Apoc. 18.4 how were they made and kept his people else must we therefore hold Communion with Babylon 3ly Christ holds Communion with his people in the Lutheran Churches I doubt not but if they impose upon you the Doctrine of the Ubiquity of Christs Humane Nature as a condition of Communion will you hold Communion with them 9ly Persecution joined to Imposition upon the members of Christs body what Christ never imposed renders the sin of the Imposing-Church much greater and refusing Communion with such a Persecuting Imposing Church is no Schism If Christ doth give us leave to flee from one Persecuting City to another where there is no Persecution then if a City be a Persecuting City by reason of a Persecuting Church surely he doth not bind us to hold Communion with that Persecuting Church 10ly Though one particular Church cannot communicate with another particular Church because of their corrupt Impositions yet if that Church which cannot communicate with the other will admit of those members of that Church who walk as become Christians in all other points excepting those Imposed corruptions which at present they cannot see being blinded with those deluding notions of indifferency and circumstances that Church cannot be charged with Schism though they refuse communion with the Imposing Church for we give communion to their members only exclude their imposed corruptions I do not mean such members as voluntarily took that solemn Oath c. of reforming those corruptions and now return to them again I look on this as a greater sin but for others I know several of our Churches would give them communion I do not say all will but then how are we Schismaticks 11ly Particular Churches may be so corrupt both in Doctrine Worship and Conversation that the sounder members not only may but ought to separate from them to save their own souls from infection and this is not Schism but Duty 12ly The case of those who are actual members of those Churches where these corruptions are is different from those who are no members of such Churches they have something else to do before they may separate 13ly If it be our sin to communicate with such as we know to be notoriously wicked unless we follow the rule of Christ Mat. 18.15 16 c. to seek the removal of them or do not our duty to reform the Pastor Cure of Church-Division pag. 100. or remove him as Mr. Baxtar tells us How we shall communicate without sin though we had nothing else to trouble us I know not that many such come to the Sacraments and who more boldly than they we know which way shall we reform them the Curate hath no Juridical power To the Spiritual Court must we go To the Diocesan must we go we are like to mend it carry Witnesses how many miles when yet the power we cannot own to be of Christ When all is done have a Writ upon our backs to bring us to the common Law and what then Whence to conclude they have dealt unworthily by us who bring the old Nonconformists against us to condemn us as if the state of this Church were the same with the true Church of England POSTSCRIPT AFTER I had finished I met with a Pamphlet Entituled The reason of Episcopal Inspection asserted in a Sermon at a Vesitation in Cambridg by John Templer D. D. The scope of the Sermon is to prove the Divine Right of Prelacy over Elders and Congregations And that the Author might shew himself to be a true Son of the Church he hath given sufficient proof in every particular For the Liturgy that is so perfect that he saith the most accuminated Intellect is not able with justice to charge it with any error p. 18. All then the old Nonconformists Parker Ames Bradshaw Cartwright Richardson Didoclavius c. together with the latter Nonconformists who were appointed with others by the Kings command to review the Liturgy and have given an account what things in it were to be corrected Calvin also for saying he found in it some Tolerabiles Ineptiae are all by this accuminated Doctor dub'd for so many Dunces They must be men of higher Acumens than these that can find any just cause against it these have said nothing considerable But whatever be the opinion of this Author yet Mr. Jeans a man of an acute Intellect one of their own and as great a Zealot once as he can be confesseth when he intended to write in defence of the Discipline and Ceremonies when he read these mens Books he found such arguments in them as were never answered and thereupon layed by his Pen his judgment being quickly altered but if you be a person of a more accuminated Intellect why did you not answer those dull fellows and therein do us a kindness that we might have conformed as well as you He tells the Reader p. 17. If this order of Prelacy had a period the Dissenters would never pitch upon any one way A. 1. The same saith the old Gentleman at Rome these Dissenting Protestants cannot pitch upon one way Hence no period must be put to the Papal Government 2ly You were very cunning Sir to pitch upon the warm side of the hedg thereby to save your selves from persecution and keep your fat Livings then cry up obedience to Governours pity the Martyrs had no better Intellects to have taken this course too and so have saved their stakes 3. If men would lay by their self-interests we might sooner pitch upon one way but so long as he sits at Rome and the Jews are uncalled I look but for little of this unity in the Gentile-Churches But to the main scope of his Sermon Had it been to prove the Divine Right of an Episcopus Praeses or Primus Presbyter as Ambrose calls a Bishop with the Presbytery or Ecclesiastical Senate I should not have been his opposer but it is an Episcopus Princeps and that not with but over the Presbytery superiour in power which he contends for how strongly proved we shall see His Text was Act. 15.36 Paul said to Barnabas Let us go again and visit our Brethren c. That the Doctor intended out of this Text to prove such a Visitation as was then when he Preached and so in England when Bishops visit I presume else he deceived him to whom he dedicates it and the four Doctors that Licensed it See how the Text will force it The Proposition or Antecedent is this Paul and Barnabas two Apostles Act. 14.14 Persons of extraordinary mission commission and qualifications for the office having by their Preaching converted many people from Heathenism to the Faith of Christ gathered them into Churches and set Elders over them These Elders and Churches being but all young Converts and through the relicts of corruption in them and the malice of Satan and his Emissaries without them being in danger to miscarry in Doctrine or manners these two Apostles go to visit the Churches which they had planted
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
to have eat these meats they had sinned in their command nor were they bound to obey them with a doubtful conscience to hazard amnation by obedience to superiors is no good Divinity Yet Sir we do give obedience and will preach up obedience to Princes as much as any other only in the matters of God he is the superior and supreamest Nemini fit injuria cui praponitur Deus For your next Section pag. 442. where you labour to defend your Ceremonies though they have been abused in a corrupt way of worship in Popery As for this Section Mr. Falkner might have spared it for Humane Doctrinal Ceremonies to be annexed to Gods own Institutions we judg them sinful additions intrenching upon the Soveraignty and flighting of the wisdom of Christ though Rome had never known them as if the wise holy God could not have appointed more Doctrinal Ceremonies had he cared for them as well as foolish sinful man but since then these were and are still in the Popish worship and retained here when England threw off the Papal yoke I will consider what he hath said and but touch it briefly 1. Rome then as now it stands is that Whore described Apoc. 17.1 this I doubt not of this judgment were our English Bishops the most learned of them the Professors of Divinity in both Universities and generally of our pious and learned men in this Nation before our troubles began and also of foreign Divines Was it ever known that a chast Virgin as the Church should be to Christ 2 Cor. 11.2 would dress up her self with the reliques of a known Whore Come out of her my people Apoc. 18.4 this is not obedience to that call 2ly It seems very strange that when Gods own Institution came to be abused to Idolatry as the Brazen Serpent 2 King 18.4 that must now be broken in pieces and must a Humane Institution used in superstitious worship in an Idolatrous Church be yet retained in a Reformed Church I shall not write out his Argument at length 1st In Regeneration the bodies and souls once abused to the service of the Devil Lust Idols may yet find acceptance with God in serving of him Ans A strange argument for a learned man If so excellent a Creature as man made after the Image of God under a necessity of obedience to his Creator being fallen from God but by Gods rich mercy the Obedience Blood and Sacrifice of Immanuel and the renewing of the holy Ghost be accepted of God Then a paultry human Ceremony indifferent in its own nature and no necessity for the use if abused in an Idolatrous Church may yet be retained in a chast Church and the use of it acceptable to God This Logick I understand not Consequence denied I could enlarge my answer but will not 2d Arg. From single mersion and threefold mersion in baptizm A. Was the water so baptizing in water a Human Ceremony and Invention or Christs own Institution For dipping in the water or pouring of the water upon the person your Church allow both because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie both If any did dip thrice denying the Trinity of persons to be of the same essence that was their Heresie but if any did hold the Trinity of persons in the Unity of the essence and yet would dip thrice though I do not much like it yet I should not condemn them of Heresie the Text mentions nothing whether once or thrice But prove Baptizing in water to be mans invention 3ly The Christians lawfully used those fountains where the Gentiles drew water for their Sacrifices c. A. And why not did the Heathen and Julian make those Fountains or God make them for the use of Man and Beast shall therefore an Idolater deprive the Christians of those which God made for the use and necessity of Man and Beast What is sold in the shambles 1 Cor. 12.25 But this you are to prove if you will make an Argument of it that when the Idolaters had taken water out of those Fountains carried it to their Idol Temples made use of it in their Idol worship that then the Christians would take that water and baptize believers in it though yet there is more to be said for them than for your Ceremonies because to baptize in water was Christs Institution For the fountains Julian might have Dedicated the Land thereabouts to Idols and Devils as well as the Fountains and so the Christians should be afraid to sow Corn to maintain Life 4ly We meet in their Churches or places they built use their Bells Tenths for maintenance of Ministers Ergo. A. 1. For places 1st Place hath no moral signification as your Ceremonies 2. Place is necessary so not your Ceremonies 3. Those places were built for the worship of the true God and Christ though these blind Idolaters might also intend some Saint But if they had been built only for the worship of a Saint in imitation of the Heathens Demons we would not meet in them but done by them as Constantine did by the Idols Temples razed some to the ground and shut up others 2. Bells It seems you use them all the while you are reading Prayers and worshipping God in your Surplice the Bells are Chiming I thought the Bells had done when worship began 2. Something must be done to give notice to the people what time the worship of God begins so the Bell doth this day to morrow it calls the people to a meeting about Town-affairs 3. Bells have no moral signification in them as your Ceremonies 4. I believe few Bells in England but have been cast since the throwing off Popery to make them musical and none use them for that end No such musical tunes did I observe in Spain but a confused jangling in time of Thunder 3. Tenths Ministers maintenance have no moral signification nor annexed to Divine Worship The people tell you Tenths are Levitical not Popish Though by their savour twice we read of Tenths being paid to God before the Levitical Law But for maintenance poor Nonconformists are not concern'd in this argument 4 The Heathens lifted up their eyes when they worshipped their Idols their gods Sun Moon c. A. 1. Did the Heathen call a Convention and there decree That when men did worship God they should lift up their eyes to heaven as your Convocation appointed these or did Natures light teach them this gesture 2. Were the Heathens the first that in worshipping of Idols lifted up their eyes to heaven Did not Adam Abel and the Saints before the Flood and Noah Sem c. after it lift up their eyes in their worshipping of God If the Heathen will imitate the Church must the Church lay by duty because the Heathen worship Devils therefore we must not worship God 5 I dolatrous sacrifices were practised before the giving of the Law yet God continued and commanded saerifices after the Law A. Your Argument speaks thus much If the Devil will
them in the Apocalyps only to Asia Was not Rome a Metropoles and there a Church 2ly Are you sure these were all Metropoles It seems there is some question about Philadelphia and your solution does not satisfie So for Thyatira it seems Pliny doth not give it this honour but Ptolomy doth So that we must rest upon a Humane Faith and prove which of these was the truest Writer 3ly But are you sure there were no more Churches in Asia than fell under the seven Archbishops Which of these was Archbishop to the Churches in Galatia that was a Province in Asia but none of these Cities Metropolis there for Ancyra was Antioch a Metropolis then under none of these yet there a Church To which I pray did Colosse belong Cappadocia Pontus Bithinia were all Provinces in Asia and in these were Churches no doubt for the Apostle writing to the Believers in these Provinces 1 Pet. 1.1 in the 5th Chap. v. 1 2. He charges the Elders to feed the flock Yet none of the seven Churches were Metropoles in any of these Provinces I could instance in divers more This I suppose the Doctor Preached to make amends for the fault he committed in being ordained first by Presbyters for now he talks of Archbishops in the Apostles days whereas Mr. Thorndike pag. 45. Prim. Gov. and the old Episcopal men tell us Archbishops came in long after As for your discourse from p. 60. to the end in which you tell your Reader something concerning Rules about Order Decency Circumstantials in Religion Adiaphorus matters c. and what the Church may do to preserve it self against opposers that thereby p. 62. you might justifie the punishment inflicted upon us for our Nonconformity Sir this is but the old Cheat to blind the people as if we opposed Order Decency and Circumstantials in Religion and for the punishment inflicted will you justifie it that Governours may for every errour in things pertaining to God punish their people for not conforming to them as we are punished but how much less then for non-conforming to Humane Inventions in the Worship of God which as yet all the Pulpits and Presses have not proved to be our error I mean our non conformity to them but our Duty And for that which p. 61. you would bring as a proof viz. That the Churches Determination upon some particu ars in conformity to the general command is no addition to the Rule c. It is very true if there be a conformity to the general command but if you will undertake as here you implicitely assert to prove that the Forms of Prayer Ceremonies Prelacy Re-ordination Abjuration of the Covenant all which are imposed upon us are all of them but particulars conformable to the general command of God Sir let us but have the liberty of the Press and you shall soon find one that will answer you I suppose there are but few pious Conformists in England that will justifie the casting of about two thousand Ministers out of their work because they could not submit to these Impositions in the matters of God had it been in things concerning the Commonwealth that had been another case then let him blame us Whence we are quite mistaken in Dr. Templer A POSTSCRIPT to the Reverend Dr. STILLINGFLEET SIR THE former pages were printed off sooner than I was aware of but give me leave to add these lines to clear my self from that sin of Schism which which you charge me among my Brethren a little further since I still continue the same love and honourable respects to you Three cases there are you tell us p. 213. in which the Sripture allows of Separation 1. Idolatrous worship 2. False doctrine imposed 3. Indifferent things made necessary to salvation of this latter one word by and by But there are two others wherein Paul gives particular directions but such as do not amount to separation viz. 1. Different opinions about meats and drinks observation of Jewish Holy-days In these points he advises not to censure one another but notwithstanding this difference join together as Christians in the duties common to them all Thus you A. Sir This is very true accordingly as I meet with Christians of different apprehensions Episcopal Presbyterian Independent Anabaptists some few of which I have found sober men and sound in all points but that let these men be sound in the faith and walk with a Gospel-conversation subjecting to Church government though in their different ways I give the Lords Supper to them all refusing communion with none for these opinions 2. But my good Brother are you not beside the question Did they in those duties which were common to them all as Christians impose such things as the Lord never imposed as terms of Communion This is our case both in Prayer Baptism Lords Supper Discipline which are duties common to us all in all these you impose your own inventions not our Lords injunctions so did not they And what if they would impose their Jewish Holydays which yet were once Gods own appointment upon the Gentiles to observe them who knew they were abrogated Sir you impose Holydays of mens appointing upon us which is far worse God's Authority is higher than yours 2. The second thing you mention is the corrupt lives of men in the Church c. where you explain 1 Cor. 5.11 No not to eat but Sir I prefer your Hammond's explication to which I refer the Reader see his Pararaph and his Notes As to that third ground which may warrant Separation you say viz. The imposing of things indifferent as necessary to our salvation A. Sir is our salvation all that we should regard Is not the glory and honour of God a thing to be attended Is not this glory and honour of his the first thing to be intended in his Worship Is it not his honour when his Soveraignty and Wisdom alone commands in his Worship In case he be deprived of his Worship is this honour to him Sir you make your Inventions though in themselves indifferent yet being commanded by mans Authority to alter in some sort their natures they are the words of your Canon upon the Cross and so necessary you make them that without these God shall have no worship at all Witness Barthol mewday As to the Liturgy which you impose you tell us p. 332. you will say nothing Dr. Falkner having so well defended it A. I know it is imputed to our pride and conceitedness of our own gifts that we use it not Sir I do profess in words of sobriety if you or Dr. Falkner can assure me infullibly that I should be pleasing to God and that I should discharge my Office as I ought only by reading Forms of Prayer I will be as ready to use nothing but Forms as you are ready and resolute to impose them I would use also that Form of prayer before my Sermon which your 55th Canon does command to be used before Sermon and
authority it seems are equal His is part of the Canon into which our Faith is resolved so it seems is yours This Christ did when his Disciples were but weak in gifts and grace for Christ had not yet ascended But still two things must be proved 1. That Christ gave them this for a Form a perfect Form as I hear it often expressed 2ly That Christ tyed them up to these words and syllables as you do to yours For the first That it was perfect for the end Christ gave it I doubt not that is to give us a summary of Prayer what we should pray for I shall quote but two or three that you will say were no Nonconformists Maldonate the Jesuit on Mat. 6. Non his necessario verbis sed hac aut simili sententiâ quoting Austin and Beda for his judgment but proves it best from Christ and his Apostles that did not use those very words in their Prayers Grotius on Mat. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. in hunc sensum non enim praecipit Christus verba recitari sed materiam precum hinc promere And on Luk. 11. very fully Doce nos compendium rerum orandarum neque enim eo tempore syllabis adstringebantur These men then judg the matter the Oranda things to be prayed for to be the intent of Christ but not to tye us up to those syllables as you do to your Forms If that will not serve then I will urge the very literal sense When you pray say 'T is not When you pray or say your Prayers then say this but when you pray say So that I should use no other prayer when I do pray but this If that will not do yet it binds that always when you pray this you must say but when at the beginning end or middle of my own prayer Here is nothing And your Conformists do not say it at the end of their prayers before and after Sermon too in that I think you are to blame That this Form of Prayer our Lord left us is perfect as to the end he intended by it I easily yield But if by a perfect form they understand such a form of Prayer as contains in it all the parts that are requisite to Prayer and therefore called a perfect form as the opinion and practise of many would make us believe I cannot easily yield to that Prayer is commonly thus described and I think very fully and truly It is an offering of our desires to God for things agreeable to his will in the name of Christ with confession of our sins and thankeful acknowledgment of his mercies Here are four things expressed as requisite to make up a perfect Form of Prayer They are partes Integrantes or Constituentes of this Totum 1. Confession 2. Petition 3. Thanksgiving 4. The offering up of all in the Name of Christ As for Petition which to speak strictly is prayer in that part we present our desires this is very fully expressed in our Lords Prayer and in this respect it may well be called a perfect Form For there is nothing we can rightly desire but it is reducible to one of these six Petitions and contained in them as Conclusions are in their Principles But let us come to some other Parts To offer up our Prayers to God in the Name of Christ is an essential part of a Christians prayer Joh. 14.13 14. and Joh. 16.23 24. God brought his people to pray towards the Temple so did Dan. 6.10 and Jon. 2.4 c. But this part is neither expressed nor contained in this Form of Prayer If any Heretick will deny that we are to pray in the Name of Christ convince him out of this Form of Prayer if you can For confession of sin I grant it is tacitely implied in that petition for pardon of sin we do confess by consequence we are sinners and have sinned in begging pardon But confession of sin and petition for pardon of sin are two different things yea differ exceedingly a man may pray as most men do for pardon of sin from a principle of meer natural self-love but confession of sin is a thing man cares not for even good David was not very forward to it at one time Psal 32.3 5. much of a gracious spirit may appear in confession of sin Now one would think that this being one part to make up prayer it should be as plainly expressed as other parts are being a principle to which all Confessions different for Aggravations Circumstances c. should belong and be reduced as it is in Petition And as it is in the Commandments we reduce many sins and duties to these Commandments but the Command to which they are reduced is plainly expressed and not tacitely only implied in another So that I conclude with Grotius as before It is a thing often observed men that in their conversation live in open rebellion against God while they are about Divine Worship they carry themselves so prosanely that one would think these persons do not believe there is a God to worship when they should attend to the Word preached they are talking or jeering or sleeping at the Ministers prayer sit on their tails as if no such ordinance in hand but if the Minister come to the Lords-Prayer then clap their Hats before their eyes and mumble over the words and now I hope they have worshipped God well But I leave it let men use it or not use it at the end of their prayers they shall not offend me I have done with all the Scripture-arguments I meet with in all their Books Par. 1. pa. 64. the Fr. Debate I see in that place where he produceth the Form of the Lords-Prayer tells his Reader That the Nonconformists will not give the title of Saint to one of the Apostles for no other reason that he can conceive but their good Dames and Masters do not like it they will not offend their tender ears Sir since you profess your self to be such a master of reason I pray give a reason why we may not as well say Saint Abraham St. Samuel St. Daniel c. as well as St. Paul St. John St. George or St. Patrick forsooth do the holy Prophets deserve so little in comparison of these two last Saints 2ly And I pray give a reason why we may not as well say Mathew Mark Luke Paul c. as well as Clemens Romanus Polycarpus Ignatius Clemens Alexandrinus Athanasius c which Authors I see seldom put the Epithete Saint to them Ignatius in one Epistle six times calls him Paul without Saint Sometimes I have met with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but not with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so commonly though I do not deny but they may use that Epithere too and I not see it But did these Fathers forbear this word Saint so as not at least always as you do to use it because they would not displease their good Dames and
Independents have declared it witness the aforesaid Mr. Norton in the same Book p. 133 who helps us a little to understand circumstances I shall only transcribe his own words Adjuncta cultus licet non praescribuntur in particulari determinantur tamen in generali multiplici ratione How near we and the Friendly Debate shall come we shall see anon 1. Respectu materiae non sunt cultus ipse ne dum circumstantiae a cultu separabiles sed inseparabiles ut tempus locus 2. Respectu finis omnia ad aedificationem fiant 1 Cor. 14.26 3. Respectu modi omnia decenter ordine siant 1 Cor. 14.40 4. Ex natura ipsarum rerum circumstantiis occasionalibus anne natura quidem ipsa nos docet 1 Cor. 11.14 Vbi agit Apostolus de virorum faeminarum decenti habitu in conventibus publicis Ecclesiasticis Porro determinantur aliquo modo in particulari nempe ut fiant tali modo qui circumstantiis omnibus consideratis est maxime conveniens adificationi Si nullus sit error hominis in hac circumstantiarum determinatione constituenda constitutio illa habenda est quasi simpliciter divina Thus Mr. Norton By this we may see the modesty of Dr. Goodman that can tell his Reader so confidently that this is our grand Hypothesis and the Characteristical Doctrine of the Nonconformist party That nothing is lawful in the service of God but what is expresly prescribed in Scripture The contrary to which he might have read in this Author and in others I question not But whether Ceremonies be but such circumstances or only circumstances is the question Let me state the question The Question concerning Ceremonies stated Q. Whether Man may institute Doctrinal-ceremonies or means for a spiritual end impose them upon the Church annex them to Gods own worship yea so that without the use of these God must have no publick worship performed to him That this is the true state of the Question observe the Preface to the Ceremonies in the Common-Prayer Book and the practises of men They tell us in the Preface The Ceremonies they have retained are not dark and dumb ceremonies but are so set forth that every man may understand what they mean and to what they serve and such as be apt to stir up the dull mind of man to the remembrance of his duty to God by some notable and special signification whereby he might be edified Hence we may observe 1. Man owes Duty to God this is expressed 2ly Because the wise God hath not ordained means enough to put us in mind of this our duty to him by his Command Threats Promises and his Ceremonies in both the Sacraments men will institute Ceremonies to signifie and represent to us this our duty to him this is plain for 't is expressed to be the end of these Ceremonies 3ly These Ceremonies are so clear point out and speak so plainly not dark nor dumb our duty that any man may understand what duty or grace they signifie 4ly Whereas our minds are dull to our duty these Ceremonies help to stir up our dull minds to our Duty and so stirring up they help to edifie us These things are clear in the words of the Preface no denying them and in this they speak more and commend more their Ceremonies than ever the great God did speak of his When I have urged the Conformists with these words they would fly off from them what care they for the Preface But in so doing do they shew themselves rational men does any wise man read a Law or Statute of men and not look into the scope of the Law the Preface to the Statute so understand the mind and aim of the Legislators Do they show themselves such Christians as they ought to be by shutting the window for fear light should shine in to hinder them from what they are resolved to do Let the Conformists consider it To proceed 2. That these Ceremonies are imposed upon the Church and annexed to Gods own worship is so visible that there needs no more words about it 3. That they are so annexed as without these God must have no publick worship Witness first Bartholomew-day upon which day so many hundred Ministers were turned out from their publick worshipping of God because they would not subscribe to them 2ly Witness the Parish where I was Minister and divers others where for several weeks yea months the Church-doors were shut up God had no publick worship because I would not conform to these Inventions 3ly Witness a Parish in Suffolk before the unhappy Wars began while Bishop Wren there Domineered because there was no Surplice in the Church the Church-doors were shut up two Lords-days no publick worship performed to God until they got a Surplice to annex to his Worship So that the stating of the Question cannot be denied Now let the Reader observe that worthy Mr. Falkner and tell me which argument of his from Scripture concludes the question If it were no more but the first part I thought it had been only in his power to institute means to a spiritual end and impose them on his Church who is able to make a connexion between the means and the end But it seems mens Ceremonies are so clear bright and speak so plain being not dark nor dumb as they say that they can teach men and help them on to their duty and spiritual ends without the Spirit of God or else the Spirit of God must truckle and come down and make use of their means because they have appointed them which I am sure he hates Do Kings stand upon their Prerogatives shall any man dare to set his own Image upon Copper to have it pass for a farthing in a Commonwealth and yet shall men be so bold to set their stamp or institution upon a ceremony as a means to a spiritual end impose this upon the Church What is this but to incroach upon Gods Prerogative will he not require it But so to annex them to Divine worship that God shall have no worship without them I wonder how such thoughts could enter into the hearts of such men as did own the true God and believed him to be a jealous God and the Holy Scriptures the Law of that God Let me proceed to the further clearing of the Question First These Ceremonies are humane Institutions depending only upon the will and pleasure of man So that all natural Ceremonies such as are found among those that have nothing but the light of Nature to instruct them as lifting up the eyes or hands Bowing of the knees in prayer c. found among Heathen These are excluded this question For these Ceremonies in the question have nothing but some particular mens wills for their ground 2ly These Ceremonies have an Ordained signification though the things in themselves may have some aptness to signifie something yet they do not actually signifie without the Ordination and Institution of man As in
to hinder Gods blessing crave for his presence with us and assistance of us in our Preaching c. so after Sermon to bless him for mercies and to beg for his watering of the seed sown c. For a Text Why did not this Author put the question to Christ what command he had to take a Text and gloss upon upon it Luk. 4.16 17 18 19. Also why Ezra or the Priests Ezr. 8.8 take a Text give the sense and apply it We have a command to teach the word 2 Tim. 4.2 To teach to observe what Christ commanded Mat. 28.20 Shall we not then take a portion out of that word Shall we not take that command and open that word first explain it to their understandings then apply it to their wills and affections as doth the Apostle Heb. 3. his Doctrinal part in Chap. 4.1 the application of it how shall we shew our selves Ministers of the Word but this way shall we take a Text out of our own brains For Psalms Why did you not ask me for a command to read the Psalms in English The Romish Priests will put this question Is there not a command to sing Psalms Hymns and spiritual songs Col. 3.16 Were not Davids Psalms of old commanded to be sung 2 Chron. 29.30 35.15 and the authority we may learn 2 Sam. 23.1 2 3. The Jews sung then according to the Poetry of the Hebrew Language and some have observed several verses in David's Psalms run in Rimes in the Hebrew Our English Songs according to the course of our English Poetry run in Meeter so we sing in such verses as are suitable to our English ears If you will teach us to sing a better way we will follow your way De metro Psalmorum testatur Josephus L. 2 Antiq. Jud. cap. 14. l. 7. cap. 12. and Hieronymus in Prefatione Chronici Eusebii saith Sobnius Tom. 3. p. 68. The fourth Text Mat. 15.9 with Mark 7.7 In vain do they worship teaching for Doctrines the commandments of men To this Mr. Falkner answers p. 361. 1. This Tradition did not refer to the order of the publick Worship of God Ans I hope it was never the worse for that it is well they let the worship of God alone which you do not But saith Mr. Falkner The question between Christ and the Pharisees was whether it was to be admitted as a Doctrine that eating with unwashed hands defileth a man Ans So the question between you and us is Whether this be to be admitted for a Doctrine That men may institute Religious doctrinal or mystical Ceremonies and annex them to the worship of God You teach this Doctrine first as a general Law and then you bring it into practise by instituting and commanding yours by a particular Law I know not where you and they differ only they let Gods worship alone you say and you do not His second answer is that Christ observed the Prudential Rules Answ But Sir do you make Prudential Rules and these Religious mystical ceremonies all one for what you have said of Christ at the Passover I shall add a little more to what I have said already but because Christ sate in the middle of the Doctors as others sate hearing and asking questions Luk. 2.46 hence to argue Christs conformity to Jewish religious mystical Ceremonies is very strange for a man of your worth and learning At the end of that Section I see you condemn the Popish Ceremonies Many of them being Sacramental and designed to be operative of grace and spiritual help But I pray Sir do not you say as much of yours when you tell us that yours signifie such spiritual duties and have such an aptness in them to stir up our dull minds to our duty Treasure out of Rubbish p 43. and help to edifie us And do not you make them Sacramental It is one proper end of Sacraments saith Mr. Cotton by striking of the senses by outward representative Elements to teach the understanding help the memory stir up the affections excite devotion And after The Scripture expresseth the nature of a Sacrament rather under the name sign than seal which consisteth in the Analogy which is betwixt a sign determined to signifie and the thing signified This is so true that I have known Christians who not out of a principle of cavilling but from a desire to help their Faith in the use of the Sacraments that have questioned whether they were seals and have wished for other arguments than usually we give them to help them in their doubts looking on them as not cogent that we give but for signs they questioned them not Thus in our Ceremonies 1. Here are signs 2. Here is a spiritual thing a duty we owe to God signified by them 3. These signs are not dark and dumb but so set forth that every man may understand what they mean or signifie 4. They are apt means to stir up our dull minds to what they do signifie and help to our edification I think you speak plain enough There is as much given to them as was to Gods own Ceremonies which did signifie spiritual graces and duties they owed to God Yea something more All may understand what yours signifie and they are not dark nor dumb but fit to stir up dull minds That they contain external worship also in them and so are as Bellarmine saith of them and these you took from the Papists Ceremoniae sunt pars quaedam cultus Divini Divine and true worship I think may be thus described It is some act commanded by God in which we do reverently acknowledg his excellency immediately serving and having communion with him therein whether that act be such as we immediately offer up to him as Prayers Sacrifices c. or such as we offer from God in his name unto his people as Preaching and Sacraments c. some give other descriptions but I think this will hold This Worship having the Authority and Command of God to warrant it is true Worship If it hath not but only mans invention and authority it may be called Divine worship in one sense but it is Will-worship superstition and false In teaching is worship In vain do they worship me teaching c. Mat. 15.9 It is me they pretend to worship this was in teaching but the worship was vain God teacheth us two ways 1. By his Word 2. By Signs By the last the Pharisees taught spiritual things by their washings as God taught by his washings in the Law so do you teach us by your Ceremonies and it seems very lively Now all actions whereby spiritual duties are taught in Gods solemn worship are acts whereby God is worshipped and such acts are worship as all acts whereby he is obeyed are obedience Some argue thus Those external Ceremonies whose proper use is the honouring of God are external worship but the Ceremonies in question are such Ergo. Others thus All external Ceremonies in their nature formally
elicited from Religion are external worship but such are the Ceremonies in question Ergo they are external worship So that Bellarmine spake plainly and honestly when he calls them parts of Divine worship Hence I see not how the distinctions Mr. Falkner makes about significative signs do help at all but we are still as high as God was and plainly add to his word The Text in the Old Testament Isa 8.20 To the Law and to the Testimony if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them I think no man so absurd to limit it only to that particular case in the 19th ver but this is a standing Rule in all cases concerning God and our duty to him According to this word hence Bishop Hall thus Paraphraseth If any man speaketh either without or against this word it is because he hath not the true light of grace and understanding in him Apply this to both the Questions and tell us according to which word do they speak The last Texts those famous Texts Deut. 12.32 Prov. 30.6 Deut. 4.2 Thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish Addition speaks defect of wisdom in the Law-giver that he is not wise enough to govern his Creatures nor how to provide for his own Worship but we must supply the want of his with our wisdom and intrencheth also upon his Soveraignty To these Texts Mr. Carre and Mr. Falkner answer different ways Mr. Carre p. 56. tells us This we count superstition supra statutum to add any thing to Gods Law or to be too strict in tying our selves to more than God requireth of us But foreseeing how this Text will be turned upon the things imposed he with the other Conformists plow with the Popish Heifers using the same distinctions that Vasquez Bellarmine Cor. a Lapide used to defend their fopperies There is a preserving and corrupting addition a circumstantial and an essential addition the two last he condemns i. e. the corrupting and essential addition To which it is answered 1. To your preserving addition it is a corrupting addition because it is addition Deny the Genus and you deny the Species Addition is denied Particular Laws exactly answering Gods general Law are no additions 2ly Find us such a distinction of detraction or diminishing and show us how there may be a lawful detraction from the word Addition and diminishing are equally forbidden in the Text. 3ly There is no preserving addition brought into the Worship of God but there is another wisdom and will brought in besides Gods Mr. Carre tells us of additions the better to inforce the command the better to perform the service of God We read of a betterness that doth accede to the Worship of God by mens inventions and additions doth not this reflect upon the Law-giver that he hath not sufficiently provided for his own Worship Let but his Worship be performed according to what is written and there will be no want found of any thing besides what is written 4ly No addition could so properly be called a preserving addition as that of Vzzah's staying the Ark to preserve it from falling 2 Sam. 6.6 7. who could use this distinction better than he De Gubern Dei l. 6 p. 203. but that would not save him Upon which Salvian thus writeth Denique Oza ille Levites Dei quid contra mandatum coeleste fecit quod vacillantem Arcam Domini sustinere tentavit nihil enim hinc erat lege praceptum statim dum sustinebat extinctus est Non quia ut videtur ad speciem contumaci aliquid aut in officiosa saltem mente commiserit sed ipso officio inofficiosus fuit qui injusta praesumpsit Salvian knew well enough the Law about the carrying the Ark but in this case when the Ark is in danger of falling what Law is there else Vzzah would not have touched it He aims at this to prove that there is nothing belongs to God ought to be esteemed light Good intentions here will not serve 5ly The Pharisees in their washings c. did but signifie that holiness purity cleansing from sin which God signified in the washings he commanded So they did but inforce the command as Mr. Carre saith For his second Distinction circumstantial and essential addition Essential additions by no means he will admit that is indeed against the Text. But 1. Mr. Carre told us before that Solomon built an Altar more than ever God appointed And Mr. Falkntr will tell us anon that David would build a Temple of his own head and God never appointed it they had no warrant for these but these were essential parts of the Ceremonial worship By these then we may make essential additions to the Worship of God these were the highest pieces of the Ceremonial worship for the Altar sanctified the Sacrifice and for the Temple it is well known 2ly I cannot see how the Church can add any circumstances of her own creating to the Worship of God If she may make one new circumstance and add to the Worship of God she may make a thousand and be changing every week if she will I know no word to forbid her But still I cannot see how Ceremonies such as are in the question can be but circumstances For 1st No circumstance hath a mystical signification of any spiritual grace or duty If it hath a spiritual signification it is by some superadded Divine Institution then it ceaseth to be a circumstance Place in it self is a circumstance but such a place as the Temple is more than a circumstance it is essential to ceremonial-Ceremonial-worship by a Divine Institution 2ly The Ceremonies of the Law which signified that purity holiness c. that ought to be in Saints were not circumstances and these do the same These Ceremonies imposed upon us are not circumstantial but Doctrinal and of Moral signification 3ly Circumstances cannot well be said to be subject to circumstances where then shall we end but mystical ceremonies are subject to time place order decency c. 4ly Circumstances are common to civil actions as place time order decency but these Ceremonies are annexed only to the Worship of God 5ly Circumstances are necessary inseparable from the Worship of God as time and place order and decency ought to be they are inseparable virtute praecepti but these are separable and of no necessity Peter Lumbard puts no necessity in the Popish Ceremonies as you may clearly see in his inquiring into the nature of Baptism Lib. 4. D. 3. c. 1. 6ly Circumstances depend not on the bare will of man but these Ceremonies depend wholly on mans will 7ly The ordering of circumstances in particular is not determinable in the Holy Scripture I do not say what the infinite wisdom of God could have done but upon supposition of the bounds which God did set to his written word Circumstances are many and so changeable that to set down the ordering of every particular circumstance that must occur in
significancy lyes in the whiteness instead of the Surplice when he comes into Chappel the paultry boys were fain to stop their mouths with their Surplices till Service was done lest they should laugh out-right but when Service was finished there was no little noise made in the Chappel The Doctor hearing it sent to know what the matter was answer is returned the Lad is sent for he makes his excuse but that would not serve his turn the Lad was punished I forgot to ask the kind of punishment as for the Smock he sends for an Officer that belonged to the Kitchin and caused a fire to be made and there burnt the Smock Had the Doctor ordered it to be burnt to Tinder and not to ashes he might have made as significant a Ceremony of it though it was black as his white Surplice was And I may say of it as it is said of these Ceremonies they are so set forth that every man may understand what they mean I commend you Sir this is like a Disputant you have maintained Eartholomew-day very stoutly But Sir The Nonconforming Ministers are not the Knaves as your Reddition make them they hate the Frock it doth smell so of the Jades in the Stable at Rome they will by no means come into the Parlor with the Frock so that he that wears the Frock in the Parlor is either the Fool or the Knave according to your Logick 2ly We call them Knaves who cheat the persons with whom they deal I do not call you Knave I have learned more moralily than so which you so much talk of but that you have cheated your Reader I shall make it appear 1. With that piece of Sophistry called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here are Time Place and Livery i. e. your Surplice put together as if there were no difference when as we deny it Time and Place are but circumstances inseparable from the Worship of God hence 't is all one to us whether nine ten or eleven of the Clock whether in the Hall or Parlor if it be best for edification or conveniency of the Church we are very indifferent but the Livery hath a moral signification ordained by men for another end to put us in mind of our Duty to God and a means to stir up our dull minds to the performance of it 2. Here is Ignoratio Elenchi your similitude doth not touch the state of the question the question speaks of one thing and your similitude argues another That by this Livery you must understand some Ceremony and if any the Surplice must be the Argutum is plain for that suits a Livery best and something you would argue as you declare when you bid the Reader make the Reddition In this sense your similitude is very apt it doth represent a Livery indeed but I pray who gives this Livery we can well distinguish between what comes through Rome and that which is Romish Why do you speak so against that Woman in Rev. 17. since you wear her Livery But to this indifferency that the use of them is indifferent I suppose you will not say you declare your mind plain enough They are indifferent and so remain after they are commanded in their own nature no necessity put upon them To Mr. Falkner and this Author I pray tell us what Ceremony you can invent that is not indifferent in its own nature tell us of one Ceremony that is necessary in its own nature 1. All Gods Ceremonies were indifferent in their own nature not one necessary let but God recall his Positive Law I will put on all the High Priests garments and make use of any Vessels of the Temple c. Pray Sir name that Ceremony which in its own nature is morally good or evil 2ly Bread and Wine in the Lords Supper as to their own nature are but indifferent unless you will own Transubstantiation his positive Law make them necessary both necessitate praecepti medii When the Elements have served their use or end the Sacrament's over we eat and drink what remains as other drink c. you make yours a means to edification as well as Christ doth his and so much necessity of command lye upon them that all the Ministers whom you call Knaves that will not use them be the Ministers never so able and holy they must be turned out of their Lords service by your verdict as they are 3ly All the Popish Ceremonies are indifferent in their own nature and may plead as much for the use of them all as you do for yours Yea take their Pictures being in a Papists house I saw the Picture of a very Old man I thought nothing of it the Cloth the Paint or Colours the Effigies the frame were all indifferent in their nature but when one told me that Picture was to represent the Ancient of Days then I understood sin enough in it 4ly The Papists put no necessity upon their Ceremonies as witness their Master Lombard that tells you Baptism i. e. Water applied in the Name c. the Elementum Verbum meeting together make the Ordinance perfect without any Ceremony But since they are thus indifferent as you say and Mr. Carre blaming us for making a Schism because of these which he terms thus Trifles poor needless things such as scarce come nigh to touch the fringe of Christs vesture But to us they appear sinful and did we not so apprehend the things imposed upon us but that we might be acceptable and pleasing to God in our Conformity to them we protest in his presence who searcheth our hearts and will judg both you and us we would not stay one day from Conformity The Question is Whether you may better lay by these things and not impose them being so indifferent or may we better take them up who at least suspect them to be sinful and cannot with a clear conscience yield unto them Are we more guilty of schism that will not take up these things because we apprehend them from the word to be sinful or you that will not lay them down but impose them though you say they are indifferent I challenge Mr. Falkner and all the Conformists to answer it before God If the things imposed be but indifferent as all the Conformists say then Mr. Falkner meets with an argument of the Nonconformists it is urged saith Mr. Falkner p. 434. No such indifferent things ought to be imposed but to be made the matter of mutual forbearance according to the duty charged upon Christians Rom. 14. 1 Cor. 8. Here Mr. Falkner bestows about 32 Pages to take off the Argument and to give us the mind of those Chapters It is very true Sir the argument hath been used by the old Nonconformists and in particular I knew it urged by one and the 13th v. of the 1 Cor. 8. pressed hard upon the Prelate Laud in his Visitation to whom the Prelate gave this answer True when Paul was alone and spake alone
thus he said but would Paul have said so if he had been in a Consistory with the rest of the Apostles my friend made no reply but held down his head supposing thereby he might make the Prelate recall his words this answer was becoming an Archbishop and worthy of Laud To be sure he silenced my friend Only this Sir let me say they used the argument upon your Hypothesis that the things are indifferent but though we grant the things considered absolutely or abstractedly in their own nature are indifferent yet consider them in their use we look on them as sinful To examine all that learned Mr. Falkner hath written would be tedious and needless for I should yield to him in many things had not the state of the question been mistaken Briefly therefore I will consider the case the Apostle had before him and apply our case to it The Lord having in the old Law forbidden divers meats and commanded the observation of divers days when Christ the substance the body was come these shadows vanished Some Believers in Christ understood this they knew though once they were under a Law yet at this time they were indifferent and so they knew their liberty Others because the Law was so express the observation had been many hundred years the words for ever added to those Laws they could not yet understand what the stronger Christians did The Apostle guided by the Spirit of Christ chargeth these stronger Christians not to judg despise refuse or offend these weaker Christians but to receive them into their hearts into Church-fellowship and all Church communion and not perplex their minds with those doubtful disputations or reasonings but wait and bear tenderly with them till the Lord shall reveal that truth also unto them For our case the things in question are no necessary circumstances of Divine Worship as time place c. which are necessary attendants of Worship and Antecedaneous to any act of mans will but such as have their dependance upon mans pleasure only Hence you tell us you may change them when you please Those things fell under the command of God and so not these unless as forbidden by the general Law of God as those meats were by particular Laws For a man a creature to institute a Doctrinal Religious Ceremony to teach men their duty they owe to God ordain it as a mean to help stir up their minds to their duty and annex this to the worship of God yea so as there must be no Divine Worship unless this Ceremony be used it is such high boldness it doth so touch the Lords Prerogative and tacitely so charge him with defect of wisdom as if he had not appointed means sufficient to teach his Creature but we must supply his defect by adding to his word that let superstition speak never so smoothly as it always comes with some pious end in the mouth it is no other but wretched impiety not will we by the help of his Grace conform unto it You who tell us these things are indifferent are yet so far from answering the Duty that Christ commands by the Apostle in these Chapters i. e. to receive us not to judg us not to offend us that in opposition to the command you thrust us out of the Lords work you shut us out from the Sacraments you excommunicate us imprison us and do what in you lye to destroy us both soul and body As to what you say p. 410. quoting Mr. Thorndike with whom you agree It is not meant a bare displeasing of our Brother but doing such actions which tend to occasion some to fall from Christianity disgust Christian Religion for which you quote the 15. v. Destroy not him c. The first part in some sense I should yield but for the latter part which carries this sense that the destruction in the 15. v. was by making them to fall from Christianity as if there were no other way to destroy them but that I conceive humbly that your self with Mr. Thorndike are both mistaken For that weak Christian might be strongly convinced that Christian Religion was true though he could not as yet see the repealing of those Laws upon the reasons I gave before yet through the unkindness pride cruelty of the stronger Christians who would judg despise him and not receive him unless he would eat the forbidden meats as they did and through their example whom he saw to eat he might be put upon a temptation to eat such meats too not in faith but with a doubtful conscience and so doing he was condemned according to the last verse So their pride unkindness and example did help to destroy their brother as much as in them lay Hence in the first verse of the Chapter the Apostle charges them not to trouble such a one with doubtful disputations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. * Non cumeo disputis de usu libertatis quam nondum potest intelligere quod plus anxietatis kaesitationis rudibus animis parit quà m utilitatis Vatabl. In the last verse he ends with He that doubteth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is damned so that he begins and ends with doubtfulness Now had the weak Christian fallen off from the Faith the weak Christian would not have eaten such meats doubtfully and so bring himself under the danger of condemnation for so doing for to be sure he would eat none of those meats which made him fall off from Christianity because he saw Christians eat them there was no danger of his damning for eating with a doubting conscience so that this implys that he who eats with doubting did yet hold his Christianity Thus have some by reason of that unkindness and severity in imposing these Laws upon us been put upon Subscriptions with a doubtful Conscience in their temptations and afterwards have met with that which hath stung them This is the charity of your Church towards your brethren Nor doth that you say p. 435. help it viz. That these different practises had a peculiar respect to those times only of the first dawning of Christianity for the Church afterwards in their Canons condemned all those who observed those Mosaical Laws For we are under the same condition with those Christians who dare not eat the meat then because they had been forbidden in the Law so nor dare we submit to your Humane Inventions in the Worship of God because they are forbidden in the general Law Thou shalt not add Deut. 12.32 They are not according to Christ Col. 2.8 Christ put no such things into the Apostles Commission to Preach Mat. 28. ult So that with a doubtful conscience at least we must practise them and what is next we know Nor doth your obedience to authority help here which so many are glad they have that starting hole to run into and your self so much urge Had these strong brethren in this Rom. 14. been Princes or Archbishops and they should have commanded the weak brethren
be Gods Ape and hateful enemy then God must have no worship and every time the Devil imitates Gods worship God must change his worship and appoint new means of worship I pray Sir did the Devil or God first appoint Sacrifices why may I not think the Devil understood something of the promised seed and the meaning of the Sacrifices and in the following Ages in hatred and revenge against God and hatred of souls drew men to sacrifice to himself not only beasts but men as being the best of Creatures and so most acceptable Sacrifice in the imitation of Isaac that should have been sacrificed and thus he got before God Sir I pray do this shew us where there were Ceremonies first invented by Idolators depending only on their wills as yours do and you tell us you may change them when you please these were used in idalatrous worship and the Church of God translated those Ceremonies I do not mean individual from the idolatrous Temples into the worship of the holy and true God and he approved of them This you must prove or else you speak not home to our Case The last thing Mr. Falkner brings is the Testimony of worthy men about retaining some Ceremonies c. I only say I honour the men but I am of Mr. Falkner's opinion that the holy Scriptures are the only unerring Rule and I will willingly follow them so men where they follow Christ Several Distinctions about significant signs Mr. Falkner makes but I see not how any of them reach the Question no not so much as one 1. Here are signs depending only on the Wills of Men. 2. These signs are Instituted to Instruct us in our Duty towards God 3. These are said to be helps for our Edification 4. These signs are appropriated and annexed to the Worship of God While we Administer his signs we set up our signs 5. He that useth not these signs is turned out of the work of the Lord and shall not worship the Lord. I desire Mr. Falk would either from express Scripture or necessary consequence from Scripture or from the example of any holy and ordinary persons in Scripture approved by God I say I desire from either of these he would prove such signs in this manner Imposed Did Moses ever dare to Institute one Exciting which is one Distinction sign and annex it to the worship of God more than he had in charge from God yea and turn out those Priests that would not use it It is said of your Ceremonies they are not Dark and Dumb but so set forth that every man may understand what they mean May every man understand c truly I have known the Surplice above fifty years but never understood that the putting on a Surplice should properly signifie the Reverence we bear to God and the high esteem of his ordinances till Mr. Falk told me so p. 391. nor I believe did few Preists so understand it It seems then when you put off the Surplice going into Pulpit now you declare a lower esteem of God and his Ordinances Others tell us it signifies Purity others Decency it seems you are not agreed in the ends of your own inventions But for your exciting sign in the Cross many thousands if not millions of Children in England have been baptized with this sign I pray Name but One of these that ever was Excited to fight under Christs Banner by this sign Reason is a word in which the Conforming party glory much all Learning and Reason they have engrossed I pray Sir shew us the Reason how the moving of a Priests finger over an Infants Fore-head in its Baptism comes to have that efficacy to excite that Infant to fight under Christs Banner How the Christians of old used the real sign of the Cross I know I do not go about to justifie or condemn their practise but this is another thing or shadow of a thing no wonder though your own Mr. Carr calls your Ceremonies trifles things of which come no good Surely Sir while you speak of the Reverence of God we should show more Reverence to that Majesty in being content with his Soveraignty and wisdom in his own Institutions and not annex vain empty trifles to them and turn out those men who will not submit unto them CHAP. III. THE next thing required of us is our subjection to the Ecclesiastical Government consisting of six distinct Officers or more that exercise Church-power and holy Writ knows but one of them In the Commonwealth none dare pretend to Office but only such as the King and the Law authorize and appoint if there should be any other their power and actions were null invalid and they liable to punishment But in the Church men can be more bold Here Dr. Stillingfleet's notion if true must help us viz. That Christ hath appointed or determined no form of Government in the Church but left it to the chief Magistrates or Church-governours to appoint the form c. the design of his Irenicon In that Iearned Piece there are several things I must yield to as That the power of Ordination is proper to the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 285. To which let me add what Mr. Samuel Smith a Minister dead above 20 years since told us he with many others being at one time Ordained by the Bishop of Peterborough the Bishop bad them all take notice That he did not Ordain as Bishop but as Presbyter this Mr. Smith would take his Oath to be true yet Bishop Gauden told me The power of Ordination was solely in the Bishop and though Presbyters did impose hands with the Bishop it was out of courtesie Thank you Sir I am not to meddle with this now I presume he would defend this as well as he did the Jus Divinum of Episcopacy in the several sheets that passed betwixt us upon the question but whence then comes Reordination to the same office in the same Church a thing unknown to Fathers Councils Papists Lutherans Calvinists but only to this new Edition of Conformists 2ly I shall yield also to him in this That it is not necessary there should be so many particular Churches as particular Congregations And this is a question of great moment Of this a word hereafter 3ly I agree also with him That the power of Order and Jurisdiction is committed by Christ ex aequo to all Ministers of the Gospel actu primo or habitually p. 197 198 275. By this we may understand what he means by Church Governours in the Question To which I shall speak but briefly though I had prepared a larger discourse upon it Three things then I would prove 1. That Christ hath appointed a Form of Government in his Church 2ly I will shew what that form is and this will prove the first 3ly That form is Jure Divino Consequently if this Ecclesiastical Government which we are required to subject to be not according to that