Selected quad for the lemma: power_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
power_n	call_v	church_n	synod_n	2,889	5	9.6067	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A81501	The Discipline and order of particular churches, no novelty. Proved from Scripture, reason, autiquity, and the most eminent modern divines. Or, A discourse of the church, in a scripture notion, with her extent, power and practice, tending to moderate the minds of men, toward dissenters in matters ecclesiastical, and to acquit such from the charge of innovation, faction, separation, schism, and breach of union and peace in the church, who cannot conform in many things to the rules, canons, and practices of others. / By a Lover of truth, peace, unity, and order.	Lover of truth, peace, unity, and order.	1675 (1675)	Wing D1558A; ESTC R174652	61,995	98

Word sometimes the People did choose such as they thought meet thereunto and when any were sent by the Apostles or other the People of their own voluntary will with thanks did accept of them not for the Supremacy Imperial Dominion that the Apostles had over them to command as their Princes or Masters but as good People ready to Obey the good Councellors and to accept any thing necessary for their Edification and Benefit And again that the People before Christian Princes were commonly did Elect their Bishops and Priests thus far of Bishop Cranmer which words of his as Mr. Stillingfleet there affirms he put his own Hand to and gave it in in answer to certain Questions put to him in King Edward the Sixths Time and now remain upon Record Bishop Nicholson of Gloucester in his Vindication of the Church of England p. 27. grants the Truth of this That the People did choose their Pastors in the Primitive Ages of the Church in express terms and saith it was taken away from the People by Christian Princes when the Fathers disliked the use So far of him in this place Polanus in his Sintagma Lib. 7. Cap. 15. fully proves and affirms this Right to be Lodged in these Churches Under this Head De Electionibus seu vocationibu● Ecclesiasticis First he saith That the Liberty or Power of Election calling or sending of Ecclesiastical Persons is a Right which the whole Church hath in choosing and calling to themselves approved and fit Ministers and in placing them into Sacred Order p. 542. After in his next p. 543. under this Question a quibus Electio seu vocatio Ministrorum Ecclesiae fieri debeat By whom the Election or calling of Ministers of the Church ought to be made He saith That unto the Legitimate or Lawful Election of the Ministers of the Church especially of the Pastors is requisite a free and ingenious consent and Suffrage of the whole Church whose business it is that is of the Elders and Flock The which consent must not be had by intreaty or sold for a price much less forced and extorted so that it is the part of the whole Church to choose Ministers for themselves And there he gives these following arguments to evince it First because even in the time of the Apostles the whole Church whose business it was did choose Ministers for themselves or to it self Neither did the Apostles themselves saith he Ordain any one for Ecclesiastical charges only by their own Authority but always by the Church consenting and approving Acts 6.2 c. and 14.23 Secondly because by this means the Churches own Liberty which Christ hath given to it is kept For a Pastor or Minister of the Word of God is not to be obtruded upon the Church of God against his will Can. Null invit distinc 61. Thirdly because it serves to this That even the Ministers may with a good Conscience Rule the Lords Flock by whom he is Elected and the Flock of the Lord may in like manner yield themselves the more easie to him to be Instructed and fed than to him who beside or against their will is thrust upon them and again he is not to be acknowledged for a Lawful Pastor of the Church who hath been intruded on the Church by the Authority and Command of the Prince Quod testatur Concil Parisiense primum Can. Octavo Tomo Secundo Concil And after he saith in the same p. That fit Persons are to be nominated and presented to the People before the Election and should be openly proposed in the Assemblies And again in p. 544. Under this Question Qualiter seu quomodo Ministri Ecclesiae Eligi vocari debeant How the Ministers of the Church ought to be chosen and called Acts 14.23 Those Persons are to be Nominated of whom the Election and Calling ought to be made to this end that the Church by the free Suffrage of the whole Congregation or such to whom she hath committed a Right and Power of choosing may approve and accept of one of them That the Suffrages are collected by some Pastor of the Church or of another to whom he shall commit it And they are given either in Order by every Elector Vivâ voce or joyntly of all or many by lifting up of hands or either way c. For if by giving their Suffrages Vivâ voce there were variance and they go into many Sentences of unprofitable and tedious prolixity Those who had any Votes for Ordination were again named and every one being named they who chose him were commanded to lift up their Hands At the Nomination of whom either all or many lifted up their Hands this Man was concluded to be Lawfully Elected After this manner saith he Paul and Barnabas did Create Elders Acts 14.23 And after under this Question By what Rite or Ceremony c. he saith He who was Elected by the Church with free Suffrages at length received Ordination of the Pastors of the Church 1 Tim. 4.14 5.22 the whole Multitude of the Church being present Then Polanus concludes with these words They do therefore grievously sin who do manifestly drive away the Ecclesiastical People or Flock from the Election of their Ministers which saith he the false or Counterfeit Popish Bishops do yea they do grievously sin who do impose Bishops and Pastors upon the Church against their will Thus far Polanus agrees in his own words From some of the former Authorities The African Synod Athanasius Cornelius and others The Presbyterian Divines in their Book called Smectimnius admits this power to reside in the People of particular Churches and that by Divine Authority They say First That the especial power of Judging of the Worthiness or Unworthiness lay in the People Secondly That the power of choosing or refusing them upon this Judgment resided in the People Thirdly That the power descended upon them by Divine Authority Athanasius say they in his Epist ad Orthodoxos blamed the Intrusion of Bishops as against the Apostolical Precepts against the Canon and compelled the Heathen to Blaspheme Mr. Prin in his Book of un-bishoping Timothy and Titus p. 69. affirms this out of Alcuvinus de Diviniis Officiis Cap. 37. That Ministers of all sorts were made to the Year 800 by this Election of Clergy and People and that they were all present at their Ordination and consented to it Also he affirms in p. 72 73. That Martin Bucer in his Book of recalling and bringing in again the use of Lawful Ordination saith That this power is in the People Much more might be produced to prove this particular See only Magdeb. Cent. 4. cap. 6. col 43. Concil Trident. in English Lib. 8. p. 725. Lib. 7. p. 591. 598. Lib. 6. p. 404 405. And as to imposition of Hands upon these thus chosen Mr. Prin in the same Book p. 72 73. quotes Jerome Epist to Evagr. and his Comment upon Titus for this That the Ancient Consecration of Bishops

themselves the name of the Church as invested with authority to make Laws to impose upon others in these Church matters For if a fourth Church on Earth distinct from the three descriptions above be not found and proved to be vested with this power and capable to execute it according to Christs mind none of these three did ever execute any such Power the two first never made Laws since they grew to big to meet in one place the third never made any to be binding or observed further than in and by the same Congregation or Society where they were made and by whom they were agreed to It is true we find That other Churches liking the Rules of some one Church did imitate them and agree of the same in their Churches also as Socrat. ●n his Eccles Hist lib. 5. cap. 21. p. 351. c. affirms That in those dayes there were diversities of Observations and Rites in several Churches without any forcing of any but every Church as it seemed good to them and that such as liked those Rites did commend them to their Posterity for Laws And Mr. Thorndike in his Book called the true way of composing differences pag. 26 27. saith That if a part of a Church speaking there of a National Church as men tearm it shall give Law to the whole such part that so doth for so doing are Schismatick If therefore any particular Church being but a part of the whole in his sence should make Rules for the whole or if it be said that the Convocation or Synod is such a Church who have this Power to make Laws for the whole these also are but a part of the Church in Mr. Thorndikes sence and but a little part too If these therefore shall give Laws to the whole then hear what Thorndike saith If yet they say This is the whole Church in their Representative Answer first cannot justly call themselves the Representative of the whole for they were neither chosen nor sent by the whole nor did the whole ever intrust them with any such Power Nor were they chosen sent and intrusted by the particular Churches of the whole without which in any rational way they cannot be supposed to be the whole Church in her Representative no nor the Church of England in her Representative if not so sent chosen and intrusted by the particular Churches thereof as above nor will they we presume challenge any authority from Christ immediately derived upon their persons to be the Churches Representative and to make Laws for them But Secondly If it should be granted though against all reason that they do indeed represent the Church of England yet then it must be proved by the Word of God or very good authority that any such Representative was called the Church and so accounted and hath such power to make Laws for many Churches or Congregations by Divine-right and to whose Laws those Churches were bound to give obedience for Conscience sake If that in Acts 15. be urged it seems to be altogether impertinent unlesse they will make the Apostles and whether all or some only we cannot determine the Elders of the Church in Jerusalem and all the brethren of that Church a Convocation or Synod And such another we can hardly find now adayes that this was so and no other is apparent from the very Text for all these met together about the matter and it is said verse 22. It pleased the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church to send chosen men of their own Company c. cheif men amongst the brethren and in the next verses we find That the Apostles Elders and Brethren wrote about the matter and say It seems good to us being assembled together with one accord to send c. here the brethren were as much the Convocation as the Elders But then also consider the causes why the Church at Antioch sent to this Church at Jerusalem about this matter and why they in Jerusalem write their mind again to them they are two The first may be Supposed that is because there were some of the Apostles the second is Expressed that is because those men who came to Antioch and preached the Circumcision there pretended that they came from Jerusalem from the Apostles and whole Church there with this Doctrine therefore was there great reason why they should apply themselves to them to be resolved of the truth in that matter for about the same question Paul and Barnabas had before disputed at Antioch and also mark the matter they write about it hath a suitableness to that which they had desired to be resolved in The epistle tells them that they who wrote the Epistle had given no such commands to those men to teach such things ver 24. And further That it seemed good to the Holy Ghost to lay no greater burthen upon them than such necessary things therein mentioned which things were necessary to be abstained from because the use of them would then have offended and fornication was sin in it self and by the way note here are no new things required to be done of those but somewhat they should forbear to do because by doing it they may offend such who could not judge it to be lawfully done and sin Here now is not the least footsteps for such a Synod as the Convocation our Council of Bishops or Ministers as a Church to make lawes which shall be binding to any more than themselves who agree to them For the Church at Jerusalem had such a thing fallen out with them as did at Antioch That some had come from Paul and Barnabas and that Church with false Doctrine unto them might as well have written to them at Antioch to have been resolved And Paul and Barnabas and the Elders and Brethren of that Church of Antioch might have written an Answer to them with equall authority Nay but is there ground to give like credit or subjection to a Rule of any Convocation or Synod now as there was to the Apostles in those days Surely No But if it be said that they are the Churches Representative and their Lawes are the Lawes of the Church by humane authority only then it will be necessary to prove That such who take upon them to make Churches and Convey power to them by their Lawes have such a power delegated to them from Jesus Christ so to do Otherwise their Lawes will not creat such a Church with authority in these cases and to whose Laws obedience is to be expected for Conscience sake The old Rule must be remembered None can give to another that he hath not in himself But if it be said that the Governours of the Churches of a Nation or Kingdome with the Magistrates authority have power to determine of matters indifferent in their owne nature about the worship of God and in Church Government and by Law to impose them upon the particular Churches of that Nation For Answer to this first we think it a

THE DISCIPLINE AND ORDER Of Particular CHURCHES NO NOVELTY Proved from Scripture Reason Antiquity and the most Eminent Modern DIVINES OR A Discourse of the Church in a Scripture Notion with her Extent Power and Practice tending to Moderate the Minds of Men toward Dissenters in Matters Ecclesiastical and to acquit such from the Charge of Innovation Faction Separation Schism and Breach of Union and Peace in the Church who cannot conform in many things to the Rules Canons and Practices of others By a Lover of Truth Peace Unity and Order London Printed Anno Dom. M.DC.LXXV THE DISCIPLINE AND ORDER OF Particular CHURCHES no Novelty c. THE Church of God since the days of the Gospel was and is according to Scripture-expressions either first the whole Body of Christ consisting of all the Elect See the disputation against Campion at the Tower Sep. 18. 1581. in the Morn by Tulk. and Goad as Eph. 5.23 Christ the head of the Church the Saviour of the Body ver 27. That he might present to himself a Glorious Church ver 25. Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it So Heb. 12.22 23. To the General Assembly and Church of the First born written in Heaven c. Col. 1.18 He is the Head of the Body the Church c. Dr. Carleton sometime Bishop of Chichester in his little Piece Called A Direction to know the true Church p. 3. saith That the Saints before the Law under the Law and under Grace make up the Body of Christ or Members of the Church and that this is the Catholick Church Or Secondly the Universal Visible Church or whole Visible Body of Believers upon the whole Earth at the same time as Acts 2.42 The Lord added to the Church daily Mr. Baxter Cure of Church-Divisions p. 82. Ho●ke● Eccl. Polity third Book p. 88. c. So Eph. 3.21 Vnto him be Glory in the Church by Christ Jesus throughout all Ages Or Thirdly a particular Congregation Society or Company of Professors of the Faith of Jesus Christ usually meeting together in one place as one Body for the participation of the same Ordinances and Exercising the same Duty as a Church in Edifying one another Reynolds in his Conference with Hart Cap. 6. p. 218. saith That a Bishop in our sence is him to whom the Over-fight and charge of a particular Church is committed such as Ephesus Philippi and the seven Churches Prayer c. Such as was the Church in Jerusalem Acts 11.22 Tydings came to the Ears of the Church which was in Jerusalem and they sent forth Barnabas and others c. That this was but one Congregation is evident from Act. 15. where Paul and Barnabas and others coming from Antioch to this Church they were received by the Church first and then the Apostles and Elders The Apostles Elders and Brethren the whole Multitude were present at the Discourse of the Matter and the Epistle wrote in the name of the whole Apostles Elders and Brethren met together with one accord ver 25. Such was the Church of Antioch which was gathered together Acts 14.27 when Paul and Barnabas came and with whom they had Assembled before a whole year Acts 11.26 And were afterwards gathered together to receive and hear the Epistle Acts 15.30 Such were the Churches which the Apostles visited and ordained Elders in Acts 14.23 for they did it by suffrage Likewise the Church in Corinth 1 Cor. 1 2. Vnto the Church of God in Corinth These met in one place 1 Cor. 5. 1 Cor. 11.18.20.23 Cap. 14.23 So the Church at Cenchrea near Corinth See Smect p. 40 41. 47 58 59. Bishop Jewels Reply to Harding p. 230. And Mr. Stillingfleet quotes Pareus in Rom. 16. for this that the Church of Corinth did meet sometimes at Cenchrea because of the violence of their Enemies in Corinth Therefore also when the Apostles spake any where of the Assemblies or Societies of Believers in any one Country they call them not a Church in the singular Number or the Church of such a Country or Isle but Churches as of many in the same Country as in Judea Macedonia Galatia Asia 1 Thes 2.14 2 Cor. 8.1.18.23 24. Gal. 1.2.22 The Holy Ghost mentions seven Churches by name in Asia Rev. 1.4 Ch. 2. Ch. 3. And as to this the same Bishop Carleton in the same Book p. 2. saith That particular Churches are visible Assemblies c. and Governed by divers visible heads and proves it by Gregory Lib. 4. Epist 3. A fourth Church in Scripture Phrase cannot be found since the time that all in every Nation which fear God are accepted as the Apostle said Acts 10.34 35. Such as National Provincial Synodical c. We read not in Scripture nor in any Church History for many years after Christ of any Church distinct from these Descriptions before given Now it is to be presumed that there are none who will affirm that the first of these three Churches could possibly meet together or do any Act as a Church either in choosing Officers determining Controversies Ordering things indifferent to Edification giving Interpretations of Scriptures partaking of Ordinances and casting out of Offenders c. Or that ever any such Power was derived down from Christ upon them as a Church so to do or that he ever intended this Church when he directs any thing to be done by the Church as such because of the utter impossibility of their performance thereof as a Church part of which being already fallen asleep and part not yet born Also it may be concluded as to the second Church above described that it is utterly impossible they should at any time meet together as a Church in one Body to agree upon consent unto Act or Order any thing according to the power given to the Churches as above joyntly as such a Church or partake of Ordinances joyntly as such Nay it 's improbable if not impossible that in their Representative this Church should meet and put themselves into a capacity to Act as a Church in any of the things to be done by a Church as such Nay was there ever any such meeting of this Church None as can be found in Story Or if this were possible where have we Authority of Scripture or Primitive Practice to justifie such a Company of Representatives to call themselves a Church in this sence and to take to themselves the Power of the whole Church given to her by Jesus Christ and to call their Acts the Acts of the Church And it would be strange for any to affirm that Christ hath put the Power as to the Execution of it into the hands of a Body that can never possibly be able to Execute the Power derived upon If any number of Men would colourably make themselves the Churches Representative It is necessary they should be chosen by the whole and some one at least for every particular Church Body Society or Congregation throughout the World as the Messengers

he tells this Church in general that they did affect Eusebius and would have Elected him to be their Bishop and then he perswades them to choose another seeing all did not agree therefore saith he not Lawful because saith he he that is Elected to a Bishoprick by the general Suffrage of Wise men assembled to deliberate thereof ought by Gods Law to enjoy it This is Recorded in Eusebius of the Life of Constantine Lib. 3. cap. 58. p. 52. Yea the great Nicene Councel agree it in these words expressed in Socrat. Lib. 1. cap. 6. p. 225. Speaking about some who might be in a Capacity of being made Ministers they say if they be found worthy and the People choose them they may Succeed the Deceased c. Yet further it 's manifest by the same History That where any one Congregation did divide into two Bodies each apart chose their own Bishops for themselves as in the Case of the Church of Antioch Socrat. Lib. 5. Cap. 9. p. 343. Lib. 4. cap. 1. p. 316. So in many other Cases when those of the true Faith had Bishops imposed upon them by the Arrians they divided themselves from the Arrians and chose to themselves Bishops and Assembled alone And it is observable That all these Bishops thus chosen and appointed of the People of these particular Churches were still acknowledged as Lawful Bishops by all and in all the Councels mentioned in those Histories Nor do we find the least Objection any where Recorded in those days against such who came thus to this Office as being unlawfully called To this Practice of the particular Churches and their Right thereto the Fathers give in their Testimonies also a touch of them therefore Tertul. in his Apol. to the Gent. Cap. 39. p. 137. English Translation saith That in these Assemblies there are Bishops that preside they are approved of by the Suffrage of them whom they ought to conduct So saith many others Possidon in vita Aug. Cap. 4. Leo. 1. Epist 95. quoted by the Magdeburg Divines Cent. 2. cap. 7. col 134 135. Cent. 1. Lib. 1. cap. 4. col 179. Cent. 3. cap. 6. col 146 147. The Roman Presbiters in their Epistle to Cyrian affirm that every Church hath a like Power of Choosing Calling and Ordaining Ministers and for just cause again to depose them Cyprian Lib. 1. Epist 4. Aug. Epist 100. Cyprian Epist 68. And Cyprian himself saith That the right of choosing such as are fit and refusing the unworthy belong to the People and whole Church and that by Divine Authority And that the Officers and People did consult about it with common consent And for these things he is quoted by the Magdeburg Writers Cent. 3. cap. 7. col 153.173 174 175. Cap. 6. col 135 136.146 and also that the People did consider the Life and Manners of the Persons to be chosen and judge and much more to this purpose in those places before John Ferus a Fryer in his Comment upon Act. 11. and Magdeburg Cent. 5. cap. 6. col 178 179 180. Now we shall add a few Testimonies and Judgments of latter Ages and of Men otherwise differing The Papists themselves at the Councel of Trent acknowledged that this was the usual Practice of the Church of God for 800 Years together after Christ for the particular Churches to choose their own Ministers and they then affirmed that there were remaining at that day the Records thereof at Rome and they then and there desired that those Records might be destroyed lest Luther who maintained this Right to the People should make use of them to bring in the Custom into the Church again And they there also acknowledge that this was taken from the Church by the Authority of a Council only who made a Decree against it See the Conference of Rayno'ds Hart c. 6. p. 223. Hart saith out of Genebrard that Clemens took not the Bishoprick by the Councel of the Lord least the Example of taking it by nomi●ation of Peter should pass to posterity and derogate from the free providence of the Church in choosing of her own Bishop Geneb●ard Chronolg l. 3. in Lin. See more l. 4. Seculo 11. Cited in the same Confer Cap. 7. l ●76 Concil Trident. in English Lib 7. p. 590 591.598 See more of the same Council Lib. 8. p. 725. And he that wrote this History complains against Rome about this in these words The Church of Rome grant not the People the Election of their Ministers which certainly saith he was an Apostolical Institution continued more than 800 Years Concil Trident. Lib. 2. p. 163. Bishop Jewel in his Reply to Mr. Harding p. 230. Saith out of Cyprian Lib. 1. Epist 4. That the Bishoprick was bestowed upon Sabinus by the consent and voices of the whole Brother-hood of that Church to which he was to be Bishop He there saith that Honorius the Emperour Writing to Boneface doth agree him to be Bishop whom some of the Clergy and whole Brother-hood shall choose And the Bishop himself then there affirms from hence that every particular Church is called the whole Church And after in p. 282. The Bishop affirms that Cyprian in the same place saith That the People being Obedient to Gods Law have Power especially to choose worthy or refuse unworthy Priests Mr. Stillingfleet in his Irenicum p. 306. quotes Tertul. Exhort Castil c. 7. for these words That all the difference between the Ministers and People comes from the Churches Authority and again p. 416. himself saith That Episcopal men will hardly find any evidence in Scripture or the Practice of the Apostles for Churches consisting of many fixed Congregations for Worship under the Charge of one man nor in the Primitive Church for the Ordination of Bishops without the preceding Election of the Clergy and at least consent and approbation of the People so much he allows there and something more in p. 339. where he useth these words speaking of Elders now the voyce of the People which was used in the Primitive times is grown out of use c. by which he confesseth it to be the Primitive Practice But Mr. Stillingfleet having as he saith been at the pains to transcribe some of Bishop Cranmer's words they will serve well here and we shall again transcribe so much of them as speaks to this particular See them in the same Irenicum p. 391 392. They are these That in the Apostles time when there were no Christian Princes by whose Authority Ministers of Gods Word might be appointed nor sins be corrected by the Sword there was no Remedy then for correction of Vice or appointment of Ministers but only the consent of Christian Multitude amongst themselves by an uniform consent to follow the Advice and perswasion of such Persons whom God had most endued with the Spirit of Wisdom and Councel c. Sometimes the Apostles and others unto whom God had given abundance of his Spirit sent or appointed Ministers of Gods

matter of no small difficulty for either Magistrates or Governours of Churches or both together to determine what things are so indifferent in their own Nature about the worship of God and as to their use and practice that they must needs be so accounted by all the members of the Churches there Hookers Eccles Polity in the Preface For this is Necessary in this Case Christs Law Rom. 14. being clear in this That if any absolutely indifferent thing used or imposed be really an offence to weak Christians that is when such weak ones do upon serious thoughts judge the things themselves in their own nature not indifferent or else as they are used and circumstantiated but sinfull or suspitious in this case they may not be used by other Christians much lesse imposed For if these weak ones should do this when imposed while they thus judge they should sin And for such as look upon these things and impose them as indifferent they may without the least scruple lay aside the use of them themselves and much more dispense with others for not using them For a thing purely indifferent may as well not be used as used especially when they prove an offence to others If men choose to obey God rather than Men. Thus saith Mr. Stillingfleet in his Irenicum p. 63. That nothing should be determined but what is sufficiently known to be indifferent in its own nature and he there confesseth that there is a great difficulty to know sufficiently what is so and gives this as his reason because one looks upon that to be indifferent which another doth not And again in p. 118. 119. See Doctor More in Book called the Mistery of Godliness Book 10. c. 10. p. 515 516 c. treating of liberty of Conscence He saith that the power of Governours in these things extends not to bind men to go against the dictates of their own Reason and Consciences and again there saith he when all is said every man will be his own judge in this case concerning his own welfare and that an erroneous Conscience takes not off the obligation to follow the dictates thereof So that from this were there no other thing in the case but that men do differently judge of the same things both as they are in their own nature and also in their use and ends Church Governours would find it work enough to determine such things so as it cannot be an offence to any which thing must be regarded if Christs Law be had in any reverence Yet further there are many other considerable things in this case as to their use and ends and as those things determined may be circumstantiated As first when things determined to be used in the matters of Gods Worship do not in truth answer the ends of their use and whereto they were determined above others as for Edification Decency Order and Peace in the Church and in these cases also every man must be his own judge whether it doth in truth lead to those ends or not they may be offensive and then if the Apostle Paul may be judge they are not to be used for the totall laying aside and not using such things at all will tend most to Peace and Edification Rom. 14.10 and thus the Fathers in former ages judged for which Mr. Stillingfleet in his aforesaid Book p. 68. 69. Quotes Aug. Epist 119. ad Jan. Cap. 19. for this that he desires there that such things might be taken away and useth these words as his reasons That although we cannot positively say how such things as those do manifestly impugne our Faith yet in that they load our Religion with servile Burthens which the mercy of God hath left free that they make our condition worse than that of the Jews for they although strangers to Gospel liberty had no burthen charged upon them by the constitutions of men but only by the lawes and commandments of God And again p. 61 62. he Quotes Ambros and Augustine against imposing of things indifferent upon this very ground because they answer not the ends intended but produced the contrary effects and he therefore cites these words of August to this purpose I saith Aug. have often found it to my grief and sorrow that the troubles of weaker Christians have been caused by the contentious obstinacy of some on the one hand and the superstitious fearfullness of others on the other in things which are neither determined by the authority of Holy Scripture nor by Custome of the Vniversall Church nor yet by any usefullnesse of the things themselves in order to the making of mens lives better only for some petty reason in a mans own mind or because it hath been the Custome of their Country or because they have found it so in other Churches they raise such quarrells and Contentions that they think nothing Right or Lawfull but what they doe themselves See the Conference of R●ynolds with Hart c. 8. p. 510. Raynolds maintains it to be duty to remove such things as our fathers set up if turned to error and superstition and quo●es the Canon Law Dist 63. for it Secondly Another thing may make the use of indifferent things about Gods worship unlawful as to their use that is where they are used by the generality of people not as indifferent things but as necessary with an opinion that their worship is not perfect except it be performed after the manner determined which is an abuse of them It is true the Papists say of their Images they are but indifferent things yet it is well known that the generality of them do not so esteem of them which Mr. Stillingfleet also fully agrees in the same Book p. 64. So it is certainly known amongst us Protestants that the generality do look upon and esteem of many things indifferent in their own nature determined and long in use as necessary so that they think no part of Gods Worship or Church affairs well performed or perfect if not exactly done according to that rule determined and in use and therefore will not willingly do any thing otherwise though they were never Compelled to it by law which indeed hath been the ordinary effect of a Constant use of any indifferent thing about worship or Church matters that people by Custome and Usage drink down an opinion of the necessity of their use and cannot endure their removal Wherefore that indifferent things might be still known to be so and so accounted they should be used indifferently and not the same constantly to prevent this superstitious and Idolatrous opinion men apt to have of them by their countenance Bishop Jewel in his reply to Harding p. 542. said that many Hereticks plead nothing but that they were born in lived in that which they now practise and received it from their Fathers Now for others to use these things otherwise in●ndifferent in themselves is to harden these in their error and superstitious opinion Thirdly This also may