any of the 39 Articles are in any part superstitious or erroneous or such as he may not with a good conscience subscribe unto let him be Excommunicated ipso facto Lay these both together and how can we receive his Interpretation Besides doth the Church not care though her Sons be such gross Hypocrites Doth not Reason and Religion teach me first to try examine and to believe the thing to be lawful before I practise Whatever is not of faith is sin Rom. 14 23. I know two Conformists one is known to be a right Son the other is suspected neither of these do wear the Surplice the reason is the same for both neither Parish had provided one when they came to the Court the right Son hath nothing said to him though he did not practise the other was suspended Was it not the internal assent that the Court regarded it was that saved the true Son Are we not commanded unfeignedly to assent and consent to all things in the Common-Prayer Book in which are several Creeds and you tell us the Doctrine of your Thirty-nine Articles contained To conclude this Head of old he was esteemed a true Son of the Church of England who was tite to the 39 Articles subscribing to them in their Literal and Grammatical sense as the King required Now he is reputed the true Son of the Church who doth but submit to these three articles that respect the Ceremonies Rites Episcopacy c. let him for Doctrine be an Arminian Socinian Papist no matter how corrupt I would have lest Dr. Goodman or whoever it was that was the Author of the serious and compassionate Inquiry c. till I had come to his stating of the Questions but that I find him p. 67 69. giving one cause which he imputes to us worthy the taking notice of and the speaking to it here will save me a labour afterwards A great part of this Nation saith he having been leasened with Jewish superstition or Jewish Traditions hath thereby been indisposed to an uniform reception of the reformation of Religion held forth by this Church and thus doth charge us with Judaism quoting Cartwright Ainsworth and H. Broughton who were great Students in the Rabinical writings and they leavened us p. 68. This is very strange when as if he will please to read over Mr. Falkner he shall see how much he useth these Rabinical writings and Jewish customs to confirm the Liturgy and Forms of Prayer and the Rites and Ceremonies of this Church Yea Christ himself is not spared but he is made a Conformist to the Jewish customs different from the Law to prove our conformity Thus Scaliger and out of him Mr. Carre and Mr. Falkner That I was studying how to give answer to this head of argument in these men and this it seems is charged upon us To clear our selves then from this and to give answer to the other men I grant 1. That the Jews had many Rites Traditions and Customs of their own some of which the Holy Page od record But for their Oral Law Traditions c. they were not committed to writing till the reign of the Emperour Antoninus and not perfected till the year 219 after Christ saith Buxtorf Synag Jud. p. 52. some say more Now how shall we be infallibly certain that what Traditions they then wrote were exactly the same which they were in Christ his time above 200 years before in such a space of time how easily may things vary 2. We are infallibly certain that our Lord was an enemy to the Elders Traditions how then these should be brought in to prove the lawfulness of the things in question I know not How will you infallibly prove the Church of the Jews in the purest time did tye up it self to Forms of Prayer in publick administration which though it could be proved will not serve the turn as we shall see when the question comes to be stated 3. Suppose Christ used some actions at his Supper like to the Jews must he needs borrow them from the Jews to be conformable to them I hope he did not learn to bless and give thanks from them Homer and Hesiod some say lived before Isaiah or about his time Hesiod hath expressions very like that of Isaiah in the description of Tophet Analet Sacr. p. 425. Isa 30.33 as if the Heathen drew with the same pencil saith Doughtie But did Isaiah borrow from Hesiod the same Author instanceth in many things more and did the Penmen borrow or rather the spirit that inspired them from the Heathen Because Plato hath an expression something like to Paul's distinction of the outward and inward man must Paul needs borrow it out of Plato as Nerimbergius would have him Thus some have affirmed that John took up his Baptism from the Jews baptizing of Proselytes when others have shown that the Jews took it from John when Christ put the question Mat. 21.23 25. The Baptism of John whence was it from heaven or men Why did they not answer from the Elders Tradition it seems it was the counsel of God Luk. 7.30 whatever these men say and Joh. 1.33 He that sent me to Baptize Whence I shall desire that leave to lay by all these Quotations out of Scaliger Selden and other Rabinical men as signifying nothing to the Questions in hand We must have Scripture and Scripture reason in matters of God Here Dr. Goodman proves us to be guilty of Judaism telling his Reader p. 69 this is their grand Hypothesis That nothing is lawful in the service of God but what is expresly prescribed in Scripture Such an Hypothesis I never saw yet in any of our Nonconformists Books I will yield him more As 1. Not only express Scripture but necessary consequence from Scripture but then it must be necessary consequence 2. Where the Lord hath lest us only a General Rule and hath not tyed us op to Particulars let but the Particulars carry in them the nature of the General Rule as the species includes the essence of the Genus and we will yield them too Yet this Doctor can tell his Reader that this of express Scripture is the Characteristical Doctrine of that party and that we graft our Christianity upon the scock of Judaism Were the Jews tyed up to express Scripture in all they did about the Worship of God I think the Jews had as much liberty then as we have under the Gospel I shall give but one instance though I could more The Passover was a solemn Ordinance of God now in Exod. 12.8 there is a command given to eat it with bitter herbs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we supply the word herbs but the word is only bitterness or Res amarae The Chaldae Arabick and Samaritan keep the Hebrew word without any addition of herbs Here is only a General Rule given but what those bitter things should be whether herbs roots c. there is no determination Hence then I might go into
THE QUESTIONS Between the CONFORMIST AND Nonconformist Truly stated and briefly discussed Dr. FALKNER the Friendly Debate c. Examined and Answered Together with a Discourse about Separation and some Animadversions upon Dr. STILLINGFLEET's Book ENTITULED The Vnreasonableness of Separation Observations upon Dr. Templers Sermon Preached at a Visitation in Cambridge A brief Vindication of Mr. Stephen Marshal Sed hoc nimis doleo quia multa quae in Divinis libris saluberrima praecepta sunt minus curantur tam multis presumptionibus sic plena sunt omnia ut gravius corripiatur qui per octavas suas terram nudo pede tetigerit quam qui mentem Vinolentia sepelierit August Epist 119. Cum Apostolus testetur mysterium hoc iniquitatis suo etiam tempore agi caepisse hinc intelligimus opiniones omnes Traditiones a Sacris Scripturis dissidentes quas Pontificis urgent tanquam a Patribus acceptas ad Apostasiam hanc quam praedixit Apostolus esse referendas Downham de Antichrist p. 151. LONDON Printed for Tho. Cockerill at the Three Legs in the Poultry over against the Stocks-Market 1681. THE Reader may please to take notice that this Discourse was drawn up long before now Doctor Falkner took his Degree else I had given him his Title And so something of Schism was spoke to before the Epistle to Dr. Stillingfleet could be written To the Reverend and my much Honoured Brother Dr. Edward Stillingfleet Dean of St. Pauls SIR I Hope it is no offence unto you though you be a Dean Unreas Separat p. 62. that I call you Brother since you have taught the Press how to speak soberly and amicably calling us Dissenting Brethren this is better language than Sots Rogues Fools Knaves Rebels Schismaticks which we read and hear from others As for Rebels if they be all Rebels that break the Kings Laws I believe the King will have but a few loyal subjects He hath Laws against Drunkenness Swearing Whoring Sabbath breaking and these are agreeable to the Law of God besides Laws about Hares Partridges Pheasants and against Papists c. we see men can live in opposition to these Laws yet these are not called Rebels But if the Laws of men concern the House and Worship of God concerning which God himself hath given us his own Laws to which all Princes and men are bound and unto which all their Laws ought to be conformable as we shall hear your self speak presently but that conformity we cannot see and therefore dare not assent and consent c. now we are called Rebels Schismaticks and what not Aug. Epis 119. Thus it was in pious Augustines time and this he complains of Sir speaking of your Church you tell us p. 302. Our Church is founded upon a Divine Rule viz. the Holy Scriptures which we own as the basis and foundation of our faith and according to which all other Rules of Order and Worship are to be agreeable 2ly Our Church requires a conformity to those Rules which are appointed by it agreeable to the Word of God Twice you tell us agreeable to the Word of God to which we agree also this being the affirmative part of the second Commandment that all things in our worshipping of him be agreeable to his will and word Now Sir had you proved that all the things imposed upon us had been agreeable to the word of God you had put an end to this Controversie But though I honour and love you for the great service you have done to the Church of Christ against the Papists yet in proving the things Imposed upon us to be conformable to the word of God I humbly conceive you fall very short therefore are we still Nonconformists Several things are imposed upon us but in your whole Book I find not one Scripture you produce to shew the agreement of them with it Till then our Separation is reasonable That Schism is a great sin I agree with you and wish Christians were more convinced of it than I see they are But the Questions are 1. What is schism 2. Who is the cause of schism For the first Sir I presume you will grant that the separation against which you preached and now printed do suppose there was a union with that body from which you tell us we are now separated For how can there be a separation from that to which we were not united Now Sir I think by what you have said to remove the mighty stumbling-block as you call it pag. 359. of the Cross there will be found many thousands in England who were never admitted into your Church and if not admitted into it then not united to it as such a Church no members of your body how then can you charge them with this sin of separation from it Thus then Sir you speak of the Cross in Baptism p. 351. when the Minister uses these words We receive this child into the congregation of Christs flock and sign him with the sign of the Cross c. the Minister now speaks in the name of the Church We receive c. then follows as the solemn rite of admission and do sign him with the sign of the Cross All publick and solemn admissions into societies having some peculiar ceremony belonging to them And so as Baptism besides its Sacramental efficacy is a rite of admission into Christs Catholick Church so the sign of the Cross is into our Church of England in which this Ceremony is used without any prescription to other Churches Thus you have interpreted the Cross Whether this will satisfie Mr. B. I leave it to him it doth not me the Imposers of that Ceremony in their Canons do not tell us that it is the Rite of admission into your Church but by this ceremony the Infant is dedicated to the service of him that died upon the Cross And that Book being of publick authority must carry it I had thought that in our Baptism we had been Dedicated to the Father Son and Spirit But it seems this is not enough you annex to his words Another sign to dedicate us to the service of Christ that died upon the Cross This Sir I hope you will prove to be agreeable to the word of God as you told us your Impositions are I am very ignorant of the Text that proves it and you have named none But this is not the thing I aim at it is your interpretation I mind and from it I gather that you and all others who charge us with separation from your Church must prove That we were received and that by this rite of admission the Cross into your Church which you call the Church of England This is clear from your own Interpretation and also from the page before 350 where you illustrate it from the Independent Churches Thus Suppose say you an adult person to be baptized and immediately after Baptism to be admitted a member of an Independent Church and the ceremony of this admission to
discerning it the mystery of iniquity wrought it is no fancy of mine but the Apostles express words The subtil serpent he wrought among the Churches under fair pretences in the second Century some addition made to Worship and Government of the Church in the third Century more in the fourth Century more so increased the Eclipse still under fair reasons till the Serpent had got the man of sin into his Throne and the Prediction fulfilled So hath the Churches coming out of the Eclipse been but gradual in Doctrine Government Worship by our worthy Reformers but as the evil spirit deceived then by Gods permission to bring about the Prophesie so the Spirit of Christ in the hearts of our first Reformers wrought powerfully and so doth the same Spirit still work and will work till the Church be quite out of her Eclipse and comes to be satisfied with the Soveraignty and Wisdom of Christ declared in the simplicity of the Gospel let men call it schism fanaticism or what they please But Sir you tell us of Mr. Ball Mr. Hildersham Mr. Giffard c. worthy men I grant they were so and honour them much and Nonconformists who condemned Separation from your Church and no more was imposed than in their time and this takes up a great part of your Book Sir while some excellent men at home conformed but groaned under the burden as I remember Mr. John Rogers of Dedham an eminent Saint though he did conform I never saw him wear a Surplice nor heard him use but a few prayers and those I think he said Memoriter not read them but this he would do in his Preaching draw his finger about his throat and say Let them take me and hang me up so they will but remove these stumbling-blocks out of the Church How many thousands of choice Christians plucked up their stakes here forsook their dear friends and native Country shut up themselves in Ships to whom a prison for the time had been more elegible went remote into a howling Wilderness there underwent great hardships water was their common drink and glad if they might have had but that which they had given at their doors here many of them and all this suffering was to avoid your Impositions and that they might dwell in the House of God and enjoy all things therein according to his own appointment But what cared your Church for this let Gods people groan at home suffer abroad they shall do it rather than your Church will part with a few trifles as your own Mr. Carre calls the ceremonies Sir is this the spirit of the true Spouse of Christ But as I said the same Spirit will work which acted those holy men till the Church be totally out of her Eclipse what ever those worthy men you mention have said But to speak more close I deny that the state of your Church now is the same it was then when these worthy men condemned Separation from it For 1. There are many thousands now in England who were never admitted into your Church were never members of it then they could not condemn these as Separatists from it This I have proved before from your Interpretation of the sign of the Cross It was not so in their time 2 The Liturgy and the Homilies were then brought in out of necessity because of the want of gifts now it is imposed in scorn and opposition of gifts By what some of your Arch-deacons have spoken in your Courts and others we can conclude no other than it was composed to bring over the Papists to your Church and for several years the Papists did frequent your Divine Service but now it was imposed with such words as in my next that it was made an engine to turn Protestants out of your Church A Member of that Parliament that made the Act for Vniformity visiting his Sister a Lady who told it me related to her what they were about she disliked their Act and told him I see then you are laying a snare in the gate Ay said he if we can find any way to catch the Rogues we will have them 3. Then they were not required to assent and consent c. but now it is imposed with these terms and I am confident that divers who have subscribed with these terms do but lye 4. 'T is true we have the same 39 Articles that was before and those Articles were assented to and assent required in that Church Rational Account p. 54 55. But now you have told the world that Bishop Bramhall gives the sense of the Church of England thus viz. She does not define any of these Questions as necessary to be believed c. Neither do we look upon them as Essentials of saving faith c. Neither do we oblige any man to believe them but only not to contradict them And this is the opinion of the Grandees in this your Church this would have been abhor'd before 5. As those 39 Articles were believed by that Clergy so they did defend them and Preached them but this Clergy can both print and preach against them I mean the great and sound Doctrines in them I do not say all of them I put the question to one of your Clergy and asked him in earnest what he thought of this Clergy as to the Doctrine of the Church of England contained in these Articles he answered me Divide them into three parts he thought two of the three were fallen from it 6. In that Church there were abundance of godly plain-hearted Ministers whose Religion was not confined to a Pulpit but walked among their people as became Ministers seeking the good of their souls I deny not but God hath some such now but for the generality of them I say nothing my self only I can tell you what others have said A learned and pious Divine so far a friend to Conformity that I doubt not but he hath subscribed he told me Though your Church would give him a Living he would not take it because he would not have such an occasion to bring him among your Clergy And discoursing with another of your Clergy whom for learning wit and piety I do honour about Mr. A's Book and his Dialect which you call uncomely writing said he Truly we have such a frothy vain Clergy gone off from that solidity and gravity that become Divine things that if Books come not out in this dress they will but scorn them but in that Book besides wit there is good matter Pridentem dicere verum c. This was his sense of Mr. A's Book But. Sir if such as these be thrust upon us must we own them for our Ministers What Sir will you deny the peoples power of Election which the Papists grant the people had till Charles the Great or till Lewis his Son about 830 years See I pray Pamelius his Annotations upon these words of Cyprian Epist 68. Quando ipsa plebs maxime habeat potestatem vel eligendi dignos
in this course When nothing would do but they must come to Excommunication how wisely did they govern the Brethren to bring them to declare their consent * 2 Cor. 10.6 obedientially to their Elders for they deny the Government to be Democratical nor will I own the Fraternity to be the first subject of the Keys In the beginning it was not so as our Lord said in another case Mat. 19.8 and to the beginning we must go and your * Primit Government of Church p. 147. Thorndike speaks excellently to this why the Congregation ought to be concern'd in this Now when all were agreed how dreadful was the sentence what pale faces how many tears did it cause in the Congregation a solemn sight to behold the Church putting the person out of the Congregation Terrible as an army of banners Cant. 6 1◠I have often thought of the Text since After this how excellently did the Church walk towards an Excommunicate person to bring to Repentance And what rare effects have I known of this Ordinance without any Writs de Excommunicato capiendo alas these could never effect what I have known to the humbling of such a person And now Sir do you think that we who have seen these things can join with your Church where this Ordinance so majestical so terrible is so horribly profaned I pray Sir pardon me though I stand off from it But I pray Sir why do your Bishops excommunicate those who were never of your Church why do they not Excommunicate the French or Dutch True they live under your Laws but your Law is they must be admitted by the Cross and being Infants could not help it As to your Discourse about particular Congregations and Diocesan Churches it is not my purpose to meddle with it only I desire you to tell me why a Pastor of a single Congregation may not be as fit to govern that Congregation as your single Bishop to govern a thousand Congregations as it is with your Church where did the Apostles ordain but one single Pastor to a Church we have eight Churches recorded in the Epistles and the Acts but we read in them all several Elders to carry on Church-work As for Timothy and Titus being Bishops in our controverted sense enough hath been said about them Strange that we should have twelve Apostles beside Paul and Barnabas many Elders and several Evangelists and but two Bishops who were Evangelists too recorded in holy Writ to be the pattern for the succeeding Bishops when where and how those two were made Bishops we cannot find And for the large Diocesses so large that 't is impossible for a Bishop to perform the Duties the Lord requires of a Pastor to one quarter of the Diocess Pag. 203 The Petitioners for Reformation in King James's reign tell his Majesty That in Augustine's time there were in one Province under Carthage of the Catholick and Donatist Bishops above nine hundred Of the Catholicks part there were present 286 and absent 120 by reason of sickness and old age Episcopal Churches void 60 in all 466. Of the Donatists there were present 279 absent 120 Churches void 60 in all 459. These come near the matter make him but Episcopus praeses and as to Officers and Churches I may come to agree with you leaving my brethren to their judgments Several other things I took notice of in your Book that may easily be answered as the perplexing scruples you mention pag. 384 385. If we must baptize only by the Parents right that men must run into No none at all But Sir did you not forget your self very much p. 393. when you tell us the differences between the Popish Ceremonies and your Ceremonies viz. That yours are appointed only for decency and order Sir do not your Preface to your Ceremonies tell us another story viz. of a significacy in them to put us in mind of our duty 2. Of an aptness in them to stir up our dull minds to our duty Here is some efficacy in them to help to the performance of duty stirring up dull minds these do not much differ from the efficacy you say the Papists give to theirs for the purging away some sorts of sins I think both alike As for your French Letters who told le Moyne what he writes pag. 404. That we believe that a man cannot be saved in the Church of England I never heard such a word from any Dissenter nor ever had I such a thought Certainly none of our Bishops would write such a line to him So that this must be the figment of a French mans brain which we abhor for the story he writes p. 409. of a Nonconformist that he heard preach I could tell him a story of one of our late Bishops ten times worse but the Press shall not know it but you shall Sir I have given you a few of my thoughts reading over your Book while my Papers were in the Press which have lain by me several years and must tell you I am not yet satisfied with the title of your Book viz. the Vnreasonableness of Separation c. To your Prayer in the end of your Preface I heartily say Amen Amen SIR I am your Servant to love and honour You G. F. THE QUESTIONS Between the CONFORMIST AND Nonconformist Truly stated and briefly discussed IT was not without the ordering of Divine Providence that the day which the Imitators of the Heathens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did consecrate to their St. Bartholomew should be the day on which the blood of so many thousand Protestants was poured out in France and the day also on which so many hundreds of Gospel-Ministers to whom Christ had given both will and skill for his work success in his work were turned out of his work in England The crime both there and here which they found was the same the Princes found against Daniel in the Law of his God A day of gladness it was to many but not to all upon the same ground One Conformist and a man of note tells a Captain under his Majesty since his Return that he was glad so many Ministers refused to conform the Captain would know his reason he gives it thus Had all Ministers conformed people would have thought there was nothing in Religion only a thing to talk of in the Pulpit and serve a State-design for these Ministers will turn any way the State turn But by their giving up their livings and exposing themselves and families to outward evils rather than they would conform to things imposed not agreeable as they apprehended to the Gospel they preached they have convinced men there is reality in Religion and given a check to Atheism This was the substance and to be sure he was not more glad than I was when the Captain told me his Discourse How zealous yet some have been to bring us over to Conformity the many Books published for it and against us have declared Some of
which have come to my hand but all were not written with the same Spirit As they came to hand so I perused them to see if I could find any thing to convince me And whereas there are five things imposed upon us 1. The Liturgy with stinted forms of prayer 2. Mystical Ceremonies 3. Subjection to such Episcopacy 4. Re-ordination 5. Renouncing the Covenant I applied my self to the three first Questions chiefly For if it can be proved that these are agreeable with and conformable to the Laws of God as the Friendly Debate and Dr. Templer would perswade their Readers then Re-ordination may be admitted and the Covenant renounced As to the two first Quest Mr. Carre was the first man I met with that argued for them after him I met with the Friendly Debate next with the Serious and compassionate Enquiry c. Dr. Goodman the Author as I hear Nemine contradicente but last of Mr. Falkner a man of an excellent spirit whom I shall honour and one that hath said more than all before Before he came forth I had drawn up my answer to all the former and was loth to throw away all I had done because I saw there were some things in these Authors which Mr. Falkner had not else I would wholly have attended him but where I saw they all agreed there I considered them conjunct where one had what the other had not there severally As to the third Quest something I found in a piece Entituled Samaritanism As to the Learned Dr. Stilling fleet by throwing down the Jus Divinum of any form of Church Government he prepared the way for our subjection to such Episcopacy if his principle be sound For the serious and compassionate Enquiry I found little in that piece as to our questions unless a man were so simple to take fine words for strong arguments and Rhetorick for Logick For his Discourse about schism I shall consider it in its place But the chief things I observed in him were his odious comparisons between the Conformist and Nonconformist begun at p. 21. and continued some pages His slighting that worthy Father blessed Austin the contempt he throws upon the Synod of Dort which I did never expect from the pen of a Son of the Church of England But I see this Church of England and the famons Church of England are not the same I need not say any thing there is an acute pen hath given him so full and solid an answer that I ver expect to read his Reply To what he saith pag. 3. That the Nonconformists blame the Doctrine of the Church viz. the 39 Articles are not so punctual in defining the five points debated at the Synod of Dort c. I think I may say I have been in the company of as many Nonconformists as that Author but I have not heard them blame the Articles therefore But this fault I have heard found and do find that we are commanded to affent to the 34 35 36. Articles with the same faith we do to the fundamental Articles of our Faith and Salvation therein contained I thought among the Confessions of Faith these 39 Articles were looked upon as the Confession of the Faith of the Church of England but I find it otherwise now for Dr. Stillingfleet in his defence of Bishop Laud p. 54. being pinched by the Jesuit who in this point is not answered tells us The Church of England makes no Articles of Faith but such as have the Testimony of the whole Christian world in all Ages acknowledged to be such by Rome it self And in other things she requires subscription to them not as Articles of Faith but inferiour truths which she expects a submission to in order to her peace and tranquility Afterwards p 82 104. He distinguisheth between the internal assent of the mind and the external act the Church doth not require the first but the latter To confirm his saying he quotes Archbishop Bramhall often expressing the sense of the Church of England as to her 39 Articles thus Neither doth the Church of England define any of these questions as necessary to be believed either necessitate medii vel praecepti which is much less but only bindeth her Sons for peace sake not to oppose them And in another place more fully We do not suffer any man to reject the 39 Articles of the Church of England at his pleasure neither do we look on them as essentials of saving Faith or Legacies of Christ and his Apostles but in a mean as pious opinions fitted for the preservation of unity neither do we oblige any man to believe them but only not to contradict them Thus the Archbishop And this is not his opinion alone but generally of the Grandees of this Church as an intelligent and sober Conformist tells me When I read these lines first I read them again and again to see if I were not mistaken they were so strange unto me at the first reading when I saw I was not mistaken I turned to the beginning to see who did License it and was amazed when I saw the name According to this Cerinthus Pelagius Arius Socinus Turks Jews yea Vaninus may all subscribe the Articles and be Sons of the Church of England if they can but keep their tongues from contradicting them though they do not believe one of them Though I am a Nonconformist yet I am such a friend to the Church of England as to her Doctrine that I abhor these lines and charge that Bishop Bramhall with doing wrong to the Church It seems when other Churches abroad read these 39 Articles as the Confession of the Faith of the Church of England and suppose we do believe them to be true they are grosly mistaken it may be we believe not one the Church do not oblige her Sons to it but only not to contradict them They are deluded the Church reproached and God is mocked Several things I could say to the disproving of this sense but to what worthy Dr. Stilling fleet hath said I should desire him to name that Book of publick authority to warrant what he saith 1. The Kings Declaration prefixed for the confirmation of them and with that I question not but the Bishops did agree * The Declaration expressed With the advice of so many of our Bishops c. makes no such distinction of superiour and inferiour Truths but speaking of all the 39 Articles jointly taken together thus declareth The Articles of the Church of England do contain the true Doctrine of the Church of England agreeable to Gods word c. requiring all our subjects to continue in the Vniform profession thereof Again requires all Clergy men to submit to every Article in the plain and full meaning thereof and shall not put their own sense and comment to be the meaning of the Article but shall take it in the literal and Grammatical sense Again doth not the fifth Canon say Whosoever shall hereafter affirm that
hereafter To conclude this If foundness of Doctrine purity of Worship and a conversation in some measure becoming the Gospel be any true notes of a Church of Christ then there have been and I know are such Churches where no Forms of Prayer are composed much less imposed upon the Ministry that it was but a bold assertion of him to say All Churches had them I find no more in Mr. Carre nor the Fr. Debat I see Mr. Falkner hath summed up five Reasons which have been used by others most of them His first The security of the Worship of God This we had before His second That needful comprehensive petitions for all common and ordinary spiritual and outward wants c. with fit Thanksgivings may not be omitted c. Ans Surely Sir he is but a mean Minister that cannot do this without a Book though I know there is a vast difference in gifts yet there is no true Minister but is able in some good measure to do this the different Congregations are to be considered some mens gifts may serve for some places well that will not for others His third That the affections and hearts of pions men may be more devont c. when they may consider before-hand what particular prayers they are to offer up Ans Who are further off from these and care less for them than your most truly pious men who walk most with God such as can pour out their souls before God in prayer I speak of private men in another manner than most of your Ministers can do how have I heard them complain of these as deading their spirits That truly Sir your argument from pious and religious hearts was quite beside the business they are your formal Christians who sooth up themselves in their outward performances that are the most devout at these But 2ly since I see you have twice quoted the Liber Ritualis in the Bohemian Churches on your side and against us let me give the Reader an account of it out of Comenius the same Author and Book which you quote When a Minister is ordained the Ritual-book is given to him so far you say true but then he goeth on which you conceal this Ritual-book the common people were not to see when the Minister died the Book was returned to the Elders again Not that the Ministers were bound up to those words and syllables in the Book saith Comenius but they were left free This is quite against you He goeth on By this means the hearers were made more attentive and greater admirers of the grace of God For to rehearse only Forms or things prescribed what will there be to excite attention Quite cross to you The reason why they suffer not the people to have these Books is that the people might not slight or despise them Had the people the Books as ours the Common-Prayer Book they would more observe whether the Minister read right c. saith Comenius Thus we see when we go from the Scriptures to Humane Reasons how Reasons clash against one another Comen in Annotat. ad Rat. Ord. Discipl Frat. Bohem. p. 100 101. who adds more that makes against you Something I may say as to the Walacrian Classis whose judgment * Thus in the Dutch Churches Minister preces vel dictante spiritu vel certa sibi proposita formula concipiet Har. Syno Belg. Cap. 11. Canon 21. Apollon p. 172. Comment on Exod. 28. Def. of B. Land pag. 102. you produce against us 't is true what you quore but withal if you please to read the latter end of the first Paragraph you will find them rejecting the ceremonies and forms of publick worship in England introduced in these latter times And in the second Paragraph condemning Forms of Prayer and publick worship though materially well disposed if imposed as absolutely necessary and essential parts of Divine Worship with a certain tyranny and violent command upon the consciences of men I could also quote Rivet whom you quote on your side for Ceremonies he mentions your Surplices in England which you retain ex reliquiis Papismi and saith if you do it in imitation of the Jews or for some mystical signification which you do then 't is not to be born saith he In his pious and learned Homily de Orig. errores grounded on the 2 Cor. 11.3 he saith Mens departing from the simplicity of Christ is the original of all error Christs wisdom is too low for men There you will find something more Dr. Stillingfleet according with him in this tells the Jesuit piously and truly If your Church had kept to the Primitive simplicity and moderation the occasion of most contreversies in the Christian world had been taken away I may say the same for England I will not deny but you may quote many against us But 1. I am of that Faith concerning Churches which the Church of England is concerning General Councils Act. 21. when General Councils are gathered together for so much as they be an assembly of men whereof all be not governed by the Spirit and Word of God they may err and sometimes have erred in things pertaining to God c. even good men may err We know but in part 2ly We have Churches if there be any true in the world that are against these things so that here is the Testimony of Churches against Churches 3ly The Holy Scriptures are the Rule of all Churches to which they ought all to conform Wherefore Constantine said right and as became a Christian in the Council of Nice Let us take our resolution of questions out of the Books that are Divinely inspired To be sure they do not err Mr. Falkner's fourth Reason From the difficult parts of Church-offices of Baptism and the Lords-Supper there a Form is needful c. Ans He that doth not understand the nature of those Ordinances and is not able to unfold them to his people is not fit to be a Minister Christ doth not send fools of his Errand he hath provided for those whom he sends Now if they do understand them and be found in the Doctrine of them which is best known by Confession of their Faith they may be able to compose prayers suitable to the Ordinances 2ly Or if such be composed for your Tyrenes when they first come into the work must they needs be continued when they are grown more able the ablest and oldest men in England must be tyed up to words and syllables as if they were still Novices 3ly Truly Sir you must not much boast of your Form in this Administration for the Parental-Covenant which is the only foundation of the administration of that Ordinance to Infants the God of Abraham and his seed this is not at all taken notice of in your Form Besides many other things which I shall not meddle with now for I do not aim at your Liturgy more than any other in my discourse 5. His last reason To be an evidence
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
Twice we have the word certain and it is certain there is no such word as standing in the Text which I have read several times as he bids us Harmon c. 129. Jansenius saith they might have their loins girt feet shod staff in hand and yet sit and sitting at that time might be their manner as he thinks from Gen. 43.33 Surely the Jews did not tear the meat from the bones like dogs how then they could hold their staves in their hands and cut their meat when they were in haste I cannot well tell 2ly It is very observable that the Jesuits Maldon and a Lapide and Gerhard the Lutheran and the Calvinists abroad are more wary what they write concerning Christ than are our English Conformists for they all conclude that Christ kept the Passover according to the Law not Jewish customs If Josiah gave such charge 2 King 23.21 That the Passover be kept as it was written in the Book of the Covenant Shall Christ come short of Josiah Hence the Jesuit a Lapide agrees with Gerhard and Calvin that Christ eat the Passover standing but his discumbing was at the other Supper 3ly Most of the Learned that I see as Jun. Tremel Rivet Beza Scaliger Paraeus Piscator Grotius Ainsworth Diodati c. do all agree that God appointed the gesture of standing only for that first Supper in Egypt as all the other circumstances noted in Exod. 12.11 all setting forth persons in haste but were never used after when they came to rest in Canaan If they did so I doubt not but it was according to the mind of God but indeed there is no gesture mentioned in the Law that I read of Nor shall all the Rabinical men in the world make me believe that Christ would depart from the Institution of God to conform to any Jewish custom must we needs cast a blot upon Christ to justifie our own inventions I know no man that maketh sitting essential to a Sacrament as Mr. Falkner supposeth p. 474. and as strange is his next supposition of a Feast without Bread or Wine or Ale or Beer with us For our parts 't is all one to us sit or kneel but that we find as it was a Supper so it was a Supper-gesture Christ used with his Apostles there is no other gesture recorded what gesture our Lord used when he blessed the Elements I do not inquire we stand or kneel in Prayer but the Text saith Mark 14.18 They sate and eat at his own Supper as well as at the Passover for ought I can read the Scripture mentions this gesture only at his eating If you can find any Evangelist speak otherwise name him I doubt not were there any such controversie or question among the Mahumetans and their Alcoran did speak but so much for one side as our Bible doth in this they would give so much honour to their Alcoran to determine the question on that side which it did most favour but it seems we cannot give that honour to our Holy Bible as the Turk will to his Alcoran 2ly It is all one to us to sit or kneel one gesture is as easie as the other Till Transubstantiation was hatching kneeling was not commonly known in the Church but for some time of the year it was forbidden much less was it contended for and such punishments inflicted upon them who refuse it as amongst us The Popish party blame us for kneeling denying their Doctrine of Transubstantiation 3ly That your Kneelers worship Christ in and by the Elements the great contenders for kneeling have confessed Pag. 167. as the Author of the dispute against English Popish Ceremonies have shewn out of Dr. Burgess Dr. Morton and Paybody the Bishop of Edenburgh Archbishop of St. Andrews upon which he undertakes to prove that kneeling in the act of receiving the Lords Supper is Idolatrous Mr. Nichols urged the same Treasure out of Rubbish p. 65. See more there that kneeling in the act of receiving the Lords Supper being a bodily religious adoration of God before a creature with respect unto it having no special allowance from God was unlawful when this was urged before Bishop Morton he found more favour from the Bishop than we can 4ly Reverence in Gods worship we do commend as much as any I wish sometimes that which men call Reverence be not Idolatry But was David such an irreverent person when he sate before the Lord in Prayer 2 Sam. 7.18 27. all the Versions hold to the word sate and that at this time when his heart was enlarged from the sense of Gods love Cannot I pray reverently when I lye upon my bed and may we not as reverently receive the signs of the Lords body and blood while we sit at his Supper Cannot we know our own hearts Who more profane in their conversation and despisers of the commands of Christ than most of these who can kneel at Sacraments Upon the same ground i.e. Reverence the Church of Rome will not put the Bread in the Sacrament into the peoples hands though Maldonate grants for a long time the Church did so but into their mouths forsooth Multo plus habet reverentiae Mat. 26.26 But it is far from my intention to produce any new arguments against these Ceremonies when there are so many produced by Dr. Ames Didochevius and divers others It is very observable what Mr. Schol. pract Divin 2 par p. 93 94. Jeans an acute Schoolman and Conformist in former times who censured the Nonconformists as sharply as any and wrote against them while he had read but one side as he saith and was a stranger to what the Nonconformists could say for themselves their adversaries representing their objections and answers so weak and ridiculous hath left upon record When the Parliament began he intended to write a full vindication of the Discipline and Ceremonies of the then Church of England to which end he read all such Books of the Nonconformists as he could procure Upon the perusal of them saith he I soon found that their adversaries most disingenuously misrepresented all that they said that they refused to join issue with them in the state of the question that they came not up to an ordinary grapple with them with their Arguments and that they seldom regularly replied unto the solutions which were given to their objections and this saith he quickly produced an alteration in my judgment and I believe it will do so too in all that will make such an impartial search into the matter as I have done This is the ingenuous confession of that learned man making excuse for what he had written against the Nonconformists I shall shut up this with the judgment of the learned and pious VVhitaker as I see him quoted by Maccovius upon this question Q. Theol. loc Q. 43. Whether when we receive the Lords Supper should we kneel stand or fit A. Respondet Whitakerus saith Maccovius to kneel doth not only exclude
great question about the Ruling Elder but I am not to meddle with it now Our Brethren of the Presbyterian judgment I suppose yield the question they may and ought to unite to make up one Governing Church but I do not fully understand their meaning Suppose twenty Parishes and Congregations that meet together to worship God and twenty Ministers belonging to them are these twenty Parishes distinct Churches as to Word and Sacraments so that he that is Pastor in one Church hath nothing to do in another Parish as to feeding them with Word and Sacraments but as to Government and Jurisdiction one Minister with the rest of the Classis have power over them all if this be the meaning I am not satisfied in it Dr. Stilling fleet hath declared his judgment they may unite I wish he had pleased to have opened his mind fully about it If he will yield but this That constitution of a Church wherein a Pastor cannot possibly feed with Word and Sacraments watch over and govern his flock according to Christ be it Diocesan or Parochial that constitution is not according to Christ and consequently unlawful as Scripture-light and nature's light will prove it I should it may be come up to him to perform our duty by Substitutes this may please them who make their own brains not Gods word their rule and such we little regard God hath now brought me to old age in my Pilgrimage divers disputes about Church-work and Government I have read absurd unscriptural practices in Churches I have seen woful disorders and wretched effects I have heard and known great scandal but so circumstanced that a single Pastor could not proceed by Mat. 18.15 c. to remove it I have met with one of the ablest Divines in England and exercised in Government was of the same opinion with me all arising from this notion of a single Pastor with such a people making a Church and all which mischiefs might be avoided if the uniting of several particular Congregations into one particular Church were admitted which Scripture-examples and Scripture-reasons will sufficiently justifie CHAP. IV. Of SCHISM THere remains yet one thing to be spoken to viz. the great crime of Schism with which we are charged by the Fr. Deb. in his first and second Book very deeply thus also Dr. Goodman and this is the common language of them all both in Pulpit and Press To which I would take liberty to speak more largely That Schism in the Church is a great crime is readily yielded by understanding men of all parties and no party will own it though they be guilty enough of it At this day all but Conformists are Schismaticks but to the Prelatical party this sin is a stranger yea in the time of our troubles when they were in France and refused Communion with the French Protestant Churches yet a Prelatical person was not then nor can be guilty of Schism but they were Schismaticks in France What is Schism Dr. Goodman tells us p. 112 113. Schism is a voluntary separation of ones self without cause given from that Christian Church whereof once he was a member He opens his Definition p. 113 114. First It is a separation c. i. e. When a man shall refuse to join in the acts and exercises of Religion used by such a society and to submit to its authority So he that refuseth Baptism the Lords-Supper or to submit to the censures of the Church Thus he But what he means by non-submission to the censures of the Church I know not for I know but few Nonconformists that are under the Censures of their Church nor how it will agree with his second which is 2ly It must be voluntary separation So that Excommunicate persons are no Schismaticks 3ly It is separation from a particular Church 4ly Of which Church he was once a member because Schism imports division making two of that which was but one before But according to this opening of his definition I pray Sir tell us how you will prove us Schismaticks For take up your third head 1. I pray tell us what is that particular Church you mean National Diocesan Parochial As for the National I know not how you understand a National Church for as I understand it you cannot prove us Schismaticks For the Diocesan you cannot prove us Schismaticks unless the refusing to submit to Prelatical Government be Schism For the Sacraments belong not to a Diocesan Church quâ sic I suppose Dr. Goodman's judgment to be the same with the Doctor that kept the Act at the Commencement at Cambridg I heard so much of one question that I laboured much to get a view of it but could not in our parts A Conformist told me it was to this purpose Recessio a regimine Episcopali est mortale schisma he told me Damnabile schisma as it was told him I say only this to it As God gives up some men to monstrous lusts in practise so he doth others to as monstrous opinions in judgment in these days So that it must be meant the Parochial Church But 2ly I pray prove that we were members once of that particular Church you mean For the Diocesan we deny any such Church especially as your constitution is to be according to Christs Institution and therefore were not are not members of it For the Parochial Churches I pray how are we members of them 1. Not by our Baptism if that were your meaning I would soon give arguments to confute it 2. Not by my dwelling within such a Parish-bounds though I am for the Vicinity of Church-members yet I was not so simple when I was in my Place to think that all the people that dwelt within the bounds of the Parish where I was Minister must own me for their Minister as if a spot of ground measured out by a Civil constitution must make a man a member of a Church which as such is a spiritual and free society I wish Dr. Goodman could convince all the Papists that dwell within these Parishes that therefore they are members of the Church of England or Schismaticks 3. I know nothing but consent that constitutes any man a member of a Church but that we never gave either to the Priests imposed upon us by a Patron and a Prelate nor to the Parochial Church as you take Parochial Wherefore upon Dr. Goodman's definition I argue where there was no union there can be no Schism But between us and your Church there was no union Ergo no Schism why then doth he charge us with it 3ly Suppose we were members yet still you are to prove there was no cause given for our separation which though you attempt to do yet Sir you must bring other manner of arguments than Rhetorical flourishes and humane stories to convince us But one thing more Why doth he tye up his definition to a particular Church I think a man may hold Communion with that particular Church of which he is a
ordained before Pauls journey to Jerusalem Acts 20. for he tells Timothy 1 Tim. 3.14 he hoped to come unto him shortly but Act. 20.25 when he sent for the Elders of Ephesus he tells them they shall see his face no more If Timothy then were Bishop of Ephesus before this time then he was there now and was now sent for which I shall never believe that Paul would not mention him in particular whose Name he uses to joyn with his in several Epistles But if Timothy did come with the other Elders here is no difference made of this Prelate from the other Elders but 28. ver he gives the same alike to them all Therefore I deny your Consequence If Timothy were Bishop of phesus what need Paul tell him in his second Epistle to him Chap. 4.12 Tychicus I have sent to Ephesus he might have spared that line for Timothy must needs know it if he came to him there But you add for a further Confirmation p. 28. the words of Christ Joh. 20.21 As my Father sent me so I send you But the Commission of Christ as an Apostle did undoubtedly extend to a superintendency over the Clergy and the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 justifie the same as to the Apostles c. A. Undoubtedly Christs Commission did extend as you say without limiting it to any precincts which you tell us several times the Apostles were and especially in p. 6. you would labour to prove it from 2 Cor. 10.16 Though that Text I conceive will not do it But if the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will force their superintendency over the Clergy it will as well force it without limitation to such precincts for his Father did not so send him and how their Commission runs we read But I shall not give my thoughts about this now you tell us pag. 34. that among the Bishops Peter leads the Van in the Church of Antioch Pope Innocent this does not make for you I pray tell us in your next in which Church did Paul lead the Van among the Bishops But if Peter were Bishop at Antioch indeed Paul went beyond his Precinct when he dealt so roundly with a Bishop in his own See as he did with this Bishop of Antioch Gal. 2.11.14 2ly I conceive you stretch this Text beyond the intent of our Lord. For the work which our Lord undertook he had a Call from his Father who sent him Heb. 5.4 Joh. 6.27 and 10.36 His Father had Authority to send him and was with him Joh. 16.32 So he the Head and King of his Church having all power given to him in Heaven and in Earth Math. 28.18 had Authority to send forth his Apostles to their work they might show their Commissions or Credentials He promised also to be with them and their Successors to the end and I think all Gospel-Ministers are their Successors but that the Lord intended in these words the setling of a Superiority of one person above his brethren in the Ministry to the end of the world this is but Petitio pincipii your gloss and I deny it for the Reasons and Scriptures before mentioned 3ly Those Apostles had Superiority over Bishops if there were such then as you say there were yea Arch-Bishops who is now over them His third Text is Eph 4.12 13. Apostles were given and their Suffregans as you call them Prophets and Evangelists for the perfecting of the Saints hence pag. 30. you conclude for the duration of Prophets and Evangelists to this day Thus then we have to this day Apostles Prophets and Evangelists in the sense of this Text unless he will abuse the Text a rare sight I would go many miles to see such persons and to their Superiority willingly submit Calvin Gerhard Beza Zanchi the Leyden Professors c. tell us these were Ministri extraordinarii Temporarii but they were men of no Acuminated Intellects their judgements signifie little Well Sir what Apostles were you tell us not neither need you we know them well but where you can find such I know not but such you must find if your proof hold For the Prophets you tell us they were such as had an excellent skill to preach the Gospel out of the Books of the Old Testament 1 Cor. 13.2 Evangelical Doctrines locked up in the Figures of the Law and Predictions of the Prophets If this were all we shall find many such Prophets amongst the Nonconformists But Sir you have spoken very short of the Prophets Dr. Hammond Zanchy and Gerhard add two things more 1. A foretelling things to come 2ly They spake all from the Spirit from a Divine Afflatus These three are somewhat like I pray shew us these Prophets now The Evangelists you tell us are such as had a profound insight into the Gospel as contained in the Writings of the New-Testament and could with singular dexterity open and explain its true importance Such there are also amongst the Nonconformists But Sir what if there were Evangelists before there was any part of the New-Testament writtens how then does your description agree I question not if the Ancients say true of the time when John wrote his Gospel but Timothy was an Evangelist long before and in that Gospel are the deep Mysteries contained more than in the other three If the first Epistle to the Thessalonians were the first Epistle that Paul wrote as Divines generally think Timothy is joyned with Paul in the 1. ver so that very little was written when he first was made an Evangelist I see by some of your own and those Learned men Philip was an Evangelist when he preached the Gospel at Samaria and wrought Miracles Acts 8.5 6 7. but at that time no part of the New Testament was written For Matthew wrote first and that was eight years after the Ascension as our Divines for the generality of them agree But for the Evangelists Eusebius l. 3. Chap. 37. a fitter man to tell us what an Evangelist was than you gives us another description and that which agrees with Philip in Acts 8.5 6 7. and other Scriptures I shall note only these 1. That they watered the Churches every where planted by the Apostles 2. They preached Christ to them which as yet heard not of the Doctrine of Christ 3. Having planted the Faith in new and strange places they ordained there other Pastors committing to them the Tillage of the new ground pressing themselves to other People and Countries 4. By the power of the Holy Ghost they wrought miraculously Show us these Evangelists now His last Text is 1 Tim. 6.14 Keep the Commandments until the appearing of the Lord Jesus c. A. 1. By the appearing of the Lord c. exitus vitae is meant thinks Austin and some others But if not yet this appearing is an Argument used not only to Timothy but to all Christians to look to their duty Col. 3.4 Tit. 2.13 1. Pet. 17. 2. What Commandment this was if we well
take a boy of eight years old and teach him to read with a grave tone a thing easily done and this boy shall be able to perform all your Ministerial Offices excepting Preaching which he may easily procure once a month and he at other times read but Homilies As did that Priest who was my Predecessor only one Minister for a short time between us that for fifty years could do no other but read his Book except one Sermon and that a strange one Yet he a Minister of the Church of England takes the maintenance and lets the people provide a Preacher at their charge he contributing something as that I suppose the Law would force him Mr. Falkner I see labours much in giving us an account of the practise of the Jewish Church and the Christian Church For the Jewish-Church whatever was their practise it will not reach the question But however how will Mr. Falkner give us infallible proof that the Jews in the purest time of their Church-state did compose Prayers and imposed them upon the Priests and Levites who were able to officiate without them If he prove not this which he is never able to do all that he hath writ about them signifies nothing to the proof of the question and all that labour is but lost For the Christian Church 1. Can Mr. Falkner give us an account infallibly of the practises of all the Churches after Christ for the first four Centuries are the Infallible records of them all come to our hands I thought we fell short abundantly of the records of all the Churches there might be many for ought he knows that used no Forms 2ly It is possible that he may find several Pastors or Bishops that did compose their own Forms But First Can he prove they used only those Forms and did vary at no time as was the practise of several of our old Divines that had their Forms of Prayer before Sermon but of their own composing and varied after Sermon according to the subject matter they had been Preaching upon So did improve that gift they had received from Christ before and after Sermon Secondly He must prove they Imposed these Forms of theirs upon other Ministers able to officiate without them and tyed them up to these syllables else he misses the question and his labour is but lost there too Neither of these hath Mr. Falkner proved The 23 Canon of the third Council of Carthage which some write was Anno 395 others 397 others 399 at which were 44 Bishops and good Austin amongst them thus ordered No man shall use those Forms of Prayer which he hath composed for himself till he hath communicated them to more able Brethren A Canon of a Council carries very much conviction with it what was the practise there abouts more than any thing Mr. Falkner hath produced By this it appears that the more able Brethren did not first Compose the Prayers of those who were less able 2ly Much less did they Impose them on those who were able and it may be more able than themselves Mr. Carre wrote more warily than Mr. Falkner who dares not venture beyond twelve hundred years This Canon interprets Tertullian's meaning to be against Forms better then Mr. Falkner How long after this the question arose about Ambrose and Gregories Liturgies and into what a corrupt state the Church was fallen when Imposition began Mr Falkner knows well For that instance which Mr. Falkner brings p. 107. to prove Forms to be in use from Constantine's composing of Forms of Prayer for his Soldiers Whence he thus argues It is not probable that Constantine the Emperour would have composed Godly Prayers for the use of his Soldiers if such Forms had not then been used in the Christian Church Let us see the Logick of this and how it proves the Question 1. Constantine composed Godly prayers for his Soldiers Ergo Some one Bishop or Bishops or Ministers composed prayers for Gospel-Ministers How does this follow Constantine did well and it may argue some did use Forms and who denies it But doth it follow that Ministers did tye up themselves to Forms I hope Ministers and Soldiers in a proper sense differ 2. Constantine did thus Ergo we may impose our Forms upon able Ministers How does this follow nor would Constantine impose his Forms upon his Soldiers able to pray without them Can Mr. Falkner prove it Once more Had there then been Common-prayers composed to which the Church did tye up her self would they not have composed one or two prayers for times of War they did not deserve the name of Common-prayers if that was omitted and if they had done it Constantine we all know bore such respect and honour to the Church that he would have used those prayers before his own not lay by them and compole others As our King now commandeth the Liturgy of this Church to be used in his Armies at Land and Sea there being prayers for War c. So that to me this instance of Mr. Falkner is rather against him To put an end to this first question How lawful a Directory for Worship and some Forms of Prayer composed for the help of young Ministers at their first coming into the Ministry * Thus they who composed the Liturgy for the French-Church in Francfort say Hae formulae serviunt tantum rudioribus nullius libertati praescribitur who it may be at first are not so able in all offices to express themselves in prayer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before a multitude of people how lawful yea how useful this may be I do not deny but for these Ministers to content themselves with these Forms and not labour to improve and increase their Talent I think it is sin against him who hath given gifts who requires gifts of all those whom he sends and to whom they must give an account how they improved and stirred up the gift he bestowed upon them never did Christ send that man into his work upon whom he did not bestow a gift of Prayer How far the Congregational Divines have allowed of Forms of Prayer for some Ministers may be seen in that acute and learned Divine Mr. Norton of New-England to which Book Mr. John Cotton Dr. Tho. Goodwin Mr. Nye and Mr. Simpson have prefixed their Epistles in a high commendation of the Book For other particular Offices I shall not follow Mr. Falkner Respon ad Apollon p. 137 c. for I had no aim at the Common-Prayer-Book more than other Forms but if the Imposing of Forms according to the question can be proved from Divine Writ I should yield to several things he labours to justifie only in Baptism there are four things I should desire satisfaction in and more must be said then Mr. Falkner hath yet spoken CHAP. II. WE come now to the second Question concerning Ceremonies Quest 2. That the Church hath power in circumstances of Divine Worship I have before easily yielded The