So in Ephesus several Elders but no Jewish distinct Elders Ephes 2.11 12. make that clear I could give more answers Prop. 2. The Elders in the Gospel-churches had all of them Ministerial power committed to them alike I mean the ordinary teaching Elders So Bishop Jewel If it be a heresie to say that by the Scriptures of God a Bishop and Priest are all one then many of the Fathers whom he mentions yea Paul himself must be a Heretick Dr. Stillingfleet hath yielded this and we desire no more the truth is the same if he be changed this question Learned Pens have discussed I let it alone Prop. 3. This equality of power which the Elders received from Christ did continue all the time the Apostles lived This I think Dr. Stillingfleet yields p. 275. the Epistle of Clemens to the Corinthians after the Apostles time and of Polycarpus to the Philippians declare the same The Teachers Act. 13.1 2 3. did Ordain so several of the ancient and modern Divines Lutherans and Calvinists so understand it there is a full definition of Ordination If this were Peter's see where is that Bishop had there been an Apostle he had been mentioned The Church of Corinth ought to have Excommunicated the Incestuous person though Paul had not sent to them or here joined with them Chrysostom on the Text speaks fully to the point Prop. 4. The number of the Elders increasing in the Church by reason of the increase of the Believers One of these Elders and most probably that Elder which was first Ordained by the Apostles in the Church had a Primacy as to order and honour but not as to power and jurisdiction over his fellow Elders The Text commands it 1 Cor. 14. ult Order must be and where there is a Plurality to avoid confusion there must be one If there be Twenty Justices of the Peace in a County and the King add Ten more it doth not alter the form of Government At the Sessions one must be for order sake the Judg of the Sessions and the other Justices do not devolve the exercise of their power upon him nor hath he more power than the rest every one exerts his own power So in the Parliament a Speaker must be but no superiority of power nor devolving the exercise of the power of the other Members upon him so it is in the Church That Eminent Servant of Christ Mr. Thomas Hooker alloweth of an Episcopus Humanus in the Consociation of Churches to moderate the actions of the Assembly to propound things to be agitated to gather voices to pronounce the Sentence which passed by common approbation Reason and order saith he forceth such a kind of proceeding Survey Chu Disc p. 1. Cap. 2. p. 22 23. only the constancy of it he denies from experience There is the pinch Prop. 5. This Primacy I humbly conceive did continue in that Elder during his life unless for some default he were cast out by his fellow Elders I shall wrangle with none of my brethren nor differ from them in affection about it but I shall ground my notion on the Angel of the Church Apoc. 2. c. 1st The word doth not connote any superiority of power over the rest no more than when the King wrote from Breda or at any other time to the Speaker of the House of Lords or Commons or to the Judg of the Sessions did or do argue any superiority of power but only order what Isidore saith of the word Angelus Angelorum vox est nomen Officii ne naturae cum mittuntur vocantur Angeli So here all Elders are sent Rom. 10.15 if sent then they are Angels Superiority of power among the ordinary teaching Elders was the first step Antichrist took to get into his Chair 2ly The word is to be taken individually not collectively So famous Reynolds against Hart p. 314. So Beza Piscator Paraeus and many others The instances our brethren give to prove collectively some do not prove it others as the Ram the Goat in Daniel the Antichristian Beast c. in the Revel I humbly conceive give away the Cause for there was ever one superiour in power which I will not yield 3ly That this person was during life c. The Argument brought against it is no Scripture but humane Prudence from experience so Mr. Hooker To which I say keep out but superiority of power and the danger is avoided and no doubt while the Churches kept that out this form of government carried on things very well You cannot then charge me with being cross to Scripture in my opinion 2ly Since you cannot prove me so then I prove my sense from the practice of the primitive Churches of which we have the Histories which to me is of great force in proving the sense of a Text that seems very fair and have no other Scripture to contradict that sense how much the Histories of them speak of a single person who is ignorant and that during life Ambrose or whoever it was as ancient as he in his Comment on the 4 Ephes speaks home to the point see Thes Salmar p. 3. p. 299. 3ly By the Seven Epistles to
the Churches I find him in his Primacy do you prove it was but for one or two Sessions not during his life Certainly that Angel was well known in the Church to whom Christ wrote in some Churches commending him in others discommending though its true the Epistles concerned the whole Church 4ly This Angel is not the Moderator in a consociation of Churches as Reverend Mr. Hooker speaks of whose constancy in the place may be bad but the Primate among the Elders of one particular Church so that his fear does not reach us Q. 3. For the Jus Divinum of this This form Dr. Stillingfleet cannot deny the Apostles did constitute in the Churches but it seems the Apostolical practice though they were guided by the Spirit of Christ is not sufficient to make a Jus Divinum a positive Law for it is demanded 1st There was no positive Law for the change of the seventh-day Sabbath but yet the Dr. tells us the Apostolical practice is sufficient for they were guided by an Infallible Spirit p. 12 13. If so in a matter of far greater moment than in this I hope it is sufficient the Dr. cannot deny it 2ly Dr. Stillingfleet denies the 18. Mat. 15 16. proves Excommunication Then what positive Law hath he for Excommunications Deacons Ordination of Church-Officers 3ly The Apostolical form did best conduce to the end of Government which the Dr. urges much against the Jesuit Rat. Account p. 462. I pray compare that form then and our form now under which did or do ignorance and prophaneness most abound 4ly If not so then one great end of the Acts of the Apostles which Oecumenius calls the Evangelium Spiritus sancti is lost A Lapide in his Preface to that Book speaks excellently 5ly I set up this Form you demand my authority I answer It was the Form they set up who were guided by an Infallible Spirit and Christ owned the Form in writing to it You set up your Form different from it I demand of you shew me your authority and see which is best 6ly If Apostolical practise be not sufficient then you may to Rome for a Form for ought I know I know no stop As to the Author of the Book Samaritanism I am sure the Author was nothing a-kin to the good Samaritan for he shews himself a man of a vinegar-spirit his discourse as to Church-Government is built upon this foundation That Form of Government which appeared for hundreds of years first only and was de facto Instituted of God that only hath Divine right to warrant it p. 10 11. In p. 37. I find this was Episcopacy but this is very false these three terms first only and hundreds of years are not found in Episcopacy The first Governours had power over Bishops and Archbishops if any such Creatures were 2ly They were not the only Governours for the Presbyters governed while the Apostles lived 3ly The first Governours did not last hundreds of years 4ly The first Government was not confined to a narrow Diocess as Episcopacy was In Augustine's time there were in one Province under Carthage of the Catholicks and Donatists above nine hundred Bishops but their first Governours had all Nations for their Diocess and that made their Government Apostolical I am sure there is none such now Again Presbyters were first before Bishops witness your own Tribe that tell the world Episcopacy was set up to prevent Schism among Presbyters after the Schism in Corinth among the Presbyters According to this Author there is no Government at all in the Church for these three Terms are found in no form of Government now therefore I leave him As for his fine language wherewith he courts us as Jack-straws Fools Knaves Peevish c. this Samaritans Oil and Wine we bear it the Disciple is not above his Master There is another Question of very great consequence but for these times not so useful therefore I will only state it and give mens opinion about it and leave it though I had prepared something to speak to it Q. Whether every particular Congregation consisting of one teaching Elder and a number of visible Christians be a particular Church according to the New Testament or may not yea ought not several particular Congregations unite to make up one particular Church By a Church I mean an Organical Church invested with all the power and exercise of the Keys within it self both quo ad actum primum secundum such were the eight Churches I mentioned before Learned and pious Ames Med. Theol. l. 1. c. 39. tells us That a Church in the New Testament is a Parochial Church such a company or congregation as ordinarily meet in one place to worship God Sure I am that ordinarily there is but one teaching-Elder in such a Church And this Church hath as much power as the National Church of the Jews met together Compare his 16 18 Theses great use he makes of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 11.20 so doth a reverend Brother who knew my opinion quote it with a little warmth but my good Brother must prove there was but one Teaching-Elder in that Church else his argument will be guilty of Ignoratio Elenchi five answers more I would have given Mr. Tho. Hooker giving the true sense of Independency saith it imports thus much Every particular congregation rightly constituted and compleated hath sufficiency in it self to exercise all the Ordinances of Christ. Surv. Ch. Dis part 2. pag. 80. But then it seems it must be compleated and to this compleating are required a Pastor Teacher Ruling-Elder Deacon one at least of all these So pag. 4. ib. and without these though a particular Congregation may be called a true Church as a man that hath but one eye one arm or leg may be still defined Animal rationale as having a reasonable soul yet he is but maimed no intire man such is that Church pag. 2. Ibid. I pray how many such Congregations have we The Synod held at Boston in New England Septemb. 10. 1679 the last year pag. 10 11. calling for a full supply of Officers in the Churches speak thus The defect of the Churches on this account is very lamentable there being in most of the Churches only one Teaching Officer for the burden of the whole Congregation to lye upon The Lord Christ would not have instituted Pastors Teachers Ruling Elders nor the Apostles have ordained Elders in every Church Act. 14.23 Tit. 1.5 if he had not seen there was need of them for the good of his people and therefore for men to think they can do well enough without them is both to break the second Commandment and to reflect upon the wisdom of Christ as if he did appoint unnecessary Officers in his Church Thus the Synod Half the question then is gained the Independents yield it men worthy to be listned to for they take up the word of God for their only Rule I know there is a
great question about the Ruling Elder but I am not to meddle with it now Our Brethren of the Presbyterian judgment I suppose yield the question they may and ought to unite to make up one Governing Church but I do not fully understand their meaning Suppose twenty Parishes and Congregations that meet together to worship God and twenty Ministers belonging to them are these twenty Parishes distinct Churches as to Word and Sacraments so that he that is Pastor in one Church hath nothing to do in another Parish as to feeding them with Word and Sacraments but as to Government and Jurisdiction one Minister with the rest of the Classis have power over them all if this be the meaning I am not satisfied in it Dr. Stilling fleet hath declared his judgment they may unite I wish he had pleased to have opened his mind fully about it If he will yield but this That constitution of a Church wherein a Pastor cannot possibly feed with Word and Sacraments watch over and govern his flock according to Christ be it Diocesan or Parochial that constitution is not according to Christ and consequently unlawful as Scripture-light and nature's light will prove it I should it may be come up to him to perform our duty by Substitutes this may please them who make their own brains not Gods word their rule and such we little regard God hath now brought me to old age in my Pilgrimage divers disputes about Church-work and Government I have read absurd unscriptural practices in Churches I have seen woful disorders and wretched effects I have heard and known great scandal but so circumstanced that a single Pastor could not proceed by Mat. 18.15 c. to remove it I have met with one of the ablest Divines in England and exercised in Government was of the same opinion with me all arising from this notion of a single Pastor with such a people making a Church and all which mischiefs might be avoided if the uniting of several particular Congregations into one particular Church were admitted which Scripture-examples and Scripture-reasons will sufficiently justifie CHAP. IV. Of SCHISM THere remains yet one thing to be spoken to viz. the great crime of Schism with which we are charged by the Fr. Deb. in his first and second Book very deeply thus also Dr. Goodman and this is the common language of them all both in Pulpit and Press To which I would take liberty to speak more largely That Schism in the Church is a great crime is readily yielded by understanding men of all parties and no party will own it though they be guilty enough of it At this day all but Conformists are Schismaticks but to the Prelatical party this sin is a stranger yea in the time of our troubles when they were in France and refused Communion with the French Protestant Churches yet a Prelatical person was not then nor can be guilty of Schism but they were Schismaticks in France What is Schism Dr. Goodman tells us p. 112 113. Schism is a voluntary separation of ones self without cause given from that Christian Church whereof once he was a member He opens his Definition p. 113 114. First It is a separation c. i. e. When a man shall refuse to join in the acts and exercises of Religion used by such a society and to submit to its authority So he that refuseth Baptism the Lords-Supper or to submit to the censures of the Church Thus he But what he means by non-submission to the censures of the Church I know not for I know but few Nonconformists that are under the Censures of their Church nor how it will agree with his second which is 2ly It must be voluntary separation So that Excommunicate persons are no Schismaticks 3ly It is separation from a particular Church 4ly Of which Church he was once a member because Schism imports division making two of that which was but one before But according to this opening of his definition I pray Sir tell us how you will prove us Schismaticks For take up your third head 1. I pray tell us what is that particular Church you mean National Diocesan Parochial As for the National I know not how you understand a National Church for as I understand it you cannot prove us Schismaticks For the Diocesan you cannot prove us Schismaticks unless the refusing to submit to Prelatical Government be Schism For the Sacraments belong not to a Diocesan Church quâ sic I suppose Dr. Goodman's judgment to be the same with the Doctor that kept the Act at the Commencement at Cambridg I heard so much of one question that I laboured much to get a view of it but could not in our parts A Conformist told me it was to this purpose Recessio a regimine Episcopali est mortale schisma he told me Damnabile schisma as it was told him I say only this to it As God gives up some men to monstrous lusts in practise so he doth others to as monstrous opinions in judgment in these days So that it must be meant the Parochial Church But 2ly I pray prove that we were members once of that particular Church you mean For the Diocesan we deny any such Church especially as your constitution is to be according to Christs Institution and therefore were not are not members of it For the Parochial Churches I pray how are we members of them 1. Not by our Baptism if that were your meaning I would soon give arguments to confute it 2. Not by my dwelling within such a Parish-bounds though I am for the Vicinity of Church-members yet I was not so simple when I was in my Place to think that all the people that dwelt within the bounds of the Parish where I was Minister must own me for their Minister as if a spot of ground measured out by a Civil constitution must make a man a member of a Church which as such is a spiritual and free society I wish Dr. Goodman could convince all the Papists that dwell within these Parishes that therefore they are members of the Church of England or Schismaticks 3. I know nothing but consent that constitutes any man a member of a Church but that we never gave either to the Priests imposed upon us by a Patron and a Prelate nor to the Parochial Church as you take Parochial Wherefore upon Dr. Goodman's definition I argue where there was no union there can be no Schism But between us and your Church there was no union Ergo no Schism why then doth he charge us with it 3ly Suppose we were members yet still you are to prove there was no cause given for our separation which though you attempt to do yet Sir you must bring other manner of arguments than Rhetorical flourishes and humane stories to convince us But one thing more Why doth he tye up his definition to a particular Church I think a man may hold Communion with that particular Church of which he is a
so nothing but Forms which is the sense of your Church I say may I be but as pleasing to God My reason is I observe it would very much please my corrupt lazy unbelieving heart I should not need then to beg of God the presence of his Spirit to help me as to the matter of prayer nor need I act my faith and dependance upon him as conscious of my own insufficiency 2 Cor. 3.5 for all my prayer is prepared to a syllable I should not then labour with my proud heart to submit quietly to Gods pleasure though he doth substract and not afford that presence sometimes which he doth at other times For here are the same words and syllables at all times his absence or presence hath no room here It may be the Friendly Debater that can jeer I see at Christian experiences will jeer at me too because I give this experience of my corrupt heart but I care not As for Dr. Falkner let but the Question be truly stated and I do not find one Scripture-argument he hath brought that concludes the Question for his own humane reasons I little regard them in divine Worship As for private Christians I know your Clergy look on them as the Pharisees did upon the vulgar Joh. 7.49 but Sir I know more of them than you or Dr. Falkner plain Mechanicks have I known well Catechised and humble Christians excellent in practical piety kept their station did not aspire to be Preachers but for gifts of prayer few Clergy-men must come near them I profess I fall short of them I have known some of them when they did keep their Fasts as they did often they divided the work of Prayer the first began with Confession the second went on with Petition for themselves the third Petition for Church and Kingdom c. the fourth Thanksgiving every one kept to his own part and did not meddle with anothers part Such excellent matter so compacted without Tautologies each of them for a good time about an hour if not more apiece to the wondering of those who joyned with them Such answers of prayer I have known to others that they have praised God for assurance that he had heard them before they rose off their knees and at that time it was done a thing of very great consequence but heard not of it till two days after Here was no reading of Liturgies these were old Jacobs sons could wrestle and prevail with God and yet must be punished if they came not to Church and set above an hour in the cold to hear a Minister read that which their boys could do at home and blessed be God that England in this dark day hath many thousands of such plain but praying Christians however despised and punished As for that Question Whether every particular Congregation makes a particular Church which you deny and oppose the Dissenters p. 234. c. I pray Sir why do you not answer Mr. Alsop's Text which he brings p. 45. from 1 Cor. 11.18 compared with 20. that Text deserves an answer and till that be done they are not confuted you have left out the strongest Argument Sir you must state the Question a little closer else you will not carry it I doubt not but there may be one particular Congregation which may be invested with the power and execute all the power of the keys and I think that is a Church For instance take your own Congregation and a few more in London where four or five thousand meet to worship God so large are your places with Galleries also I would suppose in such a Congregation there would be required four Teaching Elders four Ruling Elders Sir I must own that Officer though I think there hath been an error in assigning him that power which is not due to him and four Deacons Let all these Officers ply their work as hard as they will I doubt not but they will find their hands full and hearts full too unless the Four thousand be the better Christians But Sir will you deny this Congregation to be such a Church as we read of in the Gospel compleat as to exercise of all the power of the keys I am sure you will not As for your Reason for Episcopal Government another ground of difference between us which you give us in your Preface pag. 5. quoting Mr. Noyes of New-England in your Treatise pag. 234. agreeing with you viz. It is hard to perswade considering men that the Christian Church should degenerate so soon so unanimously so universally c. Mr. Noyes Would not Elders so many knowing men at least some of them have contended for Truth wherein their own Liberties were so much interessed Aerius his opposing of Bishops so long after their rise and standing is inconsiderable c. Sir much here might be said but I leave it to those with whom you have to deal as for Mr. Noyes I know him very well and know what may cause him to write for Episcopal Government That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bear with my words for I am sure it is contrary to Scripture and Reason of the Congregational men That the Fraternity or Plebs is the first subject of the power of the keys have made such work in Congregational Churches to my knowledg that their Elders have felt the need of that principle and made them to think again But good Brother what Episcopacy is it you mean if you mean only Episcopus Praeses I am of your opinion it was the government in the Apostles time when Elders in a particular Church were multiplied And if we would but exercise more meekness and patience one with another Consult the Scriptures more attentively we shall find that the true Government and Constitution of the Church takes in somthing of Episcopacy somthing of Presbytery something of Independency But Sir if you mean Episcopus Princeps which is our Case one that hath a Superiority of power above Presbyters with which these must not meddle and this Bishop such large Diocess as ours are and this Bishop also the Sole Pastor over the Diocess as Bishop Morley checking Mr. Baxter tells him that the Bishop of Worcester and not Mr. Baxter is Pastor of Kidderminster as well as of all other Parochial Churches in that Diocess pag. 2. Sir this Episcopacy you and Mr. Noyes have to prove that it was ever in the Apostles time or of Christs Institution for this we utterly deny The Presidential Episcopacy as I may term it lasted as it is conceived by Learned men till the middle of the second Century or towards the end of it your self does not deny it Iren. pag. 275 276. But for this Princely Episcopacy when that began to be set up then began the Degeneracy of the Apostolical Government Though Mr. Noyes makes little of Aerius yet Medina tells the world that Jerome Austin Ambrose Sedulius Primasius Chrysostom Theodore Theophilacct were all of Aerins his judgment and you say Medinas judgment will prove true Iren. 276. So say Bishop Jewel and Learned Whitaker Quam Epiphanius frigidissimis rationibus refellit saith Whitaker Tom. 1. pag. 149. As for their Diocesses beside what I have said before you tell us they were not very large since all the Parishes could communicate on the same day with what was sent from the Cathedral Church Iren. pag. 370. Sure I am what you plead for now does not agree with the last Paragraph of your Irenicum where you were nearer the Truth How they should come to degenerate so soon is easily understood if we believe the 2 Thes 2 3 4 and 7. ver and the 17. Chap. of the Revelation If positâ permissione infallibiliter sequitur quod permittitur which I am sure is true then it is as true if the Spirit foretels what shall come to pass that must come to pass good Austni good Cyprian and other good Bishops by their Superiority of power and large Diocesses did prepare the way for wicked Boniface the third and he made the Catholick Church his Diocess it was impossible for him else to come there had the Churches kept to the Apostolical Government That Counsel and prediction of God was secretly and severely brought about by men This was once your your Opinion Ire pag. 197 198. Though the Elders had equal power from Christ yet being it was to be exercised but in a co-ordinate way with others you tell us they might devolve the exercise of their power to others Iren. 276. and Dr. Templer tells us there is a greater probability of an Vnion of Judgment when all within a certain precinct lie under an obligation to be determined by the reason of One c. when there is only matter of Right and Liberty which require care pains watch but no profit or gain come into the Purse as here we can easily and readily listen to Reason that may take us off from Duty and part with that Right which hath no profit but only pains annexed to it FINIS
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