that Finger But there is used nothing of this impious or Superstitious fooling about the Ring in our office of Marriage All the doings about it are the Ministers putting it on the fourth Finger the Bridegroom saying after him with this Ring I thee Wed and the mentioning of it in the Prayer following as a Token and Pledg of the Vow and Covenant made between the Married Persons So that 't is so far from being used as a Sacramental sign among us that it no otherwise differs from a meer civil Ceremony than as 't is a Token and Pledg of a Covenant made between the Parties in the most Solemn manner viz. as in the presence of God And in truth this is such a Symbolizing with the Church of Rome as I should be ashamed to bestow two Words about but that so many of our Bretheren have been pleased to take offence at it Lastly As to our Observation of certain Holy days All I shall say about it is 1. That there is no Comparison between the number of our Holydays and the Popish ones 2. Our few are purged from all the Superstitious and wicked Solemnizations of the Popish ones 3. We observe scarcely any besides such as wherein we have the Primitive Church for our Example Excepting those which are enjoyned upon the account of Deliverances and Calamities in which our own Nation is peculiarly concerned 4. An observation of them void of Superstitious conceits about them and only as our Church directeth can have no other than a very good Effect upon our hearts and lives If we could say as St Austin did of the Christians in his time viz. By Festival Solemnities and set days we dedicate and sanctify to God the memory of his Benefits lest unthankful forgetfulness of them should in tract of time creep upon us we should certainly be much the better Christians for the observation of our Holydays Mr. Calvin saith in Festis non recipiendis cuperem vos esse Constantiores c. I could wish that you would be more constant in your not receiving Festivals but so as not to contend and make a stir about all but about those only which nothing at all tend to Edification and which have a manifest appearance of Superstition c. And he instanceth in those Days which Popery dedicates to the Celebrating of the immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary and of her Assumption on which Holydays nothing he saith can be said in the Pulpit by a servant of God besides exposing the folly of those who have invented them And in another Epistle Caeterùm cùm Festi dies hic abrogati c. Moreover whereas some of your Country are much offended at the Abrogation of Holy days among us and 't is likely that much odious talk is spread about it And I make account that I am made the Author of this whole matter and that by the Ignorant as well as Malicious I can solemnly testifie of my self that this was done without my knowledg or desire c. Before I ever came into the City there was no Holy day at all observed besides the Lords day those which are Celebrated by you were taken away by that same Law of the People which banisht me and Farel And 't was rather Tumultuously extorted by the violence of Wicked Men than decreed legally Vpon my return I obtained this temper or mean that Christmass day should be observed after your manner but upon the other days extraordinary supplications should be made the Shops being kept shut in the Morning but after Dinner every one should go about his own Business And no doubt the Governours of our Church would be abundantly satisfied with such an observation of most of our Holy-days as Mr. Calvin ordered at Geneva would the People be generally so far conformable And thus I have I hope sufficiently shewed that our Church's Symbolizing in this Rite too with the Church of Rome no otherwise than she doth can be no colour for Separation It may be objected that notwithstanding our having several times cited Mr. Calvin for the unlawfulness of Separation from the Church of England on the account of her Symbolizing as she doth with the Church of Rome yet he calleth her Ceremonies tolerabiles ineptiae tolerable fooleries which would make one think that he was not in earnest in calling them tolerable fooling in the Worship of God being no doubt intolerable In Answer hereto let Mr. Calvin account for his joining ineptiae tolerabiles together but the instances he gives of things he so censured were such as the Liturgy was cleared of in the amendment of it under Queen Elizabeth viz. Prayers for the dead that is that they might have a happy Resurrection not such Prayers as supposed Purgatory Chrism at Baptism and Extreme Vnction And besides he saith he was informed by Mr. Knox of several other Popish Ceremonies that were retained viz. the Use of Wax Candles divers Crossings at the Communion c. which Information was not true And now how happy should we think our selves would our Brethren at length be perswaded to cease fearing where no fear is as also to fear what is really very frightful namely the guilt of so great a sin as that of Schism or making and continuing a breach in the Church by Separation without just cause The greatness of which sin none have more aggravated than Mr. Calvin and several of our old Non-Conformists who have also zealously born their Testimony against Separation from the Church of England and accordingly did themselves hold Communion therewith generally viz. all the Presbyterian Party to their dying day though they could not Conform as Ministers And there is another very formidable Evil too which I wish more of our Brethren had a greater sense of viz. the advantage that our Common Enemy is too like to make of our Sad Divisions and being crumbled into so many Sects and Parties and hath already made in order to their final accomplishing their designs upon us The truth on 't is they themselves have had the main hand in those Divisions they so upbraid us with of which we have abundant Evidence having most industriously followed that advice of the famous Jesuit Campanella viz. There is no such effectual way to weaken the English as to stir up strife and discord among them and still to feed it This will quickly put into our hands very fair advantages and opportunities Their main spight is at the Church of England as being well aware that it hath ever since the Reformation been their most formidable Enemy and the most impregnable Bulwark in all Christendom against the mighty Power and Policy of their Church of Rome What a madness therefore is it in hearty Protestants to joyn with those People in layiâ—g this Church as low as ever they are able And by contending with our Church about innocent if not commendable things upon the account of her symbolizing in them with the Church of Rome eminently to endanger the opening such a breach as shall let in all her Heresies Superstitions and Idolatries among us Which God in his infinite Mercy prevent by causing us to live more answerably to the happy Means and Opportunities we now enjoy by quenching our as unreasonable as unchristian fierce Feuds and Animosities and by making our Church like Ierusalem of old a City compact together and at Vnity within it self Amen FINIS See Libertas Evangelica Chap. 17. Which Crossings are also prescribed by the Ritual in the Office of Adult Baptism but with a variation of the Forms Calv. devitanâ Superstitione c. L. 4. cap. 4 §. 2 Acts and Monuments p. 1696. Contra Westphalum vol. 1. p. 255. P. 416 c. Resp. ad Baldw. p. 324. In Epist. ad Monsbelgardenses p. 81 82. In Epist. ad Hallerum Jam veròadenervandos Anglos nihil tam conducit quà m dissensio discordia inter illos excitata perpetuóque nutrita Quod citò occasiones meliores suppeditavit Camp de Mont. Hisp. p. 204. Amstel
Scriptures declare to have revealed Gods will to the World such as Moses our Saviour Christ and his Apostles and that these Persons delivered such Doctrine and Confirmed it by such Miracles and that the Books of Scripture were written by those whose names they bear I say as to the Evidence of the truth of these matters of Fact our Church placeth it not in her own Testimony or in the Testimony of any Particular Church and much less that of Rome but in the Testimony of the whole Catholick Church down to us from the time of the Apostles and of Vniversal Tradition taking in that of Strangers and Enemies as well as Friends of Iews and Pagans as well as Christians Secondly We proceed to shew that a Churches Symbolizing or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome is no Warrant for Separation from the Church so agreeing Agreement with the Church of Rome in things either in their own nature good or made so by a Divine Precept none of our Dissenting Brethren could ever imagine not to be an indispensable duty Agreement with her in what is in its own nature Evil or made so by a Divine Prohibition none of us are so forsaken of all Modesty as to deny it to be an inexcusable sin The Question therefore is whether to agree with this Apostate Church in some things of an indifferent nature be a Sin and therefore a just ground for Separation from the Church so agreeing But by the way if we should suppose that a Churches agreeing with the Church of Rome in some indifferent things is sinful I cannot think that any of the more Sober Sort of Dissenters and I despair of success in arguing with any but such will thence infer that Separation from the Church so agreeing is otherwise warrantable than upon the account of those things being imposed as necessary terms of Communion But I am so far from taking it for granted that a Church is guilty of Sin in agreeing in some indifferent things with the Church of Rome that I must needs profess I have often wondred how this should become a Question Seeing whatsoever is of an indifferent nature as it is not Commanded so neither is it Forbidden by any Moral or Positive Law and where there is no Law the Apostle saith there is no transgression Sin being according to his definition the transgression of the Law And whereas certain Circumstances will make things that in themselves are neither duties nor sins to be either duties or sins and to fall by Consequence under some Divine Command or Prohibition I have admired how this Circumstance of an indifferent thing 's being used by the Church of Rome can be thought to alter the Nature of that thing and make it cease to be indifferent and become sinful But that it doth so is endeavoured to be proved by that general Prohibition to the Israelites of imitating the doings of the Aegyptians and Canaanites in those Words Lev. 18.2 After the doings of the Land of Aegypt wherein ye dwell shall ye not do and after the doings of the Land of Canaan whither I bring you shall ye not do neither shall ye walk in their Ordinances This place divers of the Defenders of Nonconformity have laid great weight upon as a proof of the Sinfulness of Symbolizing with the Church of Rome Even in indifferent things But I chuse to forbear the Naming of any whose Arguings I purpose to enquire into because I would prevent if it be possible the least suspition in the Readers that I design in this Performance to expose any Mans weakness in particular or that I am therein Acted by any Personal Piques Now then as to the Text now Cited Not to insist upon the Fallaciousness of Arguing without mighty caution from Laws given by Moses to the Israelites so as to infer the Obligation of Christians who are under a dispensation so different from theirs and in Circumstances so vastly differing from those they were in I say not to insist upon the Fallaciousness of this way of Arguing which all considering Persons must needs be aware of if this general Prohibition be not at all to be limited then it will follow from thence that the Israelites might have no usages whatsoever in common with the Aegyptians or Canaanites and therefore in as general terms as the Prohibition runs our Brethren must needs acknowledge that there is a restriction therein intended it being the most absurd thing to Imagine that the Israelites were so bound up by God as to be Obliged to an unlikeness to those People in all their Actions For as the Apostles said of the Christians if they were never to Company with Wicked Men they must needs go out of the World we may say of the Israelites in reference to this Case of theirs they then must needs have gone out of the World Now if this general Prohibition after their doings ye shall not do be to be limited and restrained what way have we to do it but by considering the Context and confining the restriction to those particulars Prohibited in the following verses But I need not shew that the particulars forbidden in all these viz. from v. 5 th to the 24 th were not things of an indifferent Nature but Incestuous Copulations and other abominable Acts of Vncleanness And God doth Expresly enough thus restrain that general Prohibition in the 24 th v. in these Words Defile not your selves in any of these things for in all these the Nations are Defiled which I cast out before you But those that alledge this Text to the foresaid purpose will not hear of the general Proposition's being thus limited by the Context as apparent as it is that it necessarily must because say they we find that God forbids the Israelites in other places to imitate Heathens in things of an Indifferent and Innocent Nature To this I Answer First That supposing this were so it doth not from thence follow that God intended to forbid such imitations in this place the contrary being so manifest as we have seen But Secondly That God hath any where prohibited the Israelites to Symbolize with Heathens in things of a meer Indifferent and Innocent Nature I mean that he hath made it Unlawful to them to observe any such Customs of the Heathens meerly upon the account of their being like them is a very great mistake Which will appear by considering those places which are produced for it One is Deut. 14.1 You shall not Cut your selves nor make any baldness between your Eyes for the dead Now as to the former of these prohibited things who seeth not that 't is Vnnatural and therefore not indifferent And as to the latter viz. the disfiguring of themselves by Cutting off their Eyebrows this was not meerly an indifferent thing neither It being a Custom at Funerals much disbecoming the People of God which would make them look as if they sorrowed for the dead as Men without hope Another place insisted
page of his Sermon we might find this Acknowledgment But that this Fact of King Hezekiah will not prove that whatsoever hath been notoriously defiled in Idolatrous or grosly Superstitious services ought to be abolished and much less that the not abolishing some such things is a good ground for Separation from the Church that neglects so to do will I presume sufficiently appear by these following considerations First The Brazen Serpent was not only a thing defiled in Idolatrous services but it was made an Idol it self Secondly It was not only a thing that had once been made an Idol or Object of Religious Worship but it was Actually so at that time when it was destroyed Nay it was at that instant an Object of the most gross kind of Idolatry It being not only bowed down to but had likewise Incense burnt to it this being a Rite which is never used in meer Civil Worship like bowing the Knee c. but so proper and peculiar to Divine Worship that no Rite is more so Nay farther Thirdly It was not thus notoriously Idolized by some few of the People but the People were Generally lapsed into this Idolatry As the Text plainly sheweth Nay Fourthly There was as little hope as could be of the Peoples being reclaimed from this Idolatry while the Idol was in being Seeing that of a long time they had been accustomed thereunto For 't is said that unto those days the Children of Israel burnt Incense to it which speaks it to have been not only a Custom but a Custom also of a long standing Fifthly Although it had been only a thing defiled in Idolatrous services yet we freely grant that it ought to have been destroyed or removed from the Peoples sight if the continuance of it in their View were like to be a Snare to them and a Temptation to Idolatry Since now the use of it was ceased for which by Divine appointment it was first Erected But there was no necessity for this upon supposition that it had ceased to be abused for any considerable time and there were no appearance of an inclination in the People to abuse it again And no doubt all things of an indifferent Nature that have formerly been abused to Idolatry or Superstition ought to be taken away by the Governours whensoever they find their People again inclined so to abuse them at least if such abuse cannot Probably be prevented by other means Sixthly But had Hezekiah suffered the Brazen Serpent still to stand no doubt private Persons who have no authority to make publick Reformations might Lawfully have made use of it to put them in mind of and affect them with the wonderful mercy of God expressed by it to their Fore-Fathers notwithstanding that many had not only formerly but did at that very nick of time make an Idol of it And much more might they have Lawfully continued in the Communion of the Church so long as there was no constraint laid upon them to joyn with them in their Idolatry As we do not read of any that separated from the Church while the Brazen Serpent was permitted to stand as wofully abused as it was by the generality I will also conclude this head with the sense of Mr. Calvin concerning Rites used and consequently superstitiously abused by the Papists expressed in these Words Let not any think me so austere or bound up as to forbid a Christian without any exception to accommodate himself to the Papists in any Ceremony or Observance for it is not my purpose to Condemn any thing but what is clearly Evil and openly Vitious To which may be added many other such like sayings of this Learned Person And thus much shall suffice to be discoursed upon our second general head viz. That a Church's Symbolizing in some things with the Church of Rome is no Warrant for Separation from the Church so Symbolizing We now proceed in the Third and last place to shew That the Agreement which is between the Church of England and the Church of Rome is in no wise such as will make Communion with the Church of England unlawful We have shewed what a vastly wide Distance and Disagreement there is between the Church of England and that of Rome And we have sufficiently though with the greatest brevity made it apparent that a Church's symbolizing or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome and those such too as she hath abused in idolatrous and grosly superstitious Services is no just ground for Separation from the Church so agreeing And we have answered the Chief of those Arguments which have been brought for the Confirmation of the contrary Doctrine And now from what hath been discoursed it may with the greatest ease be prov'd that those things wherein our own Church particularly agreeth with the Romish Church do none of them speak such an Agreement therewith as will justifie Separation from our Church's Communion Now the particulars wherein our Church symbolizeth with that of Rome which our Dissenters take offence at and make a pretence for Separation though all Dissenters are not offended at all of them and much less so offended as to make them all a pretence for Separation are principally these following First The Government of our Church by Bishops Secondly Our Churches prescribing a Liturgy or Set-Forms of Prayer and Administration of Sacraments and other Publick Offices Thirdly A Liturgy so contrived as that of our Church is Fourthly Certain Rites of our Church Particularly The Surplice the Cross in Baptism the Gesture of Kneeling at the Communion the Ring in Marriage and the Observation of certain Holy-days And to all these I shall speak very succinctly the limits I am confined to not permitting me to enlarge much upon any of them But I must first premise concerning them all in the general these following things First That I take it for granted that they are all indifferent in their own nature That there is nothing of Viciousness or Immorality in any of them to make them unlawful I know no body so unreasonable as not to grant this Secondly That there is no Express positive Law of God against any of these things I do not know of any such Law objected against any one of them And therefore if all or any of them are unlawful they must be made so either by Consequences drawn from Divine Laws or certain Circumstances attending them Thirdly That I am concerned in this Discourse to vindicate them from being unlawful upon the account onely of this one Circumstance viz. Our symbolizing with the Church of Rome in them Now then First As to the Government of our Church by Bishops This is so far from being an Vnlawful symbolizing with the Church of Rome that we have most clear Evidence of its being a symbolizing with her in an Apostolical Institution And what eminent Divines of the Presbyterial Party have acknowledg'd and is too evident to be denied or doubted by any who are not wholly ignorant
of Church History is sufficient I should think to satisfie unprejudiced persons concerning the truth of this And that is that this was the Government of all Churches in the World from the Apostles times for about 1500 years together Beza in his Treatise of a Threefold kind of Episcopacy Divine Humane and Satanical asserts concerning the second which is that which we call Apostolical that of this kind is to be understood whatsoever we read concerning the Authority of Bishops in Ignatius and other more Antient Writers And the Famous Peter Du Moulin in his Book of the Pastoral Office written in defence of the Presbyterial Government acknowledgeth that presently after the Apostles times or even in their time as Ecclesiastical story witnesseth it was ordained that in every City one of the Presbytery should be called a Bishop who should have preheminence over his Collegues to avoid Confusion which oft times ariseth out of Equality And truly saith he this Form of Government all Churches every where received Mr. Calvin saith in his Institution of Christian Religion Quibus docendi munus injunctum erat c. Those to whom was committed the Office of Teaching they called them all Presbyters These Elected out of their number in each City one to whom in a special manner they gaâ—â— the Title of Bishop lest Strife and Contention as it commonly happeneth should arise out of Equality And in his Epistle to Arch-Bishop Cranmer he thus accosts him Illustrissime Domine Ornatissime Prâ—sul c. Most Illustrious Sir and most Honourable Prelate and by me heartily Reveâ—enced And tells him that if he might be serviceable to the Church of England he would not think much of passing over ten Seas for that purpose Again in his Epistle to the King of Poland he thus speaks of Patriarchs and Arch-Bishops The Ancient Church did appoint Patriarchs and Primates in every Province that by this bond of Concord the Bishops might the better be knit together In short for I must not proceed farther upon this vastly large head of discourse I know not how our Brethren will defend the Apostolical Institution of the Observation of the Lords Day while they contend that this of Episcopacy cannot be concluded from the uninterrupted Tradition of the Catholick Church for so many Centuries from the time of the Apostles Nor how those that Separate from our Church upon the account of its Government by Bishops and call it Antichristian can defend the Lawfulness of Communicating with any Church in Christendom for about 1500 years together Secondly As to Our Churches prescribing a Liturgy or set Forms of Prayer and Administration of Sacraments and other publick Offices It is easy to shew that Symbolizing with the Church of Rome herein is so far from being culpable and much more from being a just ground of Separation from our Church that 't is highly Commendable For as herein Our Church no less Symbolizeth with the Primitive Church than with that of Rome as she is now Constituted nothing being more certainly known than that Liturgies are of most Ancient standing so nothing is more highly expedient for the due management of the publick Worship of God than the use of a Liturgy And indeed instead of Expedient I might say Necessary it being impossible to secure the performance of publick Worship with that solemnity and gravity that becomes it in a Church where its Ministers are wholly left free to the Exercise of Extemporary invention But the handling of this Argument is the business of another new Discourse to which I refer the Reader I shall therefore conclude it with a citation out of Calvins Epistle Ad Protectorem Anglioe saith he As to a Form of Prayers and Ecclesiastical Rites I do very much approve of the publishing of a fixed one from which it may not be Lawful for the Pastors to depart in the exercise of their Function Thereby to provide against the simplicity and unskilfulness of some and that the consent of all the Churches with each other may more certainly appear And lastly to put a barr to the skipping Levity of others who Affect certain innovations And therefore as he proceeds Statum esse Catechismum oportet Statam Sacramentorum Administrationem publicam item precum Formulam there ought to be an Established Catechism an Office for the Administration of the Sacraments Establisht and also a Publick Form of Prayers And he accordingly composed a Liturgy to be used by the Ministers in Geneva on Sundays and Holydays And the Exiles that resided at Geneva in the days of Queen Mary did by his advice draw up a Liturgy which was Printed in the English Tongue in the year 1556. Thirdly As to a Liturgy so contrived as that of our Church is what hath been said of the vast distance between our Church and that of Rome herein is sufficient to shew that there can be no warrantable pretence for Separation from our Church upon the account of the Symbolizing that is between these two Churches in this particular But we will particularly consider those instances of agreement between ours and the Romane Service which are most offensive to our â—rethren they are especially these four 1. Our many short Prayers which some have too lightly called short Cuts and Shreddings and rather Wishes than Prayers But there needs no other reply hereunto than that our Learned Hooker gives viz. That St. Augustin saith Epist. 121. That the Brethren in Aegypt are reported to have many Prayers but every of them very short as if they were Darts thrown out with a kind of sudden quickness lest that Vigilant and erect attention of mind which in Prayer is very necessary should be Wasted and dulled through Continuance if their Prayers were few and long But that which St. Austin alloweth they Condemn c. He might as well have said what that good Father Commendeth nay his words imply no small commendation And I fear not to appeal to all Pious Souls who without prejudice joyn with us in our Publick Prayers whether they find the shortness of many of them an hindrance or help to their devotion I don't question but that such will readily acknowledg that they find it an help And therefore in my weak judgment our Symbolizing with the Church of Rome in this particular is Symbolizing with her in that which is highly commendable as t is so also in that wherein she Symbolizeth with very Ancient Churches 2. Another instance is The Peoples bearing a part with the Minister in divine Service But Mr. Baxter hath said enough in his Christian Directory on Q. 83. not only to vindicate the Lawfulness but the Fitness and Expediency also of Symbolizing herein with the Church of Rome Saith he 1. The Scripture no where forbids it 2. If the People may do this in the Psalms in Metre there can be no reason given but they may Lawfully do it in Prose 3. The Primitive Christians were so full of Zeal and Love of Christ that
Books Printed by FINCHAM GARDINER A Continuation and Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleets Unreasonableness of Separation in Answer to Mr. Baxter and Mr. Lob c. Considerations of present use considering the Danger Resulting from the Change of our Church-Government 1. A Perswasion to Communion with the Church of England 2. A Resolution of some Cases of Conscience which Respect Church-Communion 3. The Case of indifferent things used in the Worship of God Proposed and Stated by considering these Questions c. 4. A Discourse about Edification 5. The Resolution of this Case of Conscience Whether the Church of England ' s Symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome makes it Unlawful to hold Communion with the Church of England 6. A Letter to Anonymus in Answer to his Three Letters to Dr. Sherlock about Church-Communion 7. Certain Cases of Conscience resolved concerning the Lawfulness of Joyning with Forms of Prayer in Publick Worship The first Part. THE RESOLUTION OF THIS CASE OF CONSCIENCE Whether the Church of England's Symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome makes it Unlawful to hold Communion with the Church of England LONDON Printed by Henry Hills Jun. for Fincham Gardiner at the White Horse in Ludgate-street 1683. The Case Whether the Church of Englands Symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome makes Communion therewith Vnlawful IN speaking to this Case we will First Premise that there is a wide and vast distance betwixt the Church of England and that of Rome Secondly Shew that a Churches Symbolizing or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome is no Warrant for Separation from the Church so agreeing Thirdly Shew that the Agreement that is between the Church of England and the Church of Rome is in no wise such as will make Communion with the Church of England Unlawful First We think it necessary to Premise that there is a wide and vast distance betwixt the Church of England and that of Rome Our Church having renounced all Communion with the Church of Rome this speaks the greatest distance in the general betwixt the two Churches And as their distance particularly in Government is manifest to all from our Churches having utterly cast off the Jurisdiction of the Papacy so it is easie to shew that there is likewise a mighty distance betwixt them in Doctrine Worship and Discipline But we shall not stand to shew this in each of these distinctly but rather make choice of this Method viz. to shew that our Church is most distant from and opposite to the Church of Rome 1. In all those Doctrines and Practices whereby this Church deprives her Members of their due Liberty and miserably inslaves them 2. In all those Doctrines and Practices in which she is justly Charged with plainly Contradicting the Holy Scriptures 3. In each of their publick Prayers and Offices 4. In the Books they each receive for Canonical 5. In the Authority on which they each of them found their whole Religion First Our Church is at the greatest distance from that of Rome in all those Doctrines and Practices by which she deprives her Members of their due Liberty and miserably inslaves them For Instance 1. This Church denieth her Members all Iudgment of Discretion in matters of Religion She obligeth them to follow her blindfold and to resolve both their faith and judgment into hers as assuming infallibility to her self and binding all under pain of Damnation to believe her infallible But our Church permits us the full enjoyment of our due Liberty in believing and judging and we Act not like Members of the Church of England if according to St. Pauls injunction we prove not all things that we may hold fast that which is good if we believe every Spirit which St. Iohn cautions us against and do not try the Spirits whether they be of God which he requires us to do 'T is impossible that our Church should oblige us to an implicite faith in herself because she disclaimeth all pretence to infallibility Our Church tells us in her 19 th Article that As the Churches of Jerusalem and Alexandria and Antioch have erred so also the Church of Rome hath erred not only in their Living and manner of Ceremonies but also in matters of Faith And our Churches acknowledgment is plainly implyed in asserting the most famous Churches in the World to have erred from the Faith that she her self must needs be Obnoxious to Errour in matters of Faith and that she would be guilty of the highest impudence in denying it 2. The Church of Rome imposeth a deal of most slavish Drudgery in the vast multitude of her Rites and Ceremonies and unreasonably severe Tasks and cruel Penances As to her Ceremonies they are so vast a number as are enough to take up as Sir Edwyn Sandys hath observed a great part of a mans life merely to gaze on And abundance of them are so vain and Childish so marvellously odd and uncouth as that they can Naturally bring to use that Gentlemans words who was a curious observer of them in the Popish Countries no other than disgrace and contempt to those exercises of Religion wherein they are stirring In viewing only those that are injoyned in the Common Ritual one would bless ones self to think how it should enter into the minds of Men and much more of Christians to invent such things And the like may be said of the Popish Tasks and Penances in imposing of which the Priests are Arbitrary and ordinarily lay the most Severe and Cruel ones on the lightest offenders when the most Loud and Scandalous come off with a bare saying of their Beads thrice over or some such insignificant and idle business But the Church of England imposeth nothing of that Drudgery which makes such Vassals of the poor Papists Her Rites are exceeding few and those plain and easie grave and manly founded on the Practice of the Church long before Popery appeared upon the Stage of the World Our Church hath abandon'd the five Popish Sacraments and contents her self with those two which Christ hath ordained As is to be seen in her 25 th Article where she declares that There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel that is to say Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. Those five commonly called Sacraments that is to say Confirmation Penance Orders Matrimony and Extreme Vnction are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel being such as have grown partly of the Corrupt following of the Apostles partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures But yet have not like Nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lords Supper For that they have not any visible Sign or Ceremony ordained of God The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon or to be carried about c. And in saying that our Church owns not the forementioned Popish Sacraments is implyed that she hath nothing to
upon for the same purpose is Lev. 19.19 Thou shalt not let thy Cattle Gender with a divers kind thou shalt not sow thy Ground with mingled seed nor shall a Garment of Linnen and Woollen come upon thee Now these three 't is said are things of so indifferent a Nature that none can be more indifferent I answer 'T is readily granted But where is it said that these things were forbidden because the Heathens used them Maimonides indeed as I learn from Grotius saith that the Aegyptians used these mixtures of Seeds and of Linnen and Woollen in many of their Magical Exploits but 't is universally acknowledged that these things among many other were forbidden to the Iews as Mystical instructions in Moral Duties I have found no other Text made use of to prove meer indifferent things to have been forbidden the Israelites only in regard of Heathens using them which make more for this purpose than these two do nor hardly another that makes so much But if there were never so many it is not worth our while to concern our selves now with them because though we should suppose a great number of instances of such things as were forbidden those People for no other reason but because the Egyptians or Canaanites used them yet this would signifie nothing to the proving Our Churches Symbolizing with that of Rome in indifferent things to be Unlawful because there is not the like reason why in such things we may not Symbolize with Papists that there was why the Iews should be forbidden to Symbolize in such with those Heathens For there could not be too great a distance and unlikeness between those People and these in their usages in regard of their strangely Vehement inclination to their Superstitious and Idolatrous Practices And upon this account the distance was made wider as our Brethren themselves will acknowledge between the Iews and the Pagans than it ought to be between Christians and them or between Protestants and Papists And we find that the distance that God made between the Jews and Heathens as very wide as it was was not wide enough to preserve the Iews from being very often and that generally too infected with their Superstitions and various kinds of Idolatry No though they frequently paid most dear for these their Wicked Imitations of them But thanks be to God there is no such inclination in the Members of Our Church to go over to that of Rome nor hath any such inclination been observ'd ever since the Reformation And where one of our Communion hath Revolted out of Love to Popery of those few Comparatively who have play'd the Apostates we have cause to believe that many have so done meerly upon the score of interest And I need not say that such Persons would not have been preserved from Apostasy by our Churches being set at the widest distance possible from the Church of Rome in indifferent things Nay 't is so far from being true that there is a general inclination in our Protestants to Popery that nothing is better known or hath of late been more observed than the greatest Antipathy and Aversation thereto imaginable in the generality Upon which account I say the foresaid and the like Prohibitions to the Iewish Nation although they should be understood in the sense of our Dissenting Brethren can by no parity of reason be obliging to us Protestant Christians And indeed most of them have seemed of late years to be pretty well aware of this and therefore divers of their Writers have limited the unlawfulness of Symbolizing with the Romish Church to things that have been abused notoriously in Idolatrous and grosly Superstitious Services And that our Symbolizing with that Church in any such things is Unlawful they endeavour to demonstrate both by Scripture Precepts and Examples First They endeavour to demonstrate this by Scripture Precepts And if any such Precept as this could be produced That all such things as have been notoriously abused and Polluted in Idolatrous or grosly Superstitious services should by all be abolished and laid aside there could be no place left for dispute about this matter and I doubt not but we should all of us express as great Zeal as our Brethren do for the abolishing of all such things But no such express and unlimited Precept is pretended but the chief of those Texts from whence our Brethren endeavour to Infer this Proposition That it is the will of God that all things so polluted should be utterly destroyed and laid aside are these following Isaiah 30.22 Ye shall Defile also the covering of thy Graven Images of Silver and the Ornament of thy Molten Images of Gold Thou shalt Cast them away as a Menstruous Cloath thou shalt say unto it Get thee hence Deut. 7.25 26. The Graven Images of their Gods shall ye burn with Fire thou shalt not desire the Silver or Gold that is on them nor take it unto thee lest thou be snared therein for it is an Abomination to the Lord thy God Neither shalt thou bring an Abomination into thy House lest thou be a cursed thing like it but thou shalt utterly detest it and thou shalt utterly abhor it for it is a Cursed thing Jude 23. hating even the Garment spotted with the Flesh. Revel 2.14 I have a few things against thee because thou hast there them that hold the Doctrine of Balaam who taught Balac to cast a Stumbling block before the Children of Israel to Eat things Sacrificed unto Idols c. v. 20. Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee because thou sufferest that Woman Jezebel which calleth her self a Prophetess to teach and to seduce my Servants to commit Fornication and to Eat things Sacrificed to Idols Now to their alledging of these Texts to prove the foresaid Proposition I reply First That the last of them is altogether impertinent For the eating of things offered to Idols condemned in those two verses is nothing better than joyning and complying with Idolaters and Communicating in Idol-worships Which the vile Gnostiques held they might do and accordingly practised this doctrine to avoid persecution Which abominable Sect arose in the Church as we learn from Irenoeus Epiphanius Eusebius c. even in the Apostles times of which Simon Magus was the first Founder But St. Paul hath given us his judgment concerning Eating of things offered to Idols without any respect to Idols in Eating in 1 Cor. 8 chap. viz. That upon no other account but that of Scandal it is unlawful And the like he hath done 1 Cor. 10.27 28 29. If any of them that believe not bid you to a Feast and you be disposed to go whatsoever is set before you Eat making no question for Conscience sake But if any man say unto you this is offered in Sacrifice unto Idols Eat not for his sake who shewed it and for Conscience sake c. Conscience I say not thine own but of the others For why is my liberty judged of another mans
they would have taken it for an injury or quenching of the Spirit to have been wholly restrained from bearing a part in the Praises of the Church 4. The use of the Tongue keeps awake the mind and stirs up Gods graces in his Servants 5. It was the decay of Zeal in the People that first shut out the Responses while they kept up the Ancient Zeal they were inclined to take their part vocally in the Worship Though I were under no obligation of brevity I should add nothing more of mine own about this matter 3. Another instance of this Nature is the taking of some of the Collects out of the Mass-Book But to this I give this I hope as satisfactory as short Answer viz. That these Prayers are either good or bad if they are bad ones they may not be used though they were not in the Mass-Book and upon that account the use of them would be Unlawful not upon the account of our Symbolizing in them with the Roman Church But if they are all good ones as they are very good then from what hath been said 't is Evident that this Symbolizing cannot make them bad and 't is a hard case that we should not be allowed the use of whatsoever is good in their Service Our Brethren will allow of reading the same Scriptures that they do and why then should they disallow of using what perfectly agreeth with Scripture because they use it Our departure from them was designed to be a Reformation not a total Destruction and Extirpation 4. The last instance is The appointing of Lessons out of the Apocryphal Books But herein we Symbolize with the Primitive Church rather than with this of Rome For as hath been shewed out of the 6. Article of our Church they are not appointed to be read as Canonical Scripture and we perfectly agree with the Primitive Church in reading them for Example of life and Instruction of manners but not for the Establishing of any Doctrine Which in that Article is shewed from St. Hierom to have been the Practice of that Church And besides they are not now appointed to be ordinarily on Sundays read in Our Churches but only on Holydays These I take to be the chief of those instances of our Churches Symbolizing with that of Rome in the Composure of the Liturgy that Our Dissenters are offended at And as for their other Objections of this kind they are as easily answered And I most sincerely profess that t is not to me imaginable that any thing better than Extreme prejudice can make any Man a Separatist from Our Communion upon such accounts as these As also that I cannot understand how any devout and pious Souls that come to our Publick Prayers without prejudice can find themselves in the least tempted not to joyn in them heartily with the Congregation Absolute perfection is not to be expected in any thing of a human make but if all would read Our Liturgy with that Candour they use in reading the Books of those they have a good opinion of as I am sure they could think nothing intolerable therein so am I as sure they would freely acknowledg it to be exceedingly well adapted to the design of it viz. the exciting of Devotion and that good temper of mind that is necessary to Our Worshipping of God in Spirit and in Truth I am certain the experience of very many as excellent Christians as this Age can boast of do bear me witness that this is no lavish commendation of Our Prayers Dr. Tayler that Blessed Martyr gave this Testimony to Our Liturgy There was set forth by the most Innocent King Edward for whom God be Praised everlastingly the whole Church Service with great deliberation and advice of the best Learned Men in the Realm and Authorized by the whole Parliament and received and Publisht gladly by the whole Realm which Book was never reformed but once and yet by that one Reformation it was as fully perfected according to the Rules of Our Christian Religion in every behalf that no Christian Conscience could be Offended with any thing therein contained I mean of that Book Reformed What then would he have thought of it had he lived to see it twice more Reformed as it hath been since Lastly I proceed to the forenamed Rites and Ceremonies of Our Church in which our Symbolizing with Popery is so much Condemned and made a pretence for Separation But before I come to particulars I will observe in the general that the distance Our Church keeps from that of Rome in the imposition of Ceremonies is infinitely greater than her Agreement therein with her For as those imposed by our Church as hath been already said are exceeding few not the hundredth part scarcely of those imposed by the Roman Church so doth not our Church impose them as the other doth on the Consciences of her Members as things of necessity as parts of Religion or meritorious Services as hath been proved out of the Articles Now then 1. As to the Surplice our Church requires not the wearing of this Garment as an Holy Vestment like the Priestly Garments under the Old Law but meerly for the sake of Order and Uniformity whereas in the Church of Rome a Surplice may not be worn till 't is hallowed in a solemn manner by the Bishop or some one by his Allowance as may be seen in the Missal with divers prayers that it may defend him who wears it from the Assaults of the Devil the prayers being accompanied with a number of Crossings and in fine the Surplice besprinkled with Holy Water in the name of the Blessed Trinity But I say in our Church 't is used only as a Garment of distinction no more holiness is placed in it than in the Hoods worn over it meerly for distinction of degrees And the White is preferred before any other Colour because it was a very antient Custom in the Primitive Church for the Ministers to Officiate in White Garments Beza saith of the Surplice These linnen Garments we do not so stick at that we would have the progress of the Word of God hindred in the least for them And we might shew that Mr. Calvin much blamed contending with Authority about the wearing this Garment Particularly in his Epistle to Bullinger And since all the Popish abuse of this Garment is perfectly removed I know not why all Ministers should not be of their mind and much less can I imagine why those who are not obliged to wear it should be affrighted from our Churches by the meer sight of so Innocent a thing 2. As to the Cross in Baptism Our Church holds so little Conformity with the Papists herein that in no one thing of an Indifferent nature can our Symbolizing with them be less scandalous Dr. Burges in his defence of Dr. Morton Sheweth that we hold no Conformity with the Papists in the use thereof either in the time when or place where or manner how or
end whereto The Minister with us as he there sheweth may not Cross Himself or the People or Font Water Communion Table or Cups or the Bread and Wine or any other of Gods Ordinances All which in Popery the Priest is bound to do for their Consecration or blessing of himself or them as without which nothing is Consecrated The Child to be Baptized with us may not be Crossed before Baptism on the Forehead Breast or any part which in Popery the Priest must do to drive away the Devil and make the Efficacy of that Sacrament more easy and strong as they teach After Baptism the Minister may not with us Cross the Children with Oyl or Chrism or without on the Crown of the Head as in Popery is required to give them their full Christendom lest they should die before Confirmation Yea at Confirmation the Minister is not to make the sign of the Cross on the Forehead with Chrism or without which is enjoyned in Popery as an Essential part of the Sacrament as they call it of Confirmation Nay as he proceeds if the Child be in danger of present death and not like to live to make profession of Christ Crucified the Minister is directed not to use the sign of the Cross that all may know that we hold it not to be either Operative upon the Child or at all necessary to the Efficacy of the Lord's Sacrament but do only retain it according to the first and best intention as an outward badg of the Constant profession of Christ Crucified And where as 't is said in the 30 Canon that by this lawful Ceremony and honorable badg this Child is dedicated to the service of Christ the Doctor declareth that he hath good warrant to assure those who are offended at that Explication that the word dedicated doth there import no more than declared by that Ceremony to be dedicated viz. by the foregoing Baptism like as the Priest is said to have cleansed the Leper whom he only declareth to be clean Lev. 14.11 And t is manifest from the account given of the imposing of this Ceremony in that Canon that this Phrase cannot otherwise be understood I shall not need to add any thing more about this Ceremony after I have said that our Church retains it not in imitation of the Church of Rome but of the Primitive Christians they thereby to use the Words of the foresaid Canon making an outward profession even to the astonishment of the Iews that they were not ashamed to acknowledg him for their Lord and Saviour who died for them upon the Cross c. And as it follows this use of the Sign of the Cross in Baptism was held in the Primitive Church as well by the Greeks as the Latins with one consent and great applause c. I conclude with Bezas judgment of the Lawfulness of this Ceremony Saith he I know many to have retained the use of the sign of the Cross the Adoration of the Cross being taken away Let them as is meet use their own Liberty But in our Church not only the Adoration of the Cross but likewise all Superstition in the use of it is perfectly abolished How then can it be thought such a Symbolizing with the Church of Rome as may warrant Separation from our Communion 3. As to the Ceremony of Kneeling at the Communion If our Churches Declaration at the end of the Communion Service will not vindicate her from an Unlawful Symbolizing with Rome herein I have nothing to say in her defence The declaration is this Whereas it is ordained in this Office for the Administration of the Lords Supper that the Communicants should receive the same Kneeling which order is well meant for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers and for the avoiding of such Prophanation and disorder in the Holy Communion as might otherwise ensue yet lest the same Kneeling should by any Persons either out of Ignorance and Infirmity or out of Malice and Obstinacy be misconstrued and depraved It is here declared that thereby no Adoration is intended or ought to be done either unto the Sacramental Bread and Wine there bodily received or unto any corporal presence of Christ's Natural Flesh and Blood For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very Natural substances and therefore may not be adored for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians And the Natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here it being against the truth of Christs Natural Body to be at one time in more places than one We see that our Church doth here not only declare that no Adoration is in this Gesture intended either to the Elements or to Christ's Corporal Presence under the Species of Bread and Wine but also that as such a Pretence is absurd and contradictions so the adoring of the Sacramental Bread and Wine would be Idolatry to be abhorred by all faithful Christians So that as nothing is in it self more indifferent than this Gesture in receiving the Holy Communion there being not one Word said of the Gesture in our Saviours Institution of this Sacrament either before his Death to his Disciples or after his Ascension to St. Paul who hath delivered to us what he received of the Lord about this matter as he said that is all that he had received and as Christ hath Consequently left the particular Gesture to the determination of the Church a Gesture being in the general necessary so this Circumstance of Symbolizing with the Church of Rome herein cannot make Our Churches requiring Kneeling to be Unlawful and much less our Obedience to the Church in using this Gesture seeing all the Idolatry and Superstition too wherewith the Church of Rome hath abused it is perfectly removed and 't is required by our Church meerly as a decent Reverend Gesture 4. As to the Ring in Marriage The Church of Rome as is to be seen in the Office of Matrimony juxta usum Ecclesiae Sarisburiensis abuseth it most notoriously There you have it first blessed with two Prayers in the former of which God is beseeched to send his blessing on this Ring that she who shall wear it may be Armed with the Power of Heavenly defence and it may be beneficial to her to Eternal life through Christ our Lord. And in the latter the Priest Crossing himself Prayeth that God would bless this Ring which we in thy Holy Name bless that whosoever shall wear it may abide in his Peace c. Next Holy Water is sprinkled upon the Ring And lastly the Priest puts it upon the Brides Thumb the Bridegroom saying in the Name of the Father Then upon her second Finger saying and of the Son Then on the third saying and of the Holy Ghost Then on the fourth saying Amen And there he leaves it And there is expressed a special Mystery in leaving it upon