Apoc. 18.4 how were they made and kept his people else must we therefore hold Communion with Babylon 3ly Christ holds Communion with his people in the Lutheran Churches I doubt not but if they impose upon you the Doctrine of the Ubiquity of Christs Humane Nature as a condition of Communion will you hold Communion with them 9ly Persecution joined to Imposition upon the members of Christs body what Christ never imposed renders the sin of the Imposing-Church much greater and refusing Communion with such a Persecuting Imposing Church is no Schism If Christ doth give us leave to flee from one Persecuting City to another where there is no Persecution then if a City be a Persecuting City by reason of a Persecuting Church surely he doth not bind us to hold Communion with that Persecuting Church 10ly Though one particular Church cannot communicate with another particular Church because of their corrupt Impositions yet if that Church which cannot communicate with the other will admit of those members of that Church who walk as become Christians in all other points excepting those Imposed corruptions which at present they cannot see being blinded with those deluding notions of indifferency and circumstances that Church cannot be charged with Schism though they refuse communion with the Imposing Church for we give communion to their members only exclude their imposed corruptions I do not mean such members as voluntarily took that solemn Oath c. of reforming those corruptions and now return to them again I look on this as a greater sin but for others I know several of our Churches would give them communion I do not say all will but then how are we Schismaticks 11ly Particular Churches may be so corrupt both in Doctrine Worship and Conversation that the sounder members not only may but ought to separate from them to save their own souls from infection and this is not Schism but Duty 12ly The case of those who are actual members of those Churches where these corruptions are is different from those who are no members of such Churches they have something else to do before they may separate 13ly If it be our sin to communicate with such as we know to be notoriously wicked unless we follow the rule of Christ Mat. 18.15 16 c. to seek the removal of them or do not our duty to reform the Pastor Cure of Church-Division pag. 100. or remove him as Mr. Baxtar tells us How we shall communicate without sin though we had nothing else to trouble us I know not that many such come to the Sacraments and who more boldly than they we know which way shall we reform them the Curate hath no Juridical power To the Spiritual Court must we go To the Diocesan must we go we are like to mend it carry Witnesses how many miles when yet the power we cannot own to be of Christ When all is done have a Writ upon our backs to bring us to the common Law and what then Whence to conclude they have dealt unworthily by us who bring the old Nonconformists against us to condemn us as if the state of this Church were the same with the true Church of England POSTSCRIPT AFTER I had finished I met with a Pamphlet Entituled The reason of Episcopal Inspection asserted in a Sermon at a Vesitation in Cambridg by John Templer D. D. The scope of the Sermon is to prove the Divine Right of Prelacy over Elders and Congregations And that the Author might shew himself to be a true Son of the Church he hath given sufficient proof in every particular For the Liturgy that is so perfect that he saith the most accuminated Intellect is not able with justice to charge it with any error p. 18. All then the old Nonconformists Parker Ames Bradshaw Cartwright Richardson Didoclavius c. together with the latter Nonconformists who were appointed with others by the Kings command to review the Liturgy and have given an account what things in it were to be corrected Calvin also for saying he found in it some Tolerabiles Ineptiae are all by this accuminated Doctor dub'd for so many Dunces They must be men of higher Acumens than these that can find any just cause against it these have said nothing considerable But whatever be the opinion of this Author yet Mr. Jeans a man of an acute Intellect one of their own and as great a Zealot once as he can be confesseth when he intended to write in defence of the Discipline and Ceremonies when he read these mens Books he found such arguments in them as were never answered and thereupon layed by his Pen his judgment being quickly altered but if you be a person of a more accuminated Intellect why did you not answer those dull fellows and therein do us a kindness that we might have conformed as well as you He tells the Reader p. 17. If this order of Prelacy had a period the Dissenters would never pitch upon any one way A. 1. The same saith the old Gentleman at Rome these Dissenting Protestants cannot pitch upon one way Hence no period must be put to the Papal Government 2ly You were very cunning Sir to pitch upon the warm side of the hedg thereby to save your selves from persecution and keep your fat Livings then cry up obedience to Governours pity the Martyrs had no better Intellects to have taken this course too and so have saved their stakes 3. If men would lay by their self-interests we might sooner pitch upon one way but so long as he sits at Rome and the Jews are uncalled I look but for little of this unity in the Gentile-Churches But to the main scope of his Sermon Had it been to prove the Divine Right of an Episcopus Praeses or Primus Presbyter as Ambrose calls a Bishop with the Presbytery or Ecclesiastical Senate I should not have been his opposer but it is an Episcopus Princeps and that not with but over the Presbytery superiour in power which he contends for how strongly proved we shall see His Text was Act. 15.36 Paul said to Barnabas Let us go again and visit our Brethren c. That the Doctor intended out of this Text to prove such a Visitation as was then when he Preached and so in England when Bishops visit I presume else he deceived him to whom he dedicates it and the four Doctors that Licensed it See how the Text will force it The Proposition or Antecedent is this Paul and Barnabas two Apostles Act. 14.14 Persons of extraordinary mission commission and qualifications for the office having by their Preaching converted many people from Heathenism to the Faith of Christ gathered them into Churches and set Elders over them These Elders and Churches being but all young Converts and through the relicts of corruption in them and the malice of Satan and his Emissaries without them being in danger to miscarry in Doctrine or manners these two Apostles go to visit the Churches which they had planted
thus he said but would Paul have said so if he had been in a Consistory with the rest of the Apostles my friend made no reply but held down his head supposing thereby he might make the Prelate recall his words this answer was becoming an Archbishop and worthy of Laud To be sure he silenced my friend Only this Sir let me say they used the argument upon your Hypothesis that the things are indifferent but though we grant the things considered absolutely or abstractedly in their own nature are indifferent yet consider them in their use we look on them as sinful To examine all that learned Mr. Falkner hath written would be tedious and needless for I should yield to him in many things had not the state of the question been mistaken Briefly therefore I will consider the case the Apostle had before him and apply our case to it The Lord having in the old Law forbidden divers meats and commanded the observation of divers days when Christ the substance the body was come these shadows vanished Some Believers in Christ understood this they knew though once they were under a Law yet at this time they were indifferent and so they knew their liberty Others because the Law was so express the observation had been many hundred years the words for ever added to those Laws they could not yet understand what the stronger Christians did The Apostle guided by the Spirit of Christ chargeth these stronger Christians not to judg despise refuse or offend these weaker Christians but to receive them into their hearts into Church-fellowship and all Church communion and not perplex their minds with those doubtful disputations or reasonings but wait and bear tenderly with them till the Lord shall reveal that truth also unto them For our case the things in question are no necessary circumstances of Divine Worship as time place c. which are necessary attendants of Worship and Antecedaneous to any act of mans will but such as have their dependance upon mans pleasure only Hence you tell us you may change them when you please Those things fell under the command of God and so not these unless as forbidden by the general Law of God as those meats were by particular Laws For a man a creature to institute a Doctrinal Religious Ceremony to teach men their duty they owe to God ordain it as a mean to help stir up their minds to their duty and annex this to the worship of God yea so as there must be no Divine Worship unless this Ceremony be used it is such high boldness it doth so touch the Lords Prerogative and tacitely so charge him with defect of wisdom as if he had not appointed means sufficient to teach his Creature but we must supply his defect by adding to his word that let superstition speak never so smoothly as it always comes with some pious end in the mouth it is no other but wretched impiety not will we by the help of his Grace conform unto it You who tell us these things are indifferent are yet so far from answering the Duty that Christ commands by the Apostle in these Chapters i. e. to receive us not to judg us not to offend us that in opposition to the command you thrust us out of the Lords work you shut us out from the Sacraments you excommunicate us imprison us and do what in you lye to destroy us both soul and body As to what you say p. 410. quoting Mr. Thorndike with whom you agree It is not meant a bare displeasing of our Brother but doing such actions which tend to occasion some to fall from Christianity disgust Christian Religion for which you quote the 15. v. Destroy not him c. The first part in some sense I should yield but for the latter part which carries this sense that the destruction in the 15. v. was by making them to fall from Christianity as if there were no other way to destroy them but that I conceive humbly that your self with Mr. Thorndike are both mistaken For that weak Christian might be strongly convinced that Christian Religion was true though he could not as yet see the repealing of those Laws upon the reasons I gave before yet through the unkindness pride cruelty of the stronger Christians who would judg despise him and not receive him unless he would eat the forbidden meats as they did and through their example whom he saw to eat he might be put upon a temptation to eat such meats too not in faith but with a doubtful conscience and so doing he was condemned according to the last verse So their pride unkindness and example did help to destroy their brother as much as in them lay Hence in the first verse of the Chapter the Apostle charges them not to trouble such a one with doubtful disputations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. * Non cumeo disputis de usu libertatis quam nondum potest intelligere quod plus anxietatis kaesitationis rudibus animis parit quà m utilitatis Vatabl. In the last verse he ends with He that doubteth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is damned so that he begins and ends with doubtfulness Now had the weak Christian fallen off from the Faith the weak Christian would not have eaten such meats doubtfully and so bring himself under the danger of condemnation for so doing for to be sure he would eat none of those meats which made him fall off from Christianity because he saw Christians eat them there was no danger of his damning for eating with a doubting conscience so that this implys that he who eats with doubting did yet hold his Christianity Thus have some by reason of that unkindness and severity in imposing these Laws upon us been put upon Subscriptions with a doubtful Conscience in their temptations and afterwards have met with that which hath stung them This is the charity of your Church towards your brethren Nor doth that you say p. 435. help it viz. That these different practises had a peculiar respect to those times only of the first dawning of Christianity for the Church afterwards in their Canons condemned all those who observed those Mosaical Laws For we are under the same condition with those Christians who dare not eat the meat then because they had been forbidden in the Law so nor dare we submit to your Humane Inventions in the Worship of God because they are forbidden in the general Law Thou shalt not add Deut. 12.32 They are not according to Christ Col. 2.8 Christ put no such things into the Apostles Commission to Preach Mat. 28. ult So that with a doubtful conscience at least we must practise them and what is next we know Nor doth your obedience to authority help here which so many are glad they have that starting hole to run into and your self so much urge Had these strong brethren in this Rom. 14. been Princes or Archbishops and they should have commanded the weak brethren
Quia haec scissio maximè perficitur apparet in debita communione Ecclesiastica recusanda id circo illa separatio per appropriationem singularem recto vocatur Schisma Ames Consc Having opened our description for finding out the true Schismatical Church or Persons let me give the Reader my mind under several Propositions First I reassume that which I mentioned before viz. the body of Christ is but one and that Schism is found in the visible body 2ly This body being but one hence then that this one body comes to be divided into so many particular Churches and meeting in so many particular places to celebrate the Sacrament and the other Institutions of Christ it is is but accidental and not essential to this body it being the consequent of that vast number which makes up this one body 3ly Such yet ought to be the Conformity of all these particular Churches unto the Gospel pattern the Law and Rule of their Head in their Faith and Doctrine in their Worship and Discipline in their conversation and practise I may add and constitutions that where-ever the members of this body come they may manifest their Vnity and Christian Ecclesiastical love to and with those particular Churches without any just scruple or doubt It being not in the power of any particular Church to vary in the least from that Rule and Pattern their Lord and Head hath given them for in so doing they deny him to be the Head and make themselves the Head The Head is to direct 4ly If any particular Church shall vary from that Pattern and shall impose upon the members of this body conditions of communion which our Head hath not imposed and such as from the light of Scripture we cannot but apprehend as sinful and yet will force them to subject to such conditions or else no communion that imposing Church is the schimatical Church and the guilt of Schism lyes at their door Let this Imposition be in Faith Worship Discipline or Manners Let the Church be Papal if that be a Church Episcopal Presbyterian Independent Anabaptistical Lutheran Calvinist no matter what the Imposing party is the Schismatick Why do you how dare you if you be members of that Head impose that upon the members of his Body which himself hath not we will not we must not admit any other wisdom or will in things which concern him but his own if we may admit three things which vary from his Rule we may admit three hundred and turn him out from being Head A great stir there is about the power of the Church in circumstances of worship If you mean inseparable circumstances ordering them according to the general Rule our Head hath given for the edification of the Church I know no Nonconformist such a block as to deny it but that the things imposed upon us as conditions of Communion in the Church of England as you call it are such the former discourse hath sufficiently proved the contrary Hence the Church-men of England are the Schismaticks 5ly It is an irrational thing that the Imposers of Conditions in things belonging to God should be the sole Judges of the lawfulness of their Impositions First Because there is but one word or Rule given to which the Imposers and Imposed are strictly bound and the Imposed may understand that Rule as well and better than the Imposfers else how the Protestant party will defend themselves against Rome the Imposer I know not they suppose they understood it better than Rome and so do you now think 2ly The Imposers have sin in them and may sin they are not Infallible therefore their Impositions must be judged by others 3ly If Imposers must be sole Judges and we must obey because they impose then never must the people of God obey the call to come out of Babylon Apoc. 18.4 for Imposing Babylon being the sole Judg will tell you her Impositions are all lawful and therefore you must obey 6ly Christ our Head no where requires but rather forbids our holding Communion with that Church which Imposeth such things as conditions of Communion which his members cannot subject to but with a doubtful conscience Rom. 14 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that doubteth is damned if he eat but not if because of doubting he dare not eat That there are some such giddy Christians who will find such exceptions against any Church that they cannot communicate with a clear conscience though there be no humane invention imposed but only what Christ himself hath appointed I do not deny but then let the guilt of Schism lye at their door But as to your Humane Injunctions we cannot submit to them but with a doubtful conscience at least 7ly There is great difference between a Church in which there are some corruptions but no Imposition and a Church where there is Impösition of Humane Inventions not agreeable to the Word with the first we would not doubt to communicate but not with the second Hence for the examples brought against us out of the Scripture where were corrupt Churches but no command for separation as under the Old Testament It 's very true how could they make a separation there from the Temple and the Levitical Priesthood without going expresly against the Word Might they erect another Temple Is there any such Temple under the Gospel For those in the New Testament 1st Their Churches were rightly constituted 2ly Their Pastors were rightly called 3ly Their Pastors sound in Doctrine we do not read they were charged with unsoundness 4ly For outward scandalous sins we read of none in their Pastors 5ly Their members for the major part sound though some particular members were unsound in Doctrine and conversation yet they were but few 6ly They had Christs Order and Discipline as he appointed to help themselves against those unsound and corrupt members Hence what cause was here for separation what understanding man would scruple communion with these Churches though there were some corruptions Compare yours and these But 1st Where was this Imposition of Humane Inventions in the Worship of God unless some few Schismaticks in the Church of Corinth we do not find the Churches charged with mixing any thing of theirs in the Worship of God 2ly Which of those Churches had sworn to the Great God to reform what was amiss in Doctrine Worship and Discipline and then return to their vomit again 8ly Christ our Head may hold communion with his members living in corrupt Imposing Churches and yet others of his members that see and know these corruptions must not hold communion with them still the Schism lyes upon the Imposer 1st Your Spiritual Courts having Excommunicated many gracious and sincere-hearted Christians for what cause we know a sad thing that such a solemn Ordinance should be so abused But with these gracious Christians Christ holds communion we are sure and will not your Church therefore hold Communion with them 2ly Christ holds Communion with his people in Babylon
seeking to make good his bargain he found it so soon as Christ had eaten the Passover instituted his own Supper and was gone forth then that could not be the time he made his bargain so the sop could not be at the Passover for then you will make the time of his bargain and delivery to be almost the same contrary to both the Texts 4. When Christ bad Judas Joh. 13.27 That thou doest do quickly the Disciples thought the meaning was that Judas having the Bag he bad him buy those things we have need of against the Feast vers 28 29. What Feast was that the Passover no question so saith a Lapide Ad emendum necessaria pro instante Pascate But if this were the Paschal Supper at which Judas received the sop then what need to buy against the Feast when the Feast was past and Christ knew he was now to die I see but two things that trouble me but the same doubts are moved by Gerhard Maldonate and a Lapide who interpret this Supper of the Passover as others commonly do To which doubts they have given answers and their answers will serve me better than if I should interpret it as they do of the Paschal Supper As yet then Christ is no Conformist Having done with these men now to our good friend the Author of the Friendly Debate in whom I find something more p. 102. he tells us We use Ceremonies in Divine Worship as in an Oath laying the hand upon the Book kissing the Testament which are outward signs accompanying swearing though they belong not to the essence of it A. 1. I have heard of some and may be there are more than we are aware of who will lay their hand on the Book kiss it and do it readily because they think they do not swear and so regard not what you say to them but if you put them to lift up their hand as we read in Scripture they did who sware they would not do that because then they thought they should swear indeed though I do not justifie these persons in this yet if an Oath be of consequence it deserves to be looked into A Lawyer tells me he hath seen it and a Gentleman tells me hath sworn in the Court by lifting up the hand whether the Law binds only to this form of laying c. I know not but I could never yet learn the meaning of this form of swearing If the Christians did it in Chrysostom's time upon the Book of the Gospel and the Jews upon the Book of the Law as Mr. Falkner saith to be sure we find the Scripture mentioning more than one Form of swearing Sometime Abraham lifts up his hand Gen. 14.22 another time we find him bidding his servant put his hand under his thigh Gen. 24.2 that is my Master made me swear Thus Israel makes Joseph Gen. 47.29 31. put his hand under his thigh So the giving the hand under Solomon 1 Chron. 29.24 is by some interpreted that the Princes sware unto Solomon as we take the Oath of Allegiance to our King the custom of several Countries is various in this point in which we are indifferent though I know some refuse to swear at all unless it be by lifting up the hand but the Scripture hath not so tyed us up we see 2ly But that he saith these signs belong not to the essence of an Oath certainly he is mistaken these signs have a causal influence into the effect the Oath For he that gives the Oath doth not swear the person to whom the Oath is given swears not by words then take away these signs and where is the Oath Again p. 220 221. He tells us of Ceremonies the Parliament appointed and Ministers used in giving the solemn Oath and Covenant As first Tho whole Congregation uncovered Ans Then it seems they were not against decent gestures It was in a solemn piece of Worship of God at the administring of Baptism the whole Congregation sit uncovered and who opposes it 2ly Standing and very meet not to sit when they are thus dealing with God in such a solemn manner we like reverent gestures well in these cases the Parents stand at the Infants baptizing there is a Covenant made 3ly It is the right hand this and not the left is attributed to God Psal 17.7 Psal 98.1 where it is not determined which hand in Scripture we will take which hand our superiours please but if manuum fortior est dextra why not that 4ly The hand must be bare If the hand must be lifted up let us see the hand not the glove If Vaninus were to swear it may be he hath under his glove some writing that he owns no God at all as he and his Disciples taught so others might have something quite cross to the Covenant that did swear the contrary be the Covenant never so holy and past dispute as some did question this These are but trifles But p. 106. he tells us and this is that which Mr. Falkner and all make use of as an argument against us The things commanded are indifferent and remain so after they are commanded in their own nature no necessity put upon them Upon which to illustrate the strength of his argument and show the Knavery of the non-conforming Ministers for they must be the persons in the Reddition whom he intends he gives his Reader an elegant similitude Part 1. pag. 107. If you saith he who are a master in your family will have your servants come in to worship God at such a time in the Parlor not in their Frocks in which they rub'd your horses heels but in their Liveries this is but reasonable it is indifferent in it self all one to God whether the hours be ten or eleven but you appoint Ten whether in the Hall or Parlour If your servant would not come in at Ten or into Parlor being thus indifferent were not this servant guilty of contempt and faulty If your servants were such fools and cannot understand common sense they are the more to be pitied but yet those Knaves that abused their simplicity and instilled these principles deserve to be punished and put out of his service c. I leave you to apply this case c. Ans This apt similitude of the Frock whereby the Fr. Deb. would illustrate the Knavery of the Nonconformists puts me in mind of a story which a Conformist and neighbour-Minister told me being about four years standing in the Colledg of Dublin when the thing was done A Laundress bringing home a Scholars Linnen instead of his Surplice leaves him a Smock I suppose unwittingly Dr. Chappel was then Provost if that be the title they give the Head of the Colledg if it were that Chappel who was fellow of Christs Colledg in my time he was a severe man indeed and fit for Bishop Laud's purpose The Bell ringing to Chappel early in Winter-time the Lad puts on the Smock and why not for I suppose the
them in the Apocalyps only to Asia Was not Rome a Metropoles and there a Church 2ly Are you sure these were all Metropoles It seems there is some question about Philadelphia and your solution does not satisfie So for Thyatira it seems Pliny doth not give it this honour but Ptolomy doth So that we must rest upon a Humane Faith and prove which of these was the truest Writer 3ly But are you sure there were no more Churches in Asia than fell under the seven Archbishops Which of these was Archbishop to the Churches in Galatia that was a Province in Asia but none of these Cities Metropolis there for Ancyra was Antioch a Metropolis then under none of these yet there a Church To which I pray did Colosse belong Cappadocia Pontus Bithinia were all Provinces in Asia and in these were Churches no doubt for the Apostle writing to the Believers in these Provinces 1 Pet. 1.1 in the 5th Chap. v. 1 2. He charges the Elders to feed the flock Yet none of the seven Churches were Metropoles in any of these Provinces I could instance in divers more This I suppose the Doctor Preached to make amends for the fault he committed in being ordained first by Presbyters for now he talks of Archbishops in the Apostles days whereas Mr. Thorndike pag. 45. Prim. Gov. and the old Episcopal men tell us Archbishops came in long after As for your discourse from p. 60. to the end in which you tell your Reader something concerning Rules about Order Decency Circumstantials in Religion Adiaphorus matters c. and what the Church may do to preserve it self against opposers that thereby p. 62. you might justifie the punishment inflicted upon us for our Nonconformity Sir this is but the old Cheat to blind the people as if we opposed Order Decency and Circumstantials in Religion and for the punishment inflicted will you justifie it that Governours may for every errour in things pertaining to God punish their people for not conforming to them as we are punished but how much less then for non-conforming to Humane Inventions in the Worship of God which as yet all the Pulpits and Presses have not proved to be our error I mean our non conformity to them but our Duty And for that which p. 61. you would bring as a proof viz. That the Churches Determination upon some particu ars in conformity to the general command is no addition to the Rule c. It is very true if there be a conformity to the general command but if you will undertake as here you implicitely assert to prove that the Forms of Prayer Ceremonies Prelacy Re-ordination Abjuration of the Covenant all which are imposed upon us are all of them but particulars conformable to the general command of God Sir let us but have the liberty of the Press and you shall soon find one that will answer you I suppose there are but few pious Conformists in England that will justifie the casting of about two thousand Ministers out of their work because they could not submit to these Impositions in the matters of God had it been in things concerning the Commonwealth that had been another case then let him blame us Whence we are quite mistaken in Dr. Templer A POSTSCRIPT to the Reverend Dr. STILLINGFLEET SIR THE former pages were printed off sooner than I was aware of but give me leave to add these lines to clear my self from that sin of Schism which which you charge me among my Brethren a little further since I still continue the same love and honourable respects to you Three cases there are you tell us p. 213. in which the Sripture allows of Separation 1. Idolatrous worship 2. False doctrine imposed 3. Indifferent things made necessary to salvation of this latter one word by and by But there are two others wherein Paul gives particular directions but such as do not amount to separation viz. 1. Different opinions about meats and drinks observation of Jewish Holy-days In these points he advises not to censure one another but notwithstanding this difference join together as Christians in the duties common to them all Thus you A. Sir This is very true accordingly as I meet with Christians of different apprehensions Episcopal Presbyterian Independent Anabaptists some few of which I have found sober men and sound in all points but that let these men be sound in the faith and walk with a Gospel-conversation subjecting to Church government though in their different ways I give the Lords Supper to them all refusing communion with none for these opinions 2. But my good Brother are you not beside the question Did they in those duties which were common to them all as Christians impose such things as the Lord never imposed as terms of Communion This is our case both in Prayer Baptism Lords Supper Discipline which are duties common to us all in all these you impose your own inventions not our Lords injunctions so did not they And what if they would impose their Jewish Holydays which yet were once Gods own appointment upon the Gentiles to observe them who knew they were abrogated Sir you impose Holydays of mens appointing upon us which is far worse God's Authority is higher than yours 2. The second thing you mention is the corrupt lives of men in the Church c. where you explain 1 Cor. 5.11 No not to eat but Sir I prefer your Hammond's explication to which I refer the Reader see his Pararaph and his Notes As to that third ground which may warrant Separation you say viz. The imposing of things indifferent as necessary to our salvation A. Sir is our salvation all that we should regard Is not the glory and honour of God a thing to be attended Is not this glory and honour of his the first thing to be intended in his Worship Is it not his honour when his Soveraignty and Wisdom alone commands in his Worship In case he be deprived of his Worship is this honour to him Sir you make your Inventions though in themselves indifferent yet being commanded by mans Authority to alter in some sort their natures they are the words of your Canon upon the Cross and so necessary you make them that without these God shall have no worship at all Witness Barthol mewday As to the Liturgy which you impose you tell us p. 332. you will say nothing Dr. Falkner having so well defended it A. I know it is imputed to our pride and conceitedness of our own gifts that we use it not Sir I do profess in words of sobriety if you or Dr. Falkner can assure me infullibly that I should be pleasing to God and that I should discharge my Office as I ought only by reading Forms of Prayer I will be as ready to use nothing but Forms as you are ready and resolute to impose them I would use also that Form of prayer before my Sermon which your 55th Canon does command to be used before Sermon and