of Laws Institutions not of the appointment of Christ contrary thereunto who is the Fountain of all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Church-Politie That Mr. T. sees such a Supream Governour to be agreeable to the Scriptures produced by him must be imputed to that acuteness of his whereby he may be supposed to tâ—anscend the rest of his Neighbours Ille solus sapiens reliqui velut umbra vagantur Of Rom. 13. 1. we have already spoken Though the Church be comprized under every soul yet it doth not follow that Magistrates are the Heads or such Supream Governours of the Church as are invested with power for the establishing and instituting of parts of Worship or commanding them in any thing relating to Worship as such of which the Apostle speaks not a tittle in that place Civil subjection as subjects of the Empire is the utmost can rationally from thence be argued for Those that were then Rulers and Governours were such as Nero Domitian who persecuted the Church design'd to root the Worship of Christ out of the world were Idolaters establisheâ— by force and violence an Heathenish Idolatrous Worship whom Christ never intended to intrust with any such power which is a sufficient answer to 1 Pet. 2. 13. which is exponed by our Annotat. Of Civil Government 1 Tim. 2. 2. is impertinently cited That because the Apostle there exhorts that Prayers be made for Kings therefore they have Ecclesiastical Power and Soveraignty committed to them over the Churches of Christ is a consequence that the very reciting of is confutation sufficient When I ascribe as he talks as much power to the Church as he doth to the King and Bishops I know not That I should make the Church the Head of the Church which is downright nonsense is not probable For the present I must crave leave to tell him he is utterly mistaken I ascribe no power of inventing Rites and Ceremonies devising Laws and Constitutions of their own relating to Worship as such to any one Church or Churches in the World I challenge him to make good his assertion I dispute against it as well as I can in S. T. Chap. 5. pag. 41 42. Whatever power I ascribe to the Church 't is only such as Christ hath entrusted her with that this should be as much a denial of Christ's Kingly Office as the ascription of a power over the Churches of Christ to any to whom he hath not committed such a power Mr. T. will not in hast be able to prove We further reply in S. T. 2dly The Headship pleaded for by the Church of Rome is no other viz. than a Head-ship under Christ To this Mr. T. 1. I grant the Church of Rome pleads for no other Headship But 2. They usurpe a power in some respects superiour to Christ in their dispensing with the keeping of lawful Oaths allowing of Incestuous Marriages Answ And the same may be said of the Heads of the Church of England I suppose this Animadverter may be yet of the mind that the Oath of the Solemn League and Covenant was a lawful Oath yet that can be dispensed with Marriages prohibited are not seldom allowed of by their Ecclesiastical jurisdiction We add 3dly 'T is not so as is pretended they own an Headship that is not in all things subordinate to Christ having a Law-making and a Law-giving Power touching Institutions of Worship that never came into his heart are flatly against his appointments as hath been proved We add in S. T. 4thly One Head in subordination to another doth as really make the Body a Monster as two Heads conjoyned To this Mr. T. The terms Head and Body being used only Metaphorically there 's no more Monstrosity in making a Head under a Head than in making a Governour under a Governour Answ 1. Should it be granted there were no Monstrosity in the thing it self yet there is in the expression in the Title an argument it was never from the Spirit of the Lord. 2. Bernard is of another mind Thou makest a Monster saith he if removing the hand thou makest the Finger to hang on the Head Thou makest the Body of Christ a Monster if thou placest the Members of his Body otherwise than he hath placed them in the Church Lib. 3. cap. 10. Con. ad Eugen. Much more to take a Beast a Lion or Bear as wicked and graceless men are whom yet Mr. T. seeâ—s to allow for Heads in the Churches of Christ and place them not only as Members in but as Heads over though under Christ the Church of God 3. The making of a Governour under a Governour in the Common-weale hath no Monstrosity in it because agreeable to the Will of God Principles of State-polity which a Head under a Head in the Church hath because dissonant contrary to the Law and Soveraignty of Christ its Supream Independant and alone Head A second Objection is in S. T. thus proposed by us That the Kings of Israel were the Heads succesively of the then Church and therefore a visible Headship over the Churches of Christ in the New Testament is lawful To which we Answer 1. That betwixt the Oeconomy of the Law and Gospel there is a vast disproportion many things were of old lawful which now to practice were no less than a denial of Christ come in the flesh 2. The Kings of Israel were Types of Christ which notwithstanding Mr. T. dictates that it is falsly and vainly asserted Sect. 14. till he prove the contrary we take for truths What he speaks with reference to the Kings of Israel and England we are unconcerned in That the Rulers of the Jews or any other Nations had de jure any such Dominion or Power over their Subjects as to make Laws introduce Constitutions of their own framing in matters relating to Worship and compel them by force and violence to subject thereunto Mr. T. hath not proved Isa 44. 28. Is a Prophesie of the Liberty the Jews should obtain under Cyrus to go up to Jerusalem to build the Temple of the fulfilling whereof you have an account Ezra 1. 1 2 3. But not a tittle of his Dominion about things sacred or introducing Constitutions relating to their Worship as such or compelling any to go up to Jerusalem is there mentioned He only removes the Babylonian yoke that was upon them and sets them at liberty to build the Temple of the Lord which the Kings before him would not grant them to do and Worship him according to his own appointments Isa 45. 1. is impertinently alledged relating only to the Victories and Conquests the Lord would afford unto Cyrus over the Cities and Nations of the World Jonah 3. 7 8. gives us an account of a Decree published by order of the King for a solemnization of a Fast and to turn from â—mpiety but this comes short of the proof of the Headship argued for which is an Headship having power of making and giving forth Laws touching Institutions of Worship Orders Rites
is to be served after that way that pleaseth him best That â—he Will of God who is the alone Master of the House not man is solely to be heeded in the Ordering of his Family and Houshold Mr. T. would take it ill should I prescribe Rules to him for the well-ordering of his Family and that without his Licence and that after I know he hath Constituted and appointed Laws himself for that very end And yet I conceive he is not so far above me as the great and only wise God is above the mightiest and wisest of mortals So that whilest he would avoid the horns of the Dilemma that of the Poet is verified of him Incidit in Scyllam qui vult vitare Carybdim Nor do I see how he avoids the horns of the Dilemma by what he replies in this matter The Rulers Ecclesiâ—stical are either when they make Laws binding the Conscience indirectly bounded in their so doing by Scripture or they are not i. â— they must impose no Laws upon us without Scripture Precept or they may If the first we are bound to obey them no further than they are able to evince the justness and righteousness of their Commands upon the account of their being bottomed upon the Scripture Then no Obligation lies upon us to observe the Canons Ceremonies of the Church of England any further than they can manifest their Observation commanded therein then she and her Ministers do wickedly to Excommunicate Imprison Ruine us for not yeelding subjection when and where none is due If the second then whatever Ceremonies they introduce under the notion of Decency and Order that are not contrary to the Scripture must be subjected to which is an open in-let to the whole Farrago of Popish Inventions We fear the General Rules in Scripture the Laws of Nature right Reason other laudable Customs that Mr. T. tells us must be observed in this matter will be but a weak defence against them For who shall be judge of their consonancy to these Principles Shall every man be judge for himself This our Rulers think to be absurd and contrary to the Principles asserted by our Animadverter to be observed If our Governours they will tell us whatever they impose 't is consonant to all the forementioned Principles that we subject to them therein Ask our Bishops they will tell you so with respect to the whole of their Popish-English-Canon-Laws and Ceremonies Ask Mr. T. and he will tell you little less than That a blind obedience should be yeelded to them in undetermined particularities Chap. 1. Sect. 1. Ask the Pope and his Conclâ—ve they will tell you 'T is consonant to the fore-mentioned Principles that we subject to all his Ceremonies Nor indeed can we say of most of them that they are more dissonant to right reason than some that are retained amongst us So that the horns of the Dilemma are piercing the heart of the Cause whose defence Mr. T. hath undertaken We further argue in S. T. Yet were this also yeelded them they were never a jot nearer the mark aimed at except it can be proved that supposing a power of introducing Ceremonies to be invested in the Church thence a power for the Institution of new Orders and Ordinances the introducing of Heathenish Jewish and Superstitious practices in the Worship of God may be evinced And yet should all this be yeelded them how will they prove the Constitutions mentioned to be the Constitution of a right constituted Church a National Church the Church of England is not so Yet if all this were granted where are the Constitutions of this Church that we may pay the homage to them that is meet When was it assembled in the same place together in its several Members freely to debate and determine what Laws and Constitutions were fit to be observed by them If it be said That it is enough that it be assembled in its several Officers or such as shall be chosen by their Officers whose Laws every Member is bound to be obedient to We Answer But these Officers being not the Church nor are true Officers of a right constituted Church any where so called in the Scripture I owe no subjection to their Laws or Constitutions it being pleaded that 't is the Church that hath only power in this matter It remaineth therefore notwithstanding what is pleaded in this Objection That the present Ministers of England own Laws and Constitutions that are not in any sence of Christ's revealing and therefore oppose the Kingly and Prophetical Office of Christ To which Mr T. 1. I do not plead for the Constitutions of the Church of England Answ But the framers of the Objection proposed do Which if Mr. T. will justifie he must also plead for them but I shall not coâ—pel him to a warfare he is not willing to engage in he may take his liberty to stand by and look on but then he had done fairly not to have pretended to justifie what he scarce speaks a word to The impertinent Questions he speaks of are pertinent to the Objection and Objectors we have to deal with What he hath spoken of a National Church in answer to the Preface Sect. 15. we have removed out of the way by our Reply thereunto He tells us 2dly That the Church of England was Assembled at London in its several Members by Deputation freely to debate things at was the usage of the Synods in the antient times as the Kingdom is said to meet in the Parliament so the whole Church may be said to meet in their Synod Answ 1. No doubt Mr. T. and his Abettors thinks he hath now spoken to the purpose indeed but the emptiness of the whole is soon manifested No Synods whether antient or new can be supposed to represent the Church but upon the account of the free Election of the persons constituting them and deputation by the Members of that Church which they represent Whosoever is sent by the Church represents the person of the Church saith the Learned Whittaker De Concil q. 3. c. 3. p. 103. Yea Bilson himself tells us None are bound to the Council but those who send to the Council No Council doth bind the whole Church except the consent be general Con. Ap. p. 49 51. And Saravia tells us The Council represents no Churches except those who send their Messengers to the Churches Con. Gretz p. 379. Yea in every rightly constituted Synod the Laity as they are called are not to be excluded 'T is a Rule founded in Nature and Reason Quod omnes tangit ab omnibus tractari debet That which concerns all ought to be handled by all Although the Priests and Clerks do alone exercise Judgements Ecclesiastical yet where a matter is agitated that pertains to the Church Universal which consists not only of Clerks but also of Laicks it is not equal that the Laicks or Lay-People should be removed from these deliberations but all Decrees ought rather to be confirmed by
and Bethel was no necessary part of Gods Worship for the same reason but it was of Jeroboams when once established and commanded by him The case is the same here Liturgical Forms are no necessary parts of Gods Worship because no where commanded by him but are of the Lyturgists Worship because established by Law And this is all we affirm they are the necessary parts of that Worship which is managed and carrâ—ed on by them which they suppose is the Worship of God What he adds from the Preface of the Common-Prayer-Book That particular Forms of Divine Worship and the Rites and Ceremonies appointed to be used therein are things in their own nature indifferent and alteraâ—le makes not void what we have asserted it rather establisheth it For 1st The same may be said of many acknowledged essential parts of Divine Worship Circumcision Sacrificing yet alterable and abolished If it be said that none could abolish them but God the answer is easie nor can any abolish the Lyturgical Forms and Rites but only those who have such Authority as that by which they were imposed who are to the Lyturgists as Vice-Godds We add in S. T. 2dly That the present Ministers of England make the Liturgy or Common-Prayer-Book-Worship a principal part yea the whole Worship of God Whence we conclude That the present Ministers of England worshipping God in the way thereof which he hath not prescribed they are Idolaters To which Mr. T. 1. He doth not think its true that any Minister of England would affirm the Common-Prayer-Book to be an essential part of Worship Answ But what Mr. T. thinks in this matter is not considerable the truth of the assertion is notoriously known and he may as well tell us they disown the Cross in Baptism which they are daily in the practice of He adds 2dly If it were they do not think it an essential part of Worship by virtue of Gods Command but they conceive they ought to obey their Governours Laws not judging others who use it not Answ 1. This is not at all ad Rhombum Jeroboam's Priests and those Apostatick Worshippers that struck in with him did not account sacrificing at Dan and Bethel an essential part of Worship by virtue of Gods Command but the Kings 2. To obey their Governours in such things as these Mr. T. saith is bottomed upon Christ's Command and if so whilst they account it their duty from divine Precept to subject to their Governours imposing it upon them as an essential part of Worship they do little less than account it to be so by virtue of Divine Command 3. I wonder with what forehead Mr. T. could say They judge not others who use it not when their Pulpits ring with invectives against them and they will not suffer them to preach but Excommunicate and Imprison them for no other reason but because they will not conform to it Sect. 5. A second Argument proving the Ministers of England Idolaters They act in holy things by virtue of an office-Office-power received from Idolaters and offer up to him a Worship abused to Idolatry with the Modes and Rites of Idolaters All will-worship Idolatry The testimony of the Antients c. The Romish Church Idolaters their worship Idolatry The present Ministers act by virtue of an office-Office-power received from that Idolatrous Church Com. -Prayer-Book-Worship Idolatry The Rites used by the Ministers Idotrous Rites in themselves indifferent when once abused to Idolatry not to be used proved The Testimony of the Learned touching this matter A Second Argument proving the Ministers of England Idolaters is in S. T. thus formed Those who act in the holy things of God by virtue of an office-Office-power received from-Idolaters and offer up to him a Worship neerly of Humane composition once abused to Idolatry with the Modes and Rites of Idolaters are themselves such But the present Ministers of England do so Therefore In the Major two things are asserted 1st That such as act in the holy things of God by virtue of an Office-power received from Idolaters are themselves such at least in respect of that their Office-power Jeroboams Priests being Idolaters those that acted by virtue of an Office-power from them must needs be so as those who act by virtue of authority to them committed from Rebels in matters civil are equally guilty of Rebellion as those from whom they derive that their authority This Mr. T. denies But 1. for the ground of his denial noâ—hing is offered but Dictates built upon this mistake That none can be accounted Idolaters but such as exhibit Divine Worship to the Creature The vanity of which is before evinced 2dly I desire at his leisure to be informed whether there be any truth in that Maxime One cannot give that to another that he hath not himself If the Idolater communicate an Office-power to another and he have none himself but that which is Idolatrous he doth most assuredly communicate an Idolatrous Office-power to him That persons acting from authority received from Rebels if under hand they design the restitution of their Prince are not to be accounted Rebels as he saith is an assertion 1. That will scarce pass for truth amongst the learned of the Law 2. Impertinent For 1. The present Ministers act from such an authority for the support of Antichristian Courts oppressive diabollical Usurpations and Prerogatives for the keeping out their lawful Prince Christ Jesus 2. They justify their acting from the authority aforesaid refuse to act from any other contemn and despise it 2dly That worshipping God by a Form meerly of humane composition with the Rites and Modes of Idolaters is Idolatry those that so worship him are Idolaters Mr. T. replies That this makes not Idolaters unless there be Idolatry in the Form and the Rites be Idolatrous in the Use Answ 1. This he speaks without proof 2. Upon this mistake that there is no other Idolatry but the giving of Divine honour to the Creature 3. All will-worship is Idolatry so saith August de Consens Evang. Lib. 1. Cap. 18. Vazq de Adorat Lib. 2. Disput 1. Cap. 3. Dr. Bils ag Apol. p. 4. p. 344. and Mr. T. denies not such a worshipping God as that mentioned to be will-worship What he adds That it is not true that they are Idolaters who use that which is of divine appointment to the right use because Idolaters abused it to Idolatry Those may do well to take notice of that are concerned in it For our parts we say no such thing the allegation is impertinent to the matter in hand the Form used in the English Liturgy is not of Divine appointment nor the Rites thereof neither will Mr. T. have the confidence to assert they are That I any where revoke that assertion of mine That few or none worship the Creature terminativè is Mr. T. his mistake 'T is true pag. 65. I say That Bellarmine affirms that the Images themselves terminate the veneration given to them as they are in
themselves considered But this is but one Doctors opinion retracted by him de Sac. Euch. l. 4. c. 29. where he asserts that which is contrary thereunto should two or three more be remarked of the same mind with him they amount but to a few in comparison of the generality of mankind otherwise minded The Minor Proposition viz. That the present Ministers of England act in the holy things of God by virtue of an office-Office-power received from Idolaters and offer up to him a Worship meerly of humane composition once abused to Idolatry with the Modes and Rites of Idolaters we do in S. T. demonstrate Three things are in this matter argued and evinced 1st That the Romish Church are Idolaters their Worship in the complexion thereof Idolatry This we prove at large and our Animadverter grants it to be true 2dly That the present Ministers of England act by virtue of an Office-power from this combination and Assembly of Idolaters This they themselves will not deny Succession from hence being one of the best pleas they have for the justification of their Ministry This we argue at large in S. T. and Mr. T. after a great many words grants their succession from Rome But adds 2dly That this is not one of their best pleas they have for the justification of their Ministry Answ 1. When they or he for them produce a better it shall be considered this is what they especially plead an Argument 't is one of their best pleas in their account however our Animadvertâ—r thinks otherwise Nor indeed 2dly Do I see how their Episcopal Ordination can be justified without it He conceives 3dly That they will deny that they act by virtue of an Office-power received by succession from the combination of Idolaters in the Church of Rome Answ 1. The derivation of their succession from the Papacy they deny not This their succession pleaded for is a succession of Ministry That they should be so absurd as to acknowledge a succession in respect of their Ministry from them and deny the reception of their Office-power from them which is nothing more or less than their Office of Ministry I cannot imagine What follows in this Sect. hath already been replied to and therefore we shall not further trouble the Reader therewith We say in S. T. 3dly That the present Ministers offer up to God a Worship meerly of Humane composition as the Common-Prayer-Book-Worship hath been proved to be once abused to Idolatry being the Worship of that Church whose worship is so the whole of it being taken out of the Popes Portuis with the Rites and Modes of Idolaters viz. their Holy Vestments Bowings Candles Altars which are the Rites of the Idolatrous Church of Rome and were introduced from thence by Austin the Monk cannot be denied And hence conclude That the present Ministers acting in the holy things of God by virtue of an office-Office-power received from Idolaters and offering up to him a Worship meerly of Humane composition once abused to Idolatry with the Rites and Modes of Idolaters are deeply guilty of Idolatry What Mr. T. replies hereunto Sect. 14. hath for the most part already been removed out of the way 1. The Forms of Prayer in the Service-Book by their Imposition are made an essential part of Worship as we have proved as such they are not agreeable to Gods Word not of Divine but meerly humane composition 2. Had these Forms never been in the Mass-Book being made by their imposition a part of Worship they had been superstitious Idolatrous being an open violation of the second Commandment 3. I wonder at the forehead with which 't is affirmed that the Rites and Modes used in the Church of Rome that are Idolatrous are not observed and used What thinks he of bowing at the Altar the Name of Jesus which Dr. Willet acknowledgeth to be superstitious Idolatrous Synops Papism the 9th gener Contro p. 492 493. as do our Protestants generally kneeling at the receiving of the Sacrament the Cross in Baptism These are some of the Rites used in the Papacy and as so used Mr. T. will not I presume deny them to be Idolatrous 4. The learned Muccovius proves what he asserts That the sacred Rites of Idolaters though they be things in themselves indifferent are †So say our Divines generally to whom Zâ—nchie Junius Pelican Calvin Beza Farrel yea Lyra though a Papist Pezelius Mollerus Zegedinus Danaeus Zepperus Sadael not to be retained because all conformity with Idolaters is to be avoided from Lev. 19. 19 27 28. 21. 5. Deut. 14. 1. The things there interdicted were in themselves indifferent the ground of their interdiction was because they were the sacred Rites of Idolaters as say Salmasius Herodotus l. 3. Maimonides Treat of Idolatry chap. 12. Sect. 7 11. Vatablus Fagius c. I cannot upon this occasion but remind the judicious Reader of what the learned Zanchy writes touching this matter to Q. Eliz. l. 1. Epist p. 431. 'T is not honest saith he that those things which have a long time been used in idolatrous Worship if they are things in themselves indifferent should be retained in the Church with the hazard of the Salvation of the Godly The brazen Serpent which was appointed by the Lord and indeed for the Salvation of Israel because the Isruelites abâ—sed it contrary to the Word of God was by the good King Hezekiah taken away who is greatly praised for it how much more should things and Rites indifferent instituted by men when they decline to Superstition and other abuses be removed which Mr. T. may answer at his leisure Sect. 6. A third Argument proving the Ministers of England Idolatâ—rs That worshipping God in by or before the creature respectivè or with relation to the creature is Idolatry WE advance in S. T. a third Argument to prove the Ministers of England Idolaters which is thus formed Adoration in by or before a creature respectivè or with relation to the creature is idolatrouâ— such as so adore or worship God are Idolaters But the present Ministers of England do adore or worship God in by or before a creature respectivè or with relation to the creature Therefore The major proposition we say is generally owned by Protestants it being the very same Maxime they make use of and stop the mouths of the Papists with in the point of adoring God mediately by the Creature The truth of the minor proposition their bowing and cringing at the Altar their kneeling at the receiving the Sacrament do evince That their kneeling is an adoration or worshipping God before the creature respectivè or with relation to the creature is manifest Nothing being more certain than that the Elements are objectum a quo or the motive of their kneeling which if they were not there they would not do Didoclavius p. 755. tells us That Genuflexion is Idolatry which Maccovius assents to Loc. Com. p. 861. To which Mr. T. Sect. 15. 1. The Author of S. T.
which one of their Reverend Prelates hath been moâ—e than once heard to say That the presence of Christ in the Sacramenâ— is not Symbolical but Realiter and upon that account we give adoration 't is like more are of his mind as horrible Idolatry as bowing before a Crucifix or Image 2. That Christ is not alone the Head of the Church 3. They seem to attribute greater efficacy to the Blood than the Body of Christ whilst they pray That their bodies may be made clean by his Body and their souls by his most precious Blood as they do in the prayer before that which is used at the Consecration 4. That Christ descended into Hell as if he descended into the place of the Damned as â—he Papists hold To which Mr. T. 1. 'T is in the Creed call'd the Apostles Answ 1. This is no part of Scripture Nor 2. ever composed by them whose name it bears Nor 3. is it certain when or by whom it was so done 4. To this very day it was never in any full and general Council confirmed and established So that its being in the Creed proves it not so authentick as that we are bound to believe it 5. What is said by Bishop Usher touching this matter I have not leisure to enquire since it 's put after his burial it can signifie no other descent but into the place of the damned which is as rotten a figment as ever was invented 3. Touching Man 1. They generally own I speak especially of them who are called the Church free-will And 2. an implicite Faith not in words but really and indeed whilst they say We must practise in Worship the determinations of the Church though we our selves see no reason for them because she hath determined them and that this is reason sufficient for our so doing i. e. We must in these things believe â—or Faith must preceed practice in the Worship of God as the Church believes 4. Touching Worship They hold 1. That Worship devâ—sed by man though abused to Idolatry is the Worship of God with which he is well-pleased 2. That God is more particularly to be worship'd in one place than in another and that these places being Consecrated are the Houses and Churches of God and upon that account holy and to be reverenced 3. That reading an Homilie or a few Prayers out of the Liturgie is a more excellent worship of God though no where commanded in the Scriptures than Preaching which must therefore give way to it 4. That none must be suffered publickly to worship God or privately except in their own Families but according to Forms of mans devising Which 5. they say Is the Worship of God 5. Touching the Sacraments 1. They seem to intimate that there are more than two when they say there are two only generally necessary to salvation 2. That Women may Baptize in casu necessitatis as the Papists hold and that such Baptism is valid 3. That Baptism is to be administred with a Cross in the fore-head 4. That all Children when baptized are regenerate and received by the Lord for his own Children by adoption Common-Prayer-Book of Publick Baptism 5. That Children being baptized have all things necessary for their salvation and shall undoubtedly be saved 6. That all that are baptized have received remission of sins Confirmation before the imposition of hands 7. They seem to make the imposition of hands a Sacrament when they say 'T is a sign to certifie Children of Gods grace and favour towards them Ibid. in the Prayer after the imposition of hands Yea they really do so if the definition they themselves give of a Sacrament be right viz. That it is an outward and visible Sign of an inward and spiritual Grace 8. So they to make Matrimony by that expression used by them consecrated the state of Matrimony to such an excellent mystery in one of the Collects in the form of the solemnization of Matrimony 9. They adore before the Elements of Bread and Wine 10. That the wicked and ungodly may receive it 11. That though the most notorious offenders be partakers of it yet the People that joyn with them are not defiled thereby 12. That the Body of Christ was broken the blood of Christ was shed particularly for them 6. Touching the Church 1. That under the time of the Gospel there is a National Church 2. That the most wicked and their seed may be compelled and received to be members of the Church which is notoriously known nor have they the face to deny it though Mr. T. talkes as if they would to be consonant to their principles and practice 3. That 't is not lawful to separate from this Church whoever do so are Sectaries Schismaticks to be excommunicated imprisoned a bloody error 4. That the Clergie is the Church as is the Pope and his Conclave to the Romanists 5. That these is another Head of the Church besides Christ 6. That 't is not in the power of the Church to choose their own Officers 7. That 't is in the power of Kings to appoint the highest Church-Officers 8. That Lord-Bishops are Officers of the Church of Christ though no where of his appointment 9. That Lord-Bishops can give the Holy Ghost and power to forgive and retain sins 10. That 't is in the power of a Priest to absolve from sins In the Visitat of the Sick 11. That 't is not in the power of the Church to excommunicate but the Bishop 12. That Pastors and Teachers are to be ordained by Lord-Bishops 13. That dumb Ministers are lawful Ministers of Christ 14. That the Ministry Worship and Government which Christ hath appointed to his Church is not to be received or joyned unto unless the Magistrates where they are reputed Christians do allow it And this their practice preacheth forth 7. Touching things supposed indifferent 1. That 't is in the power of the Church i. e. the Bishops in their Convocation to make that which is in it self indifferent a necessary part of Worship 2. To devise what Rites it pleaseth and add to the Worship of Christ 3. That Marriage may be forbidden at certain Popish seasons as in Lent Advent Rogation week 4. That the Cope Surplice Tippet Rochet are meet and decent Ornaments for the Worship of God and ministry of the Gospel 5. That Altars Candles Organs are necessary and useful in the Church of God Mr. T. his thoughts are vain when he thinks that they will not assert this Certainly they will not be so imprudent as to aver that they lavish the Gold out of the Bag for the erection of that in the Service of God which is neither necessary nor useful 6. That there may be Holy Dayes appointed to the Virgin Mary John Baptist the Apostles all Saints and Angels together also with Fasts on their Eves on Ember dayes Fridayes Saturdayes so called heathenishly enough Mr. T. answers They will deny this to be their Tenent and câ—tes Whitgift c. telling
Kneeling at the Sacrament is wisely done and had he wav'd the whole Controversie some think it had been no argument of his indiscretion but his so doing is no Answer He that will justifie the present Ministry and Worship of the Church of England persons of such dull capacities as our selves conceive must justifie these too They being made so necessary a part of their Worship that the Worship it self must rather be omitted than these devices of their Prelates or rather the Arch-Priest of Rome a Minister though never so able must not Preach if he will not wear the Surplice nor Baptize if he will not Cross nor may any either administer the Communion or receive it without Kneeling In which things if they transgress they are liable to be presented suspended excommunicated I have no power to compel Mr. T. to plead for any thing that he hath no mind to plead for In due time for ought I know he may as fast draw off from the tents of these men as he hath of late been advancing towards them He will not plead for their Canons nor for their Ceremonies at least some of them he tells us p. 54. It may be the next step may be nor for their Ministry To what purpose Mr. T. disputes for the power of Governors to Institute Rules for Church-Polity when he will not plead for those they Institute I know not We manifested in S. T. the invalidity of this Argument The Apostle by an infallible Spirit adviseth the Church of Corinth That all things de done decently and in order and discovers to them wherein that Decency and Order lay therefore persons that pretend not to such a Spirit may of their own head bind our Consciences by Laws and Rules of their own in the Service of God To this Mr. T. replies He conceives none would thus unadvisedly conclude Answ And I believe so too but if they will argue rightly from this Scripture thus must they argue as we have demonstrated But he will yet prove the power of Governours in this matter from 1 Cor. 14 40. thus That which belonging to Decency and Order is commanded in general but not in the particularities determined is in respect of Communities left to be determined by their Rulers But so is the Apostles command 1 Cor. 14. 40. Therefore Answ 1. Both Propositions are liable to exception 1. Upon supposition that what in the Worship of Christ belongs to Decency and Order is left undetermined it doth not follow that it belongs to the Rules of the Church to determine thereof which is to make the Rulers Lords over Gods Heritage to introduce insupportable Tyranny into the Churches of Christ They are the Churches Servants not Lords that are her Ministers 2dly The Minor Proposition is notoriously false and untrue the Apostle is debating the business of Prophesying touching this he lays down particular rules for Decency and Order which he requires them to conform to Let any sober Christian peruse the Chapter he will see this shining therein in brightness So Ambrose Aquinas c. inform us Decently and in Order that no unseemliness or tumult arise But this prescription of the Apostle is not to be applied to any Episcopal Traditions but the Apostles own viz. such as he had delivered to the Churches saith a learned man Thus the heat of this contest is allayed Pulveris exigui jactu We further reply in S. T. But let this be granted suppose that 't is the Priviledge and Duty of the Church to make Laws and Constitutions for the binding of the Consciences of men in matters of Decency and Order this Church herein is bounded by the Scripture or 't is not If it be then when it hath no prescription therein for its commands it 's not to be obeyed and so we are where we were before That Decency and Order is to be determined by the Scripture If it be not bounded thereby then whatever Ceremonies it introduceth not directly contrary thereunto they must be subjected to which how fair an inlet it is to the whole Farrago of Popish Inventions who sees not To this Mr. T. adjoyns That he doth not plead that it is the Priviledge and Duty of the Church to make Laws and Constitutions for the binding of the Consciences of men in matters of Decency and Order Answ Very good The Church of England Mr. T. thinks hath no such Power Priviledge or Authority granted unto them by the Lord Jesus Then have they whilst they have so done invaded his Throne and Kingly Authority The Parish Priests whilst they own abet and subscribe to what they have done in this matter are Co-partners with them in their iniquity are really guilty of opposing the King-ship of Christ which was the matter we have been all this while contesting about and is now in effect granted by our wary Antagonist We argue thus Those that assume power to make Laws and impose the reception of them upon the People of a Nation beside those and without any Priviledge or grant to them by such given in whom the Soveraign Power of Ruledom resides are guilty of Rebellion against such their Rulers and Governours Those that abet them herein are guilty of the same Rebellion But this the Church of England with respect to Jesus Christ the onely Soveraign Lord and Ruler of his Churches hath done her Ministers have abetted her herein Therefore The Major cannot be denied The Minor is evident 1. That the Church of England hath made Constitutions for the binding thâ— Consciences of men in the maters of Decency and Order their Book of Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical evince that they have no authority from Christ so to do Mr. T. grants So that in what follows we are little concerned partly because he hath already yeelded the cause and partly because the particularities he speaks of be they what they will are only he tells us of Decency and Order not determined in the Scripture Now we deny any such particularities undetermined we think it a most fearful undervaluing of the Wisdom of Christ to assert That mans ' Devices can add Beauty Order or Decency to Christ's Institutions i. e. They are not Orderly or Decent without Humane Impositions Nor see we how these can be prescribed by Canons Ecclesiastical to be obeyed because enjoyned by the Rulers of the Church to whom we are saith Mr. T. in Conscience bound to submit if it be not the Priviledge nor Duty of the Church to make Laws and Constitutions for the binding the Consciences of men in matters of this nature and think that the latter part of his Answer is in contention with the former Besides we are yet â—o seek for a proof of this matter That we are obliged to obey Rulers Ecclesiastical commanding us any thing in the Worship of God as such under the notion of Decency and Order and believe this very assertion is contrary to the Law of Nature and right Reason which teacheth us That God