in these yet they are not a sufficient cause to take up Arms and Rebel against the State and so it is in the Church Nothing can be a sufficient cause but where something is contrary to the Law of God is impos'd as a condition of Communion for if it be not impos'd on me I may still joyn in Communion without Sin and then I ought so to joyn and it is a sin not to joyn As if an impious Law were enacted in the State yet I ought not to Rebel for this only if it be impos'd on me I ought to refuse it and so it is in the Church There is no cause for Rebellion in the Church that is not as sufficient for Rebellion in the State You urge the Oath of a Church-Warden as a cause fâ—â— Schism But all that can be infer'd from thence is that those that scruple that Oath should not be Church-Wardens It is not impos'd as a condition upon any and there is the same reason to Rebel against the State for that Oath for it is injoyn'd by Law as to make a Schism for it in the Church I now come to the main Proof That is from Scripture You quote four Texts Stand fast therefore in the Liberty wherewith Christ hath set you Free and be not again intangled with the Yoke of Bondage 2. Be ye not the Servants of Men. Rom. 3.14 And the fourth is Colos 14. To the first I say The Yoke of Bondage was the Law of Moses to which the Jewish Converts did seek to oblige all Christians which was the occasion of the Council call'd at Jerusalem Acts 15. And the Liberty wherewith Christ hath set us free is from the Bondage of that Law Christian Liberty must not be understood to give every man Liberty to do what he pleaseth or to free men from the Lawful Commands of Superiors therefore no consequence can be drawn from this Text to warrant Schism upon this Account of our Ceremonies unless they be prov'd to be unlawful and secondly to be impos'd as Terms of Communion The second Text Be ye not the Servants of men of Literily taken will overthrow the Right of Masters over their Servants and in no sound sence will come to the Case in hand Rom. 14. Respects the Case of private Persons Judging one another in things left to their Liberty but not to oppose the Lawful Commands of Superiors especially so as to make a Schism upon that Account the hand Writing of ordinances mention'd Colos 2.14 Was the Curse of the Law due to us for Sin which Christ Nailed to his Cross as is plain from ver 13. and hath no Relation to that which we enquire after These are all the Scriptures you produce to justify separation on the Account of Ceremonies You object a neglect of Examination before the Sacrament but this is clear is no sufficient cause for Schism and it may be best amended without separation by admonishing of others and shewing them a good Example Our Rubrick requires it And therefore they are Nonconformists to our Church who do not practise it You say That sanctification by a Man 's own Free will Justification by a Man 's own Righteousness Salvation by his own good works is not bad Doctrine now I know not where you have heard it it is expresly contrary to our Articles and Homilies which all our Clergy subscribe and if any teach otherwise let them Answer for it They are therein Non-conformist because not conformable to the Doctrine of the Church and here can be no cause of Schism because no such Doctrine but the contrary is impos'd as a Term of Communion at least to the Clergy What you say of Parker Stillingsten Hales is nothing to our business They are but private Doctors and there can be no cause of Schism here Would you think that Baxters Life were a sufficient cause were there no other to make a separation from the Communion of which he was a Member You say The Church's Power to appoint Ceremonies was not in the Thirty Nine Articles What if it was or was not doth that make them unlawful Or is that a sufficient cause for Schism for remember that is our point Your Condemning private Baptism as unlawful to a child in danger of Death is a Vindication of the Preface to the Discourse of Baptism for which the Anthor hath been blamed as doing wrong to the Dissenters in suggesting that they laid not so much upon Baptism as we do But this is not our present Subject and I will not digress You say Christ did not appoint Baptism from the Jewish custom He certainly continued the custom which they had begun and if the custom had been finful and abominable as you say it is not to be imagined that he would have given that countenance to it instead of Reproving it You say Things of a civil nature common to others as well as Christians to other actions as well as Religious as Love Feasts Kiss of Charity may be done without Divine Appointment our Anti-Ceremonial men grant to all the World Answer That the Love Feasts and Kiss of Charity were used in Relious Worship is certain indeed Love and Feasting Kissing and Charity too are things of a Civil Nature in the Civil or common use of them but when they were appointed in Religious Worship they became of a Religious Nature All actions or things are of a civil or Religious Nature as they are used to a Religious or civil use As Musick in the Church or out of the Church are of the same nature as to it self but it receives a different denomination according to the different uses it is put to with the same Tongue we perform Religious Woship and at other times prophane God Now I would gladly know a reason why Musick or a Surplice might not be used in Religious Worship as well as Kissing or Feasting I beseech you to consider impartially and let us proceed upon Principles and Reasons and not upon Passion and Prejudice which blind the Eyes of wise Men. But put things to the utmost if any cannot overcome his Scruples against Musick for example Let him go to the Church where it is not used which are many in the Kingdom and however he may think it inconvenient unless he can prove it positively forbidden by Scripture or by necessary consequence here is no ground for Schism for that is our point The NONCON WHen I said The Pharisees and Papist in your sense were not Guilty you say Guilty of what I answer Of adding to Gods Law I thought plain tho of violating the Rules of Decency c. If the Ceremonies of the Pharisees were too many insignificant and burthensom and such are the Papists say you but who shall be judge How much stress is laid upon yours I have shewn Beyond the nature of the thing are words I understand not Mosaick Ceremonies were not changed in nature but in use neither is Baptism or the Lords Supper now else
these had been a duty now and those then a Divine Stamp made those once and these now necessary which you say a Human command doth as you tell us I think you wrong the Church of Rome if you say That she maketh sprinkling with Holy-Water c. in your sense a part of Gods Worship and of Oral Tradition from Christ or the Apostles Neither doth it appear the Pharisees thought washing of Hands when they came from Market and other Ceremonius parts of Moses's Law conveyed by Oral Traditson prove it if you can Did Christ indeed confirm Ceremonies prefer'd to Gods Law These things ought ye to have done what things washing of Hands c. No in vain do ye worship me In Tything Mint we deny not the Magistrates power in Tything Ministers maintenance is a civil thing observe a great contradicton of yours now Mans Law said to be Gods Law Christ respected them Whereas you tell me so often of Schism I have desired you to tell me what Church it is I am a Schismatick from Is it the Rebellious Perjured King Dethroning Church of England as some call her Or the seditious Conventicles of Popishly affected Jacobites that others talk of till then I am not bound to say more of Schism I thought according to some nothing could warrant taking up Arms against a King and then according to you nothing could warrant a Separation which you always call Schism from a Church There is no cause for Schism in the Church say you that is not as sufficient for Rebellion in the State Is not your Church then think you a Schismatical Church from the Mother Church of Rome That the Church Wardens Oath is injoyned as you say by Law is denied The Bishop of Bristol 20 Years since was cast here Carleton The refusers of that Oath have been Excommunicated and required to get others to serve in their place which is unlawful for Reasons given in my last to you 5 Gal. 1. I will not say your Answer or Argument was anticipated before you wrote it lest It should displease sure you cannot think I thought when Paul says Be ye not the Servants of Men Men should not serve their Masters You tell me not what is your sound Sense of the words nor the Reasons why you take not my Sense to be so God left men 14 Rom. to their liberty and no man can deny it them The Magistrate is forbidden imposing unnecessary things on the weak Receive ye him saith Paul Reject him saith your Church 7 ver No man liveth to himself 10 Who art thou that settest at naught thy brother 22. Hast thou faith have it to thy self before God Chap. We that are strong ought to bear with the infirmities of the weak Yes say some if the Magistrate doth nor forbid it O Paul or rather O Jesus thou shall be Obeyed unless our Church commands us otherwise VVho regards these Precepts yet they scrupled things lawful we unlawful 5 Col. 14.10 11 12 16. Read and you will read your fallacy A bene conjunctis mala diviso Mens Sins and old Ceremonies were both nail'd to Christ's Cross Did I make every thing I wrote of a sufficient cause for Schism especially simply by it self that this is so often all the answer I can get This is no cause for Schism Are they all Non-conformists as you say That examine not Communicants Then I think they are all Non-Conformists now from the greatest to the least VVell I see the Noncons have gotten company more than a good many by what names or titles soever they are dignified or distinguisht whether the most Reverend the Arch Bishops the right Reverend the Bishops or all inferior Priests and D s. I am glad you profess your self to be no Arminian and grant such Subscribers to the 39 Articles and Book of Homilies Noncons and I say perfidious ones you ask me where heard I I answer The last Sermon I ever heard in the Church of England save one about 2 years since Three-Articles were Preacht against by no mean Man and I would prove upon him what you say that he was a Non-conformist and ought to be Excommunicated for that Sermon VVhat I wrote against Private Baptism confirms not the charge because I told you the practise of other Noncons contrary to mine and I doubt not many Church Men are of my mind in this thing not yours Because I only object where such a Baptism may hasten a childs death And can you or will you say otherwise You say the same of Jewish Baptisms which you long since did and take no notice of my reply therefore I am not bound to take notice any more of that Subject For Kissing and Feasting I take them not as Religious Acts if you do prove them so only all things we do must tend to the Glory of God in eating and drinking and whatever we do I remember not that in my Last I wrote any thing of Musick if I did then what you say of it was pertinent to the occasion In short I think the Old Church of England is gone out of sight for Doctrine Discipline and Manners You know it was a great Question in the Schools at Athens whether when all the Old Planks were gone out of Theseus his Ship one gone after another it might still be said here is Theseus his Ship I know not how far they were agreed If it please you to give me your Opinion about this we may be the sooner agreed here This present Church which some Jacobites call a Schismatical Church her Priests Jeroboams Priests such as are not to be Communicated with at the Lords Table hath been a Factor for Rome is full of Perjuries Perfidious Baptisms broken Prayers Foolish sinful Ceremonies she is bloody in her Principles and once practice too and therefore I think separation from her is no Schism but a Duty To the Baxterians Brethren WHether you have not very much contributed to the growth of Crispianism is humbly offered to your consideration as they by their foolish unsound Oppositions of you have added to your number As not one false Charge no nor mistake was ever proved on me in my Vindiciae so I hope will no such thing or can no such thing be proved on me in this Book I once so valued your Master that I had his Picture in my Bed-Chamber and for a considerable time after I awoke in the Morning lookt on it with delight I never doubted then nor since but that he deserved the name of a great Man tho think he knew too many things to know any thing well or as other greater Men then be aid He had I think been a wiser Man had he not had so much Wiâ— I am glad that notwithstanding your Masters Doctrin of Non Resistance nothing is farther from Jacobitism than you and that His Most Sacred Majesty hath not more Loyal Subjects in the three Kingdoms then you are and that your Meetings are valued by you
when the Eyes are nail'd on a Book that should be so to Heaven 5. The Common Prayer Book seems to be full of Incoherencies and Tautologies unwarrantable Repetitions by the People who in Church Stated Worship were to say ordinarily no more then Amen or what is equivalent to it Womens speaking also is ordinarily forbidden except in Singing Psalms which Joseph Mead and Others think is meant by the word Prophesie Here the Lords Prayer is said over soon after again the King prayed for after other Petitions he is prayed for again then the Lord's Prayer again after the King again and so on Spmbolicol Ceremonies in Divine Worship ought not to be impos'd much less yours for these Reasons 1. Because when it pleased God to teach the Church this way by-Ceremonies he made them himself Moses of all Men most dear to God was not intrusted to make one of them much less Aaron or the Civil Governours 2. It cannot be rationally imagin'd that God intended to lay aside Ceremonies of Divine Appointment to make way for Ceremonies of Human Appointment May Circumcision now be used if Appointed only as Commemorative or Significant of Circumcising the Heart Or might a Lamb be slain to put in mind of Christ slain if injoyn'd by the Church or Magistrate tho' not as an Ordinance of God or means of Grace to work any Ghostly or Spiritual Good as promis'd by God Might sprinkling with Holy-water be thus us'd as only signifying the washing away of Sin if thus injoyn'd 3. Surplice and Cross are made as Lay-mens Books by putting in remembrance by some notable Sign to Edifie c. great Vertue is ascrib'd to the last The Cross is not only Symbolical but Dedicatory It is no Sign between one Church-Member and another but between him and God By this Sign is the Child said to be Dedicated to the Service of him that Dyed upon the Cross Who may be so bold to make Signs of this Nature to God 4. They seem contrary to the Apostles command Let all things be done decently and in order I would desire no better Text against them then this you all urge for them What a Phantastical Dress doth a Surplice seem to be unbecoming the Gravity of a Gospel Minister Can it be suppos'd the Apostle who laid down this Golden Rule used any of your Ceremonies or such as yours How comes your Decency to be us'd in the Desk and to be laid aside when you ascend the Pulpit Is God to be worshipped with Decency in the one and without it in the other Doth not the Apostle Censure Womens Speaking Singing diverse Psalms together which were not things decent or things done in order The Decency injoyn'd by Paul was such as the Law of God and Nature requir'd as agreeable to them and therefore was Antecedently necessary to his Injuction and Practice 5. Things necessary in Genere may be determin'd by Human Authority what they shall be in Specie as Time Place c. but not what is not so or thus necessary as Sacred Vestments or Accessory signs to signs of Divine Appointment THE Con's Return YOU have not answered my Argument viz. That the Church may impose Ceremonies Liturgies c. or any thing short of Means of Grace which none can apooint but God Instead of confessing or denying this you fall immediately to several Instances But let us first agree upon the Reason of the Thing in general before we descend to particulars But now to the Instances The First is as to Liturgies which you make to be unlawful for these Reasons 1. Because God appointed no Forms of Prayer for them the Jews to be said much less read Answer 1. If the Church hath Power to impose Forms of Prayer she is also judge of the time when to impose them Therefore They were not imposed then is no Argument why they may not be imposed now Or That God did not impose them is no Argument why the Church may not if he hath given her that Power Therefore all still recurs on the Power of the Church for that must Govern all the particular Instances but the Instances cannot determine that Answer 2. God did impose Forms of Prayer to the Jews as upon Offering the first fruits Deut. 26.5 c. On the removal of the Ark Num. 10.35 and several other occasions Moses's Song Deut. 32. was to be continually used And the Psalms were of daily use in the Temple and were imposed as a Form by Hezekiah 2 Chr. 29. as Jeremiah's Lamentation upon Josiah Chap. 35.25 The Jews in Babylon sent a Form of Prayer to those in Jerusalem to be read in their Solemn Worship Bar. 1 14 14 c. and that was taken out of that Form Dan. 9. with Additions respecting their present case The 136 Psalm was a usual Form of Thanksgiving like the Te Deum now in use and accordingly we find the Psalm used 2 Chron. 5.13.7.3.20.21 Ezra 3.2 and tho the Repetition of each Verse is only named it was the Name of the Psalm as when we say the Te Deum was sung the meaning is not Those two Words only but the whole Hymn which is so called from those Words which are in it And that Form whose Title is mentioned Numb 10.35 was repeated and more of it told by David Psalm 132.8 And again in the same Words by Solomon 2 Chron. 6.41 As the Jews always had they still have a Liturgy George Keith can help you to the sight of one and if your Curiosity leads you to speak with any of them of their use of it how long it hath been with them c. But Lastly Since Schism is a great Sin confest on all hands nothing can excuse our running into Schism but the Imposition of what it plainly and positively a Sin Therefore it lies on you to prove 1. That a Liturgy is unlawful Or 2. That Men may run into Schism to avoid what is not unlawful This brings the Matter to a short Issue and will make my Answer very short to the other Reasons which are at most but Inconveniences and therefore not sufficient Causes for Schism The second Reason you urge is That it weakneth Ministers Abilities Answer No there is liberty given to stir up the Gift in his own Prayer unprescribed before and after Sermon and upon several other occasions This is no sufficient Cause for Schism 3d Reason yom give is that in the Liturgy There are not Prayers suited for all Emergencies Answer 1. These may be supplied in the Ministers Prayer which is not prescribed 2. Particular Offices are made for extraordinary Occasions 3. Most ordinary Occasions are provided for in the Liturgy as Plague War Famine Rain Drought c. This is no sufficient Cause for Schism Your 4th Reason is That we read not of Liturgies or Forms in Scripture or among the Ancients and that it hinders Devotion Answer The first part of this Reason is answered above That we do read it both in Scripture and
amongst the Ancients As to the Second That it hinders Devotion It may be so at first to Persons prejudie'd or unaccostom'd But the Experience of others doth witness that it is a great help to Devotion to them and much more moving than Extemporary Effusions that are as much a Form to the Hearers but however the Debate goes this is no sufficient cause for Schism unless it were positively forbidden in Scripture Your fifth Reason objects somthing to be mended in the Form of our Liturgy pretended Incoherencies Tautologies Repetitions If all which were granted are no cause for Schism And such Objections might be made against the 136 Psalm where are more Repetitious than any in our Liturgy But Repetitions are ofther found in the Extemporary way But however this be determin'd there is no sufficient cause for Schism for that is the Point which I persue The Second Branch of your Paper is That Symbolical Ceremonies in Divine Worship ought not to be impos'd But before I come to the Reasons let me premise this That there are many things which ought not to be in Prudence imposed and yet when imposed are not a sufficient Ground for Schism Now to the Reasons To the first three I Answer Are not Feasts and Fasts Symbolical things For this reason they deny to the Church power to impose them at least Annually Now the Feast of Purim Esther 9.27 The fasts of the fifth and the seventh months Zach. 4.5 And the feast of the Dedication 1. Mac. 1.59 were Ordain'd by the Church and Annually and our Saviour honour'd the last with His Presence Job 10.12 Which had it been unlawful he would not have done but rather have Reproved it Again Circumcision was appointed for an initiating Sign or Right The Jews added Baptism long before Christ came and they Baptized as well as Circumcised their Prosylites But our Saviour found no fault with this Nay on the contrary He went on with and continued it John was sent to Baptize and Christ appointed Baptism for the initiating Form of his Church The Jews addition of Baptism was more Symbolical and Dedicating than you can Alledge upon the Cross in Baptism especially considering that we make it not Essential to Baptism which is demonstrated in that it is not to be used in the Office of Private Baptism Your fourth Reason That a Surplice is a Phantastical Dress and unbecoming the Gravity of a Gospel Minister is Gratis dictum Every Country is Master of its own Fashions and Dresses and that is unbecoming and indecent in one Country that is not so in another which is becoming and decent in another There is nothing in Nature to make White more than Black or Black more than White to be decent or indecent If you say there is you lay more stress upon Colours than we do and so will fall into the same Superstiaion you accuse us with Secondly It is hard to call that colour Phantastical which God himself appointed to the Priests under the Law And wherein Angels appeared and Christ himself in His Transfiguration Or to say It is unbecoming the Gravity of a Gospel Preacher or Minister Your fifth Reason That things necesiary in Genere may be determined in Specie by Human Authority doth justifie our practise in this for we do no more Vestments are necessary in Genere the colour or shape of them is no other then the determining of them in Specie and unless you can shew a positive Prohibition against the wearing of White it is as lawful as Black or ony other Colour However without such a Prohibition whatever Opinion or Fancy you or I may have as to the Decency of it there can be no Ground upon this Account for Schism or for us to make Rents in the Church which is a tearing of Christ's Body to pieces A few Hours after the Noncon sent him the following Reply THat Arguments are not answer'd is a common Complaint and often where there is least occasion you think I have not answered yours I think I have you think no doubt you now have answered mine perhaps I think you have not every thing of our own generally appears to us great tho neveso little and every thing of others against us appears little tho never so great I therefore care not for words of that nature If the Church can impose any thing short of what you call means of Grace It might impose Circumcision Holy Water for a Symbolical Sign only as I wrote Such Repetitions you know are tedious I did deny plainly your Position and am ready for more proof You then produced not your Arguments for your Assertion which now you do and I thought it not Civility in me to Anticipate them The Church of the Jews had no power to impose Liturgies or Ceremonies under the Law God somewhere forbad the making of the like by the art of the Apothecary c. I have no Concordance by me He charged them not to add as not to diminish Therefore the Church hath no power now Where is her Charter If God saw it not fit to make Prayers for the Priests to be read by them but they Prayed according to the Ability God gave them He sees it not fit to do it now when greater Abilities are given to Gospel Ministers now than to them of the Tribe of Levi. More Knowledge to Christians now than to the Jews then The Veil is taken away The Question was of imposed Forms to be read by the Priests and you answer to a Declaration made by a private Person Deu. 26.5 Do you think indeed they were tyed to Words or Sense or that they took out a Paper or Prayer Book and read I use the word Ordinary for as some manage that and other Arguments it might prove Lay-mens Praying yea and Preaching too in Publick Numb 10.35 seems to me as little Moses said Ergo What God made Forms of Prayer or Liturgy Did he read that short Sentence I do not think you believe he ever did So Deut. 32. was not a Prayer sure If such were found in your Liturgy Men would say of you as Paul says some would say That saw men pray in an unknown tongue That was a Song or Psalm which may be Historical Doctrinal Prophetical as well as Petitionary Many other Answers might be given to this The Expression there were not used together but some Words on one occasion some on another This was not a Prayer made for the Priests much less in Sacrificing That was the Question But the first Answere ss sufficient and I care as little as any Man for supernumerary Arguments The first seems to me clear but I will not say Vnconfuteable considering whom I have to deal with I remember I have heard of a Judge who demanding the reasons of one Man 's not Appearing at the Court as he was required the Assizes before One answered My Lord there are twelve Reasons The first is the Man is Dead and therefore could not come
you for your freedom and do not despise your Arguments which tho a common practise is no fair one I know not but that some Ceremonious Scots and English Men too now must be notorious Schismaticks on your Principles as well as mine Your Servant I hate vain Inventions but thy Law do I love says David Postscript IN the Administration of the two Great Ordinances no place is left for the Ministers Gifts not in Prayer to God and which is worse if worse can be not in Instructions to the People O Blessed Apostle when thou didst enumerate Ministerial Gifts to the Church of Corinth thou didst forget the Gift of Reading and the Church of England Give these Men a Common Prayer Book in one Hand and a Book of Homilies in the other they have enough This is done not only in Publick Churches but Private Houses Did the Jews read Prayers in the time of Christ The Pharisees Practice shews their Custom You cannot think they knew that unmanly as well as unscriptural word I Pray who reads Prayers to Day What Ancients did you attempt to Name that did this In what Countrey did they live Did they read Prayers in their Antilucana that Pliny telleth Trajan of I grant as you say your Prayers are moving Prayers for it is a hard matter to sit still and hear them and the most serious commonly leave them It seems to me a poor Plea for any one to say for such a Worship only it is lawful What if only the Lords Prayer was us'd in a Parish at the Lords Supper would you continue there and say it is lawful c. And not go to another place where done much better Are some few words enough of Plague Pestilence and Famine c I remember I have read when London Bridge was on Fire the Priest Pardon me Sir it was the Name Laud gave and blotted out the word Minister brought the Common Prayer Book and Read For all Women labouring with Child for all sick Persons and young Children c. An Old Woman cryed out Good Lord what is all this to London Bridge c. Do you call that a Prayer where a few words are read to God in a large History or spoken to Men when we Pray with our Hats on and a Cup in our hand at Home at Feasts in Coffee-Houses when we speak of the King Church or our Friends Using commonly in a conceived Prayer the same words for the King or Parliament c. Make it not a Form Is it â—â—â—â—ful or would it not be Phantastical to have Crowns on your Heads and Palms in your Hands as well as white Robes on your Backs You know how John saw Christ Rev. 1. What if you wore such a Girdle would it not be Phantastical Schism you now tell me was the Point you did Pursue I am sure you did not so at first I cannot Answer your thoughts but words Would you not Baptise Infants 〈◊〉 only the Adult if your Church so requir'd and say There is no plain positive Command to the contrary A doubtfull Conscience was much with Paul Is this sense Nothing can excuse our running in Schism but the imposing of what is plainly and positively a Sin Would it be Schism then as you call it Conformist THere are several Passages which do well deserve to be animadverted upon but I pass all to pursue our main point till that be settled and then we will proceed as you see cause For as to the Reason use and advantage of our Liturgy Ceremonies c. It is not time to come to that till we have first consider'd whether the imposing these be a sufficient cause for Schism because if it be not all the inconveniences improprieties which you objected were they granted will not excuse your separation from the Church or make your separation not to be a Schism In order to this I first set down the Power as I conceive the Church hath not Viz. To appoint means of Grace and by this I cut off most of the Popish Ceremonies 2. That the Church hath Power to appoint Ceremonies or Rights of an inferior order to this This you seem to deny and build upon the Command of not adding to or diminishing from the Law of God But to add to the Law of God is to add something as the Law of God which is not For if I add some Ceremony or Circumstance unless I pretend that it is the Law of God or a part of it it is no addition to the Law Teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men this is an addition to Gods Law when I teach the Commandments of Men as Doctrines that is as Laws of God but to teach the Commandments of Men only as the Commandments of Men this is not teaching them as Doctrines and so no addition to the Law of God Thus for Example when we teach the use of a Surplice only as a Commandment of Men we add not to the Law But if you forbid a Surplice as a thing unlawful tho commanded by humane Laws then you teach this as a Doctrine and so you not we add to the Law of God For forbidding is as much a Law of God as injoyning Now then there are but too things to make our Ceremonies or Rights unlawful and consequently which can justify a separation on their Account 1. If they are forbidden in Scripture 2. If we teach them as Doctrines and Laws of God and seeing neither of these are the Case I see no third thing that can justify a separation upon this Account Let us keep close to this point till we have ended it Let us settle to our selves some Rule by which we must govern our selves in this important enquiry Now give me leave to take notice of some Passages in your Paper which relate to these For the other I pass by as I said at first You say that with us no Kneeling no Sacrament No Cross no Baptism Nay tho the Salvation of Infants dying without it be question'd yet run a Risque here rather than go without the Cross Good God say you What madness doth superstition lead Men to Now might I not justly return this Exclamation What will prejudice c. Make Men believe For in the Office of private Baptism which is particularly appointed for Children that are in danger of Death the Cross is not used And whoever useth it in private Baptism transgresseth the Rubrick and the Common Prayer which is a Demonstration that our Church doth not think the Cross necessary in Baptism or to be a part of it Yet you bring this as an Argument that she did think it necessary and so necessary as to Risque a Child dying without Baptism rather then go without the Cross As great a mistake is That of No Kneeling no Sacrament Every day it is given to Sick Persons without Kneeling and where there is any reasonable excuse it will not be exacted But let me ask you will you give it in your Church to
men especially when they see so little conversion work elsewhere if they must preach others must hear and countenance them suffering in their righteous cause yet I question not the Integrity of many Liturgical ceremonial men and hope yours in particular God often accepts the man when not the worship I dar'd not accost a Persenage of your figure and character I thank you you were pleased to write the first Letter and that you do not so triumph in your Ceremonies as to give them anctuary from our Exammation Many Arguments I could assonate with and annex to these of the same complexion against your modes of Worship but the fewer the better You see my plainness without any dress of words to set off my apprehensions with your Church above all other Protestant Churches shews herself such a Plenipotentiary as some observe as if tâ— could turn all things tho never so odd into Orthodox as what is Fabled Midas toucht was Gold many of your Bishops those great little men are better acquainted with their Service Booâ— and Ceremonies than with the Bible I will nor say all I know of this I saw an instance of this when a smart Boy of eighteen years old suddenly gagmd a Bishop having thousands by the year yet alive as you would confess should I tell you the Story when the Bishop sent for him to his chamber and was pressing him to conformity What beauty sits on the face of Gospel simplicity Would some men as Mervil expresseth it if commanded by your Church carry Salt bags on their backs to put them in mind of having salt in themselves or as Zanchy wrote to Queen Elizabeth were her Subjects bound to put on Turkish weeds or Garments if she commanded them Saith he No much less he adds the execrable Garments of Mass Priests It is now past Eleven of the Clock I received your Letter abroad this Afternoon and came not home till between eight or nine of the Clock I take your Question to be comprehensive and therefore have taken the more liberty I find our friend Mr. K. and others could wish we proceeded not I told them I was not very desirous to disturb you in greater more necessary or more useful work wherein you have obliged the World therefore writing once more I thought I would write my mind fully and plainly If you see fit to Reply you may to what you please and let other things alone And I intend to be concise and follow you where you please to lead me or if you think a private conference before a few judicious Persons best your pleasure in this is a Law to your Servant I greatly honour your old famous Advocates as Hooker Fisher the blind Cambridge man his Dialogue between Ireneus add Novatus Sprins Cassander Anglicanus or others who exercised my mind several years But for Patrick's Friendly Debate and now Bishop King and others make woful work in comparison of the Old Workmen Durel and such writers I am greatly offended with who tell the world of I know not what stories of the Presbyterians neglect of the Lords Supper in the Inter-Regnum I know the contrary where I have been they once a month administred that-Ordinance and Mr. Hickman in a Latin Tract Apologia pro Ministris in Anglia vulgo Non Conformistis hath sufficiently answered that charge I only add what I have known that where some Presbyterian Ministers came into some Parishes they hardly could find a man but what was guilty of gross ignorance or Prophanness Then they did forbear according to your order tho not practice till Religion might take place where was not common civility before for you know K. C. the I. and Bishop Laud by the Book of sports and other ungodly proceedings had banisht almost all Religion and Good manners out of the Nation In Oxford they thought it not enough to be a Member of a Colledge to be so of a Church Therefore several serious Persons receiv'd some of one Famous Doctor or Preacher some of another and so did many Towns People Men and Women I knew This perhaps occasion'd not doing it in some Churches where Persons disown'd by your good constitution would be ready thrust in Your Ministers ought to forbear where men be Ignorant Scandalous or Contentious If I have erred in any thing I have written or given you any occasion of offence I beg your Pardon as not a thing Ex in-dustria To tell you that I greatly value you would be but an Idle Complement Did you never hear that Doct. F. pleaded in a Sermon in Oxford for Reverence and said Eleazer when he pray'd made the Camels to Kneel Or of one desiring a Minister to read Prayers of Thanksgiving for Recovery from a Bull Gooring read the Prayer for Purification We thank thee for delivering this thy Servant from the great pain and peril of Bull Gooring Or of one whose House being on fire sent for the Parson to read the Prayer for Rain and when he read gentle showrs The man cryed out Good Lord Buckets full Yet your Prayers are said to be such that the wit of men or Angels cannot mend I am displeas'd with some Dissenters broken Prayers as much as you some few of them are almost as confus'd as your Liturgy Conformist YOur Argument that we may be guilty of adding to Gods Law tho not as Gods Law else the Pharisaical Men of Old and the Papist in most of their Ceremonies were not guilty say you Guilty of what There are other Guilts besides that of adding to Gods Law and even as to Ceremonies they may be too many insignificant and burdensome and men may lay too great stress upon them beyond the Nature of the things and yet come not to the length of adding them to Gods Law which the Pharisees did by those traditions which they said were delivered by Moses on the Mount and descended orally down to their times and therefore of as great Authority as the Written Law which gave occasion to the oral traditions of the Church of Rome Again some of their traditions did point blank contradict the Law of God as that of Corban Mat. 15.6 And some tho not contradicting the Law of God yet in practice were prefer'd to the Law of God and these traditions our Saviour did confirm only Corrected the abuse These things ye ought to have done said he but not to leave the other undone Now there are several Errors men may commit as to the Ceremonies but all are not alike all may be reprehended and redress desir'd with the decency and regard which is due to our Superiors But all are not sufficient cause for Schism and that is the only point which I now pursue I say none are a sufficient cause for Schism except those which are injoyn'd as part of Gods Law or which are appointed as means of Grace which includes both the former There may be many burdensome and inconvenient Laws of the Land and Redress may be sought