thus impertinent But if you do then you declare that she makes Idols of Saints And if so why did you pag. 17th declare it as your belief that the Church of England cannot be justly charged with Idolatry But I think that the making an Idol of a Saint is idolatry 7. You say That to keep a Day of Thanksgiving for blessing the world with such a Saint is what God hath no where prescribed what neither the Jews nor Christians in the first times ever did So that it seems you are not so ignorant as you now seemed to make your self but do know why many of our Festivals receive their names from certain Saints And why may we not on certain Days meet together to praise God for blessing the world with such Saints as have been next to our Blessed Lord the most Glorious instruments of good to the world and at the same time hear those Chapters read wherein their worthy deeds are recorded and together with other Prayers put in one for grace to follow those blessed Examples of a holy Life of both active and passive Obedience which they have through the Divine grace left behind them What Sin is there in all this Nay why should not this highly become us and be of singular advantage to us You give two reasons why this is unlawfull 1. Because God hath no where prescribed it But must we be at this time of day told that nothing is lawfull relating to the Worship of God but what is expresly commanded when the Idleness and Folly of that Doctrine hath been over and over exposed as it hath been But 2dly you say That this is that which the Jews nor Christians in the first times never did But if you mean by the First times the times of the Apostles 't is more than you can prove that the Martyrdom of St. Stephen was never solemnly commemorated by the Christians in their time And I presume you would not have had the Martyrdoms of the Apostles commemorated before they were Martyred what if this be not recorded is it therefore a certain Argument that it never was You find not I think the Martyrdom of any one of the Apostles recorded in holy Scripture except St. James's But if you mean by the first times the Primitive times I perceive you never read or have forgotten The Epistle of the Church of Smyrna concerning Policarp's Martyrdom But I hope it needs not to be proved to you that the Catholique Church observed Martyrum Natalitia the Days whereon they were crowned with Martyrdom even from the Second Century But where do you find it prescribed in God's word or recorded that it was practised in the Apostles times for to be sure you mean those by the First times to praise God for the good Examples of Holy men among other great Blessings is it therefore unlawfull so to doe as well as to doe it upon Set Days You will not assert so absurd a thing In short Sir think not that we need either Precepts or Examples to justifie our doing of that which the very Light of Nature and Right Reason do plainly declare to us to be though not a necessary duty yet highly becoming us and praise-worthy And we are certain that it is dictated thereby to be highly becoming us to commemorate at Annual Selected times the unspeakable Goodness of God to us in giving us such Shining Lights as the Holy Apostles c. and to meditate upon Christ glorified in them who with admirable courage first preached and propagated his Gospel in the World and with admirable Patience for the sake thereof indured the greatest of Miseries and Calamities and at last Sealed it with their Blood 8. You say But if Devout persons will set apart Days you might have said too will observe Days set apart by the Church to give God thanks for any signal mercies among which I think every Apostle is a most signal one or to put up Prayers for any people in distress provided they do not mock God in giving him an holy hour instead of an holy day and spend the rest of the day in Idleness Gaming Drinking c. And can you think that any of our Devout people do not abhor such practices as much as you Dissenters will never blame or condemn them for it I hoped you would have said they will join with us since Authority requires it 9. You say Finally Dissenters will never separate from the Church of England for the true keeping of a day holy to God c. Yes surely they will if it be a Saint's day at least as one would think by what you have said But you add that they will separate from the Looseness and commonly practised Profanation of it and so do thousands of those that are no Dissenters I hope or such as were onely so in the Pope's Kalendar as St. George c. Now you would Sir again feign your self more ignorant than you are for no doubt you know as well as we that St. George his day is no Church of England Holy-day And for all your c. you cannot but know too that Our Church hath no Festival-days called by any Saints names but such as all Christians own for the Greatest of Saints except those Innocents who had the honour to suffer for Christ's sake before they were of age to know him We have indeed a Fast-day occasioned by the Horrid Murther of King Charles the Martyr whom we deservedly honour as a Great Saint But I never heard that this Saint stands in the Pope's Kalendar and I 'll warrant you never shall We should be glad to hear that He stands in yours however we hope He will never be blotted out of ours And now having done with our Author you spend a good part of your five last Pages in such discourse as is so far from tending to the composing of our Differences and healing our wide and most dangerous Breaches that it hath the most apparent tendency to the making them irreparable beyond all Remedy And 't is enough to convince all sober people that the cause of those that separate is desperate to observe what strange principles are taken up of late in the defence of Separation even such as the Old Non-conformists would have thought very wild ones serving no better purpose than the Unhinging of all And those Sir which you here lay down so dogmatically not offering any proof of them you shall find most shamefully baffled by the Dean of St. Pauls in his forementioned excellent Book For my part I am too much tyred with Scribbling thus long to take into consideration this close of your Book farther than reflecting upon two or three passages though I am not at all obliged to take notice of those neither as a Defender of our Author And indeed to deal like a plain-hearted Friend with you it was but the other day before I could be perswaded to think it needfull to Reply at all You say pag. 31. That
Author's mind as to the two other Texts You say The following part of the Chap. Lev. 18. gives some colour to interpret that place of things morally evil yet why are they forbidden under the notion of things done after the doings of the Egyptians and the Canaanites I answer because they were the doings of those people whom they were exceedingly prone to imitate even their greatest Immoralities And this is a sufficient Answer Then you tell us Nor is Deut. 14. 1. or Lev. 19. 8. capable of such a sense But our Author saith not a word of Lev. 19. 8. for 't is verse the 19th that he speaks to and as hath been said already he never saith that in this place the things forbidden are morally evil but the contrary But as to those things forbidden in Deut. 14. 1. he sheweth that they are morally evil nor is your bare saying that that place is not capable of such a sense a confutation of him And now we come to the Text which you desire your Author to consider in these words But because our Author tells us he can find no other Texts that make more if so much for this purpose I shall desire you Sir but to consider Hos 2. 16 17. And it shall be at that day saith the Lord that thou shalt call me Ishi and shalt call me no more Baali For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth and they shall no more be remembred by their name Now upon this Text you say That Baali was a very good name if we consider it in its self what doth it signifie more than my Lord Adonai is of the same signification by which name it was never unlawfull to call God But because the Idol was called Baal God abhorred it though he allowed himself to be called by another name of the same significancy Nor will I believe our Author himself owns that it was lawfull for the Jews to apply themselves to God under the name of Baali Now because you lay so much weight upon this Text you shall have the fuller Answer And 1. I say that God doth not in the former verse give the Jews a Prohibition no more to call him Baali but makes them a gratious Promise that they shall not T is plain by what goes before that the words are a Promise viz. by the two foregoing verses wherein God promiseth them to cease from plaguing them for their Idolatry that is upon their true Repentance and to give them again happy days And then he saith Thou shalt call me Ishi and shalt call me no more Baali That is thou shalt call me no more by a name of Fear as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was but by a name of Love as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is this signifying Sponsus Benignus but that Durus imperiosus Maritus or Dominus such as Baal was to his Worshippers as the Criticks will tell you Which is as much as to say there shall no more be an occasion given you from my severe usage of you to call me by a name that signifies a harsh Lord or he would not be to them like such a Lord as Baal was but he would shew them the kindness of a tenderly loving Husband for the time to come 2. It is manifest that God's meaning was not that they should never use that word Baal because Idolaters used it and an Idol was called by that name for then they might not use the name Jah neither because the Heathens used the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nor would God have called himself by the name of Baal as you will find he does Isa 54. 5. if you consult your Hebrew Bible as that word signifies no more than Husband 3. Whereas it follows in the next verse For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth and they shall no more be remembred by their name The following Criticks do give such a sense of them as will not in the least favour your purpose This is Liveleius's In the renovation of the Church Idolatry shall be abolished Calvin's is I will cause my people to cast away all their Lies and to be content with the pure Doctrine of my Law The Exposition of Vatablus is this By Baalim God understands the various Images of Baal which had various names according to the places wherein they were erected as there were many Jupiters among the Heathens And whereas you say because the Idol was called Baal God abhorred that name I must needs tell you that to think God can abhor a good name merely because of its having been given to an Idol speaks a childish notion and opinion of that Infinitely perfect Being But after all this let us suppose that God here forbad the Jews to call himself for the future by the name of Baal this will not in the least affect our Author for if it were so it could be onely upon the account of their vehement inclination to the worship of the Idol Baal and therefore they might not take his name into their mouths that so they might not be tempted by using it to worship him again But our Author hath said enough to convince you that there is not the least appearance of an Argument to be fetched from hence against the lawfulness of our Ceremonies or to prove that since they were used without any Idolatry or Superstition by the Ancient Fathers before they were abused by the Apostate Church of Rome they may not return to their first use the Idolatry and Superstition being perfectly removed and moreover no danger arising from the using of them to the Members of our Church of returning to Popery But in your next Page you find fault with our Author for asserting as he doth in his 28th Page That there is no such inclination in the Members of our Church to go over to that of Rome nor hath any such inclination been observed ever since the Reformation as was in the Jews to the Superstitious and Idolatrous practices of the Heathens But need I shew you the impertinency of your Answer to this passage which is this that the people now are more devoutly inclined I very much doubt I am sure they had much more reason then than now to be averse to it having more miraculous Operations and extraordinary appearances of God to them than we can pretend to And I am sure the hearts of all are by nature now as bad as then But 1. Doth it argue that our people are more devoutly inclined than the Jews were because they are not so inclined to Idolatry Men that have nothing of Devotion in their tempers may have no inclination at all to some certain Vices But I need onely to ask you whether the Turks be a devouter sort of people than the Jews then were or whether the Jews be more devout now than they were then because as every body knows they both have at present not onely no inclination but the
satisfie you were conformed to by our Blessed Saviour But you say Christ condemned severely the Jewish Traditions But I say he did not at all condemn all Jewish Traditions and none but such as by which they made the Commandments of God of none effect And such as they placed special Holiness in and necessary to acceptance with God as is too evident to need my standing to prove it And Sir when you can prove that our Ceremonies are like to those condemned Traditions I will undertake that our Author shall be as zealous against complying with them as he is now against separation from our Church upon the account of them But to go on whereas our Author saith of Episcopal Government and the three other following things pag. 38. That he takes it for granted that there is nothing of Viciousness or Immorality in any of them to make them Vnlawfull and therefore that they are indifferent in their own nature You reply pag. 18. That there are few things to be named unlawfull in this sense I answer there are as many things unlawfull in this sense as there are things prohibited by the Moral Law and if you please to consult our Expositors of the Decalogue I presume you 'll find those things not a few You say at the bottom of this 18th Page That it troubles you to reade your Author saying I know not how our Brethren will defend the Apostolical Institution of the Observation of the Lord's day while they contend that this of Episcopacy cannot be concluded from the uninterrupted Tradition of the Catholique Church c. And why I pray Sir doth this trouble you You give this reason why viz. Because certainly for the Apostolical practice in the Observation of the Lord's day we have the infallible evidence of Holy Scripture Acts 20. 1 Cor. 16. But you must prove that we have in those Scriptures or some other infallible evidence for the Apostolical Institution of the Observation of the Lord's day and not for the mere Apostolical practice or you will say nothing to the purpose But to save my self the labour of saying more upon this Argument and of replying to those few lines that follow against the Primitiveness of our Episcopacy I entreat you to consult Mr. Chillingworth's Apostolical Institution of Episcopacy demonstrated together with the most Learned Dean of St Pauls his Ample Proof of these two Propositions in his Vnreasonableness of Separation p. 244 c. viz. First that our Diocesan Episcopacy is the same for substance which was in the Primitive Church And Secondly That it is not repugnant to any Institution of Christ nor devising a new species of Churches without God's Authority As to what you say p. 19. about Liturgies viz. that they cannot be indifferent if indeed as our Author speaks they be highly expedient to be universally imposed yea necessary I reply you have not caught him in a Contradiction as you think for his saying concerning Liturgies c. pag. 38. is That he takes it for granted that they are all indifferent in their own nature And tells you what he means by those words in the next viz. that there is nothing of viciousness or immorality in any of them c. Now is it a contradiction to say of the same thing that it is indifferent in its own nature and that 't is necessary considering certain circumstances And I farther say that Liturgies are necessary considering that through humane Weakness and Frailty the performance of publick worship with that Solemnity and Gravity which it calls for cannot be secured and yet notwithstanding they are still things in their own nature indifferent and so are all those things too which God ' s Positive Laws have made necessary as all know who understand the difference between Moral and Positive But as to the Antiquity of Liturgies which you say our Author knoweth to be denied you have had a good while extant that Discourse which he said was expected and which you say you will patiently wait for to give you satisfaction about this matter And it is excellently fitted as I hope you have before now found not onely for the satisfying of Dissenters about that point relating to Liturgies but divers others also In your next Paragraph you tell us that all Divines will readily acknowledge that such a Method and Order of a Liturgy as is not contrived in Subserviency to the 3 General Rules of Doing all to Edification the Glory of God and not giving offence to any of the Churches of God may make it unlawfull And I also do readily acknowledge this and am confident that you cannot prove that Ours is not so contrived as to be made not Subservient unto those Rules And as to the last of them whatsoever Churches please to take offence at our Liturgy I am sure it gives no offence to them In what follows you profess that you never thought it unlawfull for any Laick wholly to separate from the Church of England because of our Liturgy and I hope you think it no more Lawfull for a Clergy-man nor did your self ever so separate But for all that you know that many hundreds and I fear some thousands do But you say there is a new Generation started up that not onely makes you a Separatist but all Conformable Ministers if they do not every time read the Second Service at the Altar This in good earnest is somewhat a hard Case but I pray Sir by what figure do you call one Start-up Warm Head a new Generation In your next Paragraph pag. 20. You say Our Author hath spied four little Thorns in some Dissenters Flesh which he hath very charitably endeavoured to pick out And you add that you will candidly enquire if no bit of them remain which may cause pain and hinder healing To make no reflexion Sir upon your expressing your self thus phancifully your meaning must be that you will enquire whether our Author hath not well defended the four things in our Liturgy which Dissenters object against as symbolizings with the Roman Service from being liable to just Offence Of which The First is The shortness of many Prayers But you say not one word in answer to what he speaks in the Vindication thereof But tell us that if some Dissenters think that throughout the Scriptures there is nothing like this to be found either in the Prayers of Solomon c. or any others and be a little stumbled at it you cannot condemn them But you must needs condemn it as an errour in them to think there are no short Prayers to be found in the Holy Scriptures when there are many more short than there are long Prayers When our Saviour used in the Garden thrice a shorter Prayer than is any one in our Service And when the Form he left behind him for our use is a very short one But if the using of a short Prayer be not the thing blamed but the using of several such in the same
thing You shall have no new answer to this besides asking you this Question if there be any danger of Ruine in this case who are most charitable to these Doubters those that doe their utmost to satisfie them that they may not come near the danger or those that use their utmost endeavours to make all means unsuccessfull that are used for their Satisfaction I must needs take notice also of your pleasant answer to this passage in our Author pag. 49. viz. That there being nothing said of the Gesture in our Saviour's Institution of this Sacrament he hath consequently left the particular Gesture to the Determination of the Church a Gesture being in the general necessary Your answer is Our Saviour bad his Disciples Baptize but saith nothing of Water nor from what Fountain or River hath he therefore left it to the Churches determination that Ministers shall Baptize onely with Rose-water or Water fetched from the River Truly Sir a smile is the best Reply that is due to this But do you in sober sadness then think that nothing is left by Christ to the Churches Determination neither place nor time nor any other Circumstance If this be not wild Fanaticism there is no such thing in nature and I know you 'll acknowledge it But if the Church may determine the place of publick worship and the times of day when to meet because our Lord hath not determined such particulars why may not the Church determine particular Gestures when they are not by him determined And can you think Sir that it is well done after this manner to Ridicule the Churche's Power No I know you cannot think so and therefore this was an hasty Slip from your Pen which you will not upon Second thoughts justifie You say at the Bottom of this page That you do not think what our Author mentions pag. 50. of the Ring in Marriage worth the speaking to Because Dissenters generally believe the Ring a Civil Pledg c. I wish they universally thought so and if they do not as time was when you know they did not I know not why you should add that How it comes into our debate you cannot tell Next you spend the best part of two pages upon our Holy-days which is our Author's last instance of Rites which Dissenters are offended with upon the account of our Symbolizing in them with the Church of Rome And 1. You say That it is God's Prerogative alone to make a day Holy i. e. such as it shall be sinfull for any to labour in But do you think that God ' s Vicegerents have not power given them to set apart days to a holy use And in any other sense we do not think that any day is capable of being made Holy 'T is manifest from what follows that you do not think so And if you do not can you think that our Governours have no power to forbid ordinary Labour upon those days which they have so set apart And if they have this power can you think it lawfull to disobey those laws of theirs that prohibit working on those days And if this be not lawfull then I fear 't is Sinfull 2. You say That God's Revelation of his Will for solemn Praises upon the Receipt of Signal Mercies or solemn Prayers in times of great Distress justifieth Magistrates or Churches in setting apart in such Cases Days for Praise and Prayers Then I hope the Magistrates or the Church have power to make a day Holy and Consequently they may forbid opening of Shops and Ordinary labour on such a day And therefore 't is sinfull to disobey them herein 3. You say That all such days ought to be intirely spent in Religious Exercises But notwithstanding you are so dogmatical in this thing I am Confident upon second thoughts you 'll acknowledge you were too rash For you cannot really think what you assert with such Confidence except you can find in your heart to reprove Ringing of Bells and innocent Recreations after Sermon on the Fifth of November as Profanations of that Holy-day And I hope we may make bold to call that day a Holy-day it being so according to your own Concession in the foregoing particular 4. You say That to spend an hour of such a Day in Prayer and all the rest in Idleness Drinking Revelling Gaming c. is not to keep a Holy but a Licentious Day No body doubts this But are you obliged by our Church so to spend Her Holy-days And if you are not but may keep them as strictly as you please what a strange objection is this against the lawfulness of observing them 5. You say That there is no need of keeping any such days in Commemoration of the Birth Death Resurrection or Ascension of Christ because God hath appointed fifty two every year for that purpose I answer if you mean by no need that there is no absolute necessity of the Churches setting apart days for the Commemoration of Christ ' s Birth Death c. we will perhaps grant it but what then Doth it thence follow that the well observing such days doth not tend to our Edification to the more building us up in our holy Faith and encrease in Holiness you dare not say or think so But I say farther that the well observing them is of admirable use And nothing would tend more to our Growth in all the Christian Vertues than besides the general Meditation on the Birth Death Resurrection and Ascension of our Lord every Lord's day to set days apart for the particular Meditation on Each of these Grand Mysteries of our Religion There being in each of them more than enough to employ a whole day in admiring thoughts of it and in praises to God for it and in making Applications of it to our Spiritual Advantage And therefore I am certain you would spend your pains to far better purpose if instead of prejudicing Peoples minds against the observance of such days you would Excite them like the good Fathers of the Primitive Church to the well observing and making the best improvement of them The generality God knows of Professors of Christianity are too too carelesly and irreligiously disposed of themselves to need to be disswaded from the using of any helps to their being made more devout and better People And where there is one among us that is apt to be too superstitiously inclined I fear there are some hundreds who are more enclined to the other Extreme that of profaneness But our Author hath sufficiently shewed that the Popish Superstitions are perfectly removed by our Church from the Observation of Holy-days And no man that observes them as our Church directeth can have the least temptation from the Observance of them to be superstitious 6. You say That to keep a day Holy to any Saint is to make an Idol of that Saint And do you think our Church in her Festivals designs keeping Days holy to Saints if you do not think so why are you