Selected quad for the lemma: heaven_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
heaven_n	church_n	key_n	peter_n	5,807	5	7.9067	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A57857	The good old way defended against the attempts of A.M. D.D. in his book called, An enquiry into the new opinions, (chiefly) propogated by the Presbyterians of Scotland : wherein the divine right of the government of the church by Presbyters acting in parity, is asserted, and the pretended divine right of the hierarchie is disproved, the antiquity of parity and novelty of Episcopacy as now pleaded for, are made manifest from scriptural arguments, and the testimony of the antient writers of the Christian-church, and the groundless and unreasonable confidence of some prelatick writers exposed : also, the debates about holy-days, schism, the church-government used among the first Scots Christians, and what else the enquirer chargeth us with, are clearly stated, and the truth in all these maintained against him : likewise, some animadversions on a book called The fundamental charter of Presbytery, in so far as it misrepresenteth the principles and way of our first reformers from popery, where the controversie about superintendents is fully handled, and the necessity which led our ancestors into that course for that time is discoursed / by Gilbert Rule ...	Rule, Gilbert, 1629?-1701.	1697 (1697)	Wing R2221; ESTC R22637	293,951	328

THE GOOD Old WAY Defended Against the Attempts of A. M. D. D. in his BOOK Called An Enquiry into the New Opinions Chiefly propogated by the Presbyterians of SCOTLAND Wherein the Divine Right of the Government of the Church by Presbyters Acting in Parity is Asserted and the pretended Divine Right of the Hierarchie is disproved the Antiquity of Parity and Novelty of Episcopacy as now Pleaded for are made Manifest from Scriptural Arguments and the Testimony of the Antient Writers of the Christian-Church and the groundless and unreasonable Confidence of some Prelatick Writers exposed Also the Debates about Holy-Days Schism the Church-Government used among the First Scots Christians and what else the Enquirer Chargeth us with are clearly Stated and the Truth in all these Maintained against him Likewise some Animadversions on a Book called the Fundamental Charter of Presbytery in so far as it misrepresenteth the Principles and Way of our First Reformers from Popery where the Controversie about Superintendents is fully handled and the Necessity which led our Ancestors into that Course for that Time is Discoursed By GILBERT RULE one of the Ministers of the City and Principal of the College of EDINBURGH EDINBURGH Printed by the Heirs and Successors of Andrew Anderson Printer to the King 's most Excellent Majesty Anno DOM. 1697. To the Right Honourable PATRICK EARL of MARCHMOUNT Viscount of BLASONBERRY LORD POLWARTH of POLW ARTH REDBRAES and GREENLAW c. LORD High CHANCELLOR of the KINGDOM of SCOTLAND My Noble Lord I Have presumed to Prefix your Lordships Name to this Work hoping that your Lordship will count it no dishonour for the Greatest of Men to Patronize the least of the Truths of GOD and knowing your Zealous and Pious Concerns as for the State so for the Church of CHRIST as now Established in this Nation My Design in this Dedication is not to seek the Rul●rs Favour having had for many Years the Honour to be more Regarded by Your Lordship than ever I could deserve nor to Engage your Lordship to own our Church against her open and secret Enemies knowing how steadily you have appeared for the True Interest of the Church and of the Nation In utraque fortuna and how fixed your Principles are with respect to both But what I aim at is to express the true Sense I have as I know my Brethren also to retain of your Lordships Wisdom Zeal and Fortitude encountering the Greatest of Hazards and enduring the most grievous of Hardships for that Holy Religion that ye Profess and for the Liberties of your Native Countrey The eminent Post your Lordship is now in as it is a Token of your Princes Favour and His Majesties Wise Choise of a sit Instrument for High and difficult Work So it is the LORD'S Reward for your hard Services and his giving you the Opportunity to do him further Service of another Sort and his Trying you whether ye will Eye GOD'S Glory above all things when ye have the Occasion and Temptation of seeking your own Things as ye did when ye Ventured and lost your All in this World for him GOD expecteth that ye will now Pay your Vows made in your Trouble and that ye will be singly and actively for him the Time is short wherein we can Walk or Work and Occasions are uncertain There will be great Peace in Reflection when our Work is at an end● on sincere Endeavours and Application of Mind to the Work that the LORD hath put in our hand That the LORD may long Preserve your Lordship and continue your Capacity to do Him Service and that he may Blessyour Noble Family with His best Blessings is the earnest prayer of Edinburgh December 20 1697. My Noble Lord Your Lordships Devoted and most Humble Servant G. R. TO THE READER THat I again appear publickly in this Paper War being for my Age Miles emeritus needeth no other Apology than the Necessity that the Months that were so Widely Opened against the Truth and right Ways of GOD should be Stopped and I knew of no other Endeavours this Way when I entered on this Work nor till I had finished it After it was in the Press and some Progress made in it I read the Learned and Industrious Mr. William Jamesons Nazianzeni Quaerela Vo●um Justum wherein the same two Authors that I Deal with are solidly Refuted and the main Subject that I Treat off is Handled which made me think that B●ok might Supersede mine Yet the Advice of others Wiser than my self and my own second Thoughts finding fewer Coincidences in them than might have been Expected And that the one Work is more Historical the other more Argumentative so that they may make up a complete Answer to what our Adversaries have now thought sit to say and Considering that some Debates are here insisted on which he hath not touched and that two Witnesses are better than one these Considerations I say determined me not to stop the Press And indeed the Unaccountable Confidence of these Authors on the slenderest Grounds should be exposed as much as may be while they Build so Important Truths and Practices and press them so warmly on Phrases Words and Modes of Speaking used by the Ancients which signified quite another thing then than what now they are commonly applyed to The Learned Clericus in his Preface to Ars Critica Sect. 3. at the end hath these Words here very apposite Quot quanti viri crediderunt se Historiam Christianarum Ecclesiarum Opiniones eorum qui S. S. Patres vocantur in numerato habere qui revera Hospites ea in re fuerunt nempe Vocabula nuda didicerant aut Voces quibus ex Hodiernis placitis Significationes tribuebant If we lay such Weight on Ways of Speaking of old used as sufficient Arguments for Prelacy it is reasonable to allow the same with Respect to Popery And in that Case Thou art Peter and on this Rock will I Build my Church and I will give to thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven c. shall infer the Popes Supremacy with as good Reason as the Fathers Ascribing Jurisdiction to the Bishop without mentioning the Presbyters at the same time doth infer his sole Power seing as our Lord in another Place giveth the same Power to the rest of the Apostles that here He seemeth to give to Peter alone so do the Fathers often speak of the Ruling Power of Presbyters as well as they several times mention that of Bishops without mentioning Presbyters No Protestant will admit the Consequence in the one Case wherefore neither ought we so to Argue in the other Case ERRATA PAge 1. line 16. read Principle p. 5. l. 25. r. Theorems p. 50. l. 5. r. James p. 136. l. 8. r. Matters of Fact p. 146. l. 7. r. Praeses p. 150. l. 36. r. them p. 181. l. 37. r. approved p. 186. l. 37. r. great p. 194. l. 11. r. Struggling p. 198. l. 38. r. Rank p. 199.

of one person to wit a Prelate The major cannot be called in question for if it were otherways Christ should bid men act contrary to his own Institution which to imagine is most absurd For the minor Proposition Christs Injunction is tell it to the Church which word doth always signifie a plurality of men met about some common work never a single person acting by himself I need not here debate with Erastians who by the Church understand the Magistrate nor with Independents who hence argue for the peoples Church power these my present Antagonists condemn as well as I do But our Debate is with them who are for Church Monarchy whether over the whole Church as Papists or over the several Districts in the Church as Prelatists both of them agree in this that they place Church Jurisdiction in a single person and by the Church must here understand such a person Against this conceit many Arguments may be drawn from the Text it self First the Gradation that Christ here recommendeth in dealing with Offenders for their Amendment that the offended person must first deal with the Offender by himself alone next that failling of its effect he must take the Assistance of two or three if this prevail not he must bring the Matter to a greater number to wit the Church The learned Drusius on this Text citeth the Passage out of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which sheweth that this Gradation was used in the Jewish Church and that as their Discipline as the name of the Book importeth After the Author hath enjoyned the first and second Step as the Text doth he addeth Si nec hoc modo quicquam profecit debet eum pudefacere coram multis ejusque delictum publicare which sheweth that the third Step of Reprehension among them was not to tell the Crime to a single person wherefore when our Lords third Step is to tell it to the Church it is not like he meant a single person however of more Authority than the two or three § 10. A second Proof of this is the word Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never so used but always signifieth a Plurality why should it then be so used here 3. When Christ speaketh of a Ratification of the Sentence of this Church to whom the Complaint is made and whom the stubborn Offender will not hear he doth not speak of that Church as a single person what ye shall bind and what ye shall loose 4. He speaketh of that Church which correcteth the Offender as what may consist of a very small number two or three v. 20. but giveth no hint that a single person can be so lookt on 5. Chrysostom expoundeth this place of a Plurality 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sutlif de Pontif Rom lib primo c 5. argueth against expounding this of the Pope from such Topicks as will militate as much against understanding it of a Bishop in his District his words are Per Ecclesiam non unus aliquis nam hoc verbi ratio prohibet sed plures Ecclesiae praesidentes intelliguntur Ut autem unus Ecclesiae summus Monarcha designetur per nomen Ecclesiae fieri non potest repugnat enim natura nomen Ecclesiae quae est congregatio ex pluribus in uno consistere si propriè loquimur non potest repugnat deinde Patrum interpretatio qui una voce non unum Pontificem sed Episcopos praesidentes Eccelesiae seu ut Patres synodi Basileenses loquuntur Ecclesiae praesidentium concilium designari volunt Here is a plain Confession out of the mouth of an Adversary For it is evident that Complaints must be made to lesser Churches and not to the Universal Church only and why one man set over a Province may be called the Church and one set over all the Christian Church may not get the same Designation is unaccountable It is here objected by some that this place is to be understood of the Jewish Sanhedrim not of the Christian Church and this they pretend to prove because the incorrigible Offender is to be lookt on as an Heathen or Publican To this I reply first if in the Jewish Church where was an High Priest there was not a Monarchical Government much less is there ground for it in the Christian Church 2. That Christ gave this Direction for the Christian Church which then was presently to be set up is evident because this Injunction is given to the Apostles who had no hand in the Government of the Jewish Church and the same power of binding and loosing which here is supposed to be in them is expresly given and called the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven Mat. 16 19 John 20 23 This alluding to Jewish Customes and expressing New Testament Discipline by looking on scandalous impenitent Sinners as Heathens and Publicans is no Argument against what I have said this being frequent with Christ and his Apostles yea with the Prophets long before to express Gospel matters by Old Testament terms § 11. Argument 4. The Churches even in the time of the Apostles were governed by Presbyters acting joyntly without a Bishop set over them Ergo the government of the Church by a Bishop set over Presbyters is not of Divine Right The Consequence cannot with any shew of Reason be denyed for the Apostles were more vigilant and faithful than to suffer such encroachment to be made upon a Power that Christ had given to his Servants It is a most irrational fancy that the Apostles in their own time allowed Presbyters to govern the Church under their Inspection but after their death appointed Bishops to rule alone For first this had been to allow the exercise of a power in Presbyters that not only they had no right to but which did belong to others by Divine Institution 2. What ground is there to say that this ruling Power in Presbyters was but temporary or that it ceased at the death of the Apostles Especially considering that some of the Apostles did long outlive others of them how should the expiring of that Power of Presbyters be determined nor do we read of any ceasing of what Power they once had This is a Fiction that no account can be given of Wherefore our Debate is about the Antecedent of this Argument which I must prove by Instances § 12. And first the Church of Corinth was thus governed not only by the Apostles connivance but by his express Direction and Approbation as in the case of the incestuous man 1 Cor. 5. That a plurality of Church Rulers and not a single person had power to censure that man is proved first the Apostle v. 2. reproveth their Negligence in that they had not cast out this man from among them by Excommunication they were not duely affected with the Crime and did not mourn for it neither did set about censuring of it both these were the effects of thei● not being so sensible of the

more than with rational refutation Acts 17. 19 20. Augustins Doctrine of Conversion is looked on by some as what was new in that time So was Luthers Doctrine and Calvins and that of the other Reformers in their day respectivè If my Antagonist can make it appear that our Opinion about Parity was never countenanced by Scripture nor practised in the Christian Church till of late in Geneva or Scotland Let it then pass for a Noveltie and on that account be condemned but it may be more Antient than the Hierarchie tho for many Centuries it was not practised under the Reign and in the Kingdom of Anti-Christ We are very willing according to the place of Scripture he putteth before his Book to ask for and walk in the old paths but these paths must be such as God of old prescribed to his People as some expound the place of the way that Moses taught them and which they walked in who we are sure did not err as Grotius expoundeth this place of the way of Abraham Isaac and Jacob we know that error hath been abetted under the Notion of the old way Jer. 44. 17. Neither do we think our selves obliged to follow all the paths of some Antient good men more then the Jews were to do as Aaron did in making the Golden Calf tho that was a very old practice and that Calf worshipping had been before Jeremias dayes both Antient and Universal § 5. Some things are to be observed in his Introduction and first the ill words that he very liberally and at 〈◊〉 random bestoweth on these who are not of his way calling their Principles and Writings Lybels Spiritual Raveries p. 2. He insinuateth that we have wickedly combined to defame them p. 3. If p. 4. it be not his business to complain of them whom he supposeth do persecute them I am sure it should less be his work to Rail with such unmanly and unchristian revilings at them who no other wayes oppose him and his Partie but by dint of Argument He doth p. 5 6. Suppose The Antient Ministers of the Word to have been Bishops with Apostolical Authority and telleth us How in the Primitive times they were opposed by men chosen by the People who calculate their Doctrine to the fancies and humours of the Multitude and prostituted the Gospel to promote error and delusion in stead of serving our blessed Saviour they became slaves of the People by whom they were originally imployed and because they were so unhappily successfull as to gratifie their lusts they were therefore voted the most Edifying Teachers Whether this be to vvrite a Satyre or to plead for Truth to the conviction of them vvhom he dealleth vvith vvise men vvill judge It is rather to be lamented than denyed that there are such Ministers in the Christian yea in the Reformed Church but I may confidently say they are not more zealously disliked among any partie of men than among the Presbyterians in Scotland Whom it is evident that by all this Discourse he designeth to defame We preach against this Inclination even as it is in mens hearts and vve censure it vvhen it appeareth in their practise either to the promoting of Error or disturbing the Peace of the Church More of this he hath p. 7. of Ministers reconciling the moralls of the Gospel to mens wicked practises and looser theorms and the severe Discipline of the Antient Church to all licence and luxurie and true faith that worketh by love to airie notions and mistakes Whether these vvords afford us the lineaments of this mans temper or of the Presbyterian Ministers I shall leave to others to determine I am sure they who know the Scots Presbyterians and do not spitefully hate them will not say that either their Doctrine or their Exercise of Discipline doth tend to promote Loosness and Luxurie This Author is pleased to represent them under a quite contrary Character when he findeth it for his purpose Whether the Presbyterian or Prelatick Church Discipline as they have been exercised in Scotland come nearest to the severe Discipline of the Antient Church it 's easie to determine by them who have seen the one and can judge of both without prejudice § 6. I gladly would understand what he meaneth by his Assertion p. 6. That the primitive Ministers of Religion had their immediate commission from heaven and accordingly they endeavoured to restore the image of God in Men To whom he setteth in opposition these ill men above mentioned If he mean the Apostles I shall not contradict his Assertion but must look on it as most impertinent Seing the other who he saith had their Authority from Men were distinguished from and opposite to not only the Apostles but the ordinary faithful Ministers of the Church who were in or after their dayes Also the Assertion so understood could make nothing for Prelacy or against Paritie in the primitive Church which seemeth to be the design of this Passage If he understand it of Bishops who he fancieth to have succeeded to the Apostles this is a new opinion with a Witness and for any thing I know himself first hatched it and we shall allow him the honour of this new discovery that Bishops have their Immediate Commission from Heaven I know no Opinions held by Presbyterians so new as this of one who undertaketh to refute their new Opinions Sure if it be so they must then shew their credentials from Heaven and the signs of Apostles wrought in them As 2 Cor. 12. 12. And these might supersede the King 's Congedelire and their Consecration and also all the debate that is about their Prelation and will excuse us from owning them till we be satisfied in this matter wherein we promise not to be unreasonably incredulous § 7. He proceedeth in his Reproaches and unaccountable Extravagancy while p. 7. He speaketh of the shaking of the foundations of Ecclesiastical Unitie as if Unity were only found in the Prelatical way and trampling on Antient Constitutions with great Insolence and Impiety Supposing without any semblance of Proof● that then the hedge of true Religion is not only invaded but demolished when Episcopacy is laid aside and that without these sacred Vehicles viz. The Antient Constitutions about Prelacy true Religion must evaporate into giddiness and Enthusiasm If this wild talk be not spiritual raverie to use his own words I know not what can be called by that Name It is of the same strain that the extravagance of these last dayes which is wholly charged on Presbytery is boundless and Sceptical and Christianity is more dangerously wounded by the delusions of some that are Baptized Presbyterians then by the open blasphemies of Infidels and that the first viz. the Presbyterians are altogether inaccessible by reason that they pretend to extraordinary illuminations and will not be instructed their Errors are made stronger by their vanity And much more is falsly and injuriously said to this purpose To which I have no other

hitherto been performed we regard little his Railing Accusations that he ●●lleth his Pages with Most of what he here Loadeth the Presbyterians with may be evidently and with good Reason Retorted on himself and his Party For Instance he saith when we represent the Deity as one that is plea●ed with the imaginary Notions that we Groundlesly entertain of Things this is Superstition that Poysons the Soul and all its Faculties Now whether Presbyterians or Prelatists be more guilty of this let the Reader Judge The one think that God is pleased with nothing as Worship but what He hath Prescribed in His Word And that He hateth Will-Worship and all Notions about that which have no Foundation in Scripture The other think God is pleased with a great many Things that Men have have Devised for Adorning His Worship and for an Order and Decency that they imagine to be such but the Lord hath never declared it to be such Whether of the two entertain these Groundless Notions of the Deity which are the Superstition that Poysoneth the Soul and all its Faculties Another Instance to say that such a thing is forbidden of God only because we forbid it our selves is to teach for Doctrines the Commandments of Men but to regulate our Actions in themselves indifferent according to the Prudent Determination of our Superiours cannot fall under that Censure Let us see whether we or his own Party be thus guilty We disowne that we say of any one thing that it is forbidden of God because we forbid it if we say of any thing that God hath forbidden it and do not prove that it is so we refuse not to bear the Blame of such Impiety but it is manifest that his Party use somethings as if God had enjoyned them when they cannot prove that it is so but only the Church hath enjoyned them they Command People to obey to Use their Ceremonies they Urge them with Rigour they do more severely Censure the Neglect of them than they Punish Breaking of Gods plain Commands And yet they cannot shew nor do they pretend to any other Warrant for them but the Authority of the Church which he calleth the Prudent Determination of our Superiors It were needless as well as endless to take notice of all the Fantastick Notions that he expresseth about Superstition and his Ungrounded Suppositions that the Presbyterians are of these Sentiments in which he placeth it what is said may give a sufficient Taste of his Way of Refuting his Adversaries only I cannot pass that p. 29● he insinuateth that the Presbyterians esteem the Means more than the End and separate the Ecclesiastical Laws from their Subordination and Relation to the Laws of God It must be a strange Degree of Prejudice that could seduce him into such Distorted Notions Do we esteem the Means more than the End because we would have the End Edification carried on by Means that God hath Appointed and that He hath Promised a Blessing to rather than by Means of Mans Devising which have no Promise of a Bles●ing or Success It is not only Conscience of Pleasing God but Concern for that End that maketh us so Careful that the Means we use be Approved of God Or do we separate Ecclesiastical Laws from their Relation and Subserviency to the Laws of God we are so far from it that we owne no Ecclesiastical Laws which are without the Relation of Dependency on the Law of ●od or without due Subordination to it and it is on this Head that we reject the Church Laws that enjoyn Humane Ceremonics peculiar to the Worship of God because the Church hath no Warrant to make such Laws if he say that she hath let us see it and because these Laws are not Subordinate but rather Co-ordinate to the Laws of God setting up the Churches Institutions beside his That the Negative Scrupulosity that he mentioneth from Coloss. 2. 21 22 23. is a great Evil we doubt not and if he will call it Superstition we will not contend about Words tho the Reason of that Denomination is doubtful the Will-Worship that is mentioned being rather to be referred to the Worshipping of Angels spoken of v. 18. which is there and also in Conjunction with this Will-Worship called Humility that is a vain Shew of it But nothing of this maketh for his Purpose unless he can prove that our Scruples about the Ceremonies are wholly Ground l●ss as these Scruples were and as the rest of the Abstinc●ces are that he mentioneth wherefore all that he at great length Discourseth on this Head is wholly impertinent If he can prove the Ceremonies to be Excellent and Useful as he insinuateth p. 297. our Cause can●ot stand before him § 18. He undertaketh to prove our Scruples to be more dangerous than these in that the Scruples there mentioned had a Shew of Wisdom but the Presbyterian Scruples have more dangerous Consequences in that they co●demn those Solemnities of Religion which have a direct Tendency to promote Religion in all its most Excellent Branches The import of this Ratiocination is the Way of the Ceremonialists is right Ergo the Presbyterians are to be condemned All this is purely Begging of the Question We deny any such Tendency to be in the Ceremonies and cannot be perswaded of what he saith by his Confident Asseverations and Big Words If I could find any thing in his following Pages that is worth Answering and hath not been already Answered for he repeateth ad nauseam I should consider it The Persons that he knew who were so Fearful and Superstitious that they would not Break up a Letter on Sunday we do not approve nor do our Scruples Countenance such Misapprehensions if we meet with any such for I know none of them but rather observe that an undue Liberty is taken generally on the Lords Day we shall endeavour to instruct them better He telleth us p. 302. the fifth or sixth time that Superstition leadeth to Atheism and addeth that by the Power of Prejudice and Faction it maketh a Man Despise the Omniscience of God and to Venture upon the most Daring Impieties Tho I will not be an Advocat for Superstition nor for Ignorant or Groundless Scrupulosity yet this his Assertion I cannot understand for it is the Apprehension of Gods Omniscience that maketh these Poor Souls who dare not Break up a Letter on the Lords Day to Fear where no Fear is and it is want of all Scrupling even where there is just Ground that maketh People Venture on the most Daring Impieties it is because they are Stout Hearted not because they are Fearful Hearted And how Faction cometh in to make up the Scene I cannot see but that Presbyterians whom he hath concluded to be Factious must be the Persons to be thus Loaded His Probative Instance of what he had said is yet less Accountable It is that the Covenanters when they in their full Career against the ancient Constitutions of Church and State thus

his Prejudice against them doth represent them to him and his Hatred of them maketh him so represent them to the World with Hands lifted up to Heaven abjured the Primitive Stations and these Stations he highly extolleth and thinketh the Presbyterians know not what they are and concludeth that we are bound by the Covenant never to be present at such Exercises of Mortifications c. The Stations were their Meetings on Wednesdays and Fridays for Fasting till Nine of the Clock and for other Spiritual Exercises So Albaspin whom he citeth and his Adnotator Keitombellius Observ. 16. p. 23 24. who also telleth us that this they did primis i●is saeculis quibus miseriis persecutionibus undique quasi perpetuis stiparentur I know no Presbyterian who either hath Sworn against or Condemneth these Stations so far as we have a distinct Account of them have not we in great Towns the same thing on the Matter with these Stations Morning Exercises for Confession of Sin Prayer and Instructing of the People and that of●ner in some Places than Twice a Week That the Primitive Stations are abjured in the Covenant is falsly asserted indeed in the National Covenant or Confession of Faith which was Subscribed by the King the Nobility and the whole Nation they Renounce a great many of the Popes Doctrines and Practices and his Stations are mentioned among them but will any Man who understandeth what he saith or who doth not look on the whole of Popery as Pure and Primitive say that the Popish Stations under the present Degeneracy of that Church and the Primitive Stations were the same thing the best Account that I can find of what now is called Stations among the Papists is from Onuphrius Panvinius de stationibus urbis Romae where he confesseth that their Original is obscure he maketh them in the Primitive Church to have been Prayers with Standing in Opposition to these with Kneeling to which sometimes Fasting was joyned and he sheweth how several Popes Limited them and others appropriated them to certain Days and sheweth how in his time they were fixed to Days and to Churches in the City of Rome as it may be presumed was done also in other Churches He sheweth also their Number viz. in fourty seven Churches ninety six Stations on eighty three Days and telleth us of Indulgences granted to these Stations by Pope Boniface This Term may also be applyed to their Solemn Processions for Perambulating any Piece of Ground wherein they do often Stand at such a Cross or at such a Turning and Rehearse certain Prayers This Supestition is what is renounced in the Covenant and it is joyned with Peregrinations and such other Fopperies He calleth Superstition a Bastard Kind of Worship p. 305. but Scrupling at Ceremonies hath nothing in it like Worship whether Bastard or Legitimate how will he then Reconcile this with Calling our Scruples Superstition The Jewish Superstitions the Murdering of A. Bishop Sharp the Heathens Superstitions that he hath Consulted Juvenal about none of these touch the Presbyterians tho one of them was Acted by some who bare that Name to the great Dislike of the rest of them He further Argueth p. 307 308. that we Contend for our own Opinions he for the Church and her Catholick Constitutions The same Arguments the Papists use against Protestants the Name of the Church is the Shelter that some flee to when they have no other Cover for the Nakedness of their Opinions We affirm and our Assertion is as Probative as his is that we maintain the Opinions that we have Learned from the Scripture and not such as we have Groundlesly Chosen for our selves § 19. He next p. 309. falleth on the Catechism which is owned and taught in this Church after he hath Loaded us with Servile Condescending to Popular Fancies and Leaving the People in Profound Ignorance This is his Strain his Genius and to be Neglected his Reproaches and Praises are of the same Value with us The Quarrel that he hath with the Catechism is it is Unintelligible by the People which were a great Fault if true and that it is Adapted to serve the Hypothesis of a certain Order of School Men he meaneth as is evident by what followeth the Dominicans or Jansenists in Opposition to the Jesuits his Grievance is our Catechism is not Pelagian nor Arminian enough I shall free him of a Fear that he expresseth p. 315. that if the Vindicator as he calleth him take these Paragraphs to Task he will most Zealously Undertake the Defence of all that Orthodox Stuff that is Contained in their Publick Catechisms and Write out a whole System to Confute his Adversary Whatever be that Persons Zeal to Defend our Catechisms as intirely Orthodox he need not Fear Writing of a System on this Occasion the Person he Aimeth at will be more Sparing than so of his Ink and Paper and yet more of his Time and Labour unless he saw more Hazard to Truth than can arise from this Authors Attempt and unless there were none who could do it to better Purpose as there are many seing he intendeth not to Question the Orthodoxy of the Catechism tho he often Lasheth it that Way by severe Innuendo's but only to Prove its Unintelligibleness I shall engage with him only in that He Talketh Big of many Instances which might be brought wherein our Catechisms are Unintelligible but he is pleased to pitch but on one which is that Question Wherein consisteth the Sinfulness of that Estate whereinto Man fell to which the Answer is The Sinfulness of that Estate whereinto Man fell consisteth in the Guilt of Adams first Sin the Want of Original Righteousness and Corruption of his whole Nature which is commonly called Original Sin together with all Actual Transgressions which proceed from it I shall An●madvert a few Things on this his Essay before I consider particularly the Proofs of Obscurity and Unintelligibleness of this Doctrine 1. If I should yield all that he here proposeth to himself he falleth short of his Design which is to Reproach the Scots Presbyterians for tho they owne that Catechism and look on it as one of the best extant yet it is not of their Composure it was done by the Divines Assembled at Westminster few of whom were Presbyterians 2. Few Men of Sense who are Concerned about the Promoting of Religion and the Salvation of Souls will prefer it to the Church of Englands Catechism which beginneth What is thy Name Who gave thee this Name c. but will owne that there is more sound plain useful Truth and what is necessary to be known by the ●eople in our than in their Catechism As might easily be made appear if I might Digress to State a Comparison between them from the Beginning to the End 3. We must not imagine that whatever is put into a Catechism must be so plain that the meanest Capacity without Help can sufficiently understand it for there are Truths needful