the Order Decencie and Policie that the LORD requireth in his Church may be obtained without them as the Patrons of them do on the Matter confess when they tell us that these and all the rest of the Ceremonies are in themselves and antecedently to the Churches imposing them indifferent Beside not the Principle only or the Opinion that Men have about these Days is condemned in these Scriptures but the Practice it self § 7. Our Fourth Reason is the imposing of the Holy Days doth derogate from that Christian Libertie that the LORD hath given to his People which the LORD doth not allow Gal. 5. 1. They are contrarie to this Libertie two ways 1. It is the Libertie of Christians to be under no Yoke in matters of Religion we refuse not civil Subjection to our Rulers in all lawful things but that of Christ to have him for their only Law-giver James 4. 12. He hath not given Power to Men to make new Laws for his Church but to declare his Laws and to Execute his Censures that he hath Appointed on the Breakers of them Wherefore when Christ hath given us one Holy day to be perpetually Observed and no more if Men will enjoyn moe Days they make Laws of their own and bring the People under their Yoke which is not Christs And the Places last Cited do evidently Import this The LORD had now delivered his People from the Yoke of Ceremonies which himself had laid on them and the false Apostles were endeavouring to wreath that Yoke still on their Necks and it is as much Bondage if any will wreath another Yoke upon them which is none of Christs now that Scripture biddeth them beware of such Yokes 2. The fourth Commandment alloweth the People of GOD six days of the Week for their lawful worldly Imployments this Instituting of Holy days Abridgeth that Libertie and that merely by the Authoritie of Men. It is not so when occasional Solemnities are Appointed because the Religious Solemn Work on which abstinencie from Labour doth necessarily follow is determined by the Lord and intimated to us by his Providence the Church doth no more but Chuse this Day rather than that If it be said that Magistrats may Restrain People from their Work for civil Causes why not then for Religious Reasons Answer Men have not the the same Power in Religion as in Civil Things though restraint from Work is the same in both so is not the occasion the one must be chosen by the LORD the other may by Men. Beside that Magistrats must have some good Ground for such Restraint otherwise they will not be appointed of GOD though obeyed by the People I might here add all the Arguments that we commonly use against Humane Ceremonies in Religion that it is an Addition to the Word or Rule that GOD hath managed the Affairs of His house by A symbolizing with the Papists without Necessitie It is Superstition being above and beyond what GOD hath Enjoyned c. I shall only adde that the Scripture calleth the weekly Sabbath the LORDS Day as a Name of distinction from other Days but it could be no distinguishing Name if the Nativitie Circumcision c. were all Dedicated to our LORD for every one of these were the LORDS Day as well as it And therefore when John said he was in the Spirit on the LORDS Day we could not know whether it was Christmass day or Easter day or Good Friday or the first of January the Circumcision Day or some ordinary first day of the Week § 8. I come now to Examine what my Antagonist bringeth for his Holy Days and against our Opinion He sayeth p. 169. they were Originally appointed to Commemorat the Mysteries of our Redemption with all possible Zeal gratitude and Solemnity If he can shew us that Christ or his Apostles appointed them for these Ends we shall lay our hand on our Mouth and not mutter against them but if they be so Appointed by Men we ask quo warranto CHRIST himself hath appointed Ordinances for these Ends particularly the LORD'S Supper is Instituted as a Commemoration of the Mysteries of our Redemption this do in remembrance of Me if he hath said so of any of the Controverted Holy Days we shall receive them But I desire to know what Power the ordinarie Pastors of the Church have to Institute special Ordinances for commemorating the Mysteries of our Redemption I shall further Debate this with him by and by Mean while I observe that he is beyond many of his Brethren who disown the Mysterie of these Days and all Religious Worship in the Observation of them and set them no higher than that they are for Decencie Order and Policie And himself some times when it is for his purpose seemeth to be of the same mind as p. 170. he frameth an Objection to himself from the Abuse of them which alas is too notour and gross and frequent His Answer is so may the most Holy Exercises and the highest Mysteries and there is nothing so Sacred in Religion or so universally useful in Nature against which some such Objection may not be started I do much wonder that a Man of his pretensions to Learning and Reading and who doth so superciliously despise others for defectiveness in both should so superficially Propose so slightly Answer an Argument that hath been so much insisted on and his Answer so fully refuted Doth he not know if he hath Read any thing of the Controversie about Ceremonies that the Presbyterians never pleaded that Holy Exercises Mysteries of Religion or things universally useful in Nature yea or what hath the Stamp of Divine Authoritie were it never so small should be Abandoned because Abused The Abuse should be Reformed and the thing retained But this our Argument speaketh only of indifferent things which have no intrinsick Necessitie nor Command of GOD to injoyn them these we say and have often Proved it should be removed when grosly and frequently Abused and that the Holy Days are so indifferent I think he will not deny if he do deny it he is obliged to prove the Necessitie of them not only against the Presbyterians but also against his own Partie who reckon them among the Indifferent things the Regulating of which is in the Courches Power § 9. I now Consider his Debate with the Vindicator of the Kirk as he calleth him about this verie Matter and particularly about observing the anniverssary Feast of CHRISTS Nativity which we call Christmass The Reader who is at pains to Compare that Book from p. 27. with what my Antagonist here sayeth against it will find that the most part and the most material Passages and what is most Argumentative in that Book to this purpose are passed over in silence and but a few things touched The first thing he is pleased to Notice is I had said the Question is not about the Commemoration of it the Nativity of CHRIST but whether this Commemoration should be by an
short account of the Convention at Leith 1571. Jan. 12. where our Author beginneth his new Model of Episcopacy Of the Assembly at Saint Andrews in March 6. it hath but little Assembly 1572. at Perth a Determination against the Names of Arch-Bishops Deans c. as scandalous Also that the Articles at Leith be received but for an Interim Assembly March 1. 1572. Bishops appointed as well as others to be at the first Meeting of every Assembly under the Pain of Tinsel of half a years Stipend Assembly March 6. 1573. Bishops admonished to joyn with the Kirk in her Assemblies which it seems some of these Aspiring Men thought below them And it is Enacted that the Power of Bishops should not exceed that of a Superintendent And that Bishops should be subject to the Discipline of the General Assembly Assembly 1574. The Bishop of Dunkel rebuked for Ministration of the Lords Supper on Work days They were then so Shy of a fixed and perpetual Prelation among Ministers that it was Enacted Anno 1575. p. 70. at the end that to shun Ambition and Inconveniency to the Kirk Commissioners for Visiting Provinces should be Changed every year In the beginning of that Assembly when the Tryal of the Doctrine and Conversation of Bishops Superintendents and other Ministers was mentioned John Dury one of the Ministers of Edinburgh Protested that the Tryal of Bishops prejudge not the Opinion and Reasons that he and other Brethren has to oppone against the Office and Name of a Bishop This is the highest Pitch that his new Model of Episcopacy as he calleth it came to from 1571. to 1575 when we deny not there was a Declension from the Purity of Church Government endeavoured by some Courtiers and Ambitious Church Men their Tools But from this time Presbytry began to Revive and gather Strength till at last it was fully setled For in the Assembly 1575. it was questioned whether the Office of Bishops was Founded on the Word of God p. 71. and some appointed to Debate on either Side Bishops are appointed to chuse a particular Flock where they must ordinarily Labour Assembly 1576 p. 71. Adamson Presented by the Queen to the Bishoprick of Saint Andrews is called by the Assembly to be tryed p. 77. The Bishop of Glasgow is required to take a particular Charge Assembly 1577. p. 79. Adamson Summoned before the General Assembly for Usurping a Bishoprick without the Kirk Commissioners are appointed to Examine the Matter and to Discharge him to Visit any more till he be Admitted by the Kirk Assembly 1578. p. 83. Ordained that Beshops he called by their own Names and called Brethren p. 84. The Assembly dischargeth Creating any more Bishops till the next Assembly because of great Corruptions in the State of Bishops Assembly 1578. held in June extendeth the foresaid Act to all time coming till the Corruptions of the State of Bishops be wholly taken away And Commands all Bishops that now are to Submit to the Assembly under Pain of Excommunication Assembly at Dundee July 12. p. 96. After Liberty to all to Reason The whole Assembly in one Voice did declare the Office of Bishops as now used in Scotland to be unwarrantable in the Word of God and unlawful in it self and to the great Overthrow of the Kirk of God All Bishops are Charged to Dimit and to use no part of the Office of Pastors without new Admission by the Assembly Synods appointed within a Month after to Summon them and proceed to Excommunication against the Refusers Assembly 1581. Declared the above-mentioned Act to mean that the Government of Bishops as now in Scotland is wholly Condemned After which Presbyteries were Erected through the whole Nation For his false Citations out of the Manuscript I shall mention but two tho the Reader may observe many moe by Comparing his Book with the Manuscript One is p. 127. that the Manuscript saith it was Ordained Assembly 1562. that no Minister leave his Flock to come to the Assembly unless he have Complaint to make or be Complained of or be Warned to it by the Superintendent whereas the Manuscript hath not a Word to that Purpose in that Assembly The other is p. 128. out of the Assembly 1563. That none Vote in Assemblies but Superintendents Commissioners and Ministers brought with them together with Commissioners of Shires Burghs and Universities And that Ministers Commissioners be Chosen at the Synodal Convention with Consent of the rest of the Ministers and Gentlemen Conveened at the Synod Whereas the Manuscript it is p. 10. saith that every Superintendent within his own Jurisdiction cause warn the Shires Towns and Parish Kirks to send their Commissioners to the Assembly declaring to them the Day and Place Here is nothing like what he Citeth and if it were so as he saith it could not infer the Superintendents Nominating the Commissioners to the Assembly but it is plain that they were Chosen by the Synod and that the Synods Consent was no less an Act of Authority than if it had been said it must be done by their Vote These things out of that Manuscript I have here cast together because I had finished this Work before it came to my hand and therefore could not so conveniently dispose them in their several Places § 25. I shall not any further take notice of this Historical Controversie than to make some short Remarks on it hoping that a History of these Affairs may ere long be ready for the Press from which we expect a full Account with more Truth and Candor than what is to be found in his Discourse 1. I deny not nor do I know any that ever denyed but there was so much ground for his telling us of a second Model of the Government of the Church that the first Endeavours of the Reformers for shunning the old Hierarchy that was under Popery met with some Interruption and Opposition the Causes were evident the Covetousness of some Courtiers and other States Men and the Ambition and Unfaithfulness of some Church Men there were Attempts to set up Episcopacy and they had some degree of effect but they were always opposed and the Designs of the Prelatical Party could never succeed as they wished but at last after much Wrestling Presbytery was settled in its Vigour in the year 1592. Wherefore his tedious Citations to prove that the Church did some things that cannot well be reconciled with Parity in that Interval of her Declension and Confusions was needless Labour which I do not envy him the Pleasure of seing he was pleased so to imploy his Leasure Hours I have elsewhere Debated some of these Passages with the same Author if I mistake not nor do I find any thing that now he bringeth which is new save insolent Contempt and ill Words which I can easily beat from a Man of his Temper nor will I make equal Returns to these his Complements 2. I observe that when p. 143. he is giving account of the Alteration that
to make it appear that the present Presbyterians have receded from the Principles of our Reformers in 1. The Faith 2. The Worship 3. The Discipline 4. The Government of the Church In stead of this last he insisteth on their laying aside the Bishops from voting in Parliament I cannot now degresse to consider what here he sayeth though he insisteth on them at great length for I diverted into the Considerations of this Book onely in so far as the Controversie I have with him or who ever is the Author in the other Book is concerned And there are some of these that are also there Debated which I intend to consider I have alreadie said that we reverence our Reformers but neither thought their Reformation at first Perfect nor themselves Infallible I hope some or other will take him to Task on these Heads and Defend the Principles of this Church from his insolent Obloquie I wish him a more temperat Spirit than appeareth in his Discourses and particularly in his Ridiculeing of the Administration of the LORD'S Supper as it is managed in the Church of Scotland SECTION IX Of Holy Days of Humane Institution I Return now to the Enquirie into the New Opinions and proceed to his Third Chapter wherein he pretendeth enquire into several new Opinions The first of which is that we are against the Observing the Holy Days of CHRISTS Nativity Resurrection Assention and Commemorating the Piety Faith and Martyrdom of the Saints that are mentioned in Scripture We do not denie the Charge so far as being against the Anniversaries observation of these Days doth reach That this is a new Opinion we denie though at the same time we confess the contrarie Practice is verie old yet we maintain that no such thing was injoyned or practised in the Apostolick Church which is older than the Church that he Appealeth to He is too confident when he sayeth it is certainly a new Doctrine for we are certain on the other hand that there is Warrant for it in the Word of GOD as there is for no new Doctrine He sayeth it flieth in the Face of the whole Christian Church Antient and Modern Reformed and Unreformed and other harsh Words he is pleased to run us down with This is Passion not Reason A modest Dissent from a Church or a Person though of the greatest Veneration that is due to Men is no flying in their Face And if he will needs call it so our Apologie is if they flie in the Face of the Holy Scripture we chuse rather to Differ from them than with them to flie in its Face but we put no such Construction on the Opinions or Practices of other Churches Antient or Modern I am not without hope that it may be made appear that he and his Complices flie in the Face both of Antiquitie and of the Reformed Churches by their Opinion about Holy Days and Differ from them more than we do which will appear when we come to State the Question which he hath never minded though he engageth in the Debate with a great deal of warmth This is Andalatarum more pugnare to Fight in the dark We are now but in the Threshold considering the Opinion of other Churches He will allow us none but the Church of Geneva and that with Calvines dislike For Calvines dislike of the Abrogation of the Holy Days by the Magistrats of Geneva he Citeth two Epistles of his which he doth not distinguish by their Numbers so that I cannot find them not being willing nor at leisure to turne over the whole Book for them But I shall more distinctly point him to other two of his Epistles wherein though he doth not fully declare for our Opinion he doth plainly condemn that of our Prelatists They are ad Mons. Belgradenses Ep. 51. p. 112. edit Hanov. 1597. and Mansoni Poppio Ep. 278. p. 520. I say the same of our Reformers and of the French Protestants § 2. I shall now address my self to fixing of the true State of the Question And 1. We do not with the Anabaptists in Germany for some Anabaptists in this differ from them and with the Petro Brusiani cited by Parae in Rom. 14. Dub. 4. out of the Life of Bernhard lib. 3. cap. 5. disowne all Holy Days The Lords Day we owne as of necessity to be observed being of Divine Institution Pardon a small Digression I see no ground to think that Peter Bruce was of this Opinion all that I find ascribed to him Cent. Magd. 12. cap. 5. and that even by Petrus Cluniacensis his Antagonist is Die Dominica aliis putabat licitum esse vesci carnibus The Centuriators wish Utinam vero ipsius Petri scripta extarent ex quibus multo rectius facere judicium liceret quam ex illis qui in defensionem Pontificiarum abominationum conspirarunt He was one of these famous Witnesses for the Truth against Antichrist who went under the Name of Waldenses Albigenses c. It is like he might disowne other Holy Days but there is no ground to think that he disowned the Lords Day 2. We maintain it to be unlawful to observe the Jewish Holy Days I should bring Arguments for this but I think our Adversaries will hardly contradict this Assertion the Lord having of old appointed these Days and all the legal Rites for Prefiguring Gospel Mysteries and the Apostle expresly condemning this Observation Gal. 4. 10. Col. 2. 16 17. where they are expresly called Shadows of Things to come 3. We hold that not only these Jewish Days are not to be observed as such or on Jewish Principles but the Days ought not to be set apart as Anniversary Holy Days on account of Decency Policy and Order in the Christian Church All the Arguments will have place here that were used by the Primitive Christians against them who keep Easter on the same Day with the Jews 4. Our Adversaries are not one among themselves about observing the Holy Days some count them more Holy than other Days and hold that God's extraordinary Works have sanctified some times and advanced them so that they ought to be with all Men that Honour God more Holy than other Days So Hooker Eccles. Polic lib. 5. § 60. where he layeth a Foundation for Believing that these Days are Holy and to be observed antecedently to the Churches Institution Others of them are of a contrary Opinion Couper Bishop of Galloway in his Resolution of some Scruples about the Articles of Perth which are set down in the History of his Life p. 8. of his Works hath these Words in my Mind no King on Earth no Church may make a Holy Day only the Lord who made the Day hath that Prerogative only he sheweth that a Day may be set apart for Preaching as the Birth Days of Princes are for Publick Rejoycing c. Our Author hath not told us which of these Opinions he owneth 5 It is one Question whither a Day may be set apart for
taxeth some who count Fornication indifferent and contend about Holy Days as it were for Life and Death they despise the Commands of God and establish Canons of their own I shall add the Opinion of our Reformers and the Protestant Church of Scotland in her first State and that out of the hist. motuum in regno Scotiae under the borrowed Name of Iraeneus Philaleth p. 264 265. libro primo disciplinae cap. 1. Censetur Festa Nativitatis Circumcisionis Epiphaniae c. Apostolorum Martyrum B. Virginis Mariae penitus abolenda esse cum eorum observatio nullibi a Deo in Scripturis imperetur rogandus itaque Magistratus ut obnitentes civili authoritate coerceat in Synodo Nationali Edinburgena anno 1566. Major illa Confessio Helvetica in omnibus comprobatur excepto Articulo de diebus Festis porro cum Reformatae Helveticae Ecclesiae licet Festa illa celebrent a Superstitione Ponttificia sibi caveant evidenter colligitur omnem omni modo dierum illorum observationem rejectam fuisse ab hujus Ecclesiae Reformatoribus quorum Vestigia presserunt Posteri nam anno 1575. in Synodo Nationale male acceptum fuit quod Pastores quidam Lectores in tractu Abredonensi Populum convocarent ad Conciones Preces publicas diebus illis Festivis ac in mandatis datum a Synodo Nationali anni 1575. Ecclesiarum Visitatoribus ut interdicerent Pastoribus Administrationem S. Coenae temporibus illis Festivis quasi majoris efficaciae sint Sacramenta tum celebrata Denique constans haec fuit Pastorum omnium sententia solum diem Dominicum Festivum esse Deo sacrum Referebant alii Regem Jacobum in Synodo Nationali anni 1590. publice Deo gratias egisse quod Rex esset in Ecclesia totius Orbis purissima imo quae Genevensem ipsam superet nam inquit colunt Genevenses Festa Nativitatis Paschatis qua autem authoritate id faciant ipsi viderint This might allay our Brethrens fierce Zeal for their Holy Days We judge not others that use them without Superstitious Opinions though we cannot well separate the Practice of them from External Superstition and we desire the like Forbearance from others if we cannot use them for which I shall now give some Reasons before I consider my Antagonists further Discourse on this Subject § 4. Our first Reason is these Days were not instituted by Christ or his Apostles nor did they injoyn them to be instituted nor give Power or Allowance to the Church to do it afterward Ergo there is no sufficient Warrant for them And it cannot be rationally accounted for that either the Church should impose in the Matter of Religion especially or People should be obliged to submit to what hath no sufficient Warrant That they were not instituted by Christ nor his Apostles is beyond doubt our Adversaries do not pretend that they were for there is no apparent Ground for such a Thought and if it could be made appear the Case were changed for then they were not the Days that we Debate about That Christ and his Apostles have given no Warrant to the Church to make such an Institution we must believe unless our Adversaries can instruct this Warrant by plain Scripture or sufficient Consequence from Scripture or strong Reason if Reason can have place in such a Matter of Fact if it be Answered the Church hath Warrant from Scripture to appoint what is for Edification and for Decency and Order and these Holy Days are such Ergo. I Reply it is denyed that the Church may appoint whatever is thought fit for Edification the Lord hath appointed sufficient Means of Grace and of Edification and the Church must not devise new Means for that End but faithfully use the Means that he hath appointed or if any think that the Church may appoint Means of Edification above what Christ hath appointed both they accuse Christs Appointments for that End as insufficient in the Way of outward Means And they are to shew what Warrant the Church hath for so doing Beside that Means of Mens devising are not like to be effectual for Edification if Means of Gods Appointment be not so effectual as is hinted Luke 16. 30 31. If Moses and the Prophets Gods Means cannot perswade one to believe the Preaching of one risen from the Dead a Mean that a Man contrived could not do it As for the Decency Order and Policy that they alledge to warrant the Church to institute Holy Days these are a necessary or needless Decency c. If this last there can be no warrant for what may effect it if the first the former Argument recurreth that God by his own Institutions hath not sufficiently provided for the Necessities of his Church Again if we should grant that the Church hath Warrant to provide for all that is necessary to make the Worship of God decent c. They must also shew us a Warrant to judge what is so necessary if it be alledged that the Holy Days are thus necessary either they must instruct this and shew us that Scripture or Nature hath made them necessary and that the Ordinances of God are undecent disorderly c. without them or the Church doth so determine because she will and in that Case we require a Warrant for such Lordly Domination over the People of God If it be further Answered that the Church hath the same Warrant for appointing these Days as for appointing occasional Fasts or Thanksgivings Reply Not so For the Lord himself by his Providence calleth to these Exercises to be Solemnly gone about on such Occasions but doth not tell us whither the Fast shall be on Tuesday or Thursday in this Week or the next here is a Circumstance of Time which must be determined by Men Nature it self maketh it necessary supposing the Providential Call of God to the Work on that Occasion it is not so with the Holy Days there is no special Providence occurrent which calleth to these Solemnities at one time more than at another Obj. Why hath the Lord left the determining of the time of these occasional Solemnities to the Church and not of the other also Ans. Because the former could not be determined in Scripture for all Times Places and Occurrences without Swelling it to a Huge and Burdensome and less Useful Bulk the latter could easily have been determined in the Bible it is actually done in the Old Testament and if the Lord had thought such a Determination needful it had been easie to do it also in the New Testament § 5. Our second Argument Either the Apostles had Warrant from God to institute these Days or not if they had not how is it imaginable that the Rulers of the Church who came after them had such Power granted by God Though some Exalt Episcopal Power to a Monstruous and Absurd Height yet I think none of them have the Confidence to say that the Bishops in that do what the
obstante sacrorum canonum Authoritas laudabilis approbata consuetudo Ecclesiâ— servavit servat et licet haec consuetudo ad evitandum aliqua pericula scandalâ— est introducta rationaliter quod licet in Primitiva Ecclesia hujusmodi Sacramentum reciperetur a fidelibus sub utraque specie postea a confecrantibus sub utraque a Laicis tantummodo sub specie panis recipiatur c. Also the Council of Trent Ses 21. chap. 21. Recognosceth the Councils Power in this that though Christ did Institute the Sacrament in both kinds yet they make a Law against it which cannot be changed but by the Church it self Let the intelligent Reader judge whether here be not a harmonie of Principles in this Matter of the Churches Power between these two Anti-Christian Councils and this Author who owneth himself a Protestant let it be also left to the Judgment of all who regard the Authority of Christ more than that of Man whether it be not more rational to say that seing it is evident that some Rules about the Passover which were at first enjoyned to the Israelites in the Wilderness were afterward not observed by the Church and even by Christ himself who was a strict Observer of the Mosaical Law while it stood in Force were appointed but for that present time and that the â—hange that the Church afterward made was from her Knowledge of this Temporarie Institution and not from any Power that the Church pretended to to Alter what GOD had Instituted § 18. Another Instance he bringeth of CHRIST'S complying with the Jewish rites not Instituted by the LORD is the Jews used a postcoenium of Bread and Wine after the Paschal Lamb This Christ not only complyed with but he adopted it into his own Religion and gave it a high Signification and made it a Faederal rite of the New Covenant c. here is another piece of his Divinitie which I confess is not so singular as the former for some pretenders to be Antiquaries and great Criticks have in this trode the way before him Answer If we should yield what they here demand as to Matter of Fact viz. that the Jews used to eat Bread and drink Wine after eating the Paschal Lamb and that Christ did the like will any rational Man say that this is an Approving of their Adding to the Ceremonies of the Passover For 1. Can they prove that Christ did this in imitation of that Jewish Custom or that he had any regard to it may not we do the same Action that another doth yet do it on other Designs than imitation of that Person or is it imaginable that our Lord would build so great a Gospel Ordinance on such a Foundation as is the Practice of such an Apostate People as the Jews then were sure he had a higher Design in this Heavenly Institution Again if there was such a Custom then in the Jewish Church there is no ground to think that it was of any great Antiquitie or that is was brought in while that Church continued in any measure of Puritie but it must have had its rise in the time of that Apostace that ushered in their rejecting the Messiah and their being utterly rejected of God for so doing for we read nothing of it before the Captivitie nor after it while the Maccabees lived Now can any Man think that Christ who had reproved their Religious Washings and other Ceremonies would be so fond of these which stood on the same bottom with them I further Answer that this Tradition of the Postcâ—nium is a groundless fancie I find no such Custom among the Jews of taking Bread and Wine after the Paschal Supper Scaliger first broached this Opinion of a Postcaenium or two parts or Services in the Paschal Supper And is reprehended by Buxtorf for it but Defended by Capell de literis Hebrae p. 167. who out of Maimonides giveth a long Account of all the rites used by the Jews in the Celebration of it Lightfoot also and Grotius give a verie critical Accompt of their Rites out of the same Rabbi Addison also in his Description of the present State of the Jews in Barbarie describeth that Feast as Celebrated by them but what our Author allegeth is found in none of them but on the contrarie I find two things that they agree in which maketh against his Postcaenium of Bread and Wine and Christ imitating of it The 1. Is the Jews used many Benedictions at several Cups and Morsels they took so did not our Lord he Blessed the Meat that they eat no doubt and we read of this Blessing Bread and Wine in the LORD'S Supper but to say that he repeated so many Benedictions which were no fewer than Eight or Nine beside several Instructions that that they read out of the Scripture which Reading they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and other Composers of their own and all these Benedictions were by a set Form of Words If my Antagonist will perswade us that our LORD conformed to all these Rites he must prove it by good Arguments and not Authoritatively impose on Peoples Credulitie The 2. Thing that I observe out of the Accompt that these Authors give of the Passover is that they begin with a Cup then they take the quantitie of Olive of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or bitter Herbs and dip it in Sauce made for that Feast then they eat what each one listeth and after some other Observations they take the quantitie of an Olive dipt as before and after they may eat nothing that Night here is no concluding with Bread and Wine for a Postcaenium Yea Capellus who seemeth to be too fond of our Authors Notion that Christ had regard to the Passover rites in Instituting His Supper giveth yet a quite other Accompt of it than he doth for he telleth us that Christ took Bread and Wine in stead of that Morsel of the bigness of an Olive whence it clearly followeth that Christ did not appoint Bread and Wine in Imitation of the Postcaenium consisting of the same Materials If he have no better Argument to Prove the vanity of Presbyterian Speculations as he phraseth it their Opinions will be able to stand against all his Assaults I adde the Observation of Buxtorf Synagog Judaic cap. 13. who after a full Accompt of the Jewish Passover and all the Rites of it hath these Words p. 307. ex paucis istis facile perspici potest Judaeos â—estum paschatis amplius ex Mosis vel Dei praecepto sed juxta Rabbinorum suorum Traditiones â—â—lebrare quas pluris faciunt quam Dei Precepta § 19. His next Work is to Justifie his high Extoling of the Holy Days he had said it is certain that nothing perserveth the knowledge of the Christian Religion among the Bodie of the People more than the Festivities of the Church and this I called raving the Word and Sacraments being more useful for that End To this he Answereth two things
p. 181. 182. The first is that he did not Attribute this effect to the Festivities without the Word and Sacraments to which they are subordinate as being the fittest seasons for Christian Exercises I still think this is no sober Doctrine for there is a fitter Season for these of Christs appointment even the Christian Sabbath Beside it is evident that he Spake of his Festivities though not in a separated Notion yet in a distinct Notion from the Word and Sacraments and I not only think that GOD'S Ordinances are more effectual without than with Mans devices I mean the Holy days because having no Institution they have not the Promise of the Blessing and are but vain Worship but that GOD'S Ordinances used with the Holy days if any Efficacie be to be expected from that Conjunction have a greater Efficacie toward preserving Knowledge among the People than the Holy days can have therefore there is a more Efficacious mean for that end what ever notion he take the Holy days in But the Reader may know that this Expression was not the only ground why raving was imputed to him but several others of that or a higher strain which were Examined but he is pleased to Pass what was said against them with this shift he is not at leasure to follow the Vindicator every where far less is he inclined to Examine all these Exceptions against the Author of the Apologiâ— I find him at leasure for as needless Work as it were to Clear to us these and the like Passages do we not see all Nations agree in this that publicke Solemnities and annversarie Festivities and Fasts are necessarie to the Beeing and Beautie of Religion this is a soaring flight of his fancie they preserve and increase our Mortification They oblige the most Stubborn and Impenitent to think of his Soul and the visible Practices of the Church Preach Repentance more effectually and make more lasting Impressions than the loose and definite Homilies of self conceited Men all the Sermons of the Presbyterians no doubt are here meant the Reformation of the Greek Church is hindred by neglecting of Fasting the Holy days are the Catechisms of the People all the Notes made on the Passages for exposing of them he passeth over in silence the Reason is if ye will believe him not that he could not Answer all but because he was not at leasure A second Answer he bringeth is that the Festivities cannot be considered without the Word and Sacraments and other Exercises of Religion and this he taketh a great deal of Pains to illustrate as it is usual in Disputing for one to say most when he hath least to say and he calleth it gross ignorance to think otherwise I need not tell him how many of his Partie make more than a Metahysical Precision either formal or objective of the Holy day from the Religious Work of it while they Celebrate it without going to Prayers in idleness or that which is worse I know this is not the intent of the Church yet it is evident that these Days are capable of such an abstracted Consideration I mean in Practice what ever be in the speculations that Men have about them All that he so laboriously sayeth about the Conjunction of the Holy days with Religious Exercise on them will evanish if we consider that our Question is not whether the Serious and Solemn Exercises of Religion be necessarie to these Great Uses and Effects that he speaketh of for that we are agreed in that these are necessarie to the Beeing and Beautie of Religion they preserve and increase our Mortification â—hey aw the most Stubborn and Impenitent c. that is they are Means adapted to these Ends but that which we Debate is whether these Ends may not be attained as well by the Serious and Solemn Exercises of Religion in the use of these Means and Ordinances that GOD hath Appointed or if the Holy days be necessarie or the Religious Exercises as performed on the Holy days be ne cessarie for that End This we deny and we require that they may Prove it And the Question is not whether the Holy days separated from Religious Exercises are abominable but whether Religious Exercise or the times of GOD'S Appointing it to wit the Weekly Sâ—bbath's without the Holy days be defective I take Notice of a Learned distinction he hath about the Holiness of these Days p. 183. that they are not Holier than other Days in themselves or because the Sun is in such a part of the Zodiack but such a time being separated for such an Exercise receives its Denomination from the Authoritie and Exercise it self by which it is distinguished from other Days This seemeth to be shuffling and not the distinct plainness that ought to be in Disputation For 1. Some of his Partizans ascribed more Holiness to them than can be in extrinsick Denomination even a relative Holâ—ness by which Religious work on them is more Acceptable than at other times So Hooker above Cited He should have told us whether he understandeth this relative Holiness or a mere Denominative Holiness that they are called Holy but there is nothing of Holiness in them even with respect to the Authoritie and Work that they have relation to He doth indeed tell us that they are called Holy days by a relative and extrinsick Denomination which is a Metaphysical notion not easily intelligible he Chargeth others with non-sense and gross ignorance on less Ground a relative Denomination must be a Denomination built on a Relation which supposeth a relative Holiness in these Days which yet he seemeth to disown again If the Authoritie by which they are Instituted and the Exercises performed in them can communicate a relative Holiness to them wherein doth their Holiness differ from that of the LORD'S Days It hath no more but a relative Holiness resulting from Divine Authoritie injoyning it and the Holy Exercises that the LORD hath Commanded to be performed in it The Difference then must be only this that it hath a relative Holiness of GOD'S making these a relative Holiness of Mans making and so Man as well as GOD shall have a Power to Communicate a relative Holiness to Days and consequently to Places and other Things and how much of the Popish Superstition and Power of Consecration that will bring in I know not neither I suppose was himself aware of it I think it is evident that the first Day of the Week which we own as the LORD'S Day hath no intrinsick Holiness of it self the Sun being in such a Degree of any Sign of the Zodiâ—k as maketh up the Number of Eight from where we begin to Count doth not Communicate any Holiness to such a Day Now if he think the Church can give the same sort of Holiness to these Days that the LORD giveth to the Christian Sabbath he must prove that such Power is granted to her I am sure some of his Party disown that Notion What he Objecteth
the Dark what Apostolick Constitutions may be laid aside or must be retained for his consuâ—tudo universae Ecclesiae first that dependeth on uncertain History to know it Next it is to set the universal Church above the Apostles or to make her infallible not only in Fundamentals but even on Government and Ceremonies The Instance he bringeth proveth nothing if he can prove that Diaconesses were an Apostolick Constitution I shall acknowledge the Presbyterian Churches to be Defective through the want of them § 23. He Vindicateth himself p. 194. from Pleading for blind Obedience by telling us that he only Pleadeth for Obedience in lawful Things not for Obedience in Things Arbitrarily Imposed as the Papists If he prove the Observation of Holy Days to be lawful in it self and that the Church hath Power to institute them I shall crave him Pardon for what was said of blind Obedience but while he bringeth the Authority of the Church for the Ground on which we should obey in this Matter and maketh it a sufficient Argument why they should be observed that the Church Commandeth it I must still think that this is either to Plead for blind Obedience or Egregiously to Triâ—â—e He hath next a long Discourse about a Citation out of Augustine of which before In the Def. of Vind. p. 30. it had been said that it is not a Day being Anniversary that we scruple but that it is separated from Civil Use by Mens Authority and Dedicated to Religion in an Anniversary Course This he Treateth in Ridicule not I suppose because he cannot but because he will not understand it We neither Scruple because the Day is Anniversary a Day for Civil Solemnity appointed by men may be such nor because it is set apart for Religious Use an Occasional Day for Solemn Humiliation when God by a special Providence calleth for the Work and Man determineth the Day is lawful as is the perpetual recurrent Lords Day appointed by God nor thirdly do we quarrel these Days merely because they want a special Divine Warrant because Anniversary Days for Civil Use might be appointed by Men. But the Ground of our Scruple is the Complex Nature of these Days that they are wholly separated from Civil Use as the Lords Day is that they are perpetually Discriminated from other Days in the Year and that they are perpetually Dedicated to Religion and all this not by Divine but by Humane Authority If there be any Raving or any thing unintelligible in this I shall be content to be Instructed by him or any who is of his Opinion Are there not many Actions that are Good and Lawful considered under several Circumstances which if ye consider all their Circumstances Complexly are Unlawful for Instance the Magistrat may appoint his Subjects to meet in Arms he may also appoint that this Meeting be Yearly Monethly or Weekly if need be yea he may appoint this Meeting to be on the Lords Day in Case of Necessity yet he cannot lawfully appoint that they should without Necessity meet every Year every Moneth or every Week on the Sabbath Day He complaineth that it is called Thrasonick Triumph when he telleth us of Danger and Impiety in separating from the Church in these excellent Constitutions that are received from the beginning and in all Countries where the Name of Jesus hath been Worshiped such Constitutions and Solemnities have been derived from the Apostles or Apostolick times These are his Words though in his Review of them here he seemeth to Smooth them a little He will have it only to be Thrasonick Boasting when a Man admireth his own Wit or Performances I love not to contend about Words nor need I to write a Dictionary on this Occasion nor shall I judge what Opinion he hath of himself but I leave it to the Reader to judge whither it may not be so Termed when one insulteth over his Adversary as having great and evident Advantage against him when yet there is no Cause for so thinking and whither he be not guilty of this Boasting or whatever he will call it while he insinuateth the Universality the Antiquity and the Apostolick Authority of the Holy Days and that with charging his Adversarieswith dangerous Impiety on account of their differing from them while all these are the things that he and I do controvert about § 24. He taketh it ill that it was called a loose Reasoning when he telleth us that the Knowledge of Christ doth not extinguish the Light of Reason therefore such Constitutions as the Reason of Mankind is agreed in have nothing in them contrary to the Purity of our Religion This was called loose Arguing because he taketh an Uncontested Truth for his first Proposition and the Conclusion that we Debate about is supposed in place of the second Proposition His Defence is No Society of Mankind ever thought Anniversary Holy Days unlawful but all of them thought them proper Means to Excite Religion he telleth us that Clamours against them so he termeth our Reasons destroy all Unity and Order about things not only Innocent but Useful in their own Nature and Tendency here is yet more loose Arguing while he supposeth still the thing in Question We deny their Innocency also their usefulness and must do so till we see better Arguments for what is asserted the Apostolick Churches did not use them whence we may with Confidence conclude that they did not think them proper Means to Excite Devotion yea it is no weak Consequence if we infer that they thought them unlawful being none of these things which Christ had Commanded nor his Apostles Taught That they were not forbidden is Answered above they are forbidden in general and that is enough That Reasoning against Holy Days of Humane Appointment destroyeth all Unity and Order c. looketh more like Clamour than any thing that we have said there was Unity and Order in the Apostolick Church without them and so is there in the Presbyterian Societies His Syllogism that he presenteth us with p. 201. doth not Retrieve the Looseness of his former Reasonings it is whatever is agreeable to true Reason is rather improved than condemned by Religion but such Constitutions he must mean the Holy Days are agreeable to true Reason Ergo there is nothing in them contrary to the Purity of our Religion I take no notice of the Form of this Syllogism of the Rightness of which he is confident it may easily be reduced to Form by a little Change of the Conclusion here is indeed closs Reasoning but it is not concludent Reasoning for we deny the Minor though he attempteth its Proof both in prosecuting the first and the second Proposition I am not fond of his Method of Probation he concludeth it after the Form of a Sorites whereas there is nothing like it in his Progress but that is a small Matter I except against his Proof in what is more material that all Nations are agreed in this and this is the best
own it is that a Significant Rite in the Worship of God not founded upon Divine Institution is Superstitious Unlawful and Abominable and such as may Legitimate a Separation from any Church where it is enjoyned to preserve Order and Uniformity Against this I have two Objections 1. That we did never condemn all Significant Rites in Religion even tho they be not founded on Divine Institution Uncovering the Head is a Significant Rite and we know no Divine Institution for it and yet we use it in the Worship of God viz. Prayer and several other Exercises and will separate from no Church because of it That a Minister Preach in a Decent Garb and not in a Fools Coat is a Significant Rite used in Religion not founded on Divine Institution yet we shall not separate for enjoyning that This loose and indistinct Way of Refuting an Adversary cannot Instruct nor Convince any Body I shall not Retaliate his Harsh Words by giving this Way the Epithet it deserveth They who write on this Subject with Judgment and Understanding use to distinguish three sorts of Modes of Mens Actions that are found in Religion viz. Circumstances Rites and Ceremonies Circumstances are Modifications of Actions as Time Place Person or a Circumstance is any thing that accompanyeth an Action which is not of its Essence but is used with it relateth to it and is an Accident or Adjunct of it and it may be such either with respect to the Physical or Moral Beeing of the Action Circumstances use to be sorted in these Memorial Verses Quis quid ubi quibus auxiliis cur quomodo quando And forma figura locus tempus stirps patria nomen Circumstance is a Word of larger Extent than Rite and that than Ceremony a Rite is the Manner of going about any Action chiefly that which is Publick or Solemn confirmed by Law or Custom In a more large Sense it is taken for any Action or Thing that belongeth to the Mode or Solemnity of another Action rather than to the Substance of it such Rites are used in Judicatures Marriages Burials Inaugurations c. some of them are Civil some Military c. and some also are Sacred when they are appropriated to Religion A Ceremony is a Sacred Rite the best Authors that I have seen whether Heathen or Christian Popish or Protestant agree in this that a Ceremony is peculiar to Religion however the Word be sometimes in common Speech more largely taken This applyed to our Purpose sheweth that our Author doth widely mistake when he representeth us as against Significant Humane Rites in Religion we oppose only these of them which are appropriated to Religion and so are Religious Rites or Ceremonies He cannot but know that there are many Actions used in Religion which are not Religious § 2. The second Thing that I Observe in his Representation of the Opinion of his Adverstaries is that they found separation on Ceremonies imposed to preserve Order and Unity It is no so Let them devise what Ceremonies they will which are not down-right Idolatry and impose them on the most plausible pretences they can think on yea let them use them as much as they will we do not think all this a sufficient Ground of Separation from a true Church whereof we are Members but if they impose on us Religious Rites or Sacred significant Ceremonies so as we cannot be suffered to Worship God with the Church unless we either approve them or use them this we think a just Cause of Separation seing such Complyance were our Personal Action and sinful in the sight of God And yet the Separation of them who thus scruple is rather a passive Separation than active they are driven away rather than run away Let us now hear what he hath to say in Defence of the Ceremonies the Question about which he hath so Stated He will not gather together all our Raveries but in a few Words Vindicate the Practice of all Churches c. Those are but Words He had done wisely if he had excepted the Apostolick Churches And tho I deny not but that some Ceremonies did early and unobservably creep into the Primitive Church and that through the Zeal of some Good Men who saw not the â—mportance nor bad Consequences of such Observations it may be made appear that some of the Ceremonies that they now observe had no such early Original and that some of these which were observed in the first Ages are laid aside by them Of the first Sort I instance Kneeling in the Act of receiving the LORD'S Supper the Cross in Baptism and some of the Holy Days of which before Of the other Sort I instance the Trinâ— Immersio in Baptism the Aagapae Baptising on Whitsunday or Dominica in albis rather than on any other Day the Osculum pacis all the Steps of the Catechumeni and Paenitentes before they could be received into Communion with the Church and many other things which one may find in Albaspin Observ. Ecclesiast which is Compendized by Keitembellius there are also not a few modern Churches who are not for the Cermonies as they are Pleaded for by Him and his Party If what I have said be Considered his first Argument proposed by way of Question admitteth of an easie Answer The Apostolick Church Worshiped GOD without Religious Ceremonies not Instituted by CHRIST and I hope he will own these as Societies of Men who are to be more Considered than others A sett of Arguments he next bringeth 1. The Light of Nature teacheth us to Worship GOD and all Men have Agreed in this that Solemn Wâ—rship of the DEITIE ought to be performed in Unity and Society A. If he make the Consequence which he hath Suppressed to be Ergo we must have humane Religious significant Ceremonies we deny this Consequence as not having a shadow of Reason Again if this Argument have any weight humane Ceremonies must be necessarie And GOD cannot be Worshiped without them and all the Presbyterians are not only Defective in their Worship but there is a Nullitie in it through want of such Ceremonies which looketh more like Raverie than any thing he can Charge us with 2. Saith he This publick Worship should be fixed and Established by the Wisdom and Authority of Competent Judges as to the Manner and Method Ans. 1. Are the Manner and Method of Worship Religious significant Ceremonies The Method is a Circumstance neither Rite nor Ceremonie for the Manner it is either some-what that is common to Religion and other Publick and Solemn Actions and it consisteth in some civil Rites therefore used in Worship because they have by Custom Obtained in other publick Solemnities this manner of Worship is not to be Determined by the Wisdom and Authority of any particular Judges but the Tacite Consent of the Nation bringeth it in by using it in all such Actions So in the Apostles time for a Man to Prophesie with his Head uncovered and to wear long Hair was
work if by the designation of Supporter of afflicted Souls by spiritual Advices and Directions that is common to him with the Teacher before mentioned in this Text and so cannot be fit to distinguish him from other Church Officers § 7. For Grotius's notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I oppose first by the Argument already brought from the Order of Dignity the Apostle doth so critically observe in this enumeration of Church Officers 2. By the force of the word the native and genuine signification of which is to help uphold or support one who is in hazard to fall which I am sure is rather done to the Poor by a Deacons work or to a troubled Soul by the work that is common to all Teachers in the Church than by that work that is held to be peculiar to a Bishop That learned Critick saith it signifieth curam alicujus rei gerere and referreth to his Commentary on Luke 1. 54. where I find he maketh it to answer to the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to strengthen and he saith it signifieth also manu ducere because the seventy translated it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here is a strange Argument to proceed from a man of so profound Learning as is the great Grotius for neither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can be turned manu ducere It is a stranger Argument Jer. 31. 32. that Hebrew word is by the seventy turned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Acts 23. 19. Heb 8. 9. the same phrase is used for bringing the people of Israel out of AEgypt for who knoweth not that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have not the same signification neither is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 turned by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but when it is constructed with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the hand laid hold on by another being that by which one is supported that he fall not as he goeth and it is evident that the force of that word in these places doth not so much import Gods guiding his people in their way as his manutenency by which they are supported From all which it is plain that there is no sufficient ground brought by Grotius why we should think that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 importeth any ruling power in them of whom it is to be understood Further if we should grant that this word signifieth to take care of a thing will it follow thence that this care must needs be ruling care when the word properly signifieth upholding to which indeed care is often needful but it cannot be said that care is implyed in the word I have been at the pains to look into all the places of the New Testament as far as Stephanus's Concordance could lead me where that word in any of its derivata is used and I cannot find one that hath any thing of the notion of ruling Wherefore I must still abide in the Opinion which I have else where expressed and have been by this my Antagonist severely censured for it that this Criticism of Grotius is odd and groundless § 8. These of our Episcopal brethren who make the Bishops to be Successors to the Apostles in their Apostolick Office will possibly say that the Bishops are mentioned in the first place in the Lists of Church Officers viz. under the name of Apostles Whether the Bishops be Successors to the Apostles or not will fall in to be debated when I come to consider the second Chapter of this Book which I am now examining what I have now to do is to shew that they are not meant by the Apostles mentioned in the Scriptures that are now under debate which may plainly appear if we consider first that none of their own Commentators do so expound any of these places nor can such a Fancy come into any mans head when he considereth the Scripture without a present Byass on his mind and laboureth to bring the Sense of the Scripture out of the words and not into them Yea Grotius and Estius on 1 Cor. 12 28. speaking of the Apostles there mentioned have these words Illos nempe eminenter sic dictos à Christo in id vocatos ut prima Ecclesiarum fundamenta jacerent And Doctor Hamond saith these Apostles were called ut Ecclesias plantarent regerent eadem potestate quam Christus à Patre habuit I hope none will say that this can be said of Bishops or any ordinary and perpetual Officers in the Church 2. It cannot be denyed even by them who make the Bishops a kind of Apostles and allow a sort of Apostolick power to them but that they are another sort of Apostles than the first Apostles were none will say that they are wholly the same more than the Pastors of the Church are the same with the Prophets that were in the Apostolick Church they must then distinguish the Apostles into extraordinary who were sent immediatly by Christ to plant Churches and ordinary who succeed to these and whose work it is to rule the Churches that are already planted Now to say that both these sorts are meant in these Lists under the same name of Apostles is to accuse the Spirit of God of darkness and confusion in these Institutions where Light and Distinctness might be most expected for in these Enumerations he is instructing the Church what Officers she should own as of Christs appointment but by the word Apostle she could never know that there are two sorts of Apostles to be owned one sort all do acknowledge to be here meant they who would have us believe that another sort of Apostles is also here meant must give us some better ground for believing this than a Synonimous word I do not know how many sorts of Officers they may bring in under this name If they may be allowed to divide the Apostolick Office at pleasure and call every one of them who have any part of Apostolick work to do a sort of Apostles this is to expound Scripture at pleasure and indeed to make it speak what we fancy I conclude then that Bishops have no Divine right for them seing the Lord hath of purpose told us what Officers he hath appointed to be in his Church both at first for planting of it and afterward for managing her Affairs to the end of the World and no Diocesan Bishop name nor thing is to be found among them § 9. A third Argument for Parity and against Prelacy I take from the Commandment that Christ gives about the Administration of Church Discipline Mat. 18 17 that the offended Party when other more private means of Redress do fail should lay the case before the Church whence this Argument doth clearly result that Power which is by Christs Appointment to be exercised by many is not Jure Divino lodged in one person but Church Jurisdiction is a Power that by Christs Appointment is to be exercised by many Ergo it is not Jure Divino in the hand
upon in some places more and in some less though we see no cause to think that Church Domination had then arrived at the height that my Antagonist pleadeth for 3. It appeareth by a strict and unbyassed View of all that Jerome here saith that no further Prelation is here hinted at than that of any Minister of the Gospel or of the Moderator of a Presbyterio for every Minister may be called Pontifex and Parens anime as the Dialect then was and may clame Subjection from the people in the Lord. What is said of Aaron and his Sons importeth no more but that all Ministers have Authority as all the Priests had it is a Similitude and it must not be stretched to an exact agreement in all things 4. That Jerome maketh a Distinction between Episcopos Clericos caâ—… be drawn to no more but this that in his time there was an observable Prelation in matter of Dignity it no way proveth a Superiority of Jurisdiction though I deny not but that some were then aiming at iâ—… His Citation out of Ep. 54 Hieron I find not he hath not told us to whom that Epistle was written It seems these Epistles are not the same way ranked in my Edition and in his That he saith there Episcopi apud nos tenent locum Apostolorum cannot prove his point for the same may be said of all Presbyters and Jerome saith so expresly of them Ep. ad Ocean as I cited § 3 they succeed to the Apostles in that part of Church power that is competent to them and he cannot prove that Bishops succeed to them in all the power they had but the Dispute about this will fall in afterward That Jerome speaketh about an Ecclesiastical Prince or Governour is also inconcludent for the Fathers sometimes speak as big words of Presbyters He citeth also Ep. ad Paulinum Episcopi saith he Presbyteri habeant in exemplum Apostolos Apostolicos viros quorum honorem possidentes habere nitantur meritum All that he can draw from this is that there was such a Distinction in Jerome's time which is not denyed but Jerome doth not here define what power the one of these had above the other He had been telling Paulinus how Men of other Professions laboured to imitate them who had excelled in their way and instanceth the Roman Captains Philosophers Poets Orators and this he applieth to Church men that they also should follow the best Examples it were ridiculous to strain it to this sense that Bishops should imitate the Apostles and Presbyters the Apostolick men especially seing our Author will say that many of these were Bishops His exors ab omnibus eminens potestas he mentioneth by so indistinct a Citation that I know not where to find it and therefore shall say nothing of it To his Recapitulation of all that he had said on Jerome p. 79 80. I oppose the Answers I have given to the several things he there mentioneth which duely considered let the Reader judge what ground there is for his Triumph that he concludeth this Discourse with § 13. Our Author proceedeth p. 80 seq to vindicate Augustine that he was no Presbyterian And pray who ever said he was one That way was past its Meridian in the World a little before his time only we bring his Authority to prove that some great Lights of the Church did not look on Episcopacy as of Divine Right or to have been in the Church from the Apostolick Age. He prefaceth this Dissertation with a Digression as himself calleth it containing insolent Contempt of and Reproach against the Presbyterians calling all that have written beside Blondel and Salmasius the little Bouffoons of the Party he must here understand the London Ministers the five eminent Men under the name of Smectymnus Rutherford Didoclavius Gersom Bucer and many others If Presbyterians did incline to act the part of Bouffoons this Book and many others like it might furnish them plentiful Matter He chargeth them with Impiety p 82. calleth them factious and unmortified Men their Opinions Dreams saith they have nothing more in their view than to gratifie their Revenge and other Passions imputeth Impudence and Irreligion to them on account of this their Opinion And his Confidence swelleth so high as to tell us how astonishing it is that so much is written for Parity If we believe the Ecclesiastical Records there remaineth no Debate that Episcopacy is Divine Apostolical received without Interruption and that by the Universal Church That Scepticism will by natural Consequence pull down things more sacred than the outward Hedge of Government If his Arguments prove to bear any Proportion to his big Words there can be no standing before him He had been wiser if he had asserted less and proved more and if he had managed this Controversie with a more sedate Mind it may be his success had been no less I will not contest with him in Railling nor huffie and bold asserting what is in controversie but am willing to reason the Matter fairly and calmly The Passage out of Augustine which Blondel and Salmasius bring is Ep. 19. which is ad Hieronymum quanquam secundum honorum vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopus Presbytero major sit tamen in multis rebus Augustinus Hieronymo minor est I freely yield to my Antagonist that the design of that Epistle is to invite Jerome to use all freedom in their Epistolary Conversation and I add that this was needful considering the higher Character in the common estimation of that Age that Augustine sustained above Jerome a Presbyter and therefore I lay not the stress of our Argument on his owning Jerome to be in some things above him nor do I think that Augustine lookt on himself and Jerome as standing on a Level in respect of Dignity as then it was esteemed but I place the force of our Argument on these two the one is Augustine insinuateth no Prelation that he had above Jerome even according to the Sentiment of that Age but what was secundum honorum vocabula he had a higher Title he giveth no hint of a Superior Jurisdiction that he a Bishop had above Jerome a Presbyter which had been much more pertinent and full as consistent with the Modesty and Humility that he expresseth The other is that even that superior Honour he doth not derive from Divine Institution or Apostolical Tradition or constant Practice from the beginning but from the Custome of the Church that then that is in that Age prevailed § 14. After setting down at length this Testimony from Augustine he undertaketh to shew that the latter Sectaries so he is pleased to dignifie the Presbyterians mistake his meaning and that Augustine never thought that Parity obtained in the Christian Church He endeavoureth then to prove that by usus Ecclesiae Augustine meant no other thing than the universal Practice of the Christian Church from the beginning and that this Notion is very
that there was a Hierarchy undâ—… the Old Testament whence this Conclusion is necessary that the Subordination of one Priest to another is not simpliciter unlawful If I were a Papist and disputing against A. M. D. D. for the Popes Supremacy I would likewise pretend to this Concession from him that under the Old Testament there was one Priest to whom the whole Church of God Priest and People were subject whence this Conclusion is necessary that or single person be Head of the Universal Church is not in its self simplicâ—ter unlawful This Author is in a great Mistake if he imagine that 〈◊〉 say that Episcopacy is simpliciter and in it self unlawful we think that Christ might have set up Bishops yea a Pope with such limited Power 〈◊〉 his Wisdom might have seen to be consistent with the Churches good in the Church if so it had seemed good to Him And if He had 〈◊〉 done we should cheerfully have submitted to the one or the other wherefore our Question is not what was lawful antecedently to Christ Institution but what He hath appointed as the way how He will haâ—… His Church governed The other thing that he premiseth to his stating of the Question is an Enquiry into the nature of the Apostolick Office where he laboureth to separate the ordinary permanent essential Powâ—… of the Apostles which he maketh to be perpetual from the extrinsick aâ—… extraordinary Priviledges and Advantages of that Power sutable to the fiâ—… Plantations of Christianity which he maintaineth to be Transitory and 〈◊〉 have ceased when they died § 2. The Essence of the Apostolick Office he will have to be in the Rectoral Power or spiritual Jurisdiction that they had over other Ecclesiastick and not in their extraordinary Gifts nor Infallibility nor in their immedâ—… Call nor in their being Witnesses of our blessed Saviours Resurrection and hâ—… proveth of each of these that others beside the Apostles had these Priviledges These things are asserted Dictatorie but I see not from what Grounds he draweth these confident Decisions It is not any where told us in the Word what is precisely the Essence of the Apostolick Office and what is accidental or extrinsick to it and therefore we must be very Waâ—…e in determining so positively in this Matter It might be expected that this Gentleman who when the Presbyterians hold Paritie to be of Divine Right requireth of them plain Proofs else they must be lookt upon as Impostors p. 13. should give us very plain and positive Evidence for what he doth thus magisterially Dictate and which he layeth for the Foundation of his Opinion concerning the Divine Right of Episcopacy but here we are disappointed He hath not attempted to prove that the nature of the Apostolate is not an Aggregate of all these preaching Power with Administration of the Sacraments Supreme Jurisdiction in the Church and that with Rule over all Churches an immediate Call extraordinary Gifts Infallibility to have seen the Lord. If one should assert that they who have all these are Apostles and none else are Apostles and so that these are the Properties of an Apostle which agree to Apostles omni soli semper and consequently they complexly taken are the most essential Attribute of an Apostle by which we must judge of the Essence of that Office for we know not the Essences of things but by their first and essential Properties how will our Author disprove this Opinion to establish his own § 3. I shall set before the Reader the Opinions of others on both sides about the Matter of the Apostolate or the distinguishing Characters of an Apostle that he may be the better able to judge of this Authors Opinion about it which yet is not his but is borrowed from the Papists But I first observe that Christs twelve Disciples who are by way of Eminency called Apostles arrived at that height of Church Dignity and Power by degrees they were first called to be Believers and afterward were sent forth as Preachers Christ having bred them to that Work by their Converse with Him for some time in neither of these Degrees had they any Church Power except that of Preaching and Baptizing they were no Church Rulers for there was as yet no Gospel Church to be ruled but they were still subject to the Government that was exercised in the Jewish Church at last our Lord after his Resurrection gave them their Apostolick Commission by which they were clothed with the Authority that belonged to that Office and sent them out both with Authority to Teach gather and setle and to govern Churches and their complete Ordination or solemn setting them apart for that Office by which also they were furnished for the Discharge of it above what they had been before was when the Spirit was poured out on them on the day of Pentecost they got their Commission Mat. 28. 18 10 20. but the pouring out of the Spirit on that day was as it were putting the Broad Seal of Heaven to their Commission as may be gathered from Act 1 4 5. Luk. 24. 44. It is true others beside the Twelve got some Drops of that heavenly Shower but they had not the same Commission with them and therefore the Measure that they got did neither authorize them nor fit them for Apostolick Work Another thing that I here observe is that though the Name Apostle be given to others in Scripture yet there were some to whom that Name was given in a peculiar manner though the Word is sometime used at large yet it is applyed to them so as by it they are distinguished from other Church Officers hence the Apostle not only taketh that Designation to himself in the Inscriptions of his Epistles but taketh pains to prove that he was an Apostle 2. Cor 9. 1 2. Now our enquiry is wherein consisteth the nature of that Office that they had who by way of Eminence were called Apostles or what are the Characteâ— that they may be distinguished by from other Church Officers If we can arrive at any Light in this it will help us to understand whether the Bishops be Apostles as some plead or their Successors as others imagine § 4 I begin with the learned Bishop of Worcester Iren. p 209. where he discourseth of the common use of the Word but p. 210. he telleth us that the Twelve were called Apostles from their immediat Commission that they had from Christ and that our Lord made use of the word Sending as applied to them in the proper and peculiar sense And he is so far from making Apostles and Bishops to be the same that he maintaineth that 〈◊〉 Argument can be drawn for the Form of Church Government from Christs Actions towards his Disciples Whitaker against Bellarm de Pontif Romanâ— who hath the same Notion of the Power given to Peter that our Author hath of that given to the Apostles and maketh the Pope to succeed to Peter not in his extraordinary but his
but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Moderator of the Presbytery by whom the Epistle was to be communicated to the rest of the Pastors and by them to the People and indeed it is certain that the Word may be so taken and if we should yield this to our Brethren it cutteth the Nerves of their Argument unless they can prove that these single persons had Jurisdiction over the rest of the Pastors of these Churches Which they can never do from the Epistles themselves for all the Reproofs and Commendations may be intended for the Colledge of Presbyters tho addressed to them by the Praeses Nor can the Direction of the Epistle to a single person prove what they intend there is nothing more ordinary than to address a Community by the Praeses of their Meeting if a Letter be Directed to the Moderator of a Presbytery for the use of the Presbytery doth this Entitle him to Episcopal Jurisdiction The third Opinion to which I most incline is that Angel is here to be taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 o◠Collectively for the Colledge of Presbyters so that to the Angel is in our Phrase to the Moderator and remanent Brethren In the Contents of the old Translation of the Bible which expresseth the sense of the old Church of England in this matter they are called Ministers So it was understood by Aretas Primasius Ambrose Gregory the Great Beda Haymo and many others saith Owen of Ordination C. 2. p. 35. § 21. I shall first prove that it may be so taken next that it mu◠be so understood For the former it is usual in the Scripture and particularly in the Mystical Parts of it in Types and Visions and th◠most of the Book of Revelation is written in that Stile every one knoweth to put the Singular Number for the Plural or to mean a Multitude when but one is exprest how often is a People or Nation expressed by the Virgin or the Virgin Daughter of such or such a Place Th◠Ram Daniel 8. 3. is interpreted to be the Kings of Media and Persia 〈◊〉 20. The whole Succession of the Apostate Bishops of Rome is calle◠Antichrist the Man of Sin the Son of Perdition The Antichristian Church consisting of Priests and People is called a Beast the Whore So an inferior Number is put for a great Multitude the Enemies of the Church are called four Horns and her Deliverers four Carpenters Zech. 1. 18 20. The Directions given to Judges are often in the singular number thou shalt do so and so hundreds of Instances of this nature may be given Whence it is easie to conclude that there is no Absurdity nor is any Violence done to the Text if by Angel we understand the Rulers of the Church or the Colledge of Presbyters My next work is to prove that Angel must be so understood for which I bring these Arguments 1. The Lord here useth a Title that doth not signifie Rule or Jurisdiction but Gods Messenger to the People as also Rev 1. 16 20. These Angels are called Stars which importeth their Teaching or holding forth Light to the People both which are common to the Presbyters seing then he doth not use a word of Authority whereby the Bishop is pretended to be distinguished from the Presbyters but of Embassy and giving Light whereby the Presbyters are distinguished from the people this word cannot be taken for a Ruling Bishop but for Teaching Presbyters It were a strange thing if our Lord designing to single out one person from all the rest of the Church would design him by that which is common to him with many others and not by that which is peculiar to himself It doth also strengthen this Argument that both in the Old and New Testament they whom God sent to his People to reveal his Mind to them are called Angels Jud. 2. 1. Hag. 1. 13. Mal. 2. 7. 1 Cor. 11. 10. Yea the Legions of Angels who are imployed to Encamp about the People of God for their Safety are called the Angel of the Lord Psal 34 7. § 22. Argument 2. It is not without a Mystery that Rev 1 20 our Saviour in opening the Mystery of the Vision speaketh twice of the seven Churches but shunneth calling the Angels seven he saith not the seven Stars are the seven Angels of the Churches but the Angels of the seven Churches as by the seven Spirits Rev 1 4 and 3 1 is meant the Spirit of God sufficient for the needs of all the seven Churches so here the Angels of the seven Churches must be the Pastors whom the Lord hath provided for the use of his Churches tho they were not one only for every Church but more Argument 3. It is manifest from Acts 20 28 and I have evinced it § 3. of Sect. 3. that there were more Presbyters or Bishops at Ephesus than one If then Christ wrote to the Rulers of the Church of Ephesus under the Title of Angel he could not mean a single person It cannot be denyed that they who are called Overseers of the Church of Ephesus Acts 20 28 are they whom Christ here calleth Angel the same thing is expressed in the one Place in a more plain Stile in the other in a more Obscure and Mystical Stile Argument 4. Our Brethren will not deny that there were more Church Officers imployed in Teaching each of the Churches than one Bishop Now these must either be comprehended under the Candlestick or under the Star they cannot be a part of the Candlestick for they give Light as the Candlestick doth not but by the Candlestick is meant the People to whom the Light shineth they must then be comprehended under the Star and consequently under the Angel whence it followeth that the Angel is a Plurality of Persons So that we may conclude that as by Candlestick i◠understood the Collective Body of People so by Star or Angel is understood a Body of Church Officers and not a single Bishop Argument 5. Many things are said in these Epistles which cannot be Expounded with respect to a single person as at Ephesus the Angels forsaking his first Love is threatned with removing the Candlestick that is Unchurching that People can we think that such a fearful Judgment could be threatned for the Sin of one Bishop if the rest of the Elders and People were free and this we must say unless we acknowledge that the Angel to whom the Epistle is Directed is not a single person but a Community The same may be said of several other Churches would the Lord spu◠out all the Presbyters and People of Laodicea for the Hypocrisie of one Bishop Argument 6. There are several Passages in these Epistles wherein a Plurality is expressed as that which is meant by Angel to whom the Epistle is addressed as the Devil shall cast some of you into Prison can that be Expounded some of thee Bishop of Smyrna or some of your Pastors and People and unto you I say 〈◊〉
Commemoration of some Mystery of our Religion by Men and as a part of Gods Worship And another whither such Days may be set apart for Worshipping God merely as a piece of good Order and Policy The first the Papists are for the other most of our Prelatists owne though some of them differ little from the Papists in this Matter 6. The Question is not whither a Day may be set apart occasionally for Religious Worship that is when any special Providence giveth occasion for Fasting and Humiliation or for Thanksgiving and Rejoycing seing in that Case there is a special Providential Call to that Solemn Work but whither a Day may be set apart to be observed constantly and as it recurreth every Year The one maketh a Difference between that Day of the Year and other Days and exempteth it altogether and constantly from Civil Use the other doth not so the one maketh a Difference among Days the other maketh the Difference only in the Works or Dispensations of God which occasioneth such Work on that Day and not on another All that the Church doth in the one Case is whereas the present Providence calleth to the Work as it is expressed Isa. 22. 12. The Church only determineth the Circumstance of Time which must be done in the other the Church determineth more than a necessary Circumstance viz. That there shall be such a Solemnity Which the Lord hath not injoyned neither do we doubt but that the Church may appoint recurrent Days for Solemn Worship to wit while the present Providence that calleth to such Work continueth Weekly or Monthly Fasts may be appointed under a lasting Calamity or Threatning 7. One Question is whither any Anniversary Holy Days should be allowed or may be appointed by Man another whither any are to be allowed in Commemoration of the Saints for some are for the great Days as they call them which respect Christ and our Redemption such as the Nativity Resurrection Ascension and some others who are wholly against Holy Days that respect only the Saints 8. It is a Question whither Days may be Dedicated to Saints as the Papists do and another whither the Commemoration of Saints may be made on set Days this last our Brethren are for though it will be hard to separate these two of which afterward § 3. I shall now set down our Opinion and wherein we differ from others And first we maintain that God hath instituted the Observation of the Weekly Sabbath as a part of that Religious Worship we owe to him I do not expect that our Brethren will directly and expresly controvert this though some of them teach Doctrine not very consistent with it which belongeth to another Head than what we are now upon Only I take notice that they who are most for observing other Holy Days do usually shew least Zeal for the strict observing of the Lords Day either in their Principle or their Practice 2. I assent that the Lord hath not instituted under the Gospel any other recurrent Holy Days nor enjoyned the Observation of them If any think otherwise they must prove what they affirm 3. The Church hath no Power to institute or injoy the Observation of any recurrent or Anniversary Holy Days for Religious Use without a special and present Occasion 4. Any Days that the Church setteth apart occasionally for Religious Work are no further Holy than that Holy Work is the Design of their Appointment they have no Sanctity in themselves nor can Men impart it to them 5. Though we are far from severe Censuring either Ancient or Modern Churches or Persons who are for some of these Holy Days yet we cannot be of their Sentiment in this nor look on these Days as indifferent things as some of them do 6. That the Reader may be undeceived about the Opinion of the Reformed Churches which our Author talketh so much of and blameth us for differing from them he may know that our Episcopal Brethren are at greater Distance from them in this Matter than we are for they condemn the Saints Holy Days so Paraeus in Rom. 14. Dub. 4. so Calvin in both the Epistles cited § 1. The Helvetick Confession of Faith cap. 24. in Cor. Confess p. 54. Baldwin citeth Danaeus disowning all the Holy Days in these Words Dies Christo dicatos tollendos existimo judicoque quotidie nobis in Evangelii praedicatione nascitur circumciditur moritur resurgit Christus Turretin Theolog. Elentic loc 11. cap. 15. Though he allow Liberty enough for observing of the Holy Days that relate to Christ yet he determineth the Controversie about Holy Days far otherwise than our Episcopal Brethren do I shall transcribe his Words after he hath told us that we ought always to remember Christ and his Benefits and should do it in the Word and Sacraments he addeth sed questio est an ad singulorum illorum beneficiorum mysteriorum recordationem certi quidem dies festi Deo sacri annuatim recurrentes a Christianis quotannis celebrandi sint quod nos negamus he also denyeth these Days to be more Holy than others or a part of Gods Worship or to be Celebrated sub ratione mysterii Markius also Compend cap. 12. § 17. He condemneth the Difference of Days that was brought into the Church from the first Christians yearly Commemoration of the Martyrs When my Antagonist hath duly considered these things I hope he will not find cause to represent us as so widely differing from the Reformed and himself so near to them as he would now make the World believe I do not pretend that they are generally wholly on our Side in this for many of them look on the Observation of these Days as indifferent in which we cannot assent to them But I know of none of them who imposeth them with such Rigour and talk so highly of the necessity of observing them being recommended by the Church or of the Religion that is in this Observation as the Episcopal Party in England and Scotland do Our Brethren do also stand by themselves in their keeping of Saints Days and in the Number of their Holy Days which in England is greater than the Number of these that God injoyned to the Jews forthe Primitive Church at some Distance from the Apostolick Times may be they may have some Countenance there yet these Saints Days were not then so so injoyned and urged as they urge and impose them nor made such a Yoke to the People as may be gathered from Socrates histor Eccles. lib. 5. cap. 22. whose Words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. I am of Opinion that as many other things crept in by Custom in diverse places so the Feast of Easter prevailed among all People from a certain private Custom and Observation in so much that as I said before not one of the Apostles hath any where prescribed to any Man so much as one Rule of it it was observed not by Canon but of Custom and afterward he
Ordinance of GOD or by an Appointment of Men. The occasion of this State of the Question was he had asked might not the Church take care that this Glorious Mystery should not be forgotten I Answered no doubt it might and should and I had mentioned the Word and Sacraments as GODS Appointment for this End on which followeth the Question above set down His Answer in this Book to that Question is long and made up of a great many Sentences which I cannot well see the Connection of nor pertinency to the present purpose may be another may He first sayeth what the Church doth in this is agreeable to the Will of GOD. If it be so our Controversie is at an End and I will crave him Pardon for all I have written on this Subject But it might have been expected that this Assertion which is the Determination of our Question which he fairly beggeth should have been Proved but he thinketh not fit to attempt that But instead of Proof we have it over again in other and moe Words for he wisely considered that saying it once and so barely was not enough to perswade the Stubborn Presbyterians And if sayeth he the manner of Commemoration viz. by an Anniversarie Solemnity be the immediate result of Ecclesiastical constitution the Church medled wiâ—h no more than what was left by our Saviour to her Power to determine Still I desiderate Proof for what is so confidently Asserted and is indeed the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If he can shew by any good topick that CHRIST left such a Power to his Church we shall Debate no more with him that should in all reason Command our heartie Assent What followeth I cannot refute for I cannot understand it which may be is my Dulness It is things indifferent in their Nature do generally carry in them the Advantages and Encouragements of Necessary things If this be true it is Mystical it may possiby have a hidden Sense If I may adventure to guess at this Riddle he supposeth the Appointing of Holy Days to be an indifferent thing I cannot reconcile this with what he sayeth in the former page that they were originally appointed to Communicate the great Myâ—eries of our Redemption with all possible Zeal Gratitude and Solemnitie What is conducive to so great Ends and is for so necessarie Uses I see not how it can be in its own nature indifferent far less can I make it consistent with what he saith in his Apologie for the Clergie p. 41. 42. do not we see that all Nations agree in this that publick Solemnities and Anniversarie Festivities are necessarie to the Beeing and beautie of Religion how he will reconcile necessarie to the beeing of Religion and indifferent is beyond my Capacitie As little can I understand how that can be indifferent in its own nature which hath in it that is in its Nature the Advantages and Encouragements of a necessarie Thing I wish he had Instanced in some of the Things comprehended under his large Word generally which have some Advantages and Encouragements in them Many Instances may be brought to the contrarie as whether he walk a Mile on foot or Ride on Horseback or go in Coach whether Tuesday or Wednesday be appointed for the Weekly Sermon whether Sermon shall begin on the LORD'S Day at Nine or Ten of the Clock whether the Pulpit stand toward the East or West c. what Advantage or Incouragement of necessarie Things is in anie of these If he will shew us anie Encouragement or Advantage of any necessarie Thing and if that Encouragement or Advantage to that necessarie Thing be it self Necessarie to be in the Holy Days we shall look on them not as the Appointments of the Church for it is to be supposed that this Necessitie is Antecedent to that and doth not flow from it but either of Divine Institution or of Natural Necessitie neither of which I suppose he will ascribe to the Holy Days § 10. Another mystical Sentence followeth GOD will have our Obedience approved in indifferent Things as well as Necessarie for Necessarie Things are approved for their intrinsick Excellencie the other are by way of Consequence and Relation Here also AEdipus himself might be puzled to find out the Sense So far as I reach his Meaning I shall Examine what is asserted I verie well understand that GOD will prove our Obedience to Himself in indifferent as well as in necessarie Things if there be anie thing necessarie antecedentlie to His will but that our Obedience to Man must be so Proved or that our Obedience to Church-Rulers is approved of GOD when they enjoyn indifferent Things in the Matters of Religion to that I cannot assent and if I could I should not scruple the implicite Obedience that some require Is it by Chance or by some inward Byasse that this Author stumbleth so often into Popish Principles Before I assent to him in this he must Prove that the LORD hath given the Church Power to injoyn indifferent Things which are parts of Religion as the Holy Days are next that we are obliged to Obey in Matters of Religion what GOD hath left indifferent but Men have thought fit to impose What he Meaneth when he saith the other indifferent Things are by Consequence and Relation doth yet more puzle me What is that Consequence or what the Relation for which indifferent things are approved as Necessarie Things are for their intrinsick Excellencies this I cannot guess at He cannot Mean that they are approved because they are only consequential to Necessarie Things for if that Consequence be Necessarie it maketh the Things to be Necessarie and to cease to be indifferent if it be not Necessarie but the Necessarie Things may do well without them it can no way make them more approved than if there we no such Consequence For their Relation to Necessaries Things how can it make them approved if this he Mean and if this Principle hold the Papists have a notable Foundation for the Holiness of their Relicts and indeed on this Principle it is Built they are therefore Holy because the Persons to whom they were related were so may not relation transfuse a Holiness into his Coat his Shoe or what else was about him as well as either the Birth of CHRIST transfuseth a Holiness into all the recurrent Days of all Years that Answer to that Day on which he was Born or if he make the Relation of these Days to be to the Holy Exercises performed in them shall everie time and everie place where there hath been Preaching Prayer and Celebration of the LORD'S Supper c. be ever after that Holy and Approved of GOD this is strange Doctrine He goeth on when we Commemorate the Nativitie we Worship GOD and adore His Love that sent His Son into the World and the Church Commands that this should be performed with all possible Solemnitie at some stated and fixed Seasons all this is true But how doth this Prove
condemned by the Lord which yet I do not grant but approved They were appointed under a present Calamity and Providential Call from the Lord viz. the Captivity and Desolation of Judea and the Temple Here was a Call to extraordinary Fasting on that Occasion and they only determined the Circumstance of Time which was not determined by the Lord nor any other Appointment was made by God which might superâ—â—de this recurrent Solemnity Now that the Church appointed these Solemnities merely for that Ocasion appeareth from their Enquiry about the Continuance of them now that Calamity was over Some might plead long Custom on the one hand others with more Reason might plead that the Cause being taken away the Effect should cease as Calvin on the Place observeth This cannot be said of our Holy Days which are appointed to Perpetuity and without any determined End and also for the Ends these are designed for I mean our Holy Days the Lord hath appointed other Ordinances and not left it to Men to devise Ways to Commemorate these Mercies I add yet another Answer these Fasts were appointed in a very corrupt Time and State of the Church which cannot afford us a binding Example and we have no Ground to think that in the Churches Recovery in Ezra's Time these Fasts were continued what Light we have from Zech. 7. inclineth to the contrary I had brought two Instances of Solemn Times of Humane Institution being condemned which he next examineth p. 175. c. 1 Kings 12. 33. Where Jeroboam is condemned for appointing a Holy Day that God had not instituted His Answer to this is that this is to Disguise Scripture History Jeroboam is reproved for Idolatry and Worshipping the Calves but if he had appointed a Feast in Honour of the true God and commanded the People to offer their Sacrifices at Jerusalem he ought not to have been blamed To this I Reply that this is a very surprising Answer and I know not that any beside himself hath ever made bold with Religious Institutions at this Rate for here is a wide Door opened for all the Devices of Men that do not directly Clash with any particular Appointment of God and that both in the Jewish and Christian Church And if this Doctrine be received no Ceremonies that either the Apostate Jewish Church before Christ's Incarnation or that the Antichristian Church in the Days of the Gospel hath introduced can be condemned let them appoint and do what they will only keep from a Sinister Opinion about the Value or Necessity of these Devices of â—â—n And if this Principle be good why might not Jeroboam appoint other Places for Sacrifices beside Jerusalem not hindring Sacrifices to be offered there too as well as appoint Feasts beside these that the Lord hath appointed not condemning the Observance of these of Divine Institution Further Jeroboams Feast is expresly condemned on this Formal Reason that the Time was Devised 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Created of his own Heart he made it of nothing there being no Ground for it by Gods Authority Now according to this Learned Author Men may Create as many of these Days as they will provided they design to Worship the true God on them It is a strange Dream to use his own Word to clear Jeroboam from Guilt on that Account for which he is so expresly condemned no doubt he Sinned highly in his Idolatry but that he was Innocent in Devising this new Feast is a new Opinion beyond these which this Author is Enquiring into § 15. The other Scripture brought to condemn these Solemnities not instituted by God and yet made Anniversary by Men is Matth. 15. 9 In vain do they Worship me Teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men. We think this a plain enough Scripture to condem all Humane Religious Ceremonies in general and Anniversary Holy Days that have no Divine Warrant as a Species comprehended under that Genus This my Adversary seemeth to Smile at as Ridiculous and that from the Confidence he hath in an Exposition of this Scripture wherein I think he is Singular and may be more exposed than any Comment given by others which he superciliously rejecteth it is this Teaching for Doctrines in the Language of the New Testament is affirming such a thing to be the Command or immediate Will of God when it hath no other Original than Humane Institution and nothing else but what shall bear some Analogie to that is the Crime here reproved It seems his Confidence was mixed with some Diffidence of this his Comment on the Text when he thinketh to Ward off a Blow by the uncertain Sound of what beareth Analogie to that what he will make to bear Analogie to calling that God's Command which is but Mans Device we cannot tell unless he shall please in his next Edition to inform us For his Exposition it self it is no way to be admitted nor can he prove by Instances that this is the Language of the New Testament I am sure this Place cannot be so understood For the things that Christ here calleth by that Name are strict Observance of Washing the Hands when they came from the Mercat-Place Religious Washing of Pots Tables Cups c. Dotations made to Corban the Church Treasure with Neglect of Relieving their Necessâ—tous Parents now that the Jews did ever pretend or Teach that these were the Commands or immediate Will of God more than our Ceremonialists Teach their Ceremonies to be such for both pretend a general Command for obeying the Church I think he will never be able to prove all that appeareth that they Taught about these Things so far as either Scripture or other History doth inform us is that these Things ought to be observed that it is Sin and Schism and therefore Censurable to neglect them and that on account of the Churches Authority to impose them And do not Prelatists Teach the same Doctrines concerning their Ceremonies and the Holy Days in particular He citeth Hammond Practi Catechis p. 203 but telleth us not what he saith for indeed his very Words are borrowed from that Learned Author in that Place he Citeth where he seemeth to speak in another Strain in his Notes on this Scripture his Words are My Commands are not Heeded by them but their own Constitutions set up in stead of them this is far from Teaching that they were Gods Commands immediatly Luc. Brugâ—â—â— docentes id est sequentes ipsi alios docentes ut sequantur Also Interpreters generally and among them Hammond himself look on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they Taught these Commands their Doctrine was that they should be obeyed and the Things practised but he giveth us no account of their Teaching that they were Commands immediatly given by God He hath an incoherent Passage p. 277. We do not pretend that we have any express Institution in the New Testament for Celebrating the Christian Festivities We know that they
owe their beginning to the Piety and Wisdom of the Apostles or their Successors I gladly would know how he can know that the Apostles gave them a beginning if they be not instituted in Scripture unless he will rest in uncertain Traditions as a part of the Rule of our Faith and Practice to supply what the Scripture is defective in Neither shall we demand of him express Institution if he can shew us Institution by good Consequence drawn from Scripture § 16. His strongest Refutation of another Citation viz. Jer. 9. 31. is to call it a Foolry He maketh the Argument to be Foolish enough indeed as a Wise Man may be exposed as a Fool by putting on him a Fools Coat and Hood and Bells but they are neither Wise nor Ingenuous Men who Treat him so He maketh our Argument from that Text to run thus God did not Command the Israelites to burn their Sons and Daughters in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom Ergo to appoint a Time for the Solemn and Religious Performance of that Worship which he himself commanded falleth under the same Censure This Way of Arguing is none of ours but his own We thus argue God condemneth that Worship of the Jews as on other accounts so on this that he Commanded it not neither came it into his Mind Ergo no Worship devised by Men and not instituted by God is allowable And we have above proved the Celebration of Holy Days to be not only a determining of a Circumstance of Worship which is not determined in Scripture but must be determined by Men but to be an Addition to the Command of God for setting apart some of our Time to his Solemn Service If this Reason be Foolrie Calvin as well as I must be a Declared Fool viz. by the Wisdom and Candor of this Author who on this Place hath this Passage Haec ratio diligenter notanda est quoniam his Deus ansas hominibus praecidit ubi hoc solo titulo condemnat quicquid tent abunt Judaei quia non mandavit ipsis noâ— est igitur alia quaerenda ratio in coarguendis superstitionibus nisi quod carent praecepto Dei And a little below Ergo magnum pondus est in his verbis ubi dicit Prophetâ— Deum nihil tale mandasse nihil tale sibi venisse in mentem quasi diceret nimium sapere homines cum excogitant quae ipse nunquam quaesivit imo nunquam voluit cognoscere That the Phrase I Commanded them not hath in it a Meiosis I shall not controvert but this Meiosis doth not hinder but that Literally and in Propriety of Speech this horrid Fact is condemned as uncommanded Worship No doubt this Fact was not only not commanded but forbidden yea greatly abhorred by the Lord but it doth not thence follow that it was not Evil â—o nomine because not commanded seing that Immorality of it is expresly mentioned § 17. Another Scripture for Humane Holy Days had been mentioned in the Apology p. 42. John 10. 22 23. where it is said that Christ walked in the Temple at the Feast of Dedication Which was none of these that God appointed It was Answered His walking in the Temple on that Day cannot be strained to signifie either Joyning or â—pprobation this Answer he is pleased to represent p. 179. as if it had been that Christ went thither only to walk which he calleth an Irreligious Fancy This is not fair Dealing it was neither said nor thought that Christ went thither only to walk We think he had a higher End viz. To take Occasion to Discourse with the People or to Preach the Things of Salvation while they were assembled in the Temple His Refutation of this beside what is said is Christ was at the Feast of Dedication who never separated from the Jewish Worship Answer That he was at the Feast wanteth Proof he was in the Temple on the Feast Day Ergo he was at the Feast id est joyned in that Solemnity non sequitur That he never separated from the Jewish Worship is said without Warrant we affirm he did and give our Reason for what we say viz. he condemned all that Worship that had not Divine Institution as is before proved Ergo he did not joyn in it I think sober Men will judge this a good Consequence Here was saith our Author the most proper Occasion to reprove Humane Religious Festivities Answer Our Lord knew betterwhat was the fittest Occasions for what he had to do than this Gentleman could Teach him He had condemned them in general on this particular Occasion he had greater Things to Treat with them about and things that being uncontroverted were not so like to irritate them and render his Doctrine ineffectual to them That he quarrelled nothing in the Jewish Constitution merely because it was of Humane appointment is to â—ly in the Face of a considerable part of his Doctrine mentioned Matth. 15. from the beginning He is conâ—ident to say that Christ complyed with such Usages viz. Ceremonies of Humane Appointment among the Jews And he bringeth two Instances of it one is Christ kept the Passover not according to Institution but according to the Custom that then obtained in the Jewish Church viz. With having the Loins girt having Shoes on the Feet and a Staff in the Hand and he asserts that there is nothing in the Original Precept that giveth the least Hint of its being Temporary and Relative to their Itinerary State in the Wilderness but rather that it was of perpetual Force and Obligation yet the Church changed that Ritual of Divine Institution into another that signified more propperly Rest as the other did their Travelling in the Wilderness Here is plain Dealing whereby our Author giveth us yet further to understand his Principles I shall not call this Parcel of Divinity simply New but I am sure it is New among Protestants nor did I ever meet with any of the Prelatick Party who carried the Churches Power of instituting Ceremonies to this Height For if this Reasoning have any Force it will conclude that the Church may not only add to Gods Institutions but may abolish some of them and put others more sit in their Room and if so why should we blame the Church of Rome who though Christs Appointment was that Bread and Wine should be given to the People in the Lords Supper yet have thought it sitter that they should only have the Bread and the Wine should be reserved for the Priest alone and Kings and some others by the Popes Indulgence and they give as good Reason for what they say as he doth here for his Principle viz. That Receiving both Elements was fit for that State of the Church but not for her more Multiplied and Numerous Condition so the Council of Constance Sess. 13. Licet Christus post coenam institueret suis discipulis administraverit sub utraque specie panis vini hoc venerabile Sacramentum tamen hoc non
in former times Presbytery continued only Bishops were superinduced therefore Ministers did not leave their Stations till driven from them but at the last Settling of Episcopacy Presbytery was razed so far as Men could and what Shew of it was left stood on the Foot of the Bishops Authority who Called and Impowered them to Act. This true Presbyterian Ministers could not submit to it being an owning of a Power in the Church which they are convinced is unlawful His fourth Argument is No Schismaticks can be named in the Records of Ecclesiastical History to whom that Name is more agreeable than to the Presbyterians in Scotland In Answer to this the Donatists were mentioned as Schismaticks more justly reputed such than the Scots Presbyterians can be And the Novatians might also have been brought as another Instance to whom I confess what was said agreeth more directly viz. That they separated because the Church admitted the Lapsed to Repentance His Refutation of this is a long Discourse of the Original of the Donatists in many Circumstances that do no way concern the present Purpose and in which are some Mistakes as far from the Account that we have in the ancient Records as that Lapse of Memory is ascribing somewhat to the Donatists which agreeth better to the Novatians and yet there was great Affinity between these two sorts of Schismaticks they both had the same Rise Donatus in Africk and Novatus a Presbyter at Rome together with one of the same Name who upon Discontent came from Carthage to Rome and joyned with him in making a Schism both of them were as they thought disobliged by the Election of a Bishop the one that Caeciliaenus was Elected who as he alledged was ordained by a Traditor yea was a Traditor himself that is in time of Persecution had given their Bibles to the Heathen to be burnt the other that Cornelius was made Bishop both of them pretended a greater Zeal for the Purity of the Church than the rest of the Pastors had the one that all the Churches had fallen into Apostacy through their Communion with them who had been Traditors the other that they who so had fallen or otherwise in time of Persecution were not to be admitted to Church Communion again nor get Absolution though he nor his Followers did not deny that they might obtain Mercy from God upon true Repentance the contrary of which some impute to them both of the Sects were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Puritans both of them separated from all the Churches of the World and managed their Separation with unreasonable Rigour especially the Donatists and among them the Circumcelliones who were furiously enraged against all who differed from them Both of these Schisms spread far and wide It is observed by some that there were of both sorts Men of strict Lives Though some of the Ancients tell us of their Haeresies yet others acknowledged their Agreement with others in the Faith of the Donatists Cresconius said they confessed the same Jesus born dead and risen again they had the same Religion and the same Sacraments and there was no Difference about the Practice of Christianity Augustine confesseth that their Difference was not about the Head but about the Body not about Christ but about his Church Augustin de Unitat. Eccles. c. 4. and Epistle 45. saith they were agreed in the Creed in Baptism and other Sacraments of our Lord also Ep. 162. he telleth us that Miltiades in a Synod at Rome and his Brethren â—ffered to hold Communion with the Bishops that Majorinus whom Donatus and his Party had set up in Opposition to Caeâ—ilianus had ordained which Condescendence is also evident from Collat 1. Carthag Art 16. apud Optat. Milevit p. 45. 6. Edit Paris 1631. § 13. Our Author tells us that we ought to have named Schiâ—maticks in the Primitive Church whose Pleas when Represented with all possible advantage are not so fair and plausible as these of the Presbyterians I Answer the Donatists and Novatians were Schismaticks in the ancient Church and their Pleas for their Separation were not so fair as these of the Presbyterians which I shall shew in these Three things 1. They had no good nor sufficient Ground to separate we declare that we will never separate because the Church admitteth scandalous Sinners to Repentance and Communion as the Novations did nor because some Ministers and People are not so innocent as they should be as the Donatists did we condemn their Schism as much as he doth What the Donatists alleged was false in matter of Fact as was made appear First By some Judges appointed by the Emperour to try the matter next by a Synod held at Arles And lastly by the Emperour after a full Hearing of the Matter and if it had been true it was no just ground of Separation though it had been a great Grievance The Novation Plea had no weight in it at all because the Church was not culpable in such Admission which they did unreasonably blâ—me Can he Charge the Presbyterians with any thing that is so unreasonable What we dislike is an usurped Power set up in the Chuch and humane Ceremonies imposed on us and our owning of these formally in Words or materially in our Practice is made a condition of our Communion with the Church It is true if he can Prove our Scruples to be unreasonable and that what we dislike is Warrantable he may blame us for none Complyance but what is the Question between him and us if we Scruple without cause the blame lieth on us if not the Guilt of Separation lieth on them who impose such things Wherefore the Determination of this Point who is culpable in the Separation that is in the Church at Present dependeth on the Question now under Debate about Episcopacie and Ceremonies 2. We always were willing to unite with them if they will remove the Stumbling-blocks that lie in our ways which themselves confess to be indifferent I mean the Ceremonies and if they will not require our owning of Episcopacie directly nor indirectly The Novations nor Donatists never offered such terms of Peace It is not what they do that skareth us from them but what they will needs force us to do 3. We do not Exclude any of them from our Communion as the Schismaticks of old did Who either of their Clergy or of the People have been Excluded from the LORD'S Supper with us on account of their Opinion in the things that are matter of our Debate 4. We do not condemn their Church as no Church as the Donatists did to all beside themselves we condemn only some things among them that are of inferior moment 5. It is evident that themselves are the cause of all the Schism and they are not of the healling temper that the Church was of which had to do with the Donatists that Church was willing to forbear them even in their most unreasonable Separation and to indulge such as were of
a Manner of Worship not determined by any Council but brought in by civil Custom and so made decent that it was a fault to do otherways so it were a fault among us for a Minister to Preach in an Antick and ridiculous Garb which Custom hath made such Or the manner of Worship is something that is peculiar to Religious Worship and in that case it is Religion or Worship it self being Designed that by it GOD may be Honoured tho it be a Mode of that Species of Worship V. Gr. the Cross is a Mode of Baptism yet it is a piece of Worship it self being devised for a Sacred signification and being peculiar to Religion this sort of Manner of Worship must be fixed and Established by the Authority of CHRIST neither do I know any lower Authority of any Judge that is Competent for it § 3. His Third Argument or Axiom is that we ought to express our Adâ—ration in the publick Worship of GOD by such significant Signs of Piety and Devotion as are known in that Nation where we live to express our Reverence and Esteem The former Distinction will easily shew how little this will make for him If he speak of natural or civil â—ites that is Actions or Gestures or Things that Nature or civil Custom hath made so Expressive we yield all that he saith but if he mean Religious Rites or Ceremonies that is such Things Actions or Gestures as have no place nor are not lookt on as so Expressive in any other Solemnity but in Religion I deny his Assertion for what ever Custom hath crept into a Church or Nation which is peculiar to Religion and tho it be never so well known in the Nation that the Church hath introduced it into Worship meerly by her own Authority So as it is neither made decent by Nature nor by Custom in other Solemnities or Actions nor enjoyned by Divine Authority it ought not to be in the Church of CHRIST Hence we can allow Sighing lifting up the Hands or Eyes in Worship Nature hath made them Expressive also a grave and decent Garb because civil Custom hath made that â—it Also using Water in the Baptism and Bread and Wine in the LORD'S Supper because Divine Institution hath made them Significant and Useful but the Cross in Baptism the Surplice c. we cannot allow because their Signification and Use in Religon ariseth from none of these but only from Mans will His Fourth Assertion is these significant Signs being indifferent in their Nature are variable according to the â—ge or Country with whom we have to do and may be Changed by the Authority and Wisdom of our Superiors as oâ—t as there is sufficient Reason of which they only are the Judges Other Ceremonialists use to Plead for the Churches Ceremonie-making Power with a little more Caution and Limitation so as they are careful to Shut the Door against the Popish Ceremonies Some because of their ineptitude the Bulk of them because of their Number being a Burden but this Author is troubled with no such Scruples or Fetters he setteth the Door as wide open as the Pope or any Church-Rulers yea or Rulers of the State please to have it no other thing but their Opinion and Will can keep out a Deluge of Ceremonial Fopperies That the Ceremonies we Contend about I mean Religious Ceremonies are indifferent in their own Nature he supposeth but this is not to Instruct but to Hoodwink the Reader for he should have Distinguished the Nature of a Significant Ceremonies It hath a general Nature as it is such an Action V. Gr. the Motion of the Finger whereby the transient Sign of the Cross is made on the Fore-head of a Child let that pass for indifferent It hath also a particular Nature as it standeth in such Circumstances viz. as it is Appointed to be annexed to Baptism as it is Stated in Religion and appointed to it and as a Religious Signification for a Spiritual end is put on it and all this not by CHRISTS but by Mans Authority we deny it to be indifferent in its Nature while it is thus Considered as it must needs be in this Debate But suppose we should allow an Indifferencie to be in the Ceremonies as they are humane Actions to be used in Worship it is said without all Warrant that our Superiors may Determine and take away this Indifferencie and Change their Injunctions about these Actions when and as often as they see Reason so to do tho no Body else can see any such Reason This is to make our Superiours absolute and to give them an arbitrarie Power in these things that we can make appear to be parts of Religion and which himself cannot deny to have a great influence on Religion and in which it is nearly concerned Beside to say that Superiors may Determine every thing that is in its Nature indifferent wherein Religion is concerned is to open a Door to so many Impositions as might make Gospel Worship a greater Yoke than that which the Jewish Church was not able to bear as the Apostle saith Acts 15. 10. For Circumstances of Actions are innumberable and few of them are Determined and Enjoyned by the LORD We know the Church may determine the Actions in and about Worship which are not Determined in the Word and yet must be Determined but that she may Determine what ever she thinketh fit is not to be Admitted § 4. He telleth us p. 152. that it is impossible to make Objections against the decent visible Motions of the Body in publick Worship which may not be improved against the vocal Expressions of the Tongue If he must be allowed to Determine what Motions of the Body are decent this his Assertion could be not Opposed but there are who call most of these Bodily Motions decent even in Worship which are Learned at the Dancing School which yet it were hard for the Church to Enjoyn Wherefore these Motions that were made decent in Worship by Nature by civil Custom other grave and serious Actions or by Divine Institution we make no Objection against them but blame them who neglect them but for Motions that Men will call decent without ground from any of these we make Objections which yet have not been sufficiently Answered against their being Injoyned in â—â—orship which he shall never be able to Improve against all the Vocal Expressions of the Tongue He saith we allow all these VVhat he meaneth by so saying I cannot Divine we allow Vocal Expressions and Bodily Motions too that such of them as are fit should be used But we do not allow that the Church by her own Authority without such Warrant as is above-mentioned should enjoyn her Determinations either in the one or in the other I hope he hath no ill meaning when he saith Nature led us at first to the Worship of the DEITIE I think Revelation had as early and as effectual a hand in it after the Fall I confess Nature
Severe He Answereth that he never found fault with our Discipline for its being strict but for being factiously Pragmatical and endlesly Inquisitive and from its having no Tendency to Edifie the Christian-Church or to Reclaim wicked People What can an unbyassed Reader understand by these Words but that the Man is angry and hateth the Presbyterians and their Way and would fain cast Dirt on them if he could find it These indefinite and gross Accusations must either be Proved that thus the Presbyterians do Manage the Discipline of the Church and this must be in many Instances and many Ministers and Elders and all this well Attested or the Man who thus Writeth must pass for a Slanderer rather than a Disputant Our Discipline we Manage by the Rules of the Word and the Principles of sound Reason we do not Indulge Sin in these of our own Way nor medle with Things that are without our Line nor do we enquire into Scandalous Sins till they become such by being openly known and if Occasion be given for Enquirie and nothing be found we Desist and leave Secret Things to GOD to whom they belong for the Tendency of our Exercise of Discipline we are sure it is for Edification and we can make it appear that sometimes it is Blessed with Success and if it Irritate some or Harden others or have no Fruit on many we Lament it but are not to be blamed for it for the same Thing may be said of Preaching the Gospel and that in a Commendable manner I Deny not but that some are short of that Dexterity that others have and that there is Imperfection in the best of us and if they that blame us can say otherways of their own Church either they are strangly Deluded or the World is generally Deceived about their Way He commenceth a new Debate p. 283. about Non-resistance which he had raised Apolog. p. 20. and yet waved and of which very little was said Def. of Vindic. p. 16. he now resumeth the Debate and talketh more freely than before being behind the Curtain and not in Hazard of Censure I was then unwilling and am still more so to medle in that Matter both because it is a Controuerne that belongeth to the Politicks rather than to Divinity and Lawyers are sittest to Mannage it Also because it is not now between Prelatists and Presbyterians the Generality of both having of late years Agreed in what is Inconsistent with the Prelatical Doctrine that was Current some years ago § 13. Another of our new Opinions he will have to be p. 289. that they the Presbyterians abhorre and cast off all Established Forms and Rules in the Worship of GOD c. we have under this Head a parcel of the most False and Impudent Assertions in Matters of Fact and the most unjust Calumnies that ever the Press groaned under And it is a wonder that a Person pretending to Conscience or to Christianity could give such Scope to his Passion as to have no regard to Truth and indeed here is little or no Matter of Debate nor place for Vindication but by Denying what he Asserteth without any Attempt to give Evidence for what is Asserted I Deny not but that there may be found some few among the People that own Presbytery who through Ignorance and a mistaken Zeal run into some of these Excesses that he Taxeth but I know none who are Guilty of all that he Imputeth to us sine discrimine and I am sure the more Sober and Intelligent sort of Presbyterians abhorreth many of these things that he Chargeth them with He Asserteth that the Presbyterians of Scotland abhorre and cast off all Established Forms and Rules in the Worship of GOD. I Challenge him to Prove what he saith it is a palpable Falshood For 1. We neither abhorre nor cast off the Form of Sound Words I mean the Scriptures of Truth recommended by the Apostle for us to hold 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 1. 13. nor do we abhorre or reject the Form of Baptizing and Administring the LORD'S Supper nor of Blessing the People at the Dismissing of the Assembly 2. Even some Forms that we Reject as needles and therefore unfit to be used in this state of the Church yet we do not abhor them such as Forms of Prayer we think they were both Lawful and necessarie when the Church was not Provided with Qualified Ministers yet we think they should now be laid aside when they are not so needed as a Man should not use Crutches when he is well Recovered from his Dameness 3. To say that we abhorre and reject Rules in the Worship of GOD is beyond all bounds of Truth and Modesty We own and use the Word of GOD as the Rule of Worshiping Him neither do we abhorre or reject the Help of Humane Rules which are drawn out of that Supreme and Divine Rule we have our Directorie and many Good Acts of General-Assemblies yea of Synods and Presbyteries in their respective Districts His next Assertion is shameles above measure that since the Revolution they Turn out the Episcopal Clergy out of their Livings if they retain any of the Ancient forms tho never so short Catholick or Orthodox Pray Sir when was this done by whom where or to whom none of them were ever Turned out of their Livings on these Heads either by Church or State and none by the Church except for Ignorance Error in some Great Point of Faith supine negligence or Scandal in Things that are not Controverted among us whether they be Sins or not It is true Uniformity even in these little Things is required of these who will Joyn with us be Received into Ministerial Communion and have a Share of the Government of the Church with us and much Tenderness and Forbearance hath been used even in these for some time but they who think not fit to Joyn with us are suffered to follow their Ministerial Work in their Parishes and Enjoy their Livings without such Uniformity with us as he Talketh of And if we had Required this or Turned them out it had been but an Imitating of the Practice of his own Party Whom do they Suffer to Enjoy Publick Livings who do not Conform to their Way to the Height § 14. He persists in his false Assertions while he saith the Episcopal Clergy are Enjoyned to forbear the LORD'S Prayer Reading the Holy Scriptures in their Assemblies the Apostolick Creed and the Doxology This is far from any Semblance of Truth no such Prohibition was ever given He insisteth a little in Pleading for the Use of the LORD'S Prayer but taketh no Notice of the State of the Question about it as it hath been Proposed by his Antagonist His Business seemeth to be not so much to Convince as to Accuse It is False that we have Banished that Prayer We duely use it as a Directory and Pray according to it we Teach it to our Catchumâ—ni we do not Judge nor Blame any Man