of Puritans P. 102. he sheweth that the same Canons being now Nine Years after ratified by Parliament The Bishops began to urge Subscription more severely than before which made many Dissenters keep their private Meetings in Fields Words their Friends Houses c. And may not one rationally think that the Jesuits might in their own way prompt the Bishops to this Severity as well as the Dissenters not to yield to it Sect. 20. The notions that Jesuits have of Spiritual Prayer mentioned p. 15. some of them extravagant enough the learned Dr. useth as a repreach to the Non-conformists how rationally let the VVorâ—d judge seeing we never vented nor owned such Fancies only we think Set Forms of Prayer unfit to be used where Ministers are tolerably gifted to pray without them and that all the praying that we read of to have been either practised or commended in the Apostolick Church was without Book the Spirit not the Book helping their Infirmities even as to what they are to pray for or the Matter of Prayer Rom. 8. 26. When he saith p. 16. that It is not improbable the Jâ—suits were the first Setters up of this way in England â—nd that it was never known here or in any other Reformed Church before this time If he meâ—n Prayer without a set-Set-form if he mean any thing else it is not to the pâ—rpose it is a rash and untrue Assertion Was ever Prayer without Book condemned by any Râ—formed Church Yea Can any Reformed Church be instanced where it hath not been and is not used Or let him mention a Reformed Church that hath restrained Extemporâ—â— Prayer and imposed a set-Set-form But this Debate he resumeth afterward and till then we shall leave it it doth not savour of tha◠〈◊〉 regard to the Spirit of Prayer that is promised to be â—â—ured out on the people of God Zâ—â—h 12. 10. to mock the using oâ— his help to pray wiâ—hout a Book as a Charm Effectual with jâ—dicious Pâ—ople and to jeâ—r the zeal and warmth of Devotion that appeareth in it Many know the Advantage of what he thinketh but a Fancy let him abound in his own Sence for De gustiius non est 〈◊〉 If by meâ—ns of this manner of worshipping God the Division wonderfully 〈◊〉 as he saith I hope it was not the Debauched nor Unserious that were so taken with that way and therefore this Encrease was no reproach to it Sect. 21. He citeth the Admonition given in to the Parliament 14 Eliz. of which he saith the Authors Mr. Fâ—ller's Church History p. 102 103. maketh Mr. Thomas Cartwright Author both of the first and second Admonition would have neither Papists nor oâ—â—ers eâ—â—strained to communicate I do not understand whether any person should be constrained to partake of the Lord's Supper for I suppose that is meant otherwise than by forcible perswasions which is the Compulsion meant Luk. 14. 23. Brugensis saith it expresseth viâ—â—â—vangelij so others That Ordâ—nance was never appointed by the Lord to be a Test of a Man's Profâ—ssion while he is uncapable to improve it to higher ends But if the Admonition plead for Tolerating of Popery I have not the book by me and therefore cannot determine in this we are far from approving it Though we think we have a Right by the Gospel not only to Toleration but further Coâ—ntenance for our way yet if we might chuse we had rather be under the severest Peâ—secution than have the least hand in obtaining Liberty to that Idolatry We must not do yea nor wish Evil that Good may come What he citeth out of Archb. Whit gift and Archb. Grindal p. 17 18. I look on as Invectives against the Non-conformists of the same stamp with his own they are Parties and therefore not to be adduced as Witnesses Dr. Sutclife saith no more than we will say that our Divisions give advantage to the Papists Let them who are the culpable Cause of the Divisions look to it The Prophecy cited out of Mr. Solden is to the same purpose and needeth no other Answer Sect. 22. The politick hellish Advices given by the Jesuit Contzen and Seignior Ballarini make nothing against us at all tho' he filleth p. 19 20 21. with them for all that can be thence inferred is That they labour to divide Protestants and this Dâ—vision falleth out according to their wish Now the Division hath its Rise from the Impositions of one party that assume the Name of the Church and the Scruples of another party If the Church impose that which is lawful and necessary and the other party scruple that and so divide in that case the Dissenters must bear the blame of the Division and are guilty of co-operating with the common Enemy in ruining the Protestant Religion But if the Church by Her Impositions burden the Consciences of Her Members with things that She counteth Indifferent i. e. Needless and the Scruplers reckon as unlawful and have just ground so to do then the blame of Separating and of helping the Papists to ruin our Religion lieth at the Church's door wherefore all this might have been spared Let the learned Dr. soundly refute our Principles and then cast what blame he will on us but till that be done which we expect not let him â—ake heed where the blame will be laid when the Secrets of Men shall be judged It may be observed in these Advices that the Jesuits as their Master the Devil often doth speak some Truths out of a bad end Sect. 23. Next he cometh p. 22. to reproach us with the Indulgence that was granted March 1671-2 as being procured by the Papists If any Non-conformists had a hand in procuring Liberty which I do not believe to them I think their Brethren will disown them in that Act. That Papists had a hand in it is not improbable both for their own ease and to make the Difference among Protestants the more conspicuous But was it fit that we should forbear a necessary Duty because of their ill Design We did not join in the practices of the Church before that but worshipped God after his own Institution without Humane Ceremonies All the Change in our way on that Occasion was that what before we had done in corners and with hazard then we did safely and openly and what fault was in this But One saith that the Presbyterians suspected the kindness and joined with the Conformists like wise Men and refused the Bait Who said so or on what Ground I know not we went no further from the Conformists than Conscience of Duty had made us do before but it had been a strange thing if when Liberty was granted us to worship God in his own way we had then joined with a Superstitious Worship which we could not do before If that Author mean That Presbyterians were then willing to concurr with the Conformists as their Protestant Brethren in all things lawful to disappoint the Designs of the common Enemy we approve of that
hath answered what hath been said against the Liturgy and the use of it in the Anatomy of the Service-Book Interest of words in prayer Smectyminis Jerubbaal's necessity of Reformation and other pieces to which I refer the Reader for satisfaction in this point Although I have made some Collections on this subject yet so much being said by others and neither the Doctor nor any other being pleâ—sed to Answer it I also shall wave this Controversie Only hinting a few of the chief grounds of our Scruple in this matter because the Dr. p. 332 333. chargeth his Answerers with pretending to scruple without giving reason for their Scruples Sect. 3. We do not simply nor generally condemn Forms of Prayer they may be used when that work cannot be tollerably performed without them neither do we condemn joyning in such a way of praying even when the man that chuseth that way might and ought to do otherwise Neither do we scruple joyning in the use of the Liturgy meerly because it is imposed by Authority I know we are misrepresented in all these But 1. We condemn using of set Forms of Prayer either in private or publick without such necessity as that duty cannot be tollerably performed without that help 2. We think it unlawful for the Church or any other to impose on the Ministers of the Gospel the use of a set Form of Praying where there is not absolute necessity 3. We think in the present case of the Church there is no such absolute necessity of that imposition seeing Ministers may be had who are tollerably gifted for their Work And seeing it is Christ's Institution that none but such should be in the Ministery and seeing any Escapes or Indecencies that can be observed in a Ministers Administrations are to be Corrected by the Discipline of the Church which is Christ's way not by imposing a Liturgy which is Mans way 4. We think it unlawful for Ministers who are tollerably gifted for their Work and if they be not such in the judgment of the Church they should lay aside that Work and betake themselves to other Callings To submit to such Impositions or to use such Forms of Prayer 5. What is said of Forms of Prayers let it be also understood of Forms of Preaching Administration of Sacraments and Exhortations at them and of other parts of the Service of God Here we may rationally except Forms of singing praise unto God and that on two Grounds 1. The Scripture hath furnished the Church with such Forms for all cases of a Soul and of the Church in the Book of Psalms which is not done in Prayer and other Adminâ—strations So that these Forms are not humane as other Forms must beâ— 2. The Gift of composing Spiritual Songs fit to be sung in the Church is not to be expected that it should be Commonly given to the Pastors of the Church as the Gifts of Preaching and Praying are given 6. We think it unlawful for people to joyn in Worshipping God by a frame of Service not instituted nor warranted in the Word of God both as to the matter and as to the manner of it 7. The English Service Book is such a frame of Service as is not warranted nor instituted in the Word and so it is unlawful for us to joyn in Worshipping God by it Sect. 4. If we can give good reason for the 2d 4th 6th and 7th of these Assertions sufficient ground will appear for our scrupling the use of the Liturgy imposed as one of the Terms of our Communion with the Church of England For the First of these That Men may not impose set Forms on Gifted Ministers Arguments for this are 1. There is no warrant for such practice if there be it must be either Christ's Command or his Permission or the necessity of it The first nor second is not alledged because no such thing can be proved from the Word Nor the third for such a necessity is contrary to our supposition that the men so imposed on are gifted If it be said the best gifted may slip into unfit expressions Reply This unfitness is either tolerable and so no necessity can arise from that hazard or intoâ—erable and then it is to be cured by Christ's means Church Discipline not by the invention of man. 2. No such imposition nor usage was ever heard of in the Apostolick Church nor in the Primitive Church for 300 years and more and yet there were Ministers subject to Infirmities as Men now are and the Worship of God was by them fitly managed May not the means of securing Worship from abuse serve us that served them Or will we be wiser and mâ—re wary than they That there was any Forms used or imposed in the Apostles times we need not prove the Lord's Prayer is no Instance to the contrary it cannot be made appear that ever it was intended to be a form of words or used as such And for the Primitive times it is evident that when Constantine would help his Souldiers newly come out of Heathenism with a Form he behoved to get some composed which needed not had they then been in the Church Justin Martyr Apol. 2. p. 98. Edition Paris giving account of their publick Exercises on the Lord's day to wit reading Scripture Exhortation Prayer Singing Administration of the Lord's Supper he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is the Minister sendeth up Prayers and Thanksgivings as he is able then not by Book but his Ability as the Lord furnished him Tertullian Apol. c. 30. saith They prayed in their Assemblies sine monitore quum de pectore and in his Book de Oratiore he sheweth that there are many things to be asked according to every ones occasions the Lord's Prayer being laid as a Foundation where the true use of the Lord's prayer note that by the way is hinted to wit to be a Directory not a Form. Socrates Hist. Eccles. lib. 5. c. 21. which is wholly spent in shewing what diversity of usages was in the Primitive times in divers places and how little weight was laid on uniformity the great Argument for the Common-prayer hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is generally and every where in all Religions in Prayer there are not two to be found that agree in one which surely must be meant of Agreement in the same words Sect. 5. A third Argument for this is such imposing doth thwart one great design of Prayer in publick which is to lay out before the Lord all the several cases of the people or the Church their sins and wants which do so vary that no Book can suit them all I am sure ours doth not If it be answerâ—d thâ—s design may be answered by leaving a liberty to Ministâ—rs sometimes as afâ—er Sermon 〈◊〉 use their gifts I reply that this Lâ—berty doth frustrate the design of set prayer which is to prevent venting of error and indecency is not that hazard in permitting prayer after Sermon as well
less imposed All the question is about the use of Sponsers in the Baptism of Infants for the adult are to undertake for themselves Some make the use of God-fathers to be witnesses of the Childs-Baptism That is very needless for the whole Church are witnesses of that The true use of them is to represent the Child as a party covenanting with God in this Solemn Sealing of the Covenant of Grace between God and the Infant and consequential to this to undertake the instruction and education of the Child in the Christian Religion and endeavouring to engage him to a personal owning of the Covenant The original of other Sponsors beside the Parents was in the Primitive Church many young ones either born of Heathen-Parents or Orphans of Christian-Parents falling into the Tuition of Heathen-Relations in reference to their worldly concerns were in hazard by that means to be bred in Heathenism Wherefore it was judged needful that some faithful and intelligent Christian should undertake for their Religious Education This usage which reason had first brought in ostentation did afterward enlarge by multiplying God-fathers and God-mothers and after that Superstition did perverâ— it by excluding the Parents and putting strangers in their room till at last in Popery it was quite depraved by making a spiritual kindred to result from this action Wherefore we do not deny the use of Sponsors but think the Parents the most proper Sponsors both on account of their opportunity obligation and natural inclination to do the office of a Sponsor for the Child which may rationally be thought to be more in them than in a stranger and we think it a gross abuse to admit of other Sponsors except in the want of Parents or their Inhability I think also considering things as they are not barely in the notions that men have of things that they will defend this practice is fallen into such abuse that even that should make it be laid aside for it is manifest and most common that God-fathers and God-mothers are chosen most unqualified for and most unconcerned in that which they make a solemn promise to God to perform which is a horrid mocking of Him and his Ordinances Are not Boys and Girls chosen or Debauched and Ignorant Persons or Strangers that may be shall never see the Child again nor mind it except it be to send it a new Coat Sect. 9. The Dr. telleth us of Mr. Cartwright yea and all Protestant Churches approving of this But will he say that they are for Excluding the Parents which is the very thing that we controvert For as the Dr. confesseth Can. 29. Ordaineth That Parents need not be Present and that they shall not be admitted to Answer that is they must not undertake for the instruction and education of their own Child But saith he The Parents are to provide such as are Fit. I desire to know what Warrant is for this even from sound reason Who can be so Fit by his opportunity and care as the Parent And if he be wholly unfit as to understanding and respect to true Religion we are not against his having a Deputy in that Case that it is done with the Parents consent is better so than otherwise but that the Parent can transfer his right to another is without all reason unless the Person to whom such a Translation is made do really take the education of the Child which though by a private compact between the Parent and Sponsor might be done yet what shadow of reason can be for a Canon compelling every Parent to do it It is saith he but like an occasion of absence to wit of the Parent in which case all allow of a Sponsor Ans. It is no way like it for the one hath necessity to warrant it the other hath nothing but mens will or superstitious conceit Is it alike for the State to make a Law that neighbours should feed and cloath the Orphans of poor Parents and to make a Law that they shall feed and cloath the Children of their rich Neighbours who are alive The case is just so here It is an injury to a man to have his Child taken from him without a cause and given to another to be educated so it is to be obliged yea forced to transfer upon another all that right he hath to represent his own child and to engage for his education He saith it is not the Churches intention to supersede the obligation of the Parent but to superinduce a further obligation upon other Persons Had the Parent been permitted to undertake for the Child jointly with the Sponsors there had been some colour for this assertion but that being expresly denied by the Canon it is evident that the Church doth what she can to make the Parent think that no obligation at all lyeth on him I meddle not with his debate against Mr. B. about Mr. B's Argument against Sponsors from the Childs having right to Baptism only from the Parents many learned men differ from Mr. B. in that and I shall not digress to dispute it Sect. 10. The Dr. pag. 386. saith he findeth nothing particularly objected against Kneeling at the Communion that deserveth consideration which he hath not answered in another place to wit Conferences First Part which Book I have not seen wherefore I shall in a few words lay down our Ground of Scrupling that Practice and so leave it We do not scruple Kneeling at Prayer which is joyned with receiving of that Sacrament nor do we deny that all possible reverence should be used in going about that Holy Ordinance but we think the expression of that Reverence should be of Gods appointing in his Word or grounded on Nature or civil Custom and not instituted by mans Will. 1. Then we scruple it because it is an uncommanded Act of Worship that it is Worship I think will not be denyed Kneeling in Prayer cannot be denyed to be an Act of external Worship no more than this That it is uncommanded we must believe till they shew us a Command for it They alledge that Kneeling being unquestionable a fit gesture to express Humility and Adoration it cannot be unfit but needful in this Case where both are required To this I reply Humility is not fitly expressed by Kneeling though Adoration be and therefore we think Kneeling in the Act of Receiving to be no fit gesture because Adoreing however needful it be in the complex Action of Communicating to wit before and after Receiving the Elements it is not the Souls work in that Act Believing or Covenanting with God is the proper Exercise of the Soul in that Act which is a solemn sealing of the Covenant and this Covenanting is very unfitly expressed by Kneeling He that is about solemn Prayer or Adoration which might be well expressed by Kneeling in the Act of receiving that Sacrament doth little know or consider the nature and use of it whence I form our Argument thus that Religious Gesture which is neither
they use against some of the Rags of that Whors attire tho' all be unjustly charged with this yet it is too evident to be the temper and way of some It s true immorality in Ministers and visible Enmity against the practice and power of Religion may justly stir the indignation of a serious Christian but to be so affected toward all that differ from us in the lesser matters of Religion is a Zeal not kindled from Heaven On the other Hand the odious comparison that is made between Popery and Presbytery preferring the former as more Eligible which is frequent in the Mouths not of the Rable only but of Men of Name and Authority in the Church doth not savour of that meekness guided by a sound judgment which becometh the Gospel Let them who are Godly and Sober on both sides love and esteem one another in the Lord and we may hope for more peace in the Church than yet we have seen This ill temper now hinted at should be shunned by all and reproved where it appeareth by them who would promote the peace of the Gospel If by all the means mentioned or other good ways peace cannot be obtained we must not step out of Gods way to obtain it Truth must be bought at any rate but Peace may be too dear to be bought by a Christian It may be impossible it may not lie in us to live peaceably with some men yea or with a Church Rom. 12. 8. Holiness is simply necessary not Peace Heb. 12. 14. Wherefore it is to be expected that we should yield in the matters of God however little they maybe comparatively as one may and ought to do for peace sake in his own matters Men cannot command their Light Consciences are unplyable things to worldly or carnal Arguments yea to those that seem to have somewhat in them more divine seeing the least Evils is not to be done or assented to for attaining the greatest good Over-powering light to change our minds or forbearing one another till that light arise are the true methods to compose Debates in the Church Assent and Subscrption to what is required while an inward dislike of it remaineth is away to Peace in a Church that the Lord doth not approve and that will not have Stability nor a good Issue I have no further account to give of this book but that it was written a few years ago which must excuse some passages that may seem not to suit our present case It was a doing when King James came to the Crown the case of Protestants soon after made it appear unseasonable to contend about our private Sentiments wherein we differ when we all were like to be undone by a Deluge of Popery But now after the state of the Nation hath been unhinged and is in a hopeful way to be setled it may seem allowable if not necessary that each Party should put in their claim and give the best reasons they can for their preteâ—sions and that with all moderation and peaceableness And having so done what they should leave it to them who ought to judge what is fittest to be chosen This I have endeavoured ut potui non ut debui wishing that some other person by whom it might have been done to more advantage had taken this Task Some may readily dislike the way of managing this debate following the Antagonist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but this I could not well shun The Reverend Doctor 's method not being very exact and many things that might stumble an ordinary Reader being brought in by him where it could little be expected This way I thought most useful for them who want instruction and others as they do not need any help that I can afford them so they can suffer no prejudice by this manner of reasoning I submit all that I have said to the censure of the judicious candid and unbyass'd Reader and to the Authority of the Church of Christ in any of her Lawful Assemblies If any shall judge that I have yielded too much or that I have condescended too little for the sake of unity I am willing to be corrected by any who shall bring plain Scripture or solid reason for what they alledge A Rational Defence OF Non-conformity c. THey who find themselves under an Obligation from the Authority of a Holy and Jealous God to regard the Purity of his Worship and keep their Consciences from being defiled with the Corruptions that Men have brought into that Worship are at this day under most Severe Persecution and that from their Fellow-Protestants which is no small aggravation of their Trouble when the common Enemy is ready to destroy us and the Religion that we do jointly profess But our Brethren are not satisfied with our other Sufferings but we are lashed with theâ—r Tongues and Pens and exposed as the most contemptible and most unreasonable of Men and that not only by the Common sort of Ministers and People that are of the opposite Party whose Zeal against us carrieth them commonly to profess that Papists are better than Presbyterians and that Religion rather to be chosen than this A great Token of Respect to the Protestant Religion as if all the Principles of it in which we agree with them were of less value than the Cermonies owned as Indifferent things wherein we differ from them but even by the Reverend and Learned Dr. Stillingfleet a Man formerly Eminent for his Moderation yet in this Bock now under examination treateth his Antagonists with that Contempt and Severity that was not expected from a man of his worth That poor suffering party though they have no Shelter against their other Afflictions but to make that GOD their Refuge for Obedience to whom they suffer yet may be allowed I hope a modest Apology for their way and practice by which that Reproach that is cast on them may be rowled away and their Innocency vindicated In order to this I have made bold to attempt the Answering of this Book looking for his help whose Cause we plead But before I meddle with the Book it self it is needful to survey his long PREFACE consisting of 94 pages wherein his main business is to fasten on the Nonâ—conformists a most heavy Charge as if they were Promoters of the Interest of Popery Sect. 2. If any Dissenters of that Time did use the Excellent B. Jewel whose Memory is still precious among all Protestants vngratefully and spightfully for preaching his Opinion in Defence of the Church-Order of England they deserve Blame it had been their part to vindicate their Principles by a sober and rational Defence against the Bishop's Arguments but not to shew Disrespect to a person who had so well deserved for his Learned Labours against Popery But I do not well understand how this unworthy Carriage should consist with the Character that the Dr. doth afterwards give of these Dissenters as to their moderation and compliance with the Church's way when he hath
and Pious and Learned Sr. Matthew Hales in his Book of Schism hath this passage In times of manifest Corruptions and Persecutions where Religious Assembling is dangerous private meetings howsoever beside publick Order are not only Lawful but they are of necessity and Duty All pious Assemblies in times of persecution and Corruption however practised are indeed or rather alone the Lawful congregations and publick Assemblies though according to form of Law are indeed nothing but Riots and Conventicles if they be stained with Corruption and Superstition Sest 40. He answereth an Objection pag. 77. That the Publishing of this Book is now unseasonable being a hindrance to the Vnion of Protestants to which there seemeth now to be a general Inclination He Alledgeth p. 78. that the principles of Non-conformists hinder that Vnion and lay a foundation for perpetual Divisions He knoweth that we will not own this and therefore proveth it as he thinketh On the principles laid down by some of the Dissenting Brethren Let the constitution be never so easie to themselves others may make use of their grounds and carry on the Difference as high as ever I wish he had told us what these grounds are But it is an Odd kind of Reasoning we will not endeavour Union with them who may be Tollerated because they who are not to be Tolerated will expect the same favour The ground on which we plead for forbearance is our Scruple about what you confess to be no Institution of Christ nor necessary duty we in our Conscience judge it unlawful and can shew good reason for our so judging How this ground can be Improved by any body to heighten Differences unless it be by the peremptoriness of them that will Impose such Things I do not understand He professeth to be for Vnion that will lessen differences and not weaken but strengthen the Protestant Religion Now let any judge whether the Union that is founded on the ground proposed be not such Sect. 41. He saith p. 97. That Vniversal Liberty differeth from Vnion as loosing from binding and it is strange if that which Papists lately thought the best Means to bring in Popery should now be lookt on as the most effectual way to keep it out Ans. We do not nor ever did plead for Vniversal Liberty which was that which no doubt Papists aimed at ergo nihil dictum But suppose saith he the Indulgence be at present strictly limitted to Dissenting Protestants we are not sure it will always continue so Will not the same Reasons as to Scruple of Conscience suffering for Religion c. be extended further when occasion serveth and Popery getteth footing on the Dissenters Grounds Ans. Were it not as rational for us to say Tho' we can now join with the Church of England in her present Ceremonies what know we how soon on the same grounds she may bring in all those of Popery Let us forbear evil surmising and mind our present Duty especially seeing the way to prevent this feared Evil is obvious to wit that no Indulgence be granted after but what there is as good Reason for and as little hazard from as is at present Neither do we plead for Indulgence meerly on the grounds of Sâ—ruple of Conscience or Suffering for Religion but on other grounds in conjunction with these as hath been a little above expressed It is like our Grounds may be comprehended in his wide-Bellied c. but if by it he means all grounds of Forbearance now may be extended to plead for an undue Toleration then all Forbearance of Christians that dissent in any thing must be unlawful which is contrary to the Scripture formerly mentioned and to the general Sentiments of all Christians except Papists whose Religion standeth by Blood and Cruelty Sect. 42. Where saith he hath the Church of Rome more Labourers and a greater Harvest than under the greatest Liberty of Conscience Witness the state of the Northern Kingdoms compared with the number of Papists in the united Netherlands I can soon tell him where to wit under Episcopal Persecution of Protestants in Britain If this be a mistake these Nations have been for some Years in a Dream Again his Instance is wide from the purpose for we plead not for a Toleration of all sects and particularly not of Papists what Toleration is in the Netherlands themselves can best give account of He asserteth it impossible to keep out Popery where Toleration is allowed and I assert it as impossible to keep in Christianity in an impure Church where it is not allowed and yet there is no inconsistency between the two Assertions if we distinguish between a Limited Toleration which we plead for and one Vnlimited which he all along speaketh of To talk of Toleration thus without distinction is to walk in the Clouds and not descend to the thing in debate which is unbeseeming a Disputant Sect. 43. He bringeth Three Arguments p. 79 80. to prove his Assertion 1. Because of the various waies of creeping in under several Disguises which the Priests and Jesuits have and can never be prevented where there is a general Indulgence for Dissenters and an unaccountable Church-power is allowed to separate Congregations Ans. 1. This Argument Supponit falsum which we have often disclaimed to wit That we plead for a general Indulgence to Dissenters we desire it may be limitted to men of peaceable Principles and Practices to such as differ from the publick way in matters not Fundamental nor near to the Foundation and for our part who are Presbyterians we seek forbearance only in things that are acknowledged to be none of Christ's Institutions and in things that are neither against Godliness nor the Peace of Church or State. Another Falshood that he supposeth is That we plead for an unaccountable Church-power in Separatâ— Meetings We plead for no Power in them but what a good account can be given of from Scripture and what is allowed commonly to a Church as such 2. I mention'd before a way of preventing the creeping in of Priests and Jesuits for all their Cunning to wit The due Exercise of Church-Discipline in all the ways that shall be tolerated especially in the admission of Ministers to their Office and if these Foxes creep in at undiscerned cranies if Discipline be in vigour they may be cast out again before they can do any considerable harm to the Flock Sect. 44. Argument 2. Because it will be great hardship when mens heats are over for them the Papists only to be deprived of the Liberty of their Consciences when the wildest of Phanaticks are allowed it Answ. 1. Still the old Supposition must found all his Arguments We plead for no Toleration to any Phanaticks properly so called much less to the wildest of them 2. There are many weighty Reasons why Papists should be denied that Liberty that is allowed to Protestant Dissenters from the Grossness of their Heresies the Idolatry of their Worship the Unpeaceableness of their Principles such
their supposed peaceableness which he rejoiced in tho he could not obtain his first desire Sect. 18. That they at Frankford did compromise the matter as he alledgeth p. 13. I do not find Fuller saith p. 30. That Calvin's Letter struck such a stroke especially in the Congregation at Frankford that some therein who formerly partly approved did afterwards wholly dislike and more who formerly disliked did now detest the English Liturgy Our Author telleth us of Dr. Cox's setting up the Litany which put Knox in a rage so as he declaimed against the English Church as far as his Wit and Ill-will could carry him Woe to the World if such partial and false History carry the Day But we see what we are to think of the most ancient and remote History when so near our own time matters of Fact are so unjustly represented Fuller uâ—i supra telleth us That Dr. Cox a Man of high Spirit with some of his Friends arrived there and March 13. discompose the Model of their Service first answering aloud after the Minister and on the Sunday following one of his Company without the Consent and Knowledge of the Congregation got up into the Pulpit and there read all the Litany and Citeth for this Troubles of Frankford p. 38. whereat Knox highly offended Preaching from his Ordinary Text shewed the English Book to be Superstitious Vnpure and Imperfect Is here any thing of Rage or what did not become sober Zeal for God and his Ordinances which were interrupted in their peaceable Administration by a proud-Stranger intruding into the Pulpit without a call from the Minister or the Church Sect. 19. We are told by the Dr. ibid. from a Letter of Grindal to Ridley that the Church at Frankford was well quieted by the Prudence of Mr. Cox and others which met there for that purpose But a more Impartial Historian out of the Book that the Dr. pretendeth to follow tho he be no Non-conformist telleth us what a peaceable end this Debate came to even such an end as a bloâ—dy Victory useth to bring to an unhappy War And such a Peace as the Non-conformists in England at this day have under Prelatists of the same temper with Dr. Cox and such as the poor Jews had in Shushan when the King and Haman sate down to eat and drink Esth. 3. 15. The fore-cited Author p. 30 31. telleth how Cox prevailed by new Recruits out of England And Knox 's Party again by the Favour of the Magistrate and the French Minister And that Cox 's Party being depressed embraced a strange way to raise themselves and accuse Knox to the State of Treason against the Emperour and that in Eight places of a Book of his The seven last the Historian saith may be well Omitted The first is That he called the Emperour no less an Enemy to Christ than was Nero. This the Impartial Historian cryeth out on the Words being spoken some Years before in England by one that owned no Natural Allegiance to the Emperour that they should be charged on him by Men of his own Religion in Exile with him to the endangering of his Life And of this he saith alluding to Rachel's Words With great rather than good Wrestling have I wrestled and prevailed So was Mr. Knox advised by the Magistrate to depart not forbidden by the Congregation as the Dr. saith to Preach And those that clave to him were scattered Here is Episcopal Peace and here is a taste of the Spirit and Methods by which they carry on their Cause But further the sâ—me Author telleth us how harshly the Coxioens it is his own word used the other party ejecting their Church-Officers without taking any notice of them or asking their consent Also how they refused to let the matter come to Hearing or Arbitration by which he saith Cox's party lost much Reputation How they reproached the other as Schismaticks when they had made the Shism in a peaceable Church And after he telleth us how Cox's party brake among themselves about other things oftner than once and that to a scandalous heighth Which may be seen at length in the Author If this be convenient in a Congregation let any judge it is strange that the Dr. and Mr. Fuller both should Read these Historical passages with so different Spectacles Sect. 20. The Dr. telleth us Sect. 4. P. 13 14. That the Controversy was not carried out of England with them but as Hooper in Switzerland so they in Geneva and elsewhere got a better likeing of their Church-way than of Ours that being such as the Country would bear And it is hard to remove Prejudicâ—s especially when they have such Abetters whose Authority goes beyond any Reason with them And that is the true Foundation of our unhappy Differences that yet continue I have abridged his Words but given the full sence of them And now I shall Note a few things on this Discourse 1. He will not allow it it seems that Non-conformists of old or late have ever made the Bible the Rule of their worshipping God No they are meer Consuetudinary Men and soon taken with any new Fashion and so Obstinate that they will not part with any Custom when once taken up Thus he is pleased to picture those that dissent from him We expected more Charity from him 2. If Non-conformists cannot prove what they hold by Scripture and sound Reason let them lie under as much of his Reproach as he shall please to cast upon them But if they can I hope he will retract this rash Censure 3. If Custom did so far Influence these men methinks the Customs that they had first received in their native Country should have been a sufficient Antidote against all Foreign Infection to the contrary But their being taken with the way in other Countries rather sheweth that their former way was built on Custom and Education and that the Change was from Scripture Light that they had met with abroad which they could not resist 4. I have shewed before that they had these principles before they went abroad even in King Edward 6's Time there were not a few of that way 5. It is strange that all Countries beside England are so Clownish that they cannot bear the Pomp and Ceremonies of Divine Worship here used How then doth Popery get any Entertainment beyond Sea even among the Swâ—ssers which Religion will vie with Ours in outward Splendor If the Genius of a Nation did determine men in Religion as the Dr. insinuateth in this casâ— how is it that the Ceremonies are not used among the Protestants in France which is the pattern for Modishness and Gaiety to England and other parts of the World but this is so indigested a Notion that it doth not well become the Learning of Dr. Stilling fleet tho it be good enough for some to rant with over a Pot of Ale. 6. Whether our party or his be more guilty of Obstinate insisting on mens Authority in defiance of Reason let
the World judge We are content to set aside all the Authority of men Ancient and Modern and to referr our debate simply to the Determination of Scripture But mens Authority is the Argument that the Dr. in this Book doth most insist upon I hope the Reader may by this time perceive whether the Dr. doth truly or faIsly Assign the Foundation of our Differences which I with him acknowledge to be unhappy Sect. 21. He saith p. 14. That in the English Reformation they proceeded more out of reverence to the Ancient Church than meer opposition to Popery which some other Reformers made their Rule Here are two mistakes not to be passed in silence 1. The Ancientest Church had none of the Ceremonies they were neither in the Apostolick Church nor in that which was near it How ancient they were he will after give occasion to enquire So that England took for their pattern the Church that was much declined both in Antiquity and Purety 2. What can be more grosly false than to say that other Reformers made meer opposition to Popery with their rules Two things make the contrary evident 1. They did not reject all that Papists held as That there is one God c. 2. They rejected nothing of Popery but what they gave other reasons for than that the Papists held it to wit That it was contrary to Scripture or not instituted by Christ and so condemned in Scripture as vain Worship being a Teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of men We make Symbolizing with Papists or other Idolaters an Argument against the Ceremonies but we reject them not on that account only and so meer opposition to Popery is not the rule of our Reformation Sect. 22. He complaineth that Calvin and others did insinuate that the English Reformation was Imperfect Nay they openly mainâ—ained it and so do we He doth twice mis-represent Calvin's Words p. 14 15. That he had avowed in the Letter before-cited to the Protector That the best Rule of Reformation is to go as far from Popery as they could No such Words are to be found in that Letter nor any thing that will import so much He doth indeed press the removing of all Popish Ceremonies as having been abused to Idolatry and citeth Psal. 16. 4. Where David saith That he will not take up the names of idols in his mouthâ— but he neither maketh this the Rule nor the best Rule of Reformation He knew that Scripture and Institution which he had a little before-mentioned was the Rule and a far better Rule than that Tho' even that hath its use to direct us in Reformation of the Church Again he saith That Calvin yieldeth to this Moderation that such Ceremonies might be retained as were easie and fitted to the Capacity of the People provided they were not such as had their beginning from the Devil or Antichrist His words are Adeoque Ceremonias ipsas ad usum captum esse accommodandas sed non minus constanter affirmo Videndum esse ne sub illo praetextu toleratur quicquam quod a Satana vel Antichristo profectum sit Here is no advice to retain any Humane Ceremonies but all of that sort fall under that Censure they being not from God and being Parts of Worship they are from Satan or Antichrist but he would have all the Externals of Worship so fitted to peoples capacity as that they do not hinder but rather help in the inward exercise of it And if Calvin did yield in that Infancy of the Reformation which I think he did not otherwise he could not blame the Imperfection of it That the Ceremonies might be retained it maketh nothing for perpetuating of them The Dr. saith They proceeded by this Rule of Moderation taking away all the Ceremonies that were of late Invention And he saith p. 14. That the Ceremonies retained were more ancient than the great Apostasy of the Roman Church It had been fit to have removed all that were of Humane Invention for Antiquity can neither prejudice Christ's Instituâ—ions nor warrant Mens But it is not true that all the Ceremonies retained were so ancient as shall be made appear in due time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Kneelling in the Act of receiving the Lord's Supper Neither will it free our Ceremonies from being Popish that they were before the great Apostasy if it be made appear that they were with a considerable degree of the Apostasy yea and a part of it Sect. 23. He endeavoureth to free our Ceremonies from Popery because the Cross is used by Papists in the Scrutinies before Baptism we use it after Baptism and Kneeling is not strictly required by the Roman Church in the act of Receiving as appeareth by the Pope's sitting or a little leaning For the first What great difference doth it make whether Crossing be used before or after Baptism seeing it is not to be omitted but belongeth to that Sacrament as one of its Adjuncts Our quarrel with it is not that it is used after Baptism but that it is used being none of Christ's Institutions but of Man's Invention and abused in the Popish Administration of Baptism For the Second I hope he will not deny that Kneeling in the act of Receiving is the constant Practice and required among the Papists and That the Pope who to them is above the Laws of God should be exempted from the Laws of their Church is so insignificant an Argument against Kneeling being required by them that I wonder to see it used by so Learned a man. For his Plain Linen Garment only used instead of many of the Popish Vâ—stments which was used in the time of Jerom and Austin I deny that it is the only Vestment that they use as appropriated to Religion and religious Persons any who readâ—th the Book of Canons made Anno 1603. Can. 74. may see the contrary the Reverend Clergy there busying themselves to order the fashion of Cloaths that all of them should use But that the Surplice is as ancient as Hierom and Augustin I shall not now examine seeing it is too well known that many Abuses were crept into the Church sooner than their days the one flourishing in the end of the Fourth Century the other in the Fifth I see no cause why any man should stand amazed at the noise that is made against the mischief of these Impositions as he saith p. 16. seeing all that he hath said doâ—h not clear them from being Men's Devices in God's Worship and consequently vain Worship which is a burden to any Conscience that regardeth Christ's Authority more than that of Men. Sect. 24. He pretendeth Sect. 5. to give Reasons why the Ceremonies were retained by our Reformers tho' they were distasteful to some Protestants and like to prove the Occasions of future Contentions These Reasons are three 1. Out of a due reverence to Antiquity 2. To justifie the Reformation before Enemies in that we would not break with them for meer indifferent things 3. To
shew our consent with the Protestant Churches To these I return a word or two in general and then shall answer them particularly â— Why was not Scripture consulted in this weighty matter which wise men think is a safer and better Rule of Reformation than any of the Three here mentioned Shall we slight or cross Christ's Institution in the Worship of God for the sake of Antiquity or Papists or Protestants either I am far from thinking that our Reformers had so little regard to Scripture nay that was the Weapon they alwaies used against the Papists tho' in reference to the Ceremonies they did not so well consider it as they should have done But the Dr. and his Party seem to lay little weight on it in this Controversie for he maketh little or no use of it through this large Book which is somewhat strange in a Controversie of Divinity It is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to use weapons so far different from those of the Apostles and therefore I hope they will not prove mighty through Christ as his were 2 Cor. 10. 4. None of these Reasons nor all of them in conjunction is sufficient to establish any point of Truth or to warrant any part of Divine Worship Wherefore they should first have proved the Ceremonies to be lawful and then these three Reasons might well have come in as Auxiliaries to confirm the use of them but to manage the Worship of God by such Considerations without any other Reason was too slender a Ground to proceed upon Sect. 25. Let us now consider his three Reasons in particular For the First Due reverence to Antiquity Ans. 1. We reverence Antiquity as much as our Brethren do but with these two Cautions 1. That we preferr the first Antiquity to that which was later the Apostolick Church to the Ages of the Church that succeeded If they can shew us any footsteps of the Ceremonies in that Church we shall embrace them if not give us leave to reject them even out of Reverence to Antiquity 2. We do not own Antiquity where there was no Infallibility as was in the Apostles for the Rule of our Faith or Worship We know the Church may erre and did very soon begin to decline of which somewhat before and more afterward We reverence Antiquity so far as not to recede from it without sufficient warrant from Scripture or clear Reason and to reverence it further is to idolize it and put it in the place of Divine Authority Ans. 2. Why are not our Brethren uniform in their Reverence to Antiquity Do not they desert Antiquity in more things and those of more moment than the controverted Ceremonies are Will they deny the naevi patrum that Divines both Papists and Protestants have observed They have laid aside the osculum that then was called pacis sanctum vel fraternitatatis used presently after Prayer which Tertullian calleth Signaculâ—m orationis the Agapae that notwithstanding of the Apostles check 1 Cor. 11. 21 22. were used in Tertullian's time sometimes before the Lord's Supper sometimes after also the Baptizing if not only yet more ordinarily the day before Easter and Pentecost the Trina immersio the Communio Infantum the Gustatio mellis lactis all used in Baptism in Tertullian's time Of the same sort are the diluting of the Wine with Water in the Lord's Supper the sign of the Cross used in Omni conversatione as Tertullian hath it The carrying the Eulogias or consecrated Symbols to the Sick and others all these in the Second Century In the Third Century were brought in Offerings and Prayers for the Dead and Exorcism in Baptism What a world of Ceremonies were added in the Fourth Century is too well known Now all these were as ancient as the Times of the first Christian Emperors to which the Dr. saith p. 17. that Our Reformers endeavoured to reduce the state of the Church if it was thought fit and no disrespect to the Fathers to reject their practices in some things as innocent as our Ceremonies why not in them also there being no more warant in the Word for the one sort of things than the other This is to make Respect to Antiquity to â—erve a turn or mens own designs which I hope our worthy Reformers were far from whatever may be said of their Successors Sect. 26. Ans. 3. If the Dr. had pleased to tell us how ancient the Ceremonies that he contendeth for are we should have considered his Allegations I am sure he cannot equal them in Antiquity with the Rites above-mentioned which yet his Church rejecteth We affirm them to be Novel Inventions brought in under a considerable tho' not the highest Degeneracy of the Church when we meet with his proofs to the contrary they shall be answered I wonder to hear from such an Antiquary as Dr. Stâ—llingfleet That purging out of these Ceremonies is a Reforming 1600 years backward as if all the controverted Ceremonies or any of them had been in the first Century in the very daies of the Apostles I suppose he will find it a hard Task to prove this By what hath been said it is easie to discover the weakness of what he alledgeth about giving unspeakable Advantage to the Papists by reforming 1600 years backward for neither do we own the Ceremonies to be so old nor could Papists have any advantage if we reject what is unwarranted by the Word however ancient it be Indeed if we should part with Scripture and referr the decision of our Controversies with the Papists only to â—hurch-History it were to give them advantage if we should disown any thing so ancient but I hope the Dr. will not advise us to that course and therefore there is no hazard It addeth to this unspeakable advantage in the Dr's Opinion That when they the Non-conformists are pinched with a Testimony of Antiquity presently cry out of the Mystery of Iniquity already working in the Apostle's Times as tho' every thing that they disliked were a part of it Ans. Tho' we have hitherto met with none of his pinching Arguments from Antiquity yet we think that Allegation no such ridiculous Evasion as he would make it seeing the Spirit of God was pleased to give us this warning and after-Ages gave a clear proof of the fulfilling of this Scripture by the ripening of those Inclinations that were among some in the Apostles days of falling back to beggarly Elements Gal. 4. 9. and subjecting themselves to mens Ordinances touch not taste not handle not Col. 2. 20 21. into the highest of Superstition and Depravation of the Worship of God as Antichristianism came to a height If the load of humane Traditions were a part of that Mystery of Iniquity that was adult under Antichrist why should we not think that these Beginnings were a part of these first workings of it that the Apostle complaineth of If we make any thing that disliketh us a part of that working Mystery of Iniquity that we cannot prove to
the Lord with them by their sinful Impositions and do what they can to hinder us from having them otherwise by their Persecutions many things of that nature are our Affliction and their Sin but all this cannot oblige us to Communicate with them in their Corruptions of God's Worship Sect. 4. I leave our Author to make the best he can of his first undertaking and come to attend him in his second to wit That constant Communion is a Duty where Occasional Communion is lawful This he manageth Sect. 17. Mr. B. and Mr. A. had given good instances to disprove this as it is here set down to wit joining with other Parishes in a Journey at a Lecture c. but I am willing to understand it with the Dr. of Communion with a Church whereof we have been or should be Members and of withdrawing from a Church for some Corruptions where yet I may Occasionally join in some duties for his opinion in this he bringeth two Arguments the first he taketh from the general Obligation upon Christians to use all lawful means for preserving the Peace and Vnity of the Church This he inforceth by proving this Obligation which none of us ever denied but do with more reason retort all that can be said on that heâ—d on themselves who will not do what they can for this Peace and Unity they will not quit so much as one of their needless Ceremonies â—or our part we are ready to do what we can without Sin for Peace and Unity but the Dr. should have proved 1. That our coming to their Sermons as often as there was no Let by the Liturgy joined with it and when they pleased to suffer us without Excommunication and Câ—piâ—ndo's would preserve that which he calleth Peace and Vnity 2. That we being necessitated to have other Meetings for the pure Ordinances of God it was a lawful means for Peace and Unity with that Church that had driven us away to desert these Meetings and wait on so much of their Administrations as they should be pleasâ—d to allow us Our Hearts do not reproach us as this Learned Author doth That it is one of the provoking Sins of the Non-conformists that they have been so backward in doing what they were convinced they might have done with a good Conscience He meaneth toward Communion with the Church Sect. 5. But I perceive all the Strength of his Argument and the Zeal with which he prosecuteth it is built on a mistake to wit That we hold it lawful to Communicate with the Church in the Liturgy and Sacraments If Mr. B. or any other are of that opinion I know not why they should be Non-conformists If I were convinced of it I should not deny constant Communion with the Church whatever I might do Occasionally elsewhere only I think our Author need not talk so highly against his Opposites as he doth p. 159. when they speak of some cases where joining with the Church would do more harm than good Was ever Schism saith he made so light of And the Peace and Vnity of Christianity valued at so low a rate Ans. Yes to wit by them who will not part with a Trifling Ceremony for the Peace that they so much talk of but will impose these on scrupling Consciences by force to the dividing of the Church the laying aside of thousands of well qualified Ministers and the Hazard and Ruin of many Souls Did ever men in the World make lighter of the Peace of Christians than these men do if you believe their deeds and yet value it more highly if ye regard their words He asketh p. 161. Which of them readeth what they think lawful in their own Assemblies Ans. We read part of that service-Service-Book daily in our Assemblies to wit the Scriptures therein contained we read them out of the Bible but for using the Book or any part of it as in that composure we find no obligation on us to that both because that would be very insignificant toward Unity with the Church more than Preaching of the same Doctrine and praying for the same things is counted by them also we look on the whole Frame and Model of that Service as a humane device that we ought to give no Countenance to in God's Worship Aâ—d lastly because having once parâ—ed with them in the matter of worship we think we should take our Rule for manageing our Worship from the Scripture rather than from their Ecclesiastical Constitutions Sect. 6. All his Arguments Sect. 18. do proceed on the forementioned mistake to wit that we count Communion with them in all their Ordinances lawful If that were true Communion with them sometimes for peace might well inferr constant Communion for the same good design Neither do I say that better means of Edification will warrant constant separate Assemblies however it may warrant Occasional Communion elsewhere then where we are Members of a Church I look not on our Lords Communion with the Jewish Church as only Occasional but Constant so far as the Woâ—k that he was sent into the World for did permit but I am far from thinking that ever he did communicate with the Jews in any part of their uninstituted worship as the Dr. alledgeth p. 162. His presence at the Feast of Dedication as other Jews were is asserted by the Dr. without all Ground and he knoweth our Writers do constantly deny it and therefore his bare asserting it should not have been thought enough to set it off All that the Scripture saith of this is That he walked in Solomon's Porch Joh. 10. 22 23. Did none of the Jews more than this at that Feast Is it not to be thought that he who did so sharply reprove their uninstituted Washings and other religious Observations on account of the want of Institution and defended the Non-conformity of his Disciples to these Observations would himself observe a Religious Solemnity that had no other warrant nor foundation but what those other things had which he condemneth It is then rational to think that he walked there to get opportunity to speak to the People at that concourse as the Apostles after did when they knew these Jewish Feasts to be abrogated and not fit to be observed Sect. 7. He bringeth a Second Argument Sect. 19. from Phil. 3. 16. As far as we have already attained let us walk by the same Rule let us mind the same things To prove that where Occasional Communion with a Church is lawful constant Communion is a Duty for saith he from hence appeareth evident that Men ought to go as far as they can toward Vniformity and not to forbear doing any thing which they lawfully may do towards Peace and Vnity This Argument is but lamely proposed and this Scripture but weakly improved by what the Dr. saith to prove his design Two things it seems he would inferr from it to wit Vniformity and Study of Peace I first ask him whether he thinketh these two to be necessarily conjoined so
Communion tho' they make it not necessary to Salvation and where-ever we must sin or separate Separation is allowed by the Scripture which tieth us to live peaceably with all men if possible and so far as in us lieth It is not in our power to sin for Illud tantum possumus quod jure possumus 2. The Apostle speaketh of using Ceremonies that the Dr. calleth indifferent as so dangerous to the Soul that Separation is no doubt rather to be chosen than the use of them and yet he doth not take notice of their being lookt on as necessary to Salvation Therefore I conclude against the Dr's Conclusion of this Second Part of his Book that we are not obliged to prove against his Party either Idolatry or false Worship or making the Ceremonies necessary to Salvation It is enough if we prove that ye make them necessary to our communicating with you and that it is unlawful for us to use them for hence it plainly followeth that we must either live without the Ordinances which were our Sin or meet apart for worshipping God which is our Duty as your Impositions and Severities have stated us PART III. IN this Third Part of his Book the Learned Author undertaketh to refute several Pleas that the Dissenters use for their not communicating with the Church of England and for keeping Meetings separate from the Church The Dissenters as they are of different pâ—rswasions so they use different Pleas in defence of their ways I shall not take the defence of them all but before I come to examine this part of the Dr's Book I shall give my opinion of the several Pleas that he refuteth and fix upon what I shall own SECT I. The several Pleas used by Dissenters considered I Behold the Pleas used for the present separating from the publick Assemblies as divided into three sorts 1. Some that I do not think to be any just cause of complaint against the Church of England 2. Some that are Grievances to us that we dare not own nor approve but desire a Reformation of them yet I do not think that they by themselves make Communion with the publick Assemblies unlawful nor can justifie Separation 3. Some that not only are Grievances but do justifie yea make necessary some sort of separation and these I shall afterward further subdistinguish Of the first sort I reckon the Constitution of the Church in its Members at first want of governing Power in the People and the Constitution of a National Church as it is scrupled at by some Sect. 2. For the second sort they are not a few neither can I promise to name them all 1. We are griâ—ved with Prelatical Government and taking away of that pariâ—y of Power that Christ hath given to the ordinary Ministers of his Church This we cannot approve and therefore Ministers ought rather to suffer deprivation of the publick Exercise of their Ministry than own it And people also ought not to own that their lordly Authority that they exercise yet because this is not required to be acknowledged as a lawful Power in the Church by the people I see not that we should withdraw from the publick Assemblies meerly because there are Diocesan Bishops set over the Church except our owning them by submitting to their Jurisdiction is required as one of the Terms of Communion with the Church 2. Depriving people of their Right of chusing their own Church-Officers is also matter of complaint but we must bear it rather than separate for that from a Church 3. The gross Abuses that are in the Discipline of the Church or rather the want of any thing that looketh like Gospel Discipline we lament but it not being peoples work to mend it nor the Abuses their personal action it is no just ground of Separation 4. Godfathers and Godmothers in Baptism are an abuse but being extrinsick to the Ordinance we should not separate for that neither 5. The defects and faults that are in the Call of the Ministers and in their personal Conversation their Pluralities and Non-residences and several things of that nature we complain of and the insufficiency of many of them but do not separate for these while the Ordinances are not corrupted that we partake of 6. The Surplice and other superstitious Habits worshipping toward the East bowing to the Altar and such-like we dare not approve nor practise yet these not being imposed as Terms of our Communion with the Church we do not separate on account of them The lawfulness of these I do not now debate nor is it needful at all to do it in reference to the point of Separation that the Dr. chargeth us with yet they being things wherein we dissent from our Brethren I shall not shun to dispute such of them with the Dr. as his following Discourse shall give occasion for Sect. 3. There are a third sort of things that we dislike in the Episcopal Church of England which not only are matter of Grievance but do necessitate us and justifie us in it to depart from her Communion till these Letts be removed and they are of two sorts 1. The unlawful Terms of Communion with Her thaâ— She requireth of us without which she will not suffer us to partake with Her in the Ordinances of God as that we must worship God by the Liturgy that our Children when baptized must be signed with the Cross that we must Kneâ—l in the Act of receiving the Lord's Supper that we must observe the Holidays that She hath appointed out Christ never instituted These things we think unlawful to be done and the Church tho' She thinketh them indifferent and unnecessary in themselves yet have made them necessary by Her imposing them and excommunicateth and persecuteth us if we will not use them and therefore a parting from Her on these accounts doth necessarily follow not only because we ought not to live without God's Ordinances which we cannot have with our Brethren but because if we would do so they would still persecute us if we come not to the Liturgy if we have not our Children baptized if we do not receive the Lord's Supper thrice a Year and especially at Easter if we do not observe the Holidays A second thing that layeth a necessity on us to have Meetings apart from them is their restraining of a considerable part of the Ministers whom Christ had sent to his Church and fitted by his Gifts for Gospel-Administrations upward of Two Thousand of them being put out in one day We think it is the Duty of these men to preach the Gospel and administer the Ordinances of God and the Duty of the People to wait on their Administrations and to own their relation to them It is true this by it self considered need not hinder our Communion and that ordinarily with the publick Assemblies for things might be so managed as no clashing needed be but this putteth us under a necessity of meeting by our selves and the sinful Terms
bring Papists to the Church tho' it proved after a while rather a mean of carrying Protestants to the Mass. And King Edward 6th with the Council did affirm as much in a Letter to the Rebels in the West who had risen in defence of Popery saying that the Service that now they had in English was almost the same that before they had in Latin. And any that readeth the Bible and the Mass and this Service may easily see that there is a far greater Simitude between it and the Mass than between it and all the Worship of God that the Scripture giveth account of to have been practiced in the Apostolick Church 2. This may appear if we consider the Original of this Service it was taken out of several Popish Books the Prayers out of the Breviary the Sacraments Burial Matrimony Visitation of the Sick out of the Ritual Adminstration of the Lords Supper out of the Mâ—ss-book and Consecration of Bishops out of the Pontifical as any may see who will be at the pains to compare the Books mentioned together Sect. 12. I know it will be said that they retain only those parts of those Books that were composed by the Orthodox Fathers of the Church and used in the primitive times But this is no sufficient defence for 1. Suppose that Frame of worship had so good an Original yet being now of late so grosly abused to Idolatry and being so like to the Idolatrous worship of the Papists rather than like Apostolick Worship and we having departed from that Church on good Grounds why should we chuse their way of worship and in so doing both differ from the primitive times especially the Apostles times and from all other Reformed Churches 2. It is false that this Frame of Service was composed by the Fathers it is indeed said by some that Jerom composed some Prayers for the use oâ— weak Christians but that he or any other such did compose this Frame or any thing like it is denyed and I have proved that there was no such thing in these Times The Prayers were made by Gregory the Great Anno 600. or thereabout other parts were added by other Popes the Responds came not in till many years after What is commonly talked of the Liturgies of the Apostles or Evangelists James Peter Matthew Mark is now so exploded as learned men among our Brethren do not plead for them This shall suffice concerning the Liturgy about which more might have been said but I have said more than at first I intended SECT VIII The other Terms of Communion that they impose considered I proceed now to attend the Learned Dr's Discourse about thesâ— other Terms of Communion that his Church imposeth and we scruple And first I take notice that he chargeth his Answerers with remaining in Generals and pretending that they judge they esteem the Terms of Communion unlawful but bring no particular Arguments to prove the unlawfulness of them He saith Protestants do not do so when they charge the Church of Rome with unlawful Terms of Communion The Answer to this is easie 1. They were charged with Separation and in answering the Dr's Sermon acted the part of Defendants it was enough for that deâ—ence to plead that they did not Separate without good Ground and to shew that they scrupled such and such Terms of Communion imposed on them by the Church It was not needful in this debate to resume all the Controversie about the Liturgy and Ceremonies 2. Our Party have given abundant proof of the reasonableness of their scrupling at these things the Books above mentioned against the Liturgy and against the Ceremonies Didoclavius the Author of the Book called the English Popish Ceremonies Mr. Jeans Treasuâ—e out of Rubish a Treatise of Divine Worship English Puritanism Twelve Arguments against Ceremonies Smectymn G. F. questions betwixt Conformists and Non-conformists and many other pieces There is so much said in these and yet unanswered that it was needless to repeat what is there said I must be guilty of the same fault if it be one having at length disputed against the Ceremonies and proved them to be unlawful to be used in a Piece entituled A Vindication of the Purity of Gospel Worship against Mr. Geoâ—ge Ritchel and others I may without blame referr the Reader thither and not repeat what is there written provided I leave nothing unanswered that the Dr. hath here said on that Subject 3. Our Party do not stand on equal Ground with the Dr. and his Party Neither have we the liberty of the Press as they have nor that immunity to speak out our Arguments but we are ready to be concluded by a Prison instead of Arguments but let not the Dr. think our Cause is laid low because our Persons and worldly Interests are so Sect. 2. He resumeth an Argument out of his Sermon against our Separating that there ought to be no Separation where there is agreement in Doctrine and Substantial parts of Worship and that this Agreement is acknowledged in our case He saith Mr. A. denyeth such Agreement both in Doctrine of this I have given my judgment above Part 2. S. 1. Section 2. also in Substantial parts of Worship and alledged the Cross in Baptism to be a Substantial part of Worship Hence the Dr. undertaketh p. 335. 1. To shew what he meaneth by Substantial parts of Worship 2. That the Cross is not made such The Dr. seemeth to lay some weight on this distinction of parts of Worship to wit Substantial and Circumstantial or Accidental and alledgeth that many of us are misled by not considering it I much desire the clearing of it and therefore resolve carefully to observe what he saith and shall be ready to receive Light. He saith that The Nonconformists great Principle is That what ever was any ways intended or designed for the Worship of God was a Real and Substantial part of his Worship and when their Adversaries told them that Divine Institution was needful to make a part of Worship they said that made True Worship but without it an Act might be Worship that is False Worship and yet they allow'd the Application of common Circumstances to Acts of Worship This Subject I have discoursed at large in the Book above cited cap. 3. sect 1 3 4. But shall now a little consider what representation the Dr. is pleased to make of our Principles 1. I know no Nonconformist that ever asserted that all that was intended or designed for Worship was Worship either Real or Substantial for they well know that the Meeting-place the Ministers Maintenance the Pulpit Communion-Table c. are designed for Worship and yet are no Worship Real nor Imaginary Substantial nor Accidental True nor False If he mean by being designed for Worship that the person doing such an Act intendeth to Worship God by so doing which I cannot take to be his meaning I hope himself will acknowledg that though such a design is needful to make an act