the Command of Superiors in that sense Sect. 12. This next Proof is from the general sense of the Jews p. 342. for this he sheweth That Mr. A. himself quoteth several Passages of the Talmudists to prove That they equalled their Traditions with the Commands of God and hâ—nce inferreth that this was not look't â—n as an indifferent Ceremony but as a thing whose omission brought guilt on the Conscience The former Answer doth fully take away the force of all that he here discourseth to wit the Jews thought the Conscience defiled by such omission after the thing was imposed by the Authority of the Church not before so our Prelatists in reference to the Ceremonies Wherefore Mr. A. is far from overturning all the rest of his Discourse by this one saying as the Dr. alleadgeth I well know what Sanctity the Rabbies placed in the strict Observance of these things and therefore I contradict none of his Citations out of them But all this Sanctity they founded not only natural or antecedent goodness of the things observed but on the great duty of Obedience to the Orders of the Church in which our Brethren are not much inferiour to them He telleth us that they said Whosoever disesteemeth this Custom deserveth not only Excommunication but Death too and what less do the Prelatists say of omitting the Ceremonies except that it is not yet made death by the Law though the cruel usage that many have met with on this account hath brought them to their death I could tell you of Rabbies in the Church of Eâ—gland that talk as high against not observing the Ceremonies as ever the Jewish Rabbies did against not observing their Washings He admireth p. 344. That Mr. A. would make People believe that this was no more but an indifferent Ceremony among the Jews and required for Order and Decency as our Ceremonies are A. He need not admire for none of us say so of that Washing when imposed and he cannot prove that it was any other but indifferent to them before imposition as our Ceremonies are That washing was not imposed for Order and Decency as our Ceremonies are a Reason of the difference is already given to wit That it was an addition to Christ's Ceremonies for taking away Uncleanness Ours are an addition to Christ's Institution for honouring Him and edifying of Souls Sect. 13. He proceedeth Sect. 28. to enlarge and enforce this Truth by considering the Popish Ceremonies and their opinion of washing away Sin and Justification by them And for this he citeth many Authors all which pains might have been spared For this Argument doth not at all differ from what he hath said abouâ— the Jews opinion of their Washings and needeth no other Answer All the Efficacy that Papists attribute to their Ceremonies is consequent to and dependent on their being injoyned by the Church None of them say that they have such Efficacy in themselves and that they attribute taking away of sin to them ariseth from the opinion they have of the Merit of good Works which the Church of England doth not maintain The Church of England maketh them good Works but denieth their Merit because she denieth that even to the Works that God hath commanded The Papists do but make them good Works also and that they think them meritorious is from this their opinion that all good Works are such and not from an opinion that they can do such Feats by any power in themselves without Institution They ascribe spiritual Effects to them saith he so do you to your Ceremonies as stirring up of dull Minds engaging the Soul to God c. I think the Cross hath no more Efficacy for this without a Divine Institution that it has to drive away Devils as the Papists alledge Amesius ought not to have been charged with disingenuity by the Doctor on this ground He doth not equal the Evil of the English Ceremonies with these of Rome but that this Church hath no more power to make them Religious Rites than that hath to make them Causes of Grace He telleth us pag. 346. That our Church receiveth them no otherwise than as purged from Popish Superstition and for this citeth Praef. to Common-Prayer and Can. 30. Answer Neither the Dr. nor his Church will be condemned if they may be their own Judges it is Amicum Testimonium I confess they have purged out much Popish Superstition out of them but to purge out all is impossible The things themselves as stated in the Worship of God without His Institution being such Whatever the Dr. hath gained to his Cause by this Discourse our Cause gaineth from it a good Argument against the Ceremonies viz. That these things being unnecessary in themselves that have been so grosly abused to Idolatry and Superstition ought not to be brought into God's Worship by them who abhor that way nor indeed can they without much scandal But of this and other Arguments I have treated elsewhere Sect. 14. His second way how Ceremonies become parts of Divine Worship he hath pag. 347. viz. If they be supposed to be unalterable and obligatory to the Consciences of all Christians And this he purgeth the Church of England from What is already said doth abundantly refute this for I have shewed that Ceremonies may be parts tho bad ones of Worship without this and the former too And indeed if this were necessary to make them parts of Worship none of the Popish Ceremonies were such for the Pope will not part with his Power of altering the Worship of God as he pleaseth more than the English Convocation will And I believe there was never Church in the world that held That she could injoyn what God had not injoyned unalterable and so as to bind all Christians But still the Doctor as his Cause doth necessitate every Defender of it to do maketh an Inconsistency and Irreconcileableness between the opinion of the Church about the Ceremonies and their Practice in reference to them If they be alterable why will ye rather ruine your Brethren hazard Souls rend the Church than alter them If they bind not our Consciences why do ye charge us with Sin for refusing them If they bind not all men why is the Worship of other Churches so cryed out upon by many of your Church Sect. 15. The Reverend Dr. cometh now Sect. 29. to examine the Charge against the Church and bringeth the Arguments of his Adversaries that tend to prove the Ceremonies to be parts of Worship and answereth them It is here to be observed that the Arguments that he mentioneth are but some of many that we use against the Ceremonies And these not they that are most directly against them Mr. A. Argueth thus An outward visible Sign of inward invisible Grace whereby a Person is dedicated to a Profession of and Subjection to the Redeemer is a substantial part of Worship The Dr. Answereth An outward visible Sign representing between men the duty or engagement of another is no
so insufficiently represented there 3. Neither do I understand how the Consent of two Convocations that never meet personally together can be called a Church or National representative Church I thought a Church had been a Meâ—ting not a consent of men A Personal Concurrence in some Religious Acts not a mental consent about them Bodies are requisite to make a Church as well as Souls Sect. 7. I pleâ—d not for Mr. B's Constitutive Regent part of the Catholick Church though an Oecumenick Counsel if it could be had might better challenge that Name than the Pope and I think Christs Headship over the Catholick Church dâ—th not answer to what is debated about to wit a visible power super-intending all the Inferiour Church powers on earth We own a Catholick diffusive visible Church but wish rather than hope for one representative for we are perswaded the Pope hath no title to such a headship But the question between him and Mr. B. being about a visible representative or regent Head of the National Church of England I have shewed that consent cannot stand in this room and therefore bringeth in the Arch-Bishops Bishops and Presbyters summoned by the Kings Writ whose Conclusions must be enacted by a Parliament Against this National Head I object 1. That it hath no Warrant to represent the Churches of the Nation of which before 2. He seemeth above to make two such Convocations and so there must either be two Churches of England or the one Church of England must be Biceps and so a Monster 3. This consent or Convocation call it what you will is not a regent head of the Church of England it medleth only with makeing rules for Government which is none of the Churches work she is only ministerially to execute Christs Laws but doth not govern by receiving Appeals censuring the Maleversation of inferior ruling Churches inflicting Censures c. Sect. 8. Mr. B. asketh whether the rules that unite the Church of England be Divine or Humane The Dr. answereth Sect. 22. The Church is founded on a Divine Rule but requireth a conformity to the rules that she hath appointed as agreeable to the Word of God. This I conceive is not to answer the question he should have told us in which of the two rules their unity lieth We know that all Churches as well as these of New-England which he mentioneth if the Magistrate own them have civil Priviledges annexed to Church Orders but that is still wide from the question whether these Orders be Divine or Humane Doth the Church or do the Churches of New-England make Orders for observing Ceremonies in God's Worship devised by Man and place their unity in that It remaineth then still that if the National Unity of the Church of England be made by Divine Rules that either are expresly or by Consequence in Scripture we are members of it and will in all these joyn with it but if they place their unity in observing rules that have no Warrant from Scripture if we cannot joyn with them in so doing we do not separate from them but they in so far separate from us and from all the pure Churches of Christ. Sect. 9. He maintaineth p. 305. against one of his Opponents who had objected That the Church had no power to make Laws about Foederal Rules teaching Signs and Symbols c. That such a Church hath power to appoint Rules of Order and Decency not repugnant to the Word of God and that all setled Churches are for this I reply 1. He doth not answer to the Objection I hope all Rules for Order and Decency are not about Foederal Rites and teaching Symbols Ordering the natural Circumstances of Worship comprehendeth the one but not the other 2. It is false that all setled Churches appoint Rules for such Order and Decency as consisteth in Religious Ceremonies teaching Symbols and such like 3. It is also false that all setled Churches appoint Rules of Order and Decency even in the Circumstantials of Religion so as to exclude all from their Priviledges and to incite the Magistrate to punish them who do not conform to these Rules as he alledgeth other Churches use to rule by holding forth light and Perswasives not to impose with rigour and force on the Consciences of men Nor do they concern the Magistrate but where some notable violations of the Law of God otherwise not to be restrained doth require it 4. It is a false supposition that our Imposed Rules about Ceremones are not repugnant to the Word of God but this is not the place of that Debate SECT VI. The Peoples Right of Electing their Pastors THe last of these four Pleas that the Reverend Author ranketh under the first Head and which he alledgeth some make use of for separation is That the people are deprived of their right in the choice of their own Pastors This he proceedeth to Sect. 24. I do not make the depriving the people of this power a cause of separation though I reckon it a notable Grievance and earnestly desire a redress of it and pray that the Lord may move the Hearts of Rulers to defend the people in this their Right against them that take it from them But our work is now to defend this Right of the Members of the Church against the Doctor 's Assaults But before I come to this I shall shew 1. What this Right is that they have in Electing their Pastors 2. From whom they Derive it 3. What ground we have to think that they have such a Right Sect. 2. To shew what this Right is I assert 1. That the people have no Right to bestow the Benefice on their Pastor nor to elect him to it unless either it be their own gift or the giver of it hath transferred that power on them It is Election to the Office not to the Benefice that we debate about which if the Doctor had considered he might have spared a great deal of his following Discourse It is true the Magistrate ought to provide for the Church so as the person regularly chosen may enjoy the Benefice but if the Magistrate please to reserve it to his own disposing there is no Remedy the people must either chuse the man that may have the maintenance if he be tollerably qualified or they must provide for him themselves And so when a Patron giveth a Maintenance on these terms That he have the chusing of the person who shall enjoy it the Church should either reject it and provide for their Minister another way or chuse the person that the Patron presenteth But this Patronage is a sad Grievance to the Church devised in Satan's Kitchen saith Beza confess fid c. 35. it is an oppressing of people in their Spiritual Rights and in that which concerneth their Souls A greater bondage than if the whole Parish were obliged to eat nothing but what the Patron pleaseth And it had been less blame-worthy if these Donors of Church Livings had kept their Gift
Ordinances of God. 3. Any variation of their opinion about their Washings from our opinion about our Ceremonies that can be observed ariseth from the difference that is between their Church and Ordinances and ours and so cannot make their imposition unlawful if ours be lawful for God had appointed Washings for removing of Ceremonial uncleanness which affected both Soul and Body to wit at the touching of the Dead or any unclean thing and all 〈◊〉 Jews knew that antecedently to the Command no uncleannesâ—â—ould be contracted by these Touches nor removed by these Washings The Rabbies in the Apostate State of that Church added such like observations to Gods out of a desire of more ample strictness and that their purity might be more conspicuous knowing well that before the Command these things were in the same state that the other things were in before God's Command Just so doth our Church God hath instituted some Ceremonies for his own Honour and Edification of his People so as we all know that antecedently to his command they were indifferent things as Water Bread and Wine and the Church not content with these add some other Ceremonies for further honouring of God to wit making his Worship more decent and further edification stirring up the dull minds of men yet protesting that antecedently to their command these things are indifferent Is not here an exact parallel if it be said that the Rabbies thought the things that they enjoyned to be comprehended under God's commanded Worship before they enjoyned them this is denyed and the contrary is evident from Christ's Reasoning with them he all along maketh a distinction between God's Command and their Tradition which they might easily have objected against if they had pretended a Command of God for the things that they by Tradition imposed Sect. 10. In order to the proving his Opinion in this matter he saith p. 339. that the Reason of Christ's opposing the Pharisees was not because a thing in it self unnecessary was determined by their Superiors but because of the superstitious opinion that the Pharisees had about these Washings Here is a wrong state of the Question hinted we never quarrelled with superiours for determining a thing in it self unnecessary we know they may determine this Time and that Place of Worship and yet neither of these in it self is necessary seeing another time or place may do as well But the Question is whether Superiors may determine a thing that is not at all needful to be determined as the Habit Gesture c. and appropriate this their determination to Religious Worship that so it shall be done in Worship though it be not so done in other Actions and this without warrant from the Lord whom we Worship His Proofs that the Pharisees were condemned only because of their superstitious opinion and if this only be not understood by the Dr. he speaketh not to the point in hand are two From the force of our Saviour's Reasoning Thus then he argueâ—â— p. 340. He proveth that they set up their Tradition above the Law of God as in the Vow Corban The force of which Argument extendeth to all that they observed because of the Tradition of their Ancestors therefore they thought these things pleasing to God and that mens Consciences were strictly obliged to observe them This is the sum of the Drs. Argument To which the Answer is obvious to wit that this doth not at all prove that the Pharisees thought these things obliging antecedently to their Tradition which is the only thing in Question Christ's Reasoning proveth no more but that they had an undue esteem of their own Authority and did upon the matter equal it with if not prefer it to that of God by laying such stress on things that stood meerly on their Authority but he doth not so much as hint that they thought these things antecedently obligeing or that the omitting of them would have defiled the Conscience though there had been no such Tradition Is not our Case parallel to theirs in this VVe say the Ceremonies oblige not there is no Sin in not observing them nor Indecency in not using them antecedently to the Law so did the Pharisees of their Washings and if they were Zealous for their Washings are not ye so to as great a degree for your Ceremonies when imposed what disobedience ungovernableness contempt of the Worship of God and indecency in it are we charged with and we are prosecuted with more rigour for neglect of these than others are for the highest Immoralities Is not this to prefer your Tradition to God's Law Do not ye make void the Law of God neglecting Love studying Unity Mercy c. for these your Traditions Sect. 11. But saith the Dr. The Pharisees thought a mans Conscience defiled if he did not observe the Traditions as appears by Christ's subsequent Discourse shewing what it is that defileth a man and what not A. This they thought only because they had put these things in that state by their Tradition but never taught that these things would have defiled the man if there had been no such Tradition and do not our Brethren think that omitting the Ceremonies now injoyned defileth a man Do they not think the Non-conformists have need of Repentance and Pardon for their Non-conformity If they think not so why do they so blame and prosecute them The Dr. concludeth p. 341. That the main thing in question was whether this Ceremony of washing hands could be omitted without defileing the Conscience otherwise saith he our Saviour's Conclusion doth not reach the Question This is a great Mistake though it were no hazard to our Cause to grant it for this Question was but consequential to another to wit Whether the Church had power to institute Ceremonies such as Christ had not instituted and then charge People with sin and not keeping a good Conscience for not observing them This was the main Question as appeareth by his reproving them for making such Traditions and for bringing the Commandments of men into God's Worship Our Saviours Conclusion that he speaketh of to wit his discourse about what defileth a man is not the thing he first intended to prove to wit by his reproving them for their Traditions for the Conclusion of that Argument is That men ought not to teach for Doctrines the Commanâ—ments of men i. e. institute in Worship what Christ hath not instituted But this discourse about what defileth a man is a Consequence drawn from that Conclusion to wit That things so forbidden may be forborn without sin and that it is transgressing of God's Command not of mans that defileth the Conscience wherefore there is no ground for what the Dr. saith that Christ condemned them not meerly with respect to the Command of Superiours understand a Command of Superiours bringing into the Worship of God what was not instituted by God otherwise it reacheth not our Question for condemning the Traditions of men is a condemning meerly with respect to
about all humane Ceremonies in the worship of God 2. What he saith of Mr. Rogers is a very Imperfect Representation of him for Fox Act. and Monu Vol. 3. pa. 131. the place which he citeth saith no such thing as that this was Mr. Rogers only scruple and Mr. Fuller loco citato saith the contrary Mr. Fox is telling a story of his Dissent from a Determination of the Bishops and Clergy in the Reign of Edw. 6. for wearing of Priests Caps and other Attire belonging to that order Mr. Rogers said He would not agree to that decree of uniformity unless it be also decreed that the Papists for a difference betwixt them and others should wear on their slâ—eves a Chalice with an Host upon it which sheweth his factious and resolute way of refusing that thing on that occasion rather than that he did not scruple any thing else and it hath no shew of probability that such a wise and holy man would stick at that and not at other Ceremonies that had as little warrant and were more intrinsick to Religion and worship and so less in the power of men to be Determined Sect. 7. 3. We may say the same of excellent Hooper who was long at Zurick and very dear to Bullinger and one of those that had suck'd in the Air and Discipline of the Places where they lived and were for rooting out of Ceremonies He was a Ring-leader of these and this his scrupling the Episcopal Habit is never mentioned as the whole of his Opnion about Ceremonies but is taken notice of on a particular Occasion For his after submission it was by the force of Temptation being in prison and Deserted by his patron the Earl of Warwick Fuller ubi supra p. 404. And with what reluctancy he did it see p. 405. 4. That on the review of the Liturgy in the Reign of King Edw. 6. there was little or no Dissatisfaction left at least as to the things now scrupled is still false History for that review was Anno 1547. Full. Ch. Hist. Lib. 7. p. 386. whereas 1550. he telleth us pa. 402. of two parties discovered Conformists and Non-conformists and the one against all the Ceremonies Sect. 8. That there was no separation at first he next asserteth but people tho scrupling them complyed with the use of Liturgies and Cerimonies May be it was so at the very first while Reformation was hopefull going on I have already shewed why we are not bound by such Examples I shall now Apologize for the unimitable practice of the those holy men to excuse them atanto though not atoto The glorious Change that then was wrought in the Church did so affect then engage their zealous hearts to Gods Ordinances that they did not so throughly consider as they ought the sinfulness of the Ceremonies They had got so many things reformed the evil of which was so incomparably beyond that of the Ceremonies that these seemed as nothing to them It is known that the limitted scant powers of our Souls our Understandings Affections yea our Senses are by some vehement Objects so diverted as that meaner Objects at the same time cannot move them nor be noticed by them It was much that these men discovered any evil in the Ceremonies but that the principles that the Reformation was built on led them to that to wit That Scripture is the Rule by which the Affairs of the House of God must be ordered but it is no wonder that they did not so fully discover the Evil of them nor were so affected with it as we who have had longer time and less hindrance to think on these things I am far from thinking that they had either less Light or less tenderness of Conscience than we but that their Mind and Conscience were exercised about higher Matters which we have through the Lord's goodness so settled to our hand that reforming of these is not our Work. They were imployed to do the hardest part of the Work to cast out Antichristianism it was left to others that succeeded them to cast out of the House a little of Antichrist's Furniture that had been forgotten or by minding greater things over-lookt lying in some corners of the House So that it doth no more inferr blame on us forbearing the use of the Ceremonies that they used them while they reformed the Church from Popery than it was a Blame to Hezekiah Josâ—ah and such Reformers who took away the High Places that other Reformers had left when they threw out Baal's Worship Sect. 9. This may satisfie an unbyassed mind that our non-compliance with the Liturgy and Ceremonies is consistent with all that respect that is due to those excellent Persons who in the beginning of the Reformation practised otherwise for we owe such respect to no man nor men as to reckon them infallible in Opinion or Practice Also what hath been said may take off the edge of the Dr's jeering Insinuations That these things are now such Bug-bears to scare People from our Communion and make them cry out in such dreadful manner of the mischief of Impositions as though the Church must unavâ—idably be broken in pieces by the weight and burden of two or three unsupportable Ceremonies We have little Answer to this sort of Argumentation only we say It is not Childish Fear but Conscience guided by Scripture that scareth us neither do we count these Ceremonies such as will break tho' they defile the Church but they are too heavy for our Consciences to bear and the example of men using them can yield us no ease of this Burden When the Dr. doth thus ridicule the Scruples of Conscience that his opposites pretend to have either he thinketh that an Erring Conscience is to be cured by contempt and scorn or that we do only pretend to Conscience in our Dissent The former is no sign of a good Casuist nor the latter of a good Christian for such will not judge lest they be judged He stormeth much at two Expressions of one of his Antagonists one is That it is unreasonable that Men should create a necessity of Separation and then complain of the Impossibility of Vnion Hath our Church saith he made new Terms of Communion or altered the old ones Ans. Though the Terms of Communion be not new as to the matter of them they are perpetuated on new grounds which make them now harder to be submitted to than before for they were brought in at first on a present Necessity as then was thought the Nation being Popish and ready to abandon the Reformation if that was offended Now it is not so they were continued in a Reforming time and now fixed in a time when no such thing is to be expected but rather the contrary They were retained in the Morning twi-light of the Reformation but now in the Noon-day of Gospel-light long shining among us fixed in perpetuity so that the present Prelates give a new Being to these Stumbling-blocks especially they are
imposing of them His reason of this is not so clear to wit Where there is no plain prohibition men may with ordinary Care and Judgment satisfie themselves of the lawfulness of the things required And there is no plain prohibition he saith of the Liturgy and Ceremonies We deny the imposing the Liturgy and Ceremonies to be as much in mens power as is the determining of Circumstances of Time and Place and such-like We deny also that men with the best Care and Judgment can see the lawfulness of every thing imposed in the Worship of God for of such things we now discourse that is not plainly prohibited For What if they be prohibited tho' not plainly It is too great peremptoriness to take upon us to teach the Spirit of God how to speak in Scripture if He expects Obedience from us the Dr. was in this strain also in his Irâ—nicum if we have any hint of His Will tho' never so obscurely so as we can understand that it is the Mind of God we are obliged to obey it Again we deny that want of either obscure or plain Prohibition is good ground to satisfie us about Religious Ceremonies that they are lawful though imposed by men It is enough that they are not commanded nor instituted Will Worship is condemned in Scripture and Can it be denied that what is not commanded tho' it be not plainly forbiddâ—n is Will-Worship And What Argument will the Dr. bring against most of the Popish Ceremonies but that they are not commanded Where is the plain Prohibition of them Sect. 5. Further we say That the Liturgy and Ceremonies are plainly enough forbidden tho not in particular yet in general terms The Traditions of men in Gods Worship are plainly forbidden Mat. 15. 7 8 9. Mark 7. 6 7 8. Gal. 4. 9 10 11. Col. 2. 20. which Scriptures and other Arguments proving them to be forbidden by God have been so fully managed against his Party without any Answer as may let the world see that neither Ordinary Care nor Judgment hath been wanting to find out the lawfulness of such Impositions and yet we cannot find it I shall not now repeat what I have elsewhere said to this purpose but intend to answer what the Dr. will please to say in defence of these his Lawful Impositions Sect. 6. The Dr. is at some pains to prove that the prohibition of these is not in the Second Commandment But if he would have convinced us of our Error he should have proved that they are neither forbidden there nor elsewhere by giving satisfying Answers to all our other Arguments but he is pleased to insist only on our Argument from the Second Commandment and to that as he is pleased to frame it he giveth an Answer such as it is I observe some mistakes in his treating of this Argument 1. That he expecteth that the Liturgy and Ceremonies should have been forbidden in words if they be forbidden that is that they should have been expresly named Will he forbear no Sin but what is named in one of the Ten Commandments What will he say of Fornication Incest Rebellion against Kings c. May be he will say these are forbidden expresly in other parts of Scripture Ans. So are humane Inventions in God's Worship as hath been shewed And beside it were impertinent to deny Fornication to be forbidden in the Seventh Commandment because it is not named there tho' it be in other Scriptures Even so it is here yea I suppose the Dr. will not think that whatever is not named in Scripture as a Sin is no Sin mispending the Sabbath day in sleep idleness play c. advising or commanding one man to murder another and many things of that nature are not named in Scripture and yet comprehended under general prohibitions Sect. 7. 2. His Question is very absurd How shall we come by the sence but by the words He must mean the words of the second Commandment And then I answer That we could never by this way know the sence of the seventh Commandment Fornication is a Sin Nor by the words of the sixth Commandment could we know it is a Sin to say to our Brother Thou fool Wherefore hath the Spirit of God written so much more Scripture holding forth Sins and Duties if we are only to look to the bare words of the Ten Commandments for learning the preceptive or directive part of His revealed Will His Commands are exceeding broad Ps. 119. 96. and therefore we are to look for more understanding from them than the words by themselves can afford us Ezra and the Levites read the words to the People and gave the Sence Neh 8. 8. It is our Duty also to read it and enquire into the sence of it One useful means of coming by the sence of the Commandments is to consider how they were expounded by Christ enlarged on by the Prophets and Apostles injoining and forbidding things of the same nature with what the words of the Commands do express and in general we must compare Scripture with Scripture if we would understand the meaning of the several parts of it It is strange that the Dr. and his Paâ—ty should deal so unequally they take a great deal of Liberty to impose things on the Church of God from a very general Command Let all things be done decently and in order Which words they practise upon at their pleasure devising Rites for the Worship of God and bringing This to warrant them tho' they can bring no such sence out of the words as that Crossing Kneeling c. are lawful But if we scruple any of their Inventions we must be obliged to give words of Scripture where they are expresly forbidden Sect. 8. In the Third place When his opposites alledge certain Rules for interpreting the Commandments he asketh Whether they be divine or humane I again ask him Whether doth he own them as sound or reject them as fallacious But to his question I answer They are by men collected out of the Scripture and therefore have Divine Authority tho' the frame of them be Humane as the Dr's Sermons I do not mean that at Guild-hall are divine Truths and of divine Authority tho' of humane frame and composure 4. One of these Rules is That where any thing is forbidden something is commanded We chuse after the generality of Divines rather to express it thus That in every Negative Precept the contrary Duty is commanded And in the Affirmative Precept the câ—ntrary Sin is forbidden His Answer is There is here a Command to worship God without an Image A Logician would say this is still a Negative Command for here the matter of this Precept is expressed Negative All Protestant Divines agree that the matter of the Second Command is the mâ—dus of Divine Worship Divine Worship it self being commanded and what is contrary to it forbidden in the First Commandment Now though this preceptive proposition of the Dr's Worship God be set down
Commanded by God nor necessarily Connected with the Souls exercise in Worship by nature and dictated by it nor is by civil custom made a fit expression of the inward exercise of the Soul in that Worship but is only imposed by the Will of man is unlawful to be used in that Worship but Kneeling in the Act of receiving the Sacrament is such Ergo c. The major is clear for that must in that case be Will-worship the minor is proved by what is said and the conclusion followeth â—iâ—syllogistica Sect. 11. Another ground of our scruple is this Practice is unprecedented in the Apostolick and purest Primitive Church Christ with his Disciples Sate or leaned they used the table gesture then made decent by civil custom and yet they used as much humility in receiving and knew as well what was fit and decent as we now do or can In after Ages this Practice was not used it is well known that in Tertullians time and till the beginning of the Fifth Century they did not use to Kneel on any Lords Day between Easter and Pentecost so much as at Prayer and the Canon of the Famous First Council of Nice did forbid it how then did they make the Communion Kneeling A third ground is this Kneeling is a Religious Adoration before a Creature with a Religious respect to the Creature but this is unlawful c. The first proposition is clear for it is with respect to the Consecrated Elements before them that we Kneel and it will not be denyed that we there adore God Religiously The second proposition I prove because Protestants do generaly condemn Praying before an Image as on other accounts so on this because it is an adoring of God before a Creature with a Religious respect to it let our Brethren shew us what the more moderate of the Papists give to their Images that we do not give to the Consecrated Elements We use the one as a a stated motive of Worship as they do the other they deny that they give any Worship to the Image as we do with reference to the Elements A fourth Ground is this Practice as acknowledged by its Patrons to be Indifferent hath been grosly abused to Idolatry the Papists in the same external way worshiping the Hoste And it is known that this Practice came in with the belief of Christs Bodily presence in the Sacrament and the Papists profess that if they did not believe that they would not so Kneel and is it fit that we should so symbolize with them which by this Practice we do to that degree that it is not easy to distinguish our Adoration from theirs by the spectators of both These grounds I have but hinted being spoken to more largely by others Sect. 12. He debateth next with Mr. A. pag. 386. for saying that on the same reason that the Church imposeth these Ceremonies she may impose some use of Images c. to which the Dr. bringeth three Answers filling four Pages All this discourse might have been waved for neither Mr. A. nor any of us did ever make that a ground of Separation tho' we plead against the Ceremonies on that ground If they will remove the present Ceremonies we shall not for the asserting an Imposing power leave them nor out of fear of what may come Sect. 13. The last plea for Separation that the Dr. first deviseth and then refuteth is Sect. 38. That there is a parity of reason for our separating from the Church of England and from the Protestants separating from the Church of Rome and this Plea he imputeth to Mr. A. in his Preface he should have said Epistle Dedicatory to Mischief of Impositions but I do not find that Mr. A. or any other ever used such a plea. All that he saith there is ad hominem against the Dr's ordinary crying out on us for Separating from a true Church whereas the Dr. himself had owned Rome to be a true Church Ration account p. 293. And def against T. G. p. 785. and yet alloweth Separation from that Church Wherefore I shall no further consider any thing that he saith on that head And I conclude with the Dr. and declare as he doth to the contrary that I have examined all that he hath said on the present Subject and do find still remaining sufficient Plea to justify the present practice of Non-conformists in not joyning with the Church of England but Worshiping God in Meeting apart from it Sect. 14. The Learned Dr. is pleased to append to his Book to set it off 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 three Letters of three French Divines Printed first in French and then in English ad pompam for it is little ad pugnam But he might know what ever difference we give to learned and good men their authority without Scripture proof which we yet desiderate will not prevail with us to alter our opinion or practice let the Dr. call it obstinacy or by what name he pleaseth The first of them is from Monsieur le Moyne professor of Divinity in Leyden to the Bp. of London the authority of which Letter not of the learned Author of it we have good cause to neglect because it is apparent to any that read it that it is written by a stranger to us upon gross mis-information of our principles For he saith page 404. that he could not have perswaded himself that there had been any who believed that a man could not be saved in the Communion of the Church of England And I join with him so far that I know not nor hear of one Non-conformist of that opinion but thus it seems we are by our Brethren represented abroad and then precarious Letters got by such means must be produced as witnesses against us He also representeth us as if we condemned all to hell that use the Ceremonies page 405. and the same he saith about the Church-Discipline ibid. and that we imagine that we are the only men in England yea in the Christian World that are predestinated to eternal happiness and that hold truths necessary to Salvation as they ought to be held so he page 408. he also page 409. tells us of a Non-conformist-Meeting he was at in London where he exposeth the Meeting and Preacher as very ridiculous and his calling the Preacher one of the most famous Non-conformists sheweth him to be either a very great stranger to them or somewhat that is worse Let any now judge whether such a Testimony be to be received against us Sect. 15. The second Letter from Monsieur de l' Angle speaks the Reverend and Learned Author of it to be an ingenious and sober Person but in some things misinformed by the Episcopal Party He lamenteth our Divisions so do we he is for complyance with the Ceremonies being setled but is far enough from approving of them The former part of this I impute to his being less concern'd to consider these things than we are He stateth our Separation mainly