the Churches I find him in his Primacy do you prove it was but for one or two Sessions not during his life Certainly that Angel was well known in the Church to whom Christ wrote in some Churches commending him in others discommending though its true the Epistles concerned the whole Church 4ly This Angel is not the Moderator in a consociation of Churches as Reverend Mr. Hooker speaks of whose constancy in the place may be bad but the Primate among the Elders of one particular Church so that his fear does not reach us Q. 3. For the Jus Divinum of this This form Dr. Stillingfleet cannot deny the Apostles did constitute in the Churches but it seems the Apostolical practice though they were guided by the Spirit of Christ is not sufficient to make a Jus Divinum a positive Law for it is demanded 1st There was no positive Law for the change of the seventh-day Sabbath but yet the Dr. tells us the Apostolical practice is sufficient for they were guided by an Infallible Spirit p. 12 13. If so in a matter of far greater moment than in this I hope it is sufficient the Dr. cannot deny it 2ly Dr. Stillingfleet denies the 18. Mat. 15 16. proves Excommunication Then what positive Law hath he for Excommunications Deacons Ordination of Church-Officers 3ly The Apostolical form did best conduce to the end of Government which the Dr. urges much against the Jesuit Rat. Account p. 462. I pray compare that form then and our form now under which did or do ignorance and prophaneness most abound 4ly If not so then one great end of the Acts of the Apostles which Oecumenius calls the Evangelium Spiritus sancti is lost A Lapide in his Preface to that Book speaks excellently 5ly I set up this Form you demand my authority I answer It was the Form they set up who were guided by an Infallible Spirit and Christ owned the Form in writing to it You set up your Form different from it I demand of you shew me your authority and see which is best 6ly If Apostolical practise be not sufficient then you may to Rome for a Form for ought I know I know no stop As to the Author of the Book Samaritanism I am sure the Author was nothing a-kin to the good Samaritan for he shews himself a man of a vinegar-spirit his discourse as to Church-Government is built upon this foundation That Form of Government which appeared for hundreds of years first only and was de facto Instituted of God that only hath Divine right to warrant it p. 10 11. In p. 37. I find this was Episcopacy but this is very false these three terms first only and hundreds of years are not found in Episcopacy The first Governours had power over Bishops and Archbishops if any such Creatures were 2ly They were not the only Governours for the Presbyters governed while the Apostles lived 3ly The first Governours did not last hundreds of years 4ly The first Government was not confined to a narrow Diocess as Episcopacy was In Augustine's time there were in one Province under Carthage of the Catholicks and Donatists above nine hundred Bishops but their first Governours had all Nations for their Diocess and that made their Government Apostolical I am sure there is none such now Again Presbyters were first before Bishops witness your own Tribe that tell the world Episcopacy was set up to prevent Schism among Presbyters after the Schism in Corinth among the Presbyters According to this Author there is no Government at all in the Church for these three Terms are found in no form of Government now therefore I leave him As for his fine language wherewith he courts us as Jack-straws Fools Knaves Peevish c. this Samaritans Oil and Wine we bear it the Disciple is not above his Master There is another Question of very great consequence but for these times not so useful therefore I will only state it and give mens opinion about it and leave it though I had prepared something to speak to it Q. Whether every particular Congregation consisting of one teaching Elder and a number of visible Christians be a particular Church according to the New Testament or may not yea ought not several particular Congregations unite to make up one particular Church By a Church I mean an Organical Church invested with all the power and exercise of the Keys within it self both quo ad actum primum secundum such were the eight Churches I mentioned before Learned and pious Ames Med. Theol. l. 1. c. 39. tells us That a Church in the New Testament is a Parochial Church such a company or congregation as ordinarily meet in one place to worship God Sure I am that ordinarily there is but one teaching-Elder in such a Church And this Church hath as much power as the National Church of the Jews met together Compare his 16 18 Theses great use he makes of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 11.20 so doth a reverend Brother who knew my opinion quote it with a little warmth but my good Brother must prove there was but one Teaching-Elder in that Church else his argument will be guilty of Ignoratio Elenchi five answers more I would have given Mr. Tho. Hooker giving the true sense of Independency saith it imports thus much Every particular congregation rightly constituted and compleated hath sufficiency in it self to exercise all the Ordinances of Christ. Surv. Ch. Dis part 2. pag. 80. But then it seems it must be compleated and to this compleating are required a Pastor Teacher Ruling-Elder Deacon one at least of all these So pag. 4. ib. and without these though a particular Congregation may be called a true Church as a man that hath but one eye one arm or leg may be still defined Animal rationale as having a reasonable soul yet he is but maimed no intire man such is that Church pag. 2. Ibid. I pray how many such Congregations have we The Synod held at Boston in New England Septemb. 10. 1679 the last year pag. 10 11. calling for a full supply of Officers in the Churches speak thus The defect of the Churches on this account is very lamentable there being in most of the Churches only one Teaching Officer for the burden of the whole Congregation to lye upon The Lord Christ would not have instituted Pastors Teachers Ruling Elders nor the Apostles have ordained Elders in every Church Act. 14.23 Tit. 1.5 if he had not seen there was need of them for the good of his people and therefore for men to think they can do well enough without them is both to break the second Commandment and to reflect upon the wisdom of Christ as if he did appoint unnecessary Officers in his Church Thus the Synod Half the question then is gained the Independents yield it men worthy to be listned to for they take up the word of God for their only Rule I know there is a
member and yet both he and that particular Church too may be guilty of Schism So that his definition is too strait I will give him more advantage and let him take it I shall then give a description of Schism and open it Then I will lay down several Propositions tending to the clearing of the Question who are the true Schismaticks Schism is a renting or dissolving that Vnion which Christ our Head requireth in his visible body To open it I shall be short 1st That Christ hath a Body Natural and Mystical or a body in a mystery which is to him as his natural body is known to all Christians Ephes 1.22 speaking of Christ He is the head over all to the Church v. 23. which is his body This Head and this Body make up one Christ mystical 1 Cor. 12.12 so is Christ 2ly This Body of Christ is but one two Bodies joined to one Head much more thousands were monstrous All the believers in all the particular Churches of the world make up but this one Body of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ehes 4 4. one body So Rom. 12.4 5. 1 Cor. 12.12 so Revel 19. ch 21. one Bride one Wife 3ly This body hath its bands or ligaments whereby the body is tyed to the Head and the members one to another For those to the Head I omit the other concern me in this place how the members are tyed one to another Now these ligaments are first Internal secondly are External 1. Internal and they 1. The blessed Spirit of Christ Ephes 4.4 One body and one spirit so 1 Cor. 12.13 The second is love Col. 3.14 Eph. 5.16 2. The External bands are the Sacraments or Seals of the New Covenant whether Government be any thing I shall touch afterwards But for the Sacraments they are the bands of this visible body they belong only to the members of this body one Baptism Ephes 4.5 belong only to that one body v. 4. 1 Cor. 11.17 We being many are one bread and one body for we are all partakers of that one bread Hence Excommunication in which men are cut off the Body and rendered durante hoc statu as Heathens and Publicans not visible members of Christ is by casting them out of Communion with their Body in these Ordinances In these Ordinances the visible members of the body declare that unity and internal band of love one to another Panis igitur fractio est unitatis dilectionis symbolum Virtute hujus Sacramenti con a lescimus in unum corpus invicem cum Christo Par. in loc Paraeus in loc who quotes Chrysostom and the practise of the old Christian Churches how Christians in this Ordinance did manifest their unity and love A Christians love I speak to the business in hand is twofold 1. There is a Christian love common to all 2. There is a Christian Ecclesiastical love proper to some as for Christian love I am bound to manifest that to the bodies and souls of all though Heathens I will pray with Heathens a silly thing to turn Excommunicated persons from Prayer which is Natural Worship I will Preach to Heathens I will exhort reprove encourage Heathens privately to comfort a Heathen as a Christian I cannot else I call not to mind what effects of love I manifest to a Christian but I will to a Heathen But for Christian Ecclesiastical love manifested by Communion in these Symbols or signs I will not manifest that to one Heathen only to the members of this visible body being one with them As for Episcopal Government which Dr. Goodman and this late Commencer adds First I would thank either of them if they would give us a stout piece against Erastus and his followers 2ly If by Episcopal Government they mean such as now is among us let them first prove it is of Divine Institution which all the Commencers in Cambridg or Oxford shall never be able to do so long as there is a Bible and if they cannot do that then where is the schism It 's rather our duty to separate from what is not of Christs planting in his house 3ly But let the Government be of Christs Institution yet wherein doth that Government shew it self among other things in letting in or casting out of this body by admitting or casting out from these Ordinances of the Sacraments but that refusing or separation from such Episcopal-Government meerly as Episcopal should be Mortale schisma this is but the figment of the delirant-brain of a Prelatical Zealot 2ly This Schism is in the visible body of Christ I hear there are schisms among you 1 Cor. 11.8 the house of Cloe 1 Cor. 1.11 saw them who informed Paul Schism it seems comes under the senses then it must be in the visible body when this body visibly met together By the visible body of Christ I understand all that make profession of their Faith in the Lord Jesus and the Doctrine of the Gospel soundly and do in their conversation visibly walk according to his Rules in his Gospel so that their conversation do not openly beâ—ly and deny their profession Tit. 1.16 That the one body of Christ mentioned 1 Cor. 12.12 in which there ought to be no schism v. 25. is meant the visible body of Christ I think none will deny So Rom. 12. Ephes 4. 1. It is such a body in which the Lord had set Apostles Evangelists 1 Cor. 12.18 Ephes 4.11 such a body to which extraordinary gifts were given But these were Apostles not to one particular Church but the Catholick Church visible 2. One member is to suffer or rejoice with another 1 Cor. 12.26 Ay if it be a member and real member of our particular Church of Corinth but for other Churches and unless we are sure they are invisible members let them go Is this the meaning 3. Are we baptized into a particular or the Catholick Church 1 Cor. 12.13 and Baptism belongs to the visible Church Other things I might mention but I think it will not be denied 3ly When then that union our Lord and Head requireth in this his visible body is rent dissolved when Communion is denied among the members of it contrary to his appointment Now Schism appears when the internal band Love is broken there is something of the nature the root of the sin is in it but that is hid Men can hypocritically and vilely meet together and hold communion in that Ordinance which holds forth unity and love and have their hearts wretchedly divided one from another this may be hid as I said But Schism properly so called is when the external band is broken when communion in those symbols or signs is denied on one side or refused on the other side without warrant from Christ so that the members do not meet and hold their communion as they ought but split into several pieces opposite one to another as if they were not members of that one body Now Schism is apparent
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
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-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
THE QUESTIONS Between the CONFORMIST AND Nonconformist Truly stated and briefly discussed Dr. FALKNER the Friendly Debate c. Examined and Answered Together with a Discourse about Separation and some Animadversions upon Dr. STILLINGFLEET's Book ENTITULED The Vnreasonableness of Separation Observations upon Dr. Templers Sermon Preached at a Visitation in Cambridge A brief Vindication of Mr. Stephen Marshal Sed hoc nimis doleo quia multa quae in Divinis libris saluberrima praecepta sunt minus curantur tam multis presumptionibus sic plena sunt omnia ut gravius corripiatur qui per octavas suas terram nudo pede tetigerit quam qui mentem Vinolentia sepelierit August Epist 119. Cum Apostolus testetur mysterium hoc iniquitatis suo etiam tempore agi caepisse hinc intelligimus opiniones omnes Traditiones a Sacris Scripturis dissidentes quas Pontificis urgent tanquam a Patribus acceptas ad Apostasiam hanc quam praedixit Apostolus esse referendas Downham de Antichrist p. 151. LONDON Printed for Tho. Cockerill at the Three Legs in the Poultry over against the Stocks-Market 1681. THE Reader may please to take notice that this Discourse was drawn up long before now Doctor Falkner took his Degree else I had given him his Title And so something of Schism was spoke to before the Epistle to Dr. Stillingfleet could be written To the Reverend and my much Honoured Brother Dr. Edward Stillingfleet Dean of St. Pauls SIR I Hope it is no offence unto you though you be a Dean Unreas Separat p. 62. that I call you Brother since you have taught the Press how to speak soberly and amicably calling us Dissenting Brethren this is better language than Sots Rogues Fools Knaves Rebels Schismaticks which we read and hear from others As for Rebels if they be all Rebels that break the Kings Laws I believe the King will have but a few loyal subjects He hath Laws against Drunkenness Swearing Whoring Sabbath breaking and these are agreeable to the Law of God besides Laws about Hares Partridges Pheasants and against Papists c. we see men can live in opposition to these Laws yet these are not called Rebels But if the Laws of men concern the House and Worship of God concerning which God himself hath given us his own Laws to which all Princes and men are bound and unto which all their Laws ought to be conformable as we shall hear your self speak presently but that conformity we cannot see and therefore dare not assent and consent c. now we are called Rebels Schismaticks and what not Aug. Epis 119. Thus it was in pious Augustines time and this he complains of Sir speaking of your Church you tell us p. 302. Our Church is founded upon a Divine Rule viz. the Holy Scriptures which we own as the basis and foundation of our faith and according to which all other Rules of Order and Worship are to be agreeable 2ly Our Church requires a conformity to those Rules which are appointed by it agreeable to the Word of God Twice you tell us agreeable to the Word of God to which we agree also this being the affirmative part of the second Commandment that all things in our worshipping of him be agreeable to his will and word Now Sir had you proved that all the things imposed upon us had been agreeable to the word of God you had put an end to this Controversie But though I honour and love you for the great service you have done to the Church of Christ against the Papists yet in proving the things Imposed upon us to be conformable to the word of God I humbly conceive you fall very short therefore are we still Nonconformists Several things are imposed upon us but in your whole Book I find not one Scripture you produce to shew the agreement of them with it Till then our Separation is reasonable That Schism is a great sin I agree with you and wish Christians were more convinced of it than I see they are But the Questions are 1. What is schism 2. Who is the cause of schism For the first Sir I presume you will grant that the separation against which you preached and now printed do suppose there was a union with that body from which you tell us we are now separated For how can there be a separation from that to which we were not united Now Sir I think by what you have said to remove the mighty stumbling-block as you call it pag. 359. of the Cross there will be found many thousands in England who were never admitted into your Church and if not admitted into it then not united to it as such a Church no members of your body how then can you charge them with this sin of separation from it Thus then Sir you speak of the Cross in Baptism p. 351. when the Minister uses these words We receive this child into the congregation of Christs flock and sign him with the sign of the Cross c. the Minister now speaks in the name of the Church We receive c. then follows as the solemn rite of admission and do sign him with the sign of the Cross All publick and solemn admissions into societies having some peculiar ceremony belonging to them And so as Baptism besides its Sacramental efficacy is a rite of admission into Christs Catholick Church so the sign of the Cross is into our Church of England in which this Ceremony is used without any prescription to other Churches Thus you have interpreted the Cross Whether this will satisfie Mr. B. I leave it to him it doth not me the Imposers of that Ceremony in their Canons do not tell us that it is the Rite of admission into your Church but by this ceremony the Infant is dedicated to the service of him that died upon the Cross And that Book being of publick authority must carry it I had thought that in our Baptism we had been Dedicated to the Father Son and Spirit But it seems this is not enough you annex to his words Another sign to dedicate us to the service of Christ that died upon the Cross This Sir I hope you will prove to be agreeable to the word of God as you told us your Impositions are I am very ignorant of the Text that proves it and you have named none But this is not the thing I aim at it is your interpretation I mind and from it I gather that you and all others who charge us with separation from your Church must prove That we were received and that by this rite of admission the Cross into your Church which you call the Church of England This is clear from your own Interpretation and also from the page before 350 where you illustrate it from the Independent Churches Thus Suppose say you an adult person to be baptized and immediately after Baptism to be admitted a member of an Independent Church and the ceremony of this admission to
several houses at that time where they had prepared in one house such bitter herbs as Sichory Wild Lettice which they say they used in another house Wormwood and Horehound in another Centory Germander in another bitter Almonds and Gentian c. so mention twenty more differences yet if Bitternesses were observed the rule was kept Again shall these bitternesses be boiled or raw beaten into a sawce like our Mustard as Scaliger saith the Churoseth was here is nothing determined be sure there be bitternesses and the general Rule is kept Again here is no mention made of drink but to have a Lamb and unleavened bread eaten and bitter things and not drink it had been a dry Feast fit to choak them Again the Lamb must be roast but how must it be without a Spit as we use sometimes or with a Spit and if so whether with a Spit made of Iron c. or Wood and that of a Pomegranate tree as a Learned man supposeth who can tell there is nothing determined or expressed and I prefume that Learned Author was not there to turn the Spit Again it must be roast but must the fire be made of wood or coal or turff or other combustible matter not a word of any such thing Thus I might reckon up many more circumstances that I wonder at this Author and another of his party answering for their Ceremonies telling us This is the difference between the Law and the Gospel that under the Law all ceremonies and circumstances are exactly prescribed not so under the Gospel How true this is the Reader may judg Leaving then this Author a while let us come to the stating of the Questions and for the first about Forms of Prayer Mr. Carre begins his Book and states the Question thus 1. Forms of Prayer are lawful thus it was stated in the Commencement-house when Dr. Fern was Vicechancellor and moderated I yield it being my own practice to compose Forms for my Children and for others who could not express themselves in fit words in their families before their servants and what then what is this to our business 2. For the Ceremonies The Church hath power in circumstances and who denies it 3. For Government some Episcopacy is lawful The Proposition must not be universal for then we shall setch in a Universal Bishop which as yet our opponents do not like Make it particular for my part I yield it I shall therefore now give the true state of the Questions and then leave it to the judicious Reader to see whether any one argument the Conformists use conclude the Questions For the First about imposed Forms of Prayer the question is this Quest The Question about Forms Prayer stated Whether the Lord Jesus hath given such power to any ordinary persons Civil or Ecclesiastical to compise and impose their Forms of Prayer upon his Ministers in the Gospel-church whom he hath sufficiently qualified for his work unto which he hath called them so that in their ministration and worshipping of God by prayer his Ministers must be tyed up to those very Forms and Syllables and not vary from them Let me open the Question 1st That Christ is Lord of his House King of his Church having the only power over it to institute what he please no Christian will deny 2ly True Ministers of the Gospel are his Ministers they have their talents and abilities from him their call and authority from him Their Laws and Doctrine what they must preach and how they must order all things in the Church from him They have a promise of his Presence and unto him must they give an account of their work 3ly These Ministers being his are sufficiently qualified in one sense it is true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 2. 16. who is sufficient but yet again Timothy is charged that those whom he takes into the Ministry be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sufficient men Praying and Preaching are the two great works of a Minister Act. 6.4 to declare the will of God to the people and to open and present the wants of the people unto God is their business and whom Christ sends of his errand he fits them for both or never sends them Ephes 4.8 11. He prepareth gifts for his If your Forms of Prayer will make a man sufficient I know not who shall be insufficient if he can but read well 4ly These are Christs Ministers in the Gospel church I hope 't is no strange thing to put a difference between the Ministers of the Old and New Testament Gal 4.1 2 Cor. 3 c. that the Spirit is given by Christs Ascension in a greater measure both as to gifts and grace to the body of the gospel-Gospel-Church than to the old Church hath been unquestioned Divinity by the Conformists 5ly For ordinary persons to impose such as cannot dare not lay claim to an extraodinary Mission as the Prophets and Apostles had Yet the Apostles never imposed their Prayers on the Churches 6ly For these to tye up Christs Ministers to words and syllables in Prayer from which they must not vary This is the practise indeed but this is the question by what right this is done What I have heard in answer to it is that the Church allows our own Prayers before and after Sermon 1. Whether the Church allow it I cannot tell the genuine Sons of the Church say no and will use only the Canon-prayer The Arch-Deacon in his Visitation did dehort the Ministers from the use of their own prayers with these words Though I do not command nor enjoin you yet I advise you to it it is more out of fear it would cause such an Odium among the people should they take them off from their own prayers wholly in places where there is any knowledg in ignorant places they use none at all but the Common-Prayer as I have certain intelligence of divers places The Fathers of the Church in their Conterence with the other Ministers at the Kings first coming in thus express themselves Account of the Proceedings c. p. 19. VVe heartily desire that according to this Proposal great care may be taken to suppress those private conceptions of pray ers before and after Sermons As the Judges are the Interpreters of Statute-Laws so surely the Bishops of the Canons Now it is clear they would take away all but Book-prayer The judgment of Bishop VVren and Bishop Cozens is well known 2ly But if superiors being but ordinary persons have power to impose their Forms at Baptism the Lords supper c. all but before and after Sermon is it because their power of imposing is limited by God where I pray certainly by what power they take away the use of our own prayers before and after Sacraments they may before and after Sermons and that we see they desire it might be done but that they fear the consequence Let us come to their reasons for this One they draw from the Scriptures and that is
Twice we have the word certain and it is certain there is no such word as standing in the Text which I have read several times as he bids us Harmon c. 129. Jansenius saith they might have their loins girt feet shod staff in hand and yet sit and sitting at that time might be their manner as he thinks from Gen. 43.33 Surely the Jews did not tear the meat from the bones like dogs how then they could hold their staves in their hands and cut their meat when they were in haste I cannot well tell 2ly It is very observable that the Jesuits Maldon and a Lapide and Gerhard the Lutheran and the Calvinists abroad are more wary what they write concerning Christ than are our English Conformists for they all conclude that Christ kept the Passover according to the Law not Jewish customs If Josiah gave such charge 2 King 23.21 That the Passover be kept as it was written in the Book of the Covenant Shall Christ come short of Josiah Hence the Jesuit a Lapide agrees with Gerhard and Calvin that Christ eat the Passover standing but his discumbing was at the other Supper 3ly Most of the Learned that I see as Jun. Tremel Rivet Beza Scaliger Paraeus Piscator Grotius Ainsworth Diodati c. do all agree that God appointed the gesture of standing only for that first Supper in Egypt as all the other circumstances noted in Exod. 12.11 all setting forth persons in haste but were never used after when they came to rest in Canaan If they did so I doubt not but it was according to the mind of God but indeed there is no gesture mentioned in the Law that I read of Nor shall all the Rabinical men in the world make me believe that Christ would depart from the Institution of God to conform to any Jewish custom must we needs cast a blot upon Christ to justifie our own inventions I know no man that maketh sitting essential to a Sacrament as Mr. Falkner supposeth p. 474. and as strange is his next supposition of a Feast without Bread or Wine or Ale or Beer with us For our parts 't is all one to us sit or kneel but that we find as it was a Supper so it was a Supper-gesture Christ used with his Apostles there is no other gesture recorded what gesture our Lord used when he blessed the Elements I do not inquire we stand or kneel in Prayer but the Text saith Mark 14.18 They sate and eat at his own Supper as well as at the Passover for ought I can read the Scripture mentions this gesture only at his eating If you can find any Evangelist speak otherwise name him I doubt not were there any such controversie or question among the Mahumetans and their Alcoran did speak but so much for one side as our Bible doth in this they would give so much honour to their Alcoran to determine the question on that side which it did most favour but it seems we cannot give that honour to our Holy Bible as the Turk will to his Alcoran 2ly It is all one to us to sit or kneel one gesture is as easie as the other Till Transubstantiation was hatching kneeling was not commonly known in the Church but for some time of the year it was forbidden much less was it contended for and such punishments inflicted upon them who refuse it as amongst us The Popish party blame us for kneeling denying their Doctrine of Transubstantiation 3ly That your Kneelers worship Christ in and by the Elements the great contenders for kneeling have confessed Pag. 167. as the Author of the dispute against English Popish Ceremonies have shewn out of Dr. Burgess Dr. Morton and Paybody the Bishop of Edenburgh Archbishop of St. Andrews upon which he undertakes to prove that kneeling in the act of receiving the Lords Supper is Idolatrous Mr. Nichols urged the same Treasure out of Rubbish p. 65. See more there that kneeling in the act of receiving the Lords Supper being a bodily religious adoration of God before a creature with respect unto it having no special allowance from God was unlawful when this was urged before Bishop Morton he found more favour from the Bishop than we can 4ly Reverence in Gods worship we do commend as much as any I wish sometimes that which men call Reverence be not Idolatry But was David such an irreverent person when he sate before the Lord in Prayer 2 Sam. 7.18 27. all the Versions hold to the word sate and that at this time when his heart was enlarged from the sense of Gods love Cannot I pray reverently when I lye upon my bed and may we not as reverently receive the signs of the Lords body and blood while we sit at his Supper Cannot we know our own hearts Who more profane in their conversation and despisers of the commands of Christ than most of these who can kneel at Sacraments Upon the same ground i.e. Reverence the Church of Rome will not put the Bread in the Sacrament into the peoples hands though Maldonate grants for a long time the Church did so but into their mouths forsooth Multo plus habet reverentiae Mat. 26.26 But it is far from my intention to produce any new arguments against these Ceremonies when there are so many produced by Dr. Ames Didochevius and divers others It is very observable what Mr. Schol. pract Divin 2 par p. 93 94. Jeans an acute Schoolman and Conformist in former times who censured the Nonconformists as sharply as any and wrote against them while he had read but one side as he saith and was a stranger to what the Nonconformists could say for themselves their adversaries representing their objections and answers so weak and ridiculous hath left upon record When the Parliament began he intended to write a full vindication of the Discipline and Ceremonies of the then Church of England to which end he read all such Books of the Nonconformists as he could procure Upon the perusal of them saith he I soon found that their adversaries most disingenuously misrepresented all that they said that they refused to join issue with them in the state of the question that they came not up to an ordinary grapple with them with their Arguments and that they seldom regularly replied unto the solutions which were given to their objections and this saith he quickly produced an alteration in my judgment and I believe it will do so too in all that will make such an impartial search into the matter as I have done This is the ingenuous confession of that learned man making excuse for what he had written against the Nonconformists I shall shut up this with the judgment of the learned and pious VVhitaker as I see him quoted by Maccovius upon this question Q. Theol. loc Q. 43. Whether when we receive the Lords Supper should we kneel stand or fit A. Respondet Whitakerus saith Maccovius to kneel doth not only exclude