Apoc. 18.4 how were they made and kept his people else must we therefore hold Communion with Babylon 3ly Christ holds Communion with his people in the Lutheran Churches I doubt not but if they impose upon you the Doctrine of the Ubiquity of Christs Humane Nature as a condition of Communion will you hold Communion with them 9ly Persecution joined to Imposition upon the members of Christs body what Christ never imposed renders the sin of the Imposing-Church much greater and refusing Communion with such a Persecuting Imposing Church is no Schism If Christ doth give us leave to flee from one Persecuting City to another where there is no Persecution then if a City be a Persecuting City by reason of a Persecuting Church surely he doth not bind us to hold Communion with that Persecuting Church 10ly Though one particular Church cannot communicate with another particular Church because of their corrupt Impositions yet if that Church which cannot communicate with the other will admit of those members of that Church who walk as become Christians in all other points excepting those Imposed corruptions which at present they cannot see being blinded with those deluding notions of indifferency and circumstances that Church cannot be charged with Schism though they refuse communion with the Imposing Church for we give communion to their members only exclude their imposed corruptions I do not mean such members as voluntarily took that solemn Oath c. of reforming those corruptions and now return to them again I look on this as a greater sin but for others I know several of our Churches would give them communion I do not say all will but then how are we Schismaticks 11ly Particular Churches may be so corrupt both in Doctrine Worship and Conversation that the sounder members not only may but ought to separate from them to save their own souls from infection and this is not Schism but Duty 12ly The case of those who are actual members of those Churches where these corruptions are is different from those who are no members of such Churches they have something else to do before they may separate 13ly If it be our sin to communicate with such as we know to be notoriously wicked unless we follow the rule of Christ Mat. 18.15 16 c. to seek the removal of them or do not our duty to reform the Pastor Cure of Church-Division pag. 100. or remove him as Mr. Baxtar tells us How we shall communicate without sin though we had nothing else to trouble us I know not that many such come to the Sacraments and who more boldly than they we know which way shall we reform them the Curate hath no Juridical power To the Spiritual Court must we go To the Diocesan must we go we are like to mend it carry Witnesses how many miles when yet the power we cannot own to be of Christ When all is done have a Writ upon our backs to bring us to the common Law and what then Whence to conclude they have dealt unworthily by us who bring the old Nonconformists against us to condemn us as if the state of this Church were the same with the true Church of England POSTSCRIPT AFTER I had finished I met with a Pamphlet Entituled The reason of Episcopal Inspection asserted in a Sermon at a Vesitation in Cambridg by John Templer D. D. The scope of the Sermon is to prove the Divine Right of Prelacy over Elders and Congregations And that the Author might shew himself to be a true Son of the Church he hath given sufficient proof in every particular For the Liturgy that is so perfect that he saith the most accuminated Intellect is not able with justice to charge it with any error p. 18. All then the old Nonconformists Parker Ames Bradshaw Cartwright Richardson Didoclavius c. together with the latter Nonconformists who were appointed with others by the Kings command to review the Liturgy and have given an account what things in it were to be corrected Calvin also for saying he found in it some Tolerabiles Ineptiae are all by this accuminated Doctor dub'd for so many Dunces They must be men of higher Acumens than these that can find any just cause against it these have said nothing considerable But whatever be the opinion of this Author yet Mr. Jeans a man of an acute Intellect one of their own and as great a Zealot once as he can be confesseth when he intended to write in defence of the Discipline and Ceremonies when he read these mens Books he found such arguments in them as were never answered and thereupon layed by his Pen his judgment being quickly altered but if you be a person of a more accuminated Intellect why did you not answer those dull fellows and therein do us a kindness that we might have conformed as well as you He tells the Reader p. 17. If this order of Prelacy had a period the Dissenters would never pitch upon any one way A. 1. The same saith the old Gentleman at Rome these Dissenting Protestants cannot pitch upon one way Hence no period must be put to the Papal Government 2ly You were very cunning Sir to pitch upon the warm side of the hedg thereby to save your selves from persecution and keep your fat Livings then cry up obedience to Governours pity the Martyrs had no better Intellects to have taken this course too and so have saved their stakes 3. If men would lay by their self-interests we might sooner pitch upon one way but so long as he sits at Rome and the Jews are uncalled I look but for little of this unity in the Gentile-Churches But to the main scope of his Sermon Had it been to prove the Divine Right of an Episcopus Praeses or Primus Presbyter as Ambrose calls a Bishop with the Presbytery or Ecclesiastical Senate I should not have been his opposer but it is an Episcopus Princeps and that not with but over the Presbytery superiour in power which he contends for how strongly proved we shall see His Text was Act. 15.36 Paul said to Barnabas Let us go again and visit our Brethren c. That the Doctor intended out of this Text to prove such a Visitation as was then when he Preached and so in England when Bishops visit I presume else he deceived him to whom he dedicates it and the four Doctors that Licensed it See how the Text will force it The Proposition or Antecedent is this Paul and Barnabas two Apostles Act. 14.14 Persons of extraordinary mission commission and qualifications for the office having by their Preaching converted many people from Heathenism to the Faith of Christ gathered them into Churches and set Elders over them These Elders and Churches being but all young Converts and through the relicts of corruption in them and the malice of Satan and his Emissaries without them being in danger to miscarry in Doctrine or manners these two Apostles go to visit the Churches which they had planted
them in the Apocalyps only to Asia Was not Rome a Metropoles and there a Church 2ly Are you sure these were all Metropoles It seems there is some question about Philadelphia and your solution does not satisfie So for Thyatira it seems Pliny doth not give it this honour but Ptolomy doth So that we must rest upon a Humane Faith and prove which of these was the truest Writer 3ly But are you sure there were no more Churches in Asia than fell under the seven Archbishops Which of these was Archbishop to the Churches in Galatia that was a Province in Asia but none of these Cities Metropolis there for Ancyra was Antioch a Metropolis then under none of these yet there a Church To which I pray did Colosse belong Cappadocia Pontus Bithinia were all Provinces in Asia and in these were Churches no doubt for the Apostle writing to the Believers in these Provinces 1 Pet. 1.1 in the 5th Chap. v. 1 2. He charges the Elders to feed the flock Yet none of the seven Churches were Metropoles in any of these Provinces I could instance in divers more This I suppose the Doctor Preached to make amends for the fault he committed in being ordained first by Presbyters for now he talks of Archbishops in the Apostles days whereas Mr. Thorndike pag. 45. Prim. Gov. and the old Episcopal men tell us Archbishops came in long after As for your discourse from p. 60. to the end in which you tell your Reader something concerning Rules about Order Decency Circumstantials in Religion Adiaphorus matters c. and what the Church may do to preserve it self against opposers that thereby p. 62. you might justifie the punishment inflicted upon us for our Nonconformity Sir this is but the old Cheat to blind the people as if we opposed Order Decency and Circumstantials in Religion and for the punishment inflicted will you justifie it that Governours may for every errour in things pertaining to God punish their people for not conforming to them as we are punished but how much less then for non-conforming to Humane Inventions in the Worship of God which as yet all the Pulpits and Presses have not proved to be our error I mean our non conformity to them but our Duty And for that which p. 61. you would bring as a proof viz. That the Churches Determination upon some particu ars in conformity to the general command is no addition to the Rule c. It is very true if there be a conformity to the general command but if you will undertake as here you implicitely assert to prove that the Forms of Prayer Ceremonies Prelacy Re-ordination Abjuration of the Covenant all which are imposed upon us are all of them but particulars conformable to the general command of God Sir let us but have the liberty of the Press and you shall soon find one that will answer you I suppose there are but few pious Conformists in England that will justifie the casting of about two thousand Ministers out of their work because they could not submit to these Impositions in the matters of God had it been in things concerning the Commonwealth that had been another case then let him blame us Whence we are quite mistaken in Dr. Templer A POSTSCRIPT to the Reverend Dr. STILLINGFLEET SIR THE former pages were printed off sooner than I was aware of but give me leave to add these lines to clear my self from that sin of Schism which which you charge me among my Brethren a little further since I still continue the same love and honourable respects to you Three cases there are you tell us p. 213. in which the Sripture allows of Separation 1. Idolatrous worship 2. False doctrine imposed 3. Indifferent things made necessary to salvation of this latter one word by and by But there are two others wherein Paul gives particular directions but such as do not amount to separation viz. 1. Different opinions about meats and drinks observation of Jewish Holy-days In these points he advises not to censure one another but notwithstanding this difference join together as Christians in the duties common to them all Thus you A. Sir This is very true accordingly as I meet with Christians of different apprehensions Episcopal Presbyterian Independent Anabaptists some few of which I have found sober men and sound in all points but that let these men be sound in the faith and walk with a Gospel-conversation subjecting to Church government though in their different ways I give the Lords Supper to them all refusing communion with none for these opinions 2. But my good Brother are you not beside the question Did they in those duties which were common to them all as Christians impose such things as the Lord never imposed as terms of Communion This is our case both in Prayer Baptism Lords Supper Discipline which are duties common to us all in all these you impose your own inventions not our Lords injunctions so did not they And what if they would impose their Jewish Holydays which yet were once Gods own appointment upon the Gentiles to observe them who knew they were abrogated Sir you impose Holydays of mens appointing upon us which is far worse God's Authority is higher than yours 2. The second thing you mention is the corrupt lives of men in the Church c. where you explain 1 Cor. 5.11 No not to eat but Sir I prefer your Hammond's explication to which I refer the Reader see his Pararaph and his Notes As to that third ground which may warrant Separation you say viz. The imposing of things indifferent as necessary to our salvation A. Sir is our salvation all that we should regard Is not the glory and honour of God a thing to be attended Is not this glory and honour of his the first thing to be intended in his Worship Is it not his honour when his Soveraignty and Wisdom alone commands in his Worship In case he be deprived of his Worship is this honour to him Sir you make your Inventions though in themselves indifferent yet being commanded by mans Authority to alter in some sort their natures they are the words of your Canon upon the Cross and so necessary you make them that without these God shall have no worship at all Witness Barthol mewday As to the Liturgy which you impose you tell us p. 332. you will say nothing Dr. Falkner having so well defended it A. I know it is imputed to our pride and conceitedness of our own gifts that we use it not Sir I do profess in words of sobriety if you or Dr. Falkner can assure me infullibly that I should be pleasing to God and that I should discharge my Office as I ought only by reading Forms of Prayer I will be as ready to use nothing but Forms as you are ready and resolute to impose them I would use also that Form of prayer before my Sermon which your 55th Canon does command to be used before Sermon and
Independents have declared it witness the aforesaid Mr. Norton in the same Book p. 133 who helps us a little to understand circumstances I shall only transcribe his own words Adjuncta cultus licet non praescribuntur in particulari determinantur tamen in generali multiplici ratione How near we and the Friendly Debate shall come we shall see anon 1. Respectu materiae non sunt cultus ipse ne dum circumstantiae a cultu separabiles sed inseparabiles ut tempus locus 2. Respectu finis omnia ad aedificationem fiant 1 Cor. 14.26 3. Respectu modi omnia decenter ordine siant 1 Cor. 14.40 4. Ex natura ipsarum rerum circumstantiis occasionalibus anne natura quidem ipsa nos docet 1 Cor. 11.14 Vbi agit Apostolus de virorum faeminarum decenti habitu in conventibus publicis Ecclesiasticis Porro determinantur aliquo modo in particulari nempe ut fiant tali modo qui circumstantiis omnibus consideratis est maxime conveniens adificationi Si nullus sit error hominis in hac circumstantiarum determinatione constituenda constitutio illa habenda est quasi simpliciter divina Thus Mr. Norton By this we may see the modesty of Dr. Goodman that can tell his Reader so confidently that this is our grand Hypothesis and the Characteristical Doctrine of the Nonconformist party That nothing is lawful in the service of God but what is expresly prescribed in Scripture The contrary to which he might have read in this Author and in others I question not But whether Ceremonies be but such circumstances or only circumstances is the question Let me state the question The Question concerning Ceremonies stated Q. Whether Man may institute Doctrinal-ceremonies or means for a spiritual end impose them upon the Church annex them to Gods own worship yea so that without the use of these God must have no publick worship performed to him That this is the true state of the Question observe the Preface to the Ceremonies in the Common-Prayer Book and the practises of men They tell us in the Preface The Ceremonies they have retained are not dark and dumb ceremonies but are so set forth that every man may understand what they mean and to what they serve and such as be apt to stir up the dull mind of man to the remembrance of his duty to God by some notable and special signification whereby he might be edified Hence we may observe 1. Man owes Duty to God this is expressed 2ly Because the wise God hath not ordained means enough to put us in mind of this our duty to him by his Command Threats Promises and his Ceremonies in both the Sacraments men will institute Ceremonies to signifie and represent to us this our duty to him this is plain for 't is expressed to be the end of these Ceremonies 3ly These Ceremonies are so clear point out and speak so plainly not dark nor dumb our duty that any man may understand what duty or grace they signifie 4ly Whereas our minds are dull to our duty these Ceremonies help to stir up our dull minds to our Duty and so stirring up they help to edifie us These things are clear in the words of the Preface no denying them and in this they speak more and commend more their Ceremonies than ever the great God did speak of his When I have urged the Conformists with these words they would fly off from them what care they for the Preface But in so doing do they shew themselves rational men does any wise man read a Law or Statute of men and not look into the scope of the Law the Preface to the Statute so understand the mind and aim of the Legislators Do they show themselves such Christians as they ought to be by shutting the window for fear light should shine in to hinder them from what they are resolved to do Let the Conformists consider it To proceed 2. That these Ceremonies are imposed upon the Church and annexed to Gods own worship is so visible that there needs no more words about it 3. That they are so annexed as without these God must have no publick worship Witness first Bartholomew-day upon which day so many hundred Ministers were turned out from their publick worshipping of God because they would not subscribe to them 2ly Witness the Parish where I was Minister and divers others where for several weeks yea months the Church-doors were shut up God had no publick worship because I would not conform to these Inventions 3ly Witness a Parish in Suffolk before the unhappy Wars began while Bishop Wren there Domineered because there was no Surplice in the Church the Church-doors were shut up two Lords-days no publick worship performed to God until they got a Surplice to annex to his Worship So that the stating of the Question cannot be denied Now let the Reader observe that worthy Mr. Falkner and tell me which argument of his from Scripture concludes the question If it were no more but the first part I thought it had been only in his power to institute means to a spiritual end and impose them on his Church who is able to make a connexion between the means and the end But it seems mens Ceremonies are so clear bright and speak so plain being not dark nor dumb as they say that they can teach men and help them on to their duty and spiritual ends without the Spirit of God or else the Spirit of God must truckle and come down and make use of their means because they have appointed them which I am sure he hates Do Kings stand upon their Prerogatives shall any man dare to set his own Image upon Copper to have it pass for a farthing in a Commonwealth and yet shall men be so bold to set their stamp or institution upon a ceremony as a means to a spiritual end impose this upon the Church What is this but to incroach upon Gods Prerogative will he not require it But so to annex them to Divine worship that God shall have no worship without them I wonder how such thoughts could enter into the hearts of such men as did own the true God and believed him to be a jealous God and the Holy Scriptures the Law of that God Let me proceed to the further clearing of the Question First These Ceremonies are humane Institutions depending only upon the will and pleasure of man So that all natural Ceremonies such as are found among those that have nothing but the light of Nature to instruct them as lifting up the eyes or hands Bowing of the knees in prayer c. found among Heathen These are excluded this question For these Ceremonies in the question have nothing but some particular mens wills for their ground 2ly These Ceremonies have an Ordained signification though the things in themselves may have some aptness to signifie something yet they do not actually signifie without the Ordination and Institution of man As in
Baptism and the Lords-Supper though there was some aptness in the Elements to signifie yet they did not actually signifie till the Ordination and Institution of Christ Such was the washing of the hands De Oratione and putting off the Cloak before Prayer in Tertullian's time which he charges with superstition Such was the girding of their garments about their loins by the Priests in France in Divine Worship Carang p. 150. Concerning which Pope Caelestinus the first wrote an Epistle to the Bishops in France charging the Priests with superstition telling them they might as well hold a burning light and a staff in their hands these having their mysteries and signification as clear as the other For as in the girding of the loins chastity so in the staff your Pastoral Government In the Light-candles the light of good works shining before men are held forth yet Caelestinus reproves them and charges superstition upon them I am sure then these deserve the same Things that signifie by civil custom as the vail did the Womans subjection 1 Cor. 11. in those times have no place in this question the vail was in use many years even among Heathens before Christ was incarnate 3ly These Ceremonies are ordained to signifie some spiritual duty we owe unto God 4ly They are means helps to our spiritual edification being very apt to stir up our minds to our duty 5ly Lastly they are appropriated to Divine Worship yea so that God shall have no worship if these be not admitted Out of this we may make a description of a Ceremony of the Church of England It is an outward sign ordained by men in the time of Divine worship to signifie some special grace or duty we owe to God unto the performance of which and our edification in so doing this outward sign is a mean by its special signification and aptness to stir up our dull minds Before I proceed I observe Mr. Falkner brings many quotations out of antiqutiy to strengthen his discourse about Ceremonies and with these many are taken but for my part I weigh them not at all they signifie nothing to me For the Spirit foretold Apoc. 17.1 there should be a great Whore c. That the Whore there mentioned is the Pontifician or Papal power now at Rome or thus Rome Chriftian not Rome Ethnick I am ready to prove it if Mr. The Whore got not into her Chair per saltum but gradually as the Churches grew more corrupt Falkner deny it That Whore then must be else the Prophecy must be false which cannot be But had all the Churches of Christ and that of Rome which was once a chaste Spouse kept close to the Rule of the Scriptures in VVorship Government and Doctrine it had been impossible for that VVhore ever to sit there Hence the wise God leaves Ministers to their own wisdom and they thought they acted very wisely when they added this and that in the worship of God and formed their Church-Government according to the civil and thus acting freely and wisely as they thought they brought about by degrees the Decree of God the VVhore is set in her Chair as freely as if God had no Decree about her nor reveal'd any Prophesie concerning her So that all Mr. Falkners and others quotations do but serve to shew us how the Churches acted to bring that Whore to her Chair and so sulfil the Prophesie suitable to what Bishop Downham said of Traditions See the Title page But though Mr. Falkner give us these Quotations is he or any man now able to give us a perfect account of the practise of All the Churches in those times some it may be many were far enough from these practises After Bartholomew-day our Church-doors being shut up for a long time I went to hear the Priest in the next Parish He I found was teaching those few that he had present before there used to be a great Congregation and grounding them in conformity and informed them that as God was pleased to institute significant Ceremonies in his Church so the Church thought it meet to appoint her Ceremonies When I heard this that Text Zach. 13.7 came into my mind where God speaking of Christ calls that man his Fellow Indeed for him who is God-man to be called Gods Fellow we can see a reason but how dirty sinful men come to be his Fellows in taking upon them to institute their Ceremonies in his Church because he had done so I could not understand the reason of this Bishop Davenant on Col. 2.20 speaks notably to this point it is too long to transcribe all The sum is this If you be free from the Rites that God did prescribe then are you free from the Traditions of men It is a most wicked thing they should impose this yoke upon you and you are most foolish to submit your necks to it For God would not have abolished the Ceremonial Law instituted by himself that a new one may be invented by men So he goeth on more fully than I transcribe though still he would have Ceremonies for Decency and Order But this is not the state of the Question for the Preface tells us other things wherefore these Ceremonies are invented and imposed Yet that of Decency will not serve the turn of which more presently But to return to that Priest who was thus instructing his people the truth of what he said and what is now in practise you may see in this Parallel 1st God takes things indifferent in their own nature and ordains them to signifie some spiritual grace or duty of man towards God This cannot be denied of seve ral Ceremonies under the Law 2ly God appropriates these to his own Worship the Priests must put off their garments when the Worship is ended 3ly Gods Ceremonies though they had some aptness to signifie yet did not actually signifie but by his Institution 4ly Gods Ceremonies though in their own nature Indifferent yet being commanded by God are now necessary 5ly Gods Ceremonies were so instituted that no Priest must dare to minister without them Exod. 28.43 6ly God punisheth the Priests and that severely if they observe not his Ceremonies Exod. 28.43 1st Man takes things indifferent in their own nature and ordains them to signifie some spiritual grace or duty of man which he ows to God 2ly Man appropriates his Religious Doctrinal Ceremonies to the Worship of God and there only used 3ly Man's Ceremonies though they had some apmess to signifie did not actually signifie but by his Institution 4ly Mans Ceremonies though in their own nature indifferent yet being commanded by humane Authority are now necessary This is their language 5ly Man's Ceremonies are so instituted that no Minister shall perform the Worship of God without them God shall have no Worship without mans Ceremonies 6ly Man punisheth the Ministers of the Gospel severely for not observing his Ceremonies Casting them out of the Lords work spoiling of their goods Imprisonments Excommunications
significancy lyes in the whiteness instead of the Surplice when he comes into Chappel the paultry boys were fain to stop their mouths with their Surplices till Service was done lest they should laugh out-right but when Service was finished there was no little noise made in the Chappel The Doctor hearing it sent to know what the matter was answer is returned the Lad is sent for he makes his excuse but that would not serve his turn the Lad was punished I forgot to ask the kind of punishment as for the Smock he sends for an Officer that belonged to the Kitchin and caused a fire to be made and there burnt the Smock Had the Doctor ordered it to be burnt to Tinder and not to ashes he might have made as significant a Ceremony of it though it was black as his white Surplice was And I may say of it as it is said of these Ceremonies they are so set forth that every man may understand what they mean I commend you Sir this is like a Disputant you have maintained Eartholomew-day very stoutly But Sir The Nonconforming Ministers are not the Knaves as your Reddition make them they hate the Frock it doth smell so of the Jades in the Stable at Rome they will by no means come into the Parlor with the Frock so that he that wears the Frock in the Parlor is either the Fool or the Knave according to your Logick 2ly We call them Knaves who cheat the persons with whom they deal I do not call you Knave I have learned more moralily than so which you so much talk of but that you have cheated your Reader I shall make it appear 1. With that piece of Sophistry called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here are Time Place and Livery i. e. your Surplice put together as if there were no difference when as we deny it Time and Place are but circumstances inseparable from the Worship of God hence 't is all one to us whether nine ten or eleven of the Clock whether in the Hall or Parlor if it be best for edification or conveniency of the Church we are very indifferent but the Livery hath a moral signification ordained by men for another end to put us in mind of our Duty to God and a means to stir up our dull minds to the performance of it 2. Here is Ignoratio Elenchi your similitude doth not touch the state of the question the question speaks of one thing and your similitude argues another That by this Livery you must understand some Ceremony and if any the Surplice must be the Argutum is plain for that suits a Livery best and something you would argue as you declare when you bid the Reader make the Reddition In this sense your similitude is very apt it doth represent a Livery indeed but I pray who gives this Livery we can well distinguish between what comes through Rome and that which is Romish Why do you speak so against that Woman in Rev. 17. since you wear her Livery But to this indifferency that the use of them is indifferent I suppose you will not say you declare your mind plain enough They are indifferent and so remain after they are commanded in their own nature no necessity put upon them To Mr. Falkner and this Author I pray tell us what Ceremony you can invent that is not indifferent in its own nature tell us of one Ceremony that is necessary in its own nature 1. All Gods Ceremonies were indifferent in their own nature not one necessary let but God recall his Positive Law I will put on all the High Priests garments and make use of any Vessels of the Temple c. Pray Sir name that Ceremony which in its own nature is morally good or evil 2ly Bread and Wine in the Lords Supper as to their own nature are but indifferent unless you will own Transubstantiation his positive Law make them necessary both necessitate praecepti medii When the Elements have served their use or end the Sacrament's over we eat and drink what remains as other drink c. you make yours a means to edification as well as Christ doth his and so much necessity of command lye upon them that all the Ministers whom you call Knaves that will not use them be the Ministers never so able and holy they must be turned out of their Lords service by your verdict as they are 3ly All the Popish Ceremonies are indifferent in their own nature and may plead as much for the use of them all as you do for yours Yea take their Pictures being in a Papists house I saw the Picture of a very Old man I thought nothing of it the Cloth the Paint or Colours the Effigies the frame were all indifferent in their nature but when one told me that Picture was to represent the Ancient of Days then I understood sin enough in it 4ly The Papists put no necessity upon their Ceremonies as witness their Master Lombard that tells you Baptism i. e. Water applied in the Name c. the Elementum Verbum meeting together make the Ordinance perfect without any Ceremony But since they are thus indifferent as you say and Mr. Carre blaming us for making a Schism because of these which he terms thus Trifles poor needless things such as scarce come nigh to touch the fringe of Christs vesture But to us they appear sinful and did we not so apprehend the things imposed upon us but that we might be acceptable and pleasing to God in our Conformity to them we protest in his presence who searcheth our hearts and will judg both you and us we would not stay one day from Conformity The Question is Whether you may better lay by these things and not impose them being so indifferent or may we better take them up who at least suspect them to be sinful and cannot with a clear conscience yield unto them Are we more guilty of schism that will not take up these things because we apprehend them from the word to be sinful or you that will not lay them down but impose them though you say they are indifferent I challenge Mr. Falkner and all the Conformists to answer it before God If the things imposed be but indifferent as all the Conformists say then Mr. Falkner meets with an argument of the Nonconformists it is urged saith Mr. Falkner p. 434. No such indifferent things ought to be imposed but to be made the matter of mutual forbearance according to the duty charged upon Christians Rom. 14. 1 Cor. 8. Here Mr. Falkner bestows about 32 Pages to take off the Argument and to give us the mind of those Chapters It is very true Sir the argument hath been used by the old Nonconformists and in particular I knew it urged by one and the 13th v. of the 1 Cor. 8. pressed hard upon the Prelate Laud in his Visitation to whom the Prelate gave this answer True when Paul was alone and spake alone
to have eat these meats they had sinned in their command nor were they bound to obey them with a doubtful conscience to hazard amnation by obedience to superiors is no good Divinity Yet Sir we do give obedience and will preach up obedience to Princes as much as any other only in the matters of God he is the superior and supreamest Nemini fit injuria cui praponitur Deus For your next Section pag. 442. where you labour to defend your Ceremonies though they have been abused in a corrupt way of worship in Popery As for this Section Mr. Falkner might have spared it for Humane Doctrinal Ceremonies to be annexed to Gods own Institutions we judg them sinful additions intrenching upon the Soveraignty and flighting of the wisdom of Christ though Rome had never known them as if the wise holy God could not have appointed more Doctrinal Ceremonies had he cared for them as well as foolish sinful man but since then these were and are still in the Popish worship and retained here when England threw off the Papal yoke I will consider what he hath said and but touch it briefly 1. Rome then as now it stands is that Whore described Apoc. 17.1 this I doubt not of this judgment were our English Bishops the most learned of them the Professors of Divinity in both Universities and generally of our pious and learned men in this Nation before our troubles began and also of foreign Divines Was it ever known that a chast Virgin as the Church should be to Christ 2 Cor. 11.2 would dress up her self with the reliques of a known Whore Come out of her my people Apoc. 18.4 this is not obedience to that call 2ly It seems very strange that when Gods own Institution came to be abused to Idolatry as the Brazen Serpent 2 King 18.4 that must now be broken in pieces and must a Humane Institution used in superstitious worship in an Idolatrous Church be yet retained in a Reformed Church I shall not write out his Argument at length 1st In Regeneration the bodies and souls once abused to the service of the Devil Lust Idols may yet find acceptance with God in serving of him Ans A strange argument for a learned man If so excellent a Creature as man made after the Image of God under a necessity of obedience to his Creator being fallen from God but by Gods rich mercy the Obedience Blood and Sacrifice of Immanuel and the renewing of the holy Ghost be accepted of God Then a paultry human Ceremony indifferent in its own nature and no necessity for the use if abused in an Idolatrous Church may yet be retained in a chast Church and the use of it acceptable to God This Logick I understand not Consequence denied I could enlarge my answer but will not 2d Arg. From single mersion and threefold mersion in baptizm A. Was the water so baptizing in water a Human Ceremony and Invention or Christs own Institution For dipping in the water or pouring of the water upon the person your Church allow both because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie both If any did dip thrice denying the Trinity of persons to be of the same essence that was their Heresie but if any did hold the Trinity of persons in the Unity of the essence and yet would dip thrice though I do not much like it yet I should not condemn them of Heresie the Text mentions nothing whether once or thrice But prove Baptizing in water to be mans invention 3ly The Christians lawfully used those fountains where the Gentiles drew water for their Sacrifices c. A. And why not did the Heathen and Julian make those Fountains or God make them for the use of Man and Beast shall therefore an Idolater deprive the Christians of those which God made for the use and necessity of Man and Beast What is sold in the shambles 1 Cor. 12.25 But this you are to prove if you will make an Argument of it that when the Idolaters had taken water out of those Fountains carried it to their Idol Temples made use of it in their Idol worship that then the Christians would take that water and baptize believers in it though yet there is more to be said for them than for your Ceremonies because to baptize in water was Christs Institution For the fountains Julian might have Dedicated the Land thereabouts to Idols and Devils as well as the Fountains and so the Christians should be afraid to sow Corn to maintain Life 4ly We meet in their Churches or places they built use their Bells Tenths for maintenance of Ministers Ergo. A. 1. For places 1st Place hath no moral signification as your Ceremonies 2. Place is necessary so not your Ceremonies 3. Those places were built for the worship of the true God and Christ though these blind Idolaters might also intend some Saint But if they had been built only for the worship of a Saint in imitation of the Heathens Demons we would not meet in them but done by them as Constantine did by the Idols Temples razed some to the ground and shut up others 2. Bells It seems you use them all the while you are reading Prayers and worshipping God in your Surplice the Bells are Chiming I thought the Bells had done when worship began 2. Something must be done to give notice to the people what time the worship of God begins so the Bell doth this day to morrow it calls the people to a meeting about Town-affairs 3. Bells have no moral signification in them as your Ceremonies 4. I believe few Bells in England but have been cast since the throwing off Popery to make them musical and none use them for that end No such musical tunes did I observe in Spain but a confused jangling in time of Thunder 3. Tenths Ministers maintenance have no moral signification nor annexed to Divine Worship The people tell you Tenths are Levitical not Popish Though by their savour twice we read of Tenths being paid to God before the Levitical Law But for maintenance poor Nonconformists are not concern'd in this argument 4 The Heathens lifted up their eyes when they worshipped their Idols their gods Sun Moon c. A. 1. Did the Heathen call a Convention and there decree That when men did worship God they should lift up their eyes to heaven as your Convocation appointed these or did Natures light teach them this gesture 2. Were the Heathens the first that in worshipping of Idols lifted up their eyes to heaven Did not Adam Abel and the Saints before the Flood and Noah Sem c. after it lift up their eyes in their worshipping of God If the Heathen will imitate the Church must the Church lay by duty because the Heathen worship Devils therefore we must not worship God 5 I dolatrous sacrifices were practised before the giving of the Law yet God continued and commanded saerifices after the Law A. Your Argument speaks thus much If the Devil will