Therefore one Prelate but of ordinary mission commission and qualification that never converted one Church may be not one person in truth shall have power over many Elders and Congregations where he never Preached over so many that if he Preached every Lords-day he could not preach once in a year to them yea so many that if he Preached every day in the year he could not preach once in a year to them some Diocesses are so large This consequent from such an Antecedent my dull Intellect cannot reach I deny the Consequence What might be said I foresee and would have prevented it but I am in a Postscript and so can only touch things as I pass Arguments he fetches from three Topicks to prove the superiority of one single person over other Elders 1. From Reason p. 23. Though the Vniversal Church be built upon a Rock yet particular Churches are subject to Dilapidations c. Ergo. A. In matters belonging to the House of God I thought the will of him that built the House and is Lord over it should first have been consulted His will hath reason in it we are sure but for our reasons they will put no end to the debate for one thinks his reason is as good as another Quot capita tot sententiae It is Instituted worship we are upon depending upon the positive command of the Law giver But however I deny your consequence And that 1st Mr. Baxter Church-History gives sufficient proof From the woful experience the Church hath found of your Repairers these having been as great causes of the Dilapidations as any other That Bishops have been both great Schismaticks and Hereticks Bellarmine will tell you What woful work these have made in the Church of England in our time we do still remember but I will spare names let them alone in their graves Musculus not an English Nonconformist from the experience the Church had found of the mischiefs it suffered by these Repairers Musc loc Commun p. 195. sound out to prevent and heal Schism as Hierom tells us saith Had Hierom lived to these days to see how this counsel of setting up the Bishop above the Presbyter hath profited the Church he would have acknowledged it was not the counsel of the Holy Ghost to take away Schism as was pretended but the counsel of the Devil c. Thus he with much more he adds 2ly There are other means to repair without such Prelacy as experience hath proved in several Churches where Heresie and Schism have either been kept out or healed when crept in Profaneness suppressed better than ever it was in England by Prelacy 3ly That one Prelate is as subject to corruption in Doctrine and conversation as other Ministers and who shall repair him the Presbyters being inferior to him they must not be so sawcy that kind of Creature whom you call the Metropolitan is as subject to corruption as the other Prelate As to the proof you give p. 26 27. There is a greater probability of an union of judgments when all within a certain precinct lye under an obligation to be determined by the reason of one c. A. I thank you for this saith the now Pope Innocent this helps to strengthen my old worm-eaten Chair weak in the joints and ready to crack Heresie and Schism must be avoided in the Vniversal Church as well as in the Church in your Precinct but if the Bishops in your several Precincts differ in their Judgments about Heresie and Schism as they have done and will do now what more probable way for union of Judgments than to have them lye under an obligation to be determined by the reason of one and who should that one be but my self this is but the same reason that Bellarmine hath given for Pontifex Maximus 2ly In one Diocess are some hundreds of Elders all having the power of Jurisdiction ex aquo from Christ as the Learned Dr. Stillingfleet hath proved but however if this Doctor deny it among these there may be many as godly men of as solid reason and judgment as is this one Prelate yea it may be excel him in all and in years his Elder too yet all these must have their reasons and judgments subject to the determination of the reason of that one Prelate I shall not applaud him for a man of an accuminated Intellect that shall assert such an irrational Proposition 2. His second Topick is Gods Declaration for the perpetuity of Apostolical Government which was over other Elders and Congregations p. 28. Yea Sir this is of moment if you can carry it First Text Mat. 28.20 Teach baptize instruct all Nations to observe whatsoever was commanded them I pray add this And he commanded them to teach That one Prelate while the Church stands should have superior power over other Elders and Congregations then you do something Because you mention commands for Government name two or three Texts to stop the mouths of these Erastians But to the Text. It is not for nothing that our Lord while he mention Teaching Baptizing and under this the Lords Supper yet saith nothing of Government Surely he had a reason for it 2. I yield from the Apostles and other Elders Government recorded in the Scripture that Government belongs to the Eldership with the Erastians leave but from hence to infer that because the Apostles did exercise power over other Elders Ergo now one Prelate over other Elders I shall deny the Consequence For 1. you tell us p. 25. It 's true the Vnction whereby they were qualified for it was not of the vulgar composition But say I the Unction these Prelates have is but of the vulgar composition Hence to argue from extraordinary to ordinary is a kind of fallacy a kin to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They that exercise Government over other Governours as all Elders are had need be in Wisdom Learning Holiness and fitness for Government as Saul among his brethren higher by head and shoulders so were the Apostles and Evangelists above those Elders over whom they exercised Authority We find no such things amongst the men of the vulgar Vnction 2. Those Elders as well as the people were the Aposties Converts these being but newly brought home to the Faith well may their Fathers have power over them and cause enough to visit them the case is not so here 3ly When the Apostles come to deal with the ordinary Elders there is no intimation left of any such power of one Prelate over the rest You tell us p. 45. that Timothy was Ordained Bishop of Ephesus about the 13th year of Claudius I hope you will not force it from 1 Tim. 1.3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus He must have an illuminated Intellect indeed who can force the ordination of a Bishop out of these words Besides certainly had he been Bishop there Paul need not have besought him to be resident there but however sure I am he must be
so nothing but Forms which is the sense of your Church I say may I be but as pleasing to God My reason is I observe it would very much please my corrupt lazy unbelieving heart I should not need then to beg of God the presence of his Spirit to help me as to the matter of prayer nor need I act my faith and dependance upon him as conscious of my own insufficiency 2 Cor. 3.5 for all my prayer is prepared to a syllable I should not then labour with my proud heart to submit quietly to Gods pleasure though he doth substract and not afford that presence sometimes which he doth at other times For here are the same words and syllables at all times his absence or presence hath no room here It may be the Friendly Debater that can jeer I see at Christian experiences will jeer at me too because I give this experience of my corrupt heart but I care not As for Dr. Falkner let but the Question be truly stated and I do not find one Scripture-argument he hath brought that concludes the Question for his own humane reasons I little regard them in divine Worship As for private Christians I know your Clergy look on them as the Pharisees did upon the vulgar Joh. 7.49 but Sir I know more of them than you or Dr. Falkner plain Mechanicks have I known well Catechised and humble Christians excellent in practical piety kept their station did not aspire to be Preachers but for gifts of prayer few Clergy-men must come near them I profess I fall short of them I have known some of them when they did keep their Fasts as they did often they divided the work of Prayer the first began with Confession the second went on with Petition for themselves the third Petition for Church and Kingdom c. the fourth Thanksgiving every one kept to his own part and did not meddle with anothers part Such excellent matter so compacted without Tautologies each of them for a good time about an hour if not more apiece to the wondering of those who joyned with them Such answers of prayer I have known to others that they have praised God for assurance that he had heard them before they rose off their knees and at that time it was done a thing of very great consequence but heard not of it till two days after Here was no reading of Liturgies these were old Jacobs sons could wrestle and prevail with God and yet must be punished if they came not to Church and set above an hour in the cold to hear a Minister read that which their boys could do at home and blessed be God that England in this dark day hath many thousands of such plain but praying Christians however despised and punished As for that Question Whether every particular Congregation makes a particular Church which you deny and oppose the Dissenters p. 234. c. I pray Sir why do you not answer Mr. Alsop's Text which he brings p. 45. from 1 Cor. 11.18 compared with 20. that Text deserves an answer and till that be done they are not confuted you have left out the strongest Argument Sir you must state the Question a little closer else you will not carry it I doubt not but there may be one particular Congregation which may be invested with the power and execute all the power of the keys and I think that is a Church For instance take your own Congregation and a few more in London where four or five thousand meet to worship God so large are your places with Galleries also I would suppose in such a Congregation there would be required four Teaching Elders four Ruling Elders Sir I must own that Officer though I think there hath been an error in assigning him that power which is not due to him and four Deacons Let all these Officers ply their work as hard as they will I doubt not but they will find their hands full and hearts full too unless the Four thousand be the better Christians But Sir will you deny this Congregation to be such a Church as we read of in the Gospel compleat as to exercise of all the power of the keys I am sure you will not As for your Reason for Episcopal Government another ground of difference between us which you give us in your Preface pag. 5. quoting Mr. Noyes of New-England in your Treatise pag. 234. agreeing with you viz. It is hard to perswade considering men that the Christian Church should degenerate so soon so unanimously so universally c. Mr. Noyes Would not Elders so many knowing men at least some of them have contended for Truth wherein their own Liberties were so much interessed Aerius his opposing of Bishops so long after their rise and standing is inconsiderable c. Sir much here might be said but I leave it to those with whom you have to deal as for Mr. Noyes I know him very well and know what may cause him to write for Episcopal Government That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bear with my words for I am sure it is contrary to Scripture and Reason of the Congregational men That the Fraternity or Plebs is the first subject of the power of the keys have made such work in Congregational Churches to my knowledg that their Elders have felt the need of that principle and made them to think again But good Brother what Episcopacy is it you mean if you mean only Episcopus Praeses I am of your opinion it was the government in the Apostles time when Elders in a particular Church were multiplied And if we would but exercise more meekness and patience one with another Consult the Scriptures more attentively we shall find that the true Government and Constitution of the Church takes in somthing of Episcopacy somthing of Presbytery something of Independency But Sir if you mean Episcopus Princeps which is our Case one that hath a Superiority of power above Presbyters with which these must not meddle and this Bishop such large Diocess as ours are and this Bishop also the Sole Pastor over the Diocess as Bishop Morley checking Mr. Baxter tells him that the Bishop of Worcester and not Mr. Baxter is Pastor of Kidderminster as well as of all other Parochial Churches in that Diocess pag. 2. Sir this Episcopacy you and Mr. Noyes have to prove that it was ever in the Apostles time or of Christs Institution for this we utterly deny The Presidential Episcopacy as I may term it lasted as it is conceived by Learned men till the middle of the second Century or towards the end of it your self does not deny it Iren. pag. 275 276. But for this Princely Episcopacy when that began to be set up then began the Degeneracy of the Apostolical Government Though Mr. Noyes makes little of Aerius yet Medina tells the world that Jerome Austin Ambrose Sedulius Primasius Chrysostom Theodore Theophilacct were all of Aerins his judgment and you say Medinas judgment will prove true Iren. 276. So say Bishop Jewel and Learned Whitaker Quam Epiphanius frigidissimis rationibus refellit saith Whitaker Tom. 1. pag. 149. As for their Diocesses beside what I have said before you tell us they were not very large since all the Parishes could communicate on the same day with what was sent from the Cathedral Church Iren. pag. 370. Sure I am what you plead for now does not agree with the last Paragraph of your Irenicum where you were nearer the Truth How they should come to degenerate so soon is easily understood if we believe the 2 Thes 2 3 4 and 7. ver and the 17. Chap. of the Revelation If positâ permissione infallibiliter sequitur quod permittitur which I am sure is true then it is as true if the Spirit foretels what shall come to pass that must come to pass good Austni good Cyprian and other good Bishops by their Superiority of power and large Diocesses did prepare the way for wicked Boniface the third and he made the Catholick Church his Diocess it was impossible for him else to come there had the Churches kept to the Apostolical Government That Counsel and prediction of God was secretly and severely brought about by men This was once your your Opinion Ire pag. 197 198. Though the Elders had equal power from Christ yet being it was to be exercised but in a co-ordinate way with others you tell us they might devolve the exercise of their power to others Iren. 276. and Dr. Templer tells us there is a greater probability of an Vnion of Judgment when all within a certain precinct lie under an obligation to be determined by the reason of One c. when there is only matter of Right and Liberty which require care pains watch but no profit or gain come into the Purse as here we can easily and readily listen to Reason that may take us off from Duty and part with that Right which hath no profit but only pains annexed to it FINIS
be Gods Ape and hateful enemy then God must have no worship and every time the Devil imitates Gods worship God must change his worship and appoint new means of worship I pray Sir did the Devil or God first appoint Sacrifices why may I not think the Devil understood something of the promised seed and the meaning of the Sacrifices and in the following Ages in hatred and revenge against God and hatred of souls drew men to sacrifice to himself not only beasts but men as being the best of Creatures and so most acceptable Sacrifice in the imitation of Isaac that should have been sacrificed and thus he got before God Sir I pray do this shew us where there were Ceremonies first invented by Idolators depending only on their wills as yours do and you tell us you may change them when you please these were used in idalatrous worship and the Church of God translated those Ceremonies I do not mean individual from the idolatrous Temples into the worship of the holy and true God and he approved of them This you must prove or else you speak not home to our Case The last thing Mr. Falkner brings is the Testimony of worthy men about retaining some Ceremonies c. I only say I honour the men but I am of Mr. Falkner's opinion that the holy Scriptures are the only unerring Rule and I will willingly follow them so men where they follow Christ Several Distinctions about significant signs Mr. Falkner makes but I see not how any of them reach the Question no not so much as one 1. Here are signs depending only on the Wills of Men. 2. These signs are Instituted to Instruct us in our Duty towards God 3. These are said to be helps for our Edification 4. These signs are appropriated and annexed to the Worship of God While we Administer his signs we set up our signs 5. He that useth not these signs is turned out of the work of the Lord and shall not worship the Lord. I desire Mr. Falk would either from express Scripture or necessary consequence from Scripture or from the example of any holy and ordinary persons in Scripture approved by God I say I desire from either of these he would prove such signs in this manner Imposed Did Moses ever dare to Institute one Exciting which is one Distinction sign and annex it to the worship of God more than he had in charge from God yea and turn out those Priests that would not use it It is said of your Ceremonies they are not Dark and Dumb but so set forth that every man may understand what they mean May every man understand c truly I have known the Surplice above fifty years but never understood that the putting on a Surplice should properly signifie the Reverence we bear to God and the high esteem of his ordinances till Mr. Falk told me so p. 391. nor I believe did few Preists so understand it It seems then when you put off the Surplice going into Pulpit now you declare a lower esteem of God and his Ordinances Others tell us it signifies Purity others Decency it seems you are not agreed in the ends of your own inventions But for your exciting sign in the Cross many thousands if not millions of Children in England have been baptized with this sign I pray Name but One of these that ever was Excited to fight under Christs Banner by this sign Reason is a word in which the Conforming party glory much all Learning and Reason they have engrossed I pray Sir shew us the Reason how the moving of a Priests finger over an Infants Fore-head in its Baptism comes to have that efficacy to excite that Infant to fight under Christs Banner How the Christians of old used the real sign of the Cross I know I do not go about to justifie or condemn their practise but this is another thing or shadow of a thing no wonder though your own Mr. Carr calls your Ceremonies trifles things of which come no good Surely Sir while you speak of the Reverence of God we should show more Reverence to that Majesty in being content with his Soveraignty and wisdom in his own Institutions and not annex vain empty trifles to them and turn out those men who will not submit unto them CHAP. III. THE next thing required of us is our subjection to the Ecclesiastical Government consisting of six distinct Officers or more that exercise Church-power and holy Writ knows but one of them In the Commonwealth none dare pretend to Office but only such as the King and the Law authorize and appoint if there should be any other their power and actions were null invalid and they liable to punishment But in the Church men can be more bold Here Dr. Stillingfleet's notion if true must help us viz. That Christ hath appointed or determined no form of Government in the Church but left it to the chief Magistrates or Church-governours to appoint the form c. the design of his Irenicon In that Iearned Piece there are several things I must yield to as That the power of Ordination is proper to the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 285. To which let me add what Mr. Samuel Smith a Minister dead above 20 years since told us he with many others being at one time Ordained by the Bishop of Peterborough the Bishop bad them all take notice That he did not Ordain as Bishop but as Presbyter this Mr. Smith would take his Oath to be true yet Bishop Gauden told me The power of Ordination was solely in the Bishop and though Presbyters did impose hands with the Bishop it was out of courtesie Thank you Sir I am not to meddle with this now I presume he would defend this as well as he did the Jus Divinum of Episcopacy in the several sheets that passed betwixt us upon the question but whence then comes Reordination to the same office in the same Church a thing unknown to Fathers Councils Papists Lutherans Calvinists but only to this new Edition of Conformists 2ly I shall yield also to him in this That it is not necessary there should be so many particular Churches as particular Congregations And this is a question of great moment Of this a word hereafter 3ly I agree also with him That the power of Order and Jurisdiction is committed by Christ ex aequo to all Ministers of the Gospel actu primo or habitually p. 197 198 275. By this we may understand what he means by Church Governours in the Question To which I shall speak but briefly though I had prepared a larger discourse upon it Three things then I would prove 1. That Christ hath appointed a Form of Government in his Church 2ly I will shew what that form is and this will prove the first 3ly That form is Jure Divino Consequently if this Ecclesiastical Government which we are required to subject to be not according to that
all the miles from Port to Port that Paul sailed it was two thousand one hundred and fifty six miles if he mistake not 2ly Consider how many days between the Feast of Unleavened bread and Pentecost for Paul to sail these miles 3ly What time Paul set sail from Philippi 4ly How many days he stayed in several places all which I had cast up 5ly When he came at Miletum thirty days at least were spent he had but twenty days of these he stays eight days by the way besides two days journey going and coming between Miletum and Ephesus as they reckon it from Miletum to Jerusalem 844 miles according to Bunting he stays at Philips house Act. 21.8 10. At Miletum Act. 20.16 He hasted if possible c. yet now he sends for the Bishops of Asia this is the fancy of that learned man Besides if he can prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 17 vers and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 28. be words of the Plural Number then his great learning may perswade us to something For his other notion on Phil. 1.1 the Jewish and Christian Bishop Dr. Stillingfleet hath answered him I add 1. In matter of fact one would think Chrysostom and Ambrose should know a little better than Dr. Hammond of yesterday and they could have given other answers than they have done upon the Text. 2ly When Paul Phil. 4.15 saith O ye Philippians he means the same persons in Ch. 1.4 but if one in France should write to the French Church in London would they write O ye Londoners they are but strangers as the Jews in Philippi 3. In the Church of Thessalonica there were Elders 1 Thes 5.12 but none Jewish Christian Bishops 1 Thes 1.9 These turned from Idols c. not so the Jews So in Ephesus several Elders but no Jewish distinct Elders Ephes 2.11 12. make that clear I could give more answers Prop. 2. The Elders in the Gospel-churches had all of them Ministerial power committed to them alike I mean the ordinary teaching Elders So Bishop Jewel If it be a heresie to say that by the Scriptures of God a Bishop and Priest are all one then many of the Fathers whom he mentions yea Paul himself must be a Heretick Dr. Stillingfleet hath yielded this and we desire no more the truth is the same if he be changed this question Learned Pens have discussed I let it alone Prop. 3. This equality of power which the Elders received from Christ did continue all the time the Apostles lived This I think Dr. Stillingfleet yields p. 275. the Epistle of Clemens to the Corinthians after the Apostles time and of Polycarpus to the Philippians declare the same The Teachers Act. 13.1 2 3. did Ordain so several of the ancient and modern Divines Lutherans and Calvinists so understand it there is a full definition of Ordination If this were Peter's see where is that Bishop had there been an Apostle he had been mentioned The Church of Corinth ought to have Excommunicated the Incestuous person though Paul had not sent to them or here joined with them Chrysostom on the Text speaks fully to the point Prop. 4. The number of the Elders increasing in the Church by reason of the increase of the Believers One of these Elders and most probably that Elder which was first Ordained by the Apostles in the Church had a Primacy as to order and honour but not as to power and jurisdiction over his fellow Elders The Text commands it 1 Cor. 14. ult Order must be and where there is a Plurality to avoid confusion there must be one If there be Twenty Justices of the Peace in a County and the King add Ten more it doth not alter the form of Government At the Sessions one must be for order sake the Judg of the Sessions and the other Justices do not devolve the exercise of their power upon him nor hath he more power than the rest every one exerts his own power So in the Parliament a Speaker must be but no superiority of power nor devolving the exercise of the power of the other Members upon him so it is in the Church That Eminent Servant of Christ Mr. Thomas Hooker alloweth of an Episcopus Humanus in the Consociation of Churches to moderate the actions of the Assembly to propound things to be agitated to gather voices to pronounce the Sentence which passed by common approbation Reason and order saith he forceth such a kind of proceeding Survey Chu Disc p. 1. Cap. 2. p. 22 23. only the constancy of it he denies from experience There is the pinch Prop. 5. This Primacy I humbly conceive did continue in that Elder during his life unless for some default he were cast out by his fellow Elders I shall wrangle with none of my brethren nor differ from them in affection about it but I shall ground my notion on the Angel of the Church Apoc. 2. c. 1st The word doth not connote any superiority of power over the rest no more than when the King wrote from Breda or at any other time to the Speaker of the House of Lords or Commons or to the Judg of the Sessions did or do argue any superiority of power but only order what Isidore saith of the word Angelus Angelorum vox est nomen Officii ne naturae cum mittuntur vocantur Angeli So here all Elders are sent Rom. 10.15 if sent then they are Angels Superiority of power among the ordinary teaching Elders was the first step Antichrist took to get into his Chair 2ly The word is to be taken individually not collectively So famous Reynolds against Hart p. 314. So Beza Piscator Paraeus and many others The instances our brethren give to prove collectively some do not prove it others as the Ram the Goat in Daniel the Antichristian Beast c. in the Revel I humbly conceive give away the Cause for there was ever one superiour in power which I will not yield 3ly That this person was during life c. The Argument brought against it is no Scripture but humane Prudence from experience so Mr. Hooker To which I say keep out but superiority of power and the danger is avoided and no doubt while the Churches kept that out this form of government carried on things very well You cannot then charge me with being cross to Scripture in my opinion 2ly Since you cannot prove me so then I prove my sense from the practice of the primitive Churches of which we have the Histories which to me is of great force in proving the sense of a Text that seems very fair and have no other Scripture to contradict that sense how much the Histories of them speak of a single person who is ignorant and that during life Ambrose or whoever it was as ancient as he in his Comment on the 4 Ephes speaks home to the point see Thes Salmar p. 3. p. 299. 3ly By the Seven Epistles to
the Churches I find him in his Primacy do you prove it was but for one or two Sessions not during his life Certainly that Angel was well known in the Church to whom Christ wrote in some Churches commending him in others discommending though its true the Epistles concerned the whole Church 4ly This Angel is not the Moderator in a consociation of Churches as Reverend Mr. Hooker speaks of whose constancy in the place may be bad but the Primate among the Elders of one particular Church so that his fear does not reach us Q. 3. For the Jus Divinum of this This form Dr. Stillingfleet cannot deny the Apostles did constitute in the Churches but it seems the Apostolical practice though they were guided by the Spirit of Christ is not sufficient to make a Jus Divinum a positive Law for it is demanded 1st There was no positive Law for the change of the seventh-day Sabbath but yet the Dr. tells us the Apostolical practice is sufficient for they were guided by an Infallible Spirit p. 12 13. If so in a matter of far greater moment than in this I hope it is sufficient the Dr. cannot deny it 2ly Dr. Stillingfleet denies the 18. Mat. 15 16. proves Excommunication Then what positive Law hath he for Excommunications Deacons Ordination of Church-Officers 3ly The Apostolical form did best conduce to the end of Government which the Dr. urges much against the Jesuit Rat. Account p. 462. I pray compare that form then and our form now under which did or do ignorance and prophaneness most abound 4ly If not so then one great end of the Acts of the Apostles which Oecumenius calls the Evangelium Spiritus sancti is lost A Lapide in his Preface to that Book speaks excellently 5ly I set up this Form you demand my authority I answer It was the Form they set up who were guided by an Infallible Spirit and Christ owned the Form in writing to it You set up your Form different from it I demand of you shew me your authority and see which is best 6ly If Apostolical practise be not sufficient then you may to Rome for a Form for ought I know I know no stop As to the Author of the Book Samaritanism I am sure the Author was nothing a-kin to the good Samaritan for he shews himself a man of a vinegar-spirit his discourse as to Church-Government is built upon this foundation That Form of Government which appeared for hundreds of years first only and was de facto Instituted of God that only hath Divine right to warrant it p. 10 11. In p. 37. I find this was Episcopacy but this is very false these three terms first only and hundreds of years are not found in Episcopacy The first Governours had power over Bishops and Archbishops if any such Creatures were 2ly They were not the only Governours for the Presbyters governed while the Apostles lived 3ly The first Governours did not last hundreds of years 4ly The first Government was not confined to a narrow Diocess as Episcopacy was In Augustine's time there were in one Province under Carthage of the Catholicks and Donatists above nine hundred Bishops but their first Governours had all Nations for their Diocess and that made their Government Apostolical I am sure there is none such now Again Presbyters were first before Bishops witness your own Tribe that tell the world Episcopacy was set up to prevent Schism among Presbyters after the Schism in Corinth among the Presbyters According to this Author there is no Government at all in the Church for these three Terms are found in no form of Government now therefore I leave him As for his fine language wherewith he courts us as Jack-straws Fools Knaves Peevish c. this Samaritans Oil and Wine we bear it the Disciple is not above his Master There is another Question of very great consequence but for these times not so useful therefore I will only state it and give mens opinion about it and leave it though I had prepared something to speak to it Q. Whether every particular Congregation consisting of one teaching Elder and a number of visible Christians be a particular Church according to the New Testament or may not yea ought not several particular Congregations unite to make up one particular Church By a Church I mean an Organical Church invested with all the power and exercise of the Keys within it self both quo ad actum primum secundum such were the eight Churches I mentioned before Learned and pious Ames Med. Theol. l. 1. c. 39. tells us That a Church in the New Testament is a Parochial Church such a company or congregation as ordinarily meet in one place to worship God Sure I am that ordinarily there is but one teaching-Elder in such a Church And this Church hath as much power as the National Church of the Jews met together Compare his 16 18 Theses great use he makes of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 11.20 so doth a reverend Brother who knew my opinion quote it with a little warmth but my good Brother must prove there was but one Teaching-Elder in that Church else his argument will be guilty of Ignoratio Elenchi five answers more I would have given Mr. Tho. Hooker giving the true sense of Independency saith it imports thus much Every particular congregation rightly constituted and compleated hath sufficiency in it self to exercise all the Ordinances of Christ. Surv. Ch. Dis part 2. pag. 80. But then it seems it must be compleated and to this compleating are required a Pastor Teacher Ruling-Elder Deacon one at least of all these So pag. 4. ib. and without these though a particular Congregation may be called a true Church as a man that hath but one eye one arm or leg may be still defined Animal rationale as having a reasonable soul yet he is but maimed no intire man such is that Church pag. 2. Ibid. I pray how many such Congregations have we The Synod held at Boston in New England Septemb. 10. 1679 the last year pag. 10 11. calling for a full supply of Officers in the Churches speak thus The defect of the Churches on this account is very lamentable there being in most of the Churches only one Teaching Officer for the burden of the whole Congregation to lye upon The Lord Christ would not have instituted Pastors Teachers Ruling Elders nor the Apostles have ordained Elders in every Church Act. 14.23 Tit. 1.5 if he had not seen there was need of them for the good of his people and therefore for men to think they can do well enough without them is both to break the second Commandment and to reflect upon the wisdom of Christ as if he did appoint unnecessary Officers in his Church Thus the Synod Half the question then is gained the Independents yield it men worthy to be listned to for they take up the word of God for their only Rule I know there is a
be holding up of the hand in token of his owning the Church-Covenant c. Now Sir let me suppose as you do suppose that the Pastors of the Independent Churches should baptize several persons but never admit them into their Churches by this ceremony of holding up the hand let them baptize many thousands and these thousands chuse other Pastors who are rightly qualified and ordained by Prayer Fasting and Imposition of hands of the Eldership The Independents cannot charge these Churches with schism and separation from their Churches for they never admitted them by that ceremony and rite of Admission of holding up the hand into their Churches Now Sir apply it for about twenty years there was publick Baptism administred but not by your Liturgy much less with the Cross How many thousands do you think in the space of so many years may be baptized none of these were ever admitted into your Church by those words VVe receive this child c. and sign him with the sign of the cross But of many such do our Congregations consist who were never your members why then do you call them separatists from you Besides Sir your Liturgy admits of private Baptism and then no such admission by the Cross and abundance have been thus baptized without it to my knowledg For my own particular I cannot tell whither I was so admitted my Parents never told me so and for my godly Father I am sure he hated humane inventions in the Worship of God I was born they told me in winter time extream for cold the house half a mile from Church and I being their only Son at that time it 's a question whether they would carry me forth in such an extream cold season so far As for the Church-Register that nor any other that ever I saw specifies nothing of my being admitted into your Church by the Cross but only of my being baptized but that say you and truly is into the Catholick Church No Registers then recording who were so admitted it will be hard matter for these who are ancient to prove their admission into your Church and if we were not I know not how we can now be admitted For this Rite of Admission is used only at Baptism unless we will yield to be Rebaptized and so to be admitted by the Cross this you will not admit no more than we We read of the Apostles admitting of many believers God added to the Church Act. 2. ult but never that they used this rite of admission the sign of the Cross only this is our happiness we are more wife more holy greater lovers of Christ than ever the Apostles were though we profess we are built upon the foundation of Apostles and Prophets Ephes 2.20 that their examples are too low for us Besides Sir is it not meet that when children come to years of discretion they should then be called before the Church to declare whether they own their Baptismal Covenant and also their admission into the Church they are reputed members of as you say the Independents require their Children to own the Church-Covenant let them now be members of the Church by their own consent Truly Sir if it come to that since we read what your Canons say of the Cross and how it is abused in Popery and how strange this is to the Apostolical admission we should not like it But are not children members of the same Churches with their Parents though we think so yet this is nothing to the practise of your Church For as in your administration of Baptism the Parental Covenant Abraham and his seed which is the ground of the Administration is wholly omitted so the Parent he must stand by as if he were a Heathen the business is only with the God fathers and Godmothers an invention of Higinus Bishop of Rome about 144 years after Christ who first added these to Baptism a person of no great worth of whom it is said Nihil praclari de gubernatione factis ejus commemorari potest So much cause have I to beg pardon for my defects in the education of my own Children that I would not be Sponsor for the child of the best friend I have in England But however this is not it but the sign of the Cross with such words that makes the admission into your Church 2. Q. But if there be a Separation or Schism the question is who is the cause of it A. Schism must needs be theirs whose the cause of it is saith Bishop Land in which you justifie him Ration Account p. 324 325. I humbly conceive that whoever imposes other terms of Communion than Christ hath imposed he or they are the cause of the schism We do not say you necessarily separate from all Churches that have errors or corruptions in them supposing those errors and corruptions be not imposed on us as conditions of communion Ibid. p. 332. I pray do not think that we suppose you impose such gross things upon us as Rome imposed on you No Sir we bless God for that great advance which was made by our first Reformers But whereas you say you retain only such innocent Ceremonies which were in use before the Papal power grew to that height I pray first are you sure that All the Churches did use them 2. Did they use all that are imposed on us I know they used others but did they use to tye up their Ministers to such syllables in prayer or else must not pray Did they kneel at the Lords Supper we know the contrary c. 3. Did they impose these as conditions of Communion But grant there were such Ceremonies and other things as now imposed upon us I will say of them Downh de Antichristo p. 151 what Bishop Downham saith of the opinions and traditions differing from the holy Scriptures which the Pontificians say were received of the Fathers they are to be referred to that Apostasie the Apostle foretold 2 Thes 2.3 when he said the mystery of iniquity already worketh v. 7. And I pray Sir since the examples and practises of those Churches are made so much use of against us let me give you my thoughts in a similitude of your own In your Epistle to your Rational Account c. dedicated to the King you tell his Majesty that the Church of England in the late confusions suffered an Eclipse but since his Majesties Restauration she hath recovered her luster c. Sir we observe when the Sun riseth it doth not suddenly go into an Eclipse but gradually so that common people do not mind it until the light of it be sensibly obscured so nor doth it come out of its Eclipse suddenly at once but gradually but it will not cease its motion till it appears in its glory It is the same with the gospel-Gospel-Church it did not presently suddenly fall into that dark Eclipse which it suffered under the Antichristian Papal power but it got into it by degrees the Churches not
several houses at that time where they had prepared in one house such bitter herbs as Sichory Wild Lettice which they say they used in another house Wormwood and Horehound in another Centory Germander in another bitter Almonds and Gentian c. so mention twenty more differences yet if Bitternesses were observed the rule was kept Again shall these bitternesses be boiled or raw beaten into a sawce like our Mustard as Scaliger saith the Churoseth was here is nothing determined be sure there be bitternesses and the general Rule is kept Again here is no mention made of drink but to have a Lamb and unleavened bread eaten and bitter things and not drink it had been a dry Feast fit to choak them Again the Lamb must be roast but how must it be without a Spit as we use sometimes or with a Spit and if so whether with a Spit made of Iron c. or Wood and that of a Pomegranate tree as a Learned man supposeth who can tell there is nothing determined or expressed and I prefume that Learned Author was not there to turn the Spit Again it must be roast but must the fire be made of wood or coal or turff or other combustible matter not a word of any such thing Thus I might reckon up many more circumstances that I wonder at this Author and another of his party answering for their Ceremonies telling us This is the difference between the Law and the Gospel that under the Law all ceremonies and circumstances are exactly prescribed not so under the Gospel How true this is the Reader may judg Leaving then this Author a while let us come to the stating of the Questions and for the first about Forms of Prayer Mr. Carre begins his Book and states the Question thus 1. Forms of Prayer are lawful thus it was stated in the Commencement-house when Dr. Fern was Vicechancellor and moderated I yield it being my own practice to compose Forms for my Children and for others who could not express themselves in fit words in their families before their servants and what then what is this to our business 2. For the Ceremonies The Church hath power in circumstances and who denies it 3. For Government some Episcopacy is lawful The Proposition must not be universal for then we shall setch in a Universal Bishop which as yet our opponents do not like Make it particular for my part I yield it I shall therefore now give the true state of the Questions and then leave it to the judicious Reader to see whether any one argument the Conformists use conclude the Questions For the First about imposed Forms of Prayer the question is this Quest The Question about Forms Prayer stated Whether the Lord Jesus hath given such power to any ordinary persons Civil or Ecclesiastical to compise and impose their Forms of Prayer upon his Ministers in the Gospel-church whom he hath sufficiently qualified for his work unto which he hath called them so that in their ministration and worshipping of God by prayer his Ministers must be tyed up to those very Forms and Syllables and not vary from them Let me open the Question 1st That Christ is Lord of his House King of his Church having the only power over it to institute what he please no Christian will deny 2ly True Ministers of the Gospel are his Ministers they have their talents and abilities from him their call and authority from him Their Laws and Doctrine what they must preach and how they must order all things in the Church from him They have a promise of his Presence and unto him must they give an account of their work 3ly These Ministers being his are sufficiently qualified in one sense it is true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 2. 16. who is sufficient but yet again Timothy is charged that those whom he takes into the Ministry be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sufficient men Praying and Preaching are the two great works of a Minister Act. 6.4 to declare the will of God to the people and to open and present the wants of the people unto God is their business and whom Christ sends of his errand he fits them for both or never sends them Ephes 4.8 11. He prepareth gifts for his If your Forms of Prayer will make a man sufficient I know not who shall be insufficient if he can but read well 4ly These are Christs Ministers in the Gospel church I hope 't is no strange thing to put a difference between the Ministers of the Old and New Testament Gal 4.1 2 Cor. 3 c. that the Spirit is given by Christs Ascension in a greater measure both as to gifts and grace to the body of the Gospel-Church than to the old Church hath been unquestioned Divinity by the Conformists 5ly For ordinary persons to impose such as cannot dare not lay claim to an extraodinary Mission as the Prophets and Apostles had Yet the Apostles never imposed their Prayers on the Churches 6ly For these to tye up Christs Ministers to words and syllables in Prayer from which they must not vary This is the practise indeed but this is the question by what right this is done What I have heard in answer to it is that the Church allows our own Prayers before and after Sermon 1. Whether the Church allow it I cannot tell the genuine Sons of the Church say no and will use only the Canon-prayer The Arch-Deacon in his Visitation did dehort the Ministers from the use of their own prayers with these words Though I do not command nor enjoin you yet I advise you to it it is more out of fear it would cause such an Odium among the people should they take them off from their own prayers wholly in places where there is any knowledg in ignorant places they use none at all but the Common-Prayer as I have certain intelligence of divers places The Fathers of the Church in their Conterence with the other Ministers at the Kings first coming in thus express themselves Account of the Proceedings c. p. 19. VVe heartily desire that according to this Proposal great care may be taken to suppress those private conceptions of pray ers before and after Sermons As the Judges are the Interpreters of Statute-Laws so surely the Bishops of the Canons Now it is clear they would take away all but Book-prayer The judgment of Bishop VVren and Bishop Cozens is well known 2ly But if superiors being but ordinary persons have power to impose their Forms at Baptism the Lords supper c. all but before and after Sermon is it because their power of imposing is limited by God where I pray certainly by what power they take away the use of our own prayers before and after Sacraments they may before and after Sermons and that we see they desire it might be done but that they fear the consequence Let us come to their reasons for this One they draw from the Scriptures and that is
take a boy of eight years old and teach him to read with a grave tone a thing easily done and this boy shall be able to perform all your Ministerial Offices excepting Preaching which he may easily procure once a month and he at other times read but Homilies As did that Priest who was my Predecessor only one Minister for a short time between us that for fifty years could do no other but read his Book except one Sermon and that a strange one Yet he a Minister of the Church of England takes the maintenance and lets the people provide a Preacher at their charge he contributing something as that I suppose the Law would force him Mr. Falkner I see labours much in giving us an account of the practise of the Jewish Church and the Christian Church For the Jewish-Church whatever was their practise it will not reach the question But however how will Mr. Falkner give us infallible proof that the Jews in the purest time of their Church-state did compose Prayers and imposed them upon the Priests and Levites who were able to officiate without them If he prove not this which he is never able to do all that he hath writ about them signifies nothing to the proof of the question and all that labour is but lost For the Christian Church 1. Can Mr. Falkner give us an account infallibly of the practises of all the Churches after Christ for the first four Centuries are the Infallible records of them all come to our hands I thought we fell short abundantly of the records of all the Churches there might be many for ought he knows that used no Forms 2ly It is possible that he may find several Pastors or Bishops that did compose their own Forms But First Can he prove they used only those Forms and did vary at no time as was the practise of several of our old Divines that had their Forms of Prayer before Sermon but of their own composing and varied after Sermon according to the subject matter they had been Preaching upon So did improve that gift they had received from Christ before and after Sermon Secondly He must prove they Imposed these Forms of theirs upon other Ministers able to officiate without them and tyed them up to these syllables else he misses the question and his labour is but lost there too Neither of these hath Mr. Falkner proved The 23 Canon of the third Council of Carthage which some write was Anno 395 others 397 others 399 at which were 44 Bishops and good Austin amongst them thus ordered No man shall use those Forms of Prayer which he hath composed for himself till he hath communicated them to more able Brethren A Canon of a Council carries very much conviction with it what was the practise there abouts more than any thing Mr. Falkner hath produced By this it appears that the more able Brethren did not first Compose the Prayers of those who were less able 2ly Much less did they Impose them on those who were able and it may be more able than themselves Mr. Carre wrote more warily than Mr. Falkner who dares not venture beyond twelve hundred years This Canon interprets Tertullian's meaning to be against Forms better then Mr. Falkner How long after this the question arose about Ambrose and Gregories Liturgies and into what a corrupt state the Church was fallen when Imposition began Mr Falkner knows well For that instance which Mr. Falkner brings p. 107. to prove Forms to be in use from Constantine's composing of Forms of Prayer for his Soldiers Whence he thus argues It is not probable that Constantine the Emperour would have composed Godly Prayers for the use of his Soldiers if such Forms had not then been used in the Christian Church Let us see the Logick of this and how it proves the Question 1. Constantine composed Godly prayers for his Soldiers Ergo Some one Bishop or Bishops or Ministers composed prayers for Gospel-Ministers How does this follow Constantine did well and it may argue some did use Forms and who denies it But doth it follow that Ministers did tye up themselves to Forms I hope Ministers and Soldiers in a proper sense differ 2. Constantine did thus Ergo we may impose our Forms upon able Ministers How does this follow nor would Constantine impose his Forms upon his Soldiers able to pray without them Can Mr. Falkner prove it Once more Had there then been Common-prayers composed to which the Church did tye up her self would they not have composed one or two prayers for times of War they did not deserve the name of Common-prayers if that was omitted and if they had done it Constantine we all know bore such respect and honour to the Church that he would have used those prayers before his own not lay by them and compole others As our King now commandeth the Liturgy of this Church to be used in his Armies at Land and Sea there being prayers for War c. So that to me this instance of Mr. Falkner is rather against him To put an end to this first question How lawful a Directory for Worship and some Forms of Prayer composed for the help of young Ministers at their first coming into the Ministry * Thus they who composed the Liturgy for the French-Church in Francfort say Hae formulae serviunt tantum rudioribus nullius libertati praescribitur who it may be at first are not so able in all offices to express themselves in prayer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before a multitude of people how lawful yea how useful this may be I do not deny but for these Ministers to content themselves with these Forms and not labour to improve and increase their Talent I think it is sin against him who hath given gifts who requires gifts of all those whom he sends and to whom they must give an account how they improved and stirred up the gift he bestowed upon them never did Christ send that man into his work upon whom he did not bestow a gift of Prayer How far the Congregational Divines have allowed of Forms of Prayer for some Ministers may be seen in that acute and learned Divine Mr. Norton of New-England to which Book Mr. John Cotton Dr. Tho. Goodwin Mr. Nye and Mr. Simpson have prefixed their Epistles in a high commendation of the Book For other particular Offices I shall not follow Mr. Falkner Respon ad Apollon p. 137 c. for I had no aim at the Common-Prayer-Book more than other Forms but if the Imposing of Forms according to the question can be proved from Divine Writ I should yield to several things he labours to justifie only in Baptism there are four things I should desire satisfaction in and more must be said then Mr. Falkner hath yet spoken CHAP. II. WE come now to the second Question concerning Ceremonies Quest 2. That the Church hath power in circumstances of Divine Worship I have before easily yielded The
the Rites of the Institution but doth much violate the second Commandment concerning shunning Idolatry To stand about the Lords-Table doth partake of the Rites and detracts nothing from the Institution But to partake sitting is the most convenient because by this neither are the rites of Institution violated nor doth it attract danger of superstition or Idolatry but this gesture is commended by the example of Christ himself in the first Institution and of the Apostles after the Institution Thus he with whom Maccovius agrees Before I go any further let me make use of one thing I meet with in the Fr. Debate part 2d pag. 397 399. this Author finding fault with us because we charge these Ceremonies as being additions to the word of God contrary to the command Deut. 12.32 yea Sir I own the argument he answers us These words saith he from the old separate Mr. Ainsworth you restrain to worship when as the Text speaks of the whole Law v. 1. Judicial as well but the Jews never thought that no particular Law might be made agreeable to the general Law And again p. 421. To save Christian Liberty saith he in matters of worship Gods Law hath only given us general rules whereby things are to be ordered in the Church according to which our Governours are to make particular Laws and we are to obey them I answer as to Mr. Ainsworth whatever were some of his private opinions his learning and piety command respect Whether the Judicial Law be there included I now list not to examine This you have affirmed 1. There are some general rules which the Lord hath prescribed in his word or general Laws 2ly Our Governours may make particular Laws 3ly But those particular Laws must be according to and agreeable with both which words you have used the general Law of God As when men cut little Creeks to bring water to a place they let in the water in the great River into these lesser Creeks * Pag. 61. Dr. Templer's similitude of gold being beaten out aims at this Now let Conformity stand or fall according to this saying of our adversary 1. Then produce you that general Law of God wherein he giveth liberty in general to ordinary Ministers in his Church to compose and impose their Forms of prayer upon all his other Ministers whom he hath given gifts sufficient for that office and tye them up to their Forms and syllables in their Administrations Upon this general Law your Church in England have made your particular Law and imposed your Forms The French Church have made their particular Laws and imposed their Forms The Dutch theirs and so on I pray Sir keep to the state of the question 2ly Produce the general Law where God hath given men that power to invent institute and adjoin Religious mystical Ceremonies to his worship Upon which general Law Rome makes her particular Laws and impose hers the Church of England makes her particular Laws and imposes hers the Lutherans make their particular Laws and impose theirs I hear but of few of other Protestant Churches that have such Ceremonies if any at all and without these God shall have no worship 3. For the third I know not whether this Author be of that mind that God hath left us only a general Law for the Government of the Church but appointed no particular Form of Government as the learned Dr. Stillingfleet hath asserted But for the two former we expect this Author to tell us where we shall find those two general Laws That common Evasion Though these things be not according to the word yet they are not contrary to the word will not serve the turn Yea this Author quite overthrows that distinction For he tell us Our Governours particular Laws must be according to and agreeable to the general Law of God A Law is a positive thing so are Governours particular Laws then so must the general Law be To say not contrary to the word what Law is this Non ens is no Law How can these particular Laws be said to be according to the Law and agreeable with the Law when no such Law can be found If the Law can be found then that distinction is but vain Though this Author hath said enough yet because this distinction is so common in their mouths I will but add a few Scriptures in which we shall find an injunction laid upon us that in matters concerning God our duty towards him we look that all things be according to his word The first Text is col 2.8 Beware lest any man spoil you through Philosophy and vain deceit according though we read after that makes no difference 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with an Accusative Case secundum to the Traditions of men according to the rudiments of the world and not according to Christ Expositors differ about those words vain deceit I shall not trouble my self nor the Reader about them but by Traditions of men I see generally they understand those superstitious customs which have only mans authority for their institution such as the Pharisaical Traditions So Anselm c. but Baldwin Davenant Beza Gomarus Diodati apply them to the Popish worship What the rudiments of the world are Gal. 4.9 explains This is certain the troubles the Apostles met with in the Churches arose from these three heads Philosophy Superstitious Traditions and Moses Law Now all these are opposed to Christ if they were according to them and not according to Christ then they were contrary to Christ The second Text 1 Tim. 1.3 That they teach no other Doctrine upon which words Dr. Featly glosseth thus Timothy was to forbid any to preach not only Doctrine that was contrary but that which was beside that which the faithful had received from the Apostles And are not the things in question beside that the faithful received from the Apostles The third Text Mat. 28.20 Teaching them to observe what I have commanded you If he hath commanded these things you impose they shall be observed but not else Thus ran the Apostles Commission but we have found an art to interline the Commission and what is not expresly contrary to my command teach them to observe that also This interlining was under a hedg should an Ambassador thus interline his Commission it may cost him dear The Author of the Fr. Deb. here demands of us What command we have to take a Text and gloss upon it to pray before and after Sermon to sing Davids Psalms in English Meeter I see this Author will play at small games rather than stand out he will join with the Quakers for an argument 1st But Sir remember first your own words a general Law will help to serve our turn as to Prayer We have a command for it the time when left to our prudence We think when we are to preach the Word 't is a fit time now to confess sins to beg pardon for sins that they may not stand in the way
Form then I hope they will not blame us though we refuse to subject unto it as we would refuse subjection to one in the Commonwealth who is not an Officer according to Law Professing withal for my self and I dare say for all the Nonconformists in England that if it can be made good that Christ hath appointed such a Government in his Church we will most willingly subject unto it being glad we are eased of such a burden Pride shall never hinder us though that be so much charged upon us For the first the Doctor meets with several arguments that some have produced to prove there must be a Form appointed and he answers them but his answers do not satisfie I had prepared a reply to his answers but lay it by To their Arguments I would add one or two more First if Christ hath determined no form of Government in his Church then the Form may be Monarchical and Bellarmine's argument to prove it for the prevention of Schism will carry it a simili saith he c. de Rom. Pontif. l. 1. c. 9. Dr. Stillingfleet might have spared the seventh Chapter of his Rational Account wherein he labours to disprove the Jesuit arguing for the Monarchical Form Kings are supream in all cases Ecclesiastical says the Church of England the supream Magistrate may determine the Form says Doctor Stillingfleet then the Ten Kings may give their power to the Beast without any error A Pastor and a Deacon may serve at first while believers are few but when the Church is enlarged to a whole Nation there must be another Form of Government saith the Doctor p. 180. Irenic Go on Sir when the Church is enlarged to many Nations there may be another Form and why not then Monarchical Christ having determined none as the Doctor saith Above one thousand Presbyters in a Diocess may devolve the exercise of that power which Christ hath committed to them actu primo to one person according to Dr. Stillingfleet so may ten thousand as well for ought I know to one Bishop and he may exercise it by his Arch-deacon Chancellor Commissaries as well as now 2ly If God determine a Form of Government in the Jewish Church then Christ in the Christian Church Christs Kingly-Government in the heart is secret none can see that his visible Government by which he is made known to the world is known by his Ordinances Government of his House as our Courts at Westminster Sessions and Assizes shew our Kings Government with the Profession of the Christian Faith and conversation of Christians accordingly He is faithful in his house Heb. 3.6 that House is his Church which he builds not the Commonwealth qua sic 3ly To determine a Form of Government argues more Soveraignty more Perfection more Wisdom in the supream Governour than to appoint only an unformed Government as it were a meer materiae prima If a Prince give a Charter to a Corporation a Patent to a Colony he appoints the form of their Government He that gives the form in other things gives the perfection of the thing Christs Form in the Church carries authority and hath an awe upon the hearts of Believers this notion brings Christ in his wisdom and Soveraignty below an earthly Prince 4ly Dr. Stillingfleet hath affirmed Christ hath appointed a form of Government in his Church for whereas the Jesuit is pleading for the Monarchical form of the Church-Government because wise men have thought that to be best the Doctor answers What is this to the proving what Government Christ hath appointed in his Church for that is the best Government of the Church not which Philosophers and Politicians have thought best but which our Saviour hath appointed in his word Ration Account p. 464. then Christ hath appointed a form in his word and I hope that is Jure Divino else the Jesuit is not answered We need no more proof 2. For the second Quest What then is that form A. I shall lay several Propositions and clear them by Scripture First Prop. In all Churches in the New Testament where we read of Elders we read of several Elders in one Church we never read but of one Elder in a Church that I call to mind 1. In the Church of Jerusalem one Church but divers Elders Act. 15.6 23 v. 16. ch 4. 2ly In the Church of the Romans one Church but several Elders as Rom. 12.6 c. 3ly In the Church at Antioch one Church but more Elders Act. 13.1 4ly In the Church of Corinth there were divers Elders witness the Schism 5ly In the Church of Ephesus divers Elders Act. 20.17 6ly In the Church of Philippi were several Elders Phil. 1.1 So Polycarpus's Epistle to the Church declares 7ly In the Church of the Colossians several Elders Col. 1.7 4.17 Epaphras and Archippus we are sure of the Dutch say Onesimus also from Ch. 4.9 8ly In the Church of the Thessalonians were several Elders 1 Thes 5.12 Let any man that opposes me produce one Church where there was but one single Pastor though if it were so it will not save us for the Churches then had the Apostles living among them and could help that single Pastor if the Church were but new planted 9ly In Act 14.24 The Apostles ordained them Elders not an Elder in every Church Mr. Thorndike one of your own joining this Text with Tit. 1.5 crosses Dr. Stillingfleet's gloss on the Text i. e. saith the Doctor no Church wanted an Elder not that every Church had more Elders but Mr. Thorndike thus not meaning one Elder in a place but Presbyteries Colledg of Presbyters with common advice to order the Churches planted in those cities This agrees with the plain Gramar of the Text 2. with eight examples I gave before 3ly The Syriack is full for our sense The Doctor while he labours to darken this Text forgets himself strangely for p. 239. He lays this for a foundation to clear the Apostolical practise viz. that the Apostles in framing Churches did observe the customs of the Jewish Synagogues And p. 248. Having cleared that there was a peculiar form of Government in the Synagogues and that the Apostles copied out the Government of the Christian Churches by them Now p. 429. he tells us there were divers Rulers in a Synagogue is evident from Act. 13.15 he supposes Ten wise men did jointly concur for ruling the affairs of the Synagogue p. 250. so many Elders to make a Bench. Strange the Doctor should forget his foundation For Act. 20.17 Dr. Stillingfleet Dr. Hammond with Irenaeus darken that Text. I might have shown how cross Dr. Hammond and Irenaeus are one to another Forsooth the Bishops of Asia not only the Elders of Ephesus were sent for according to Hammond Grotius is clear against Hammond de Imper. p. 343 393. But I should answer thus 1. Consider how many miles Philippi was distant from Jerusalem the way Paul sailed c. according to Bunting who gives an account of
great question about the Ruling Elder but I am not to meddle with it now Our Brethren of the Presbyterian judgment I suppose yield the question they may and ought to unite to make up one Governing Church but I do not fully understand their meaning Suppose twenty Parishes and Congregations that meet together to worship God and twenty Ministers belonging to them are these twenty Parishes distinct Churches as to Word and Sacraments so that he that is Pastor in one Church hath nothing to do in another Parish as to feeding them with Word and Sacraments but as to Government and Jurisdiction one Minister with the rest of the Classis have power over them all if this be the meaning I am not satisfied in it Dr. Stilling fleet hath declared his judgment they may unite I wish he had pleased to have opened his mind fully about it If he will yield but this That constitution of a Church wherein a Pastor cannot possibly feed with Word and Sacraments watch over and govern his flock according to Christ be it Diocesan or Parochial that constitution is not according to Christ and consequently unlawful as Scripture-light and nature's light will prove it I should it may be come up to him to perform our duty by Substitutes this may please them who make their own brains not Gods word their rule and such we little regard God hath now brought me to old age in my Pilgrimage divers disputes about Church-work and Government I have read absurd unscriptural practices in Churches I have seen woful disorders and wretched effects I have heard and known great scandal but so circumstanced that a single Pastor could not proceed by Mat. 18.15 c. to remove it I have met with one of the ablest Divines in England and exercised in Government was of the same opinion with me all arising from this notion of a single Pastor with such a people making a Church and all which mischiefs might be avoided if the uniting of several particular Congregations into one particular Church were admitted which Scripture-examples and Scripture-reasons will sufficiently justifie CHAP. IV. Of SCHISM THere remains yet one thing to be spoken to viz. the great crime of Schism with which we are charged by the Fr. Deb. in his first and second Book very deeply thus also Dr. Goodman and this is the common language of them all both in Pulpit and Press To which I would take liberty to speak more largely That Schism in the Church is a great crime is readily yielded by understanding men of all parties and no party will own it though they be guilty enough of it At this day all but Conformists are Schismaticks but to the Prelatical party this sin is a stranger yea in the time of our troubles when they were in France and refused Communion with the French Protestant Churches yet a Prelatical person was not then nor can be guilty of Schism but they were Schismaticks in France What is Schism Dr. Goodman tells us p. 112 113. Schism is a voluntary separation of ones self without cause given from that Christian Church whereof once he was a member He opens his Definition p. 113 114. First It is a separation c. i. e. When a man shall refuse to join in the acts and exercises of Religion used by such a society and to submit to its authority So he that refuseth Baptism the Lords-Supper or to submit to the censures of the Church Thus he But what he means by non-submission to the censures of the Church I know not for I know but few Nonconformists that are under the Censures of their Church nor how it will agree with his second which is 2ly It must be voluntary separation So that Excommunicate persons are no Schismaticks 3ly It is separation from a particular Church 4ly Of which Church he was once a member because Schism imports division making two of that which was but one before But according to this opening of his definition I pray Sir tell us how you will prove us Schismaticks For take up your third head 1. I pray tell us what is that particular Church you mean National Diocesan Parochial As for the National I know not how you understand a National Church for as I understand it you cannot prove us Schismaticks For the Diocesan you cannot prove us Schismaticks unless the refusing to submit to Prelatical Government be Schism For the Sacraments belong not to a Diocesan Church quâ sic I suppose Dr. Goodman's judgment to be the same with the Doctor that kept the Act at the Commencement at Cambridg I heard so much of one question that I laboured much to get a view of it but could not in our parts A Conformist told me it was to this purpose Recessio a regimine Episcopali est mortale schisma he told me Damnabile schisma as it was told him I say only this to it As God gives up some men to monstrous lusts in practise so he doth others to as monstrous opinions in judgment in these days So that it must be meant the Parochial Church But 2ly I pray prove that we were members once of that particular Church you mean For the Diocesan we deny any such Church especially as your constitution is to be according to Christs Institution and therefore were not are not members of it For the Parochial Churches I pray how are we members of them 1. Not by our Baptism if that were your meaning I would soon give arguments to confute it 2. Not by my dwelling within such a Parish-bounds though I am for the Vicinity of Church-members yet I was not so simple when I was in my Place to think that all the people that dwelt within the bounds of the Parish where I was Minister must own me for their Minister as if a spot of ground measured out by a Civil constitution must make a man a member of a Church which as such is a spiritual and free society I wish Dr. Goodman could convince all the Papists that dwell within these Parishes that therefore they are members of the Church of England or Schismaticks 3. I know nothing but consent that constitutes any man a member of a Church but that we never gave either to the Priests imposed upon us by a Patron and a Prelate nor to the Parochial Church as you take Parochial Wherefore upon Dr. Goodman's definition I argue where there was no union there can be no Schism But between us and your Church there was no union Ergo no Schism why then doth he charge us with it 3ly Suppose we were members yet still you are to prove there was no cause given for our separation which though you attempt to do yet Sir you must bring other manner of arguments than Rhetorical flourishes and humane stories to convince us But one thing more Why doth he tye up his definition to a particular Church I think a man may hold Communion with that particular Church of which he is a
Quia haec scissio maximè perficitur apparet in debita communione Ecclesiastica recusanda id circo illa separatio per appropriationem singularem recto vocatur Schisma Ames Consc Having opened our description for finding out the true Schismatical Church or Persons let me give the Reader my mind under several Propositions First I reassume that which I mentioned before viz. the body of Christ is but one and that Schism is found in the visible body 2ly This body being but one hence then that this one body comes to be divided into so many particular Churches and meeting in so many particular places to celebrate the Sacrament and the other Institutions of Christ it is is but accidental and not essential to this body it being the consequent of that vast number which makes up this one body 3ly Such yet ought to be the Conformity of all these particular Churches unto the Gospel pattern the Law and Rule of their Head in their Faith and Doctrine in their Worship and Discipline in their conversation and practise I may add and constitutions that where-ever the members of this body come they may manifest their Vnity and Christian Ecclesiastical love to and with those particular Churches without any just scruple or doubt It being not in the power of any particular Church to vary in the least from that Rule and Pattern their Lord and Head hath given them for in so doing they deny him to be the Head and make themselves the Head The Head is to direct 4ly If any particular Church shall vary from that Pattern and shall impose upon the members of this body conditions of communion which our Head hath not imposed and such as from the light of Scripture we cannot but apprehend as sinful and yet will force them to subject to such conditions or else no communion that imposing Church is the schimatical Church and the guilt of Schism lyes at their door Let this Imposition be in Faith Worship Discipline or Manners Let the Church be Papal if that be a Church Episcopal Presbyterian Independent Anabaptistical Lutheran Calvinist no matter what the Imposing party is the Schismatick Why do you how dare you if you be members of that Head impose that upon the members of his Body which himself hath not we will not we must not admit any other wisdom or will in things which concern him but his own if we may admit three things which vary from his Rule we may admit three hundred and turn him out from being Head A great stir there is about the power of the Church in circumstances of worship If you mean inseparable circumstances ordering them according to the general Rule our Head hath given for the edification of the Church I know no Nonconformist such a block as to deny it but that the things imposed upon us as conditions of Communion in the Church of England as you call it are such the former discourse hath sufficiently proved the contrary Hence the Church-men of England are the Schismaticks 5ly It is an irrational thing that the Imposers of Conditions in things belonging to God should be the sole Judges of the lawfulness of their Impositions First Because there is but one word or Rule given to which the Imposers and Imposed are strictly bound and the Imposed may understand that Rule as well and better than the Imposfers else how the Protestant party will defend themselves against Rome the Imposer I know not they suppose they understood it better than Rome and so do you now think 2ly The Imposers have sin in them and may sin they are not Infallible therefore their Impositions must be judged by others 3ly If Imposers must be sole Judges and we must obey because they impose then never must the people of God obey the call to come out of Babylon Apoc. 18.4 for Imposing Babylon being the sole Judg will tell you her Impositions are all lawful and therefore you must obey 6ly Christ our Head no where requires but rather forbids our holding Communion with that Church which Imposeth such things as conditions of Communion which his members cannot subject to but with a doubtful conscience Rom. 14 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that doubteth is damned if he eat but not if because of doubting he dare not eat That there are some such giddy Christians who will find such exceptions against any Church that they cannot communicate with a clear conscience though there be no humane invention imposed but only what Christ himself hath appointed I do not deny but then let the guilt of Schism lye at their door But as to your Humane Injunctions we cannot submit to them but with a doubtful conscience at least 7ly There is great difference between a Church in which there are some corruptions but no Imposition and a Church where there is Impösition of Humane Inventions not agreeable to the Word with the first we would not doubt to communicate but not with the second Hence for the examples brought against us out of the Scripture where were corrupt Churches but no command for separation as under the Old Testament It 's very true how could they make a separation there from the Temple and the Levitical Priesthood without going expresly against the Word Might they erect another Temple Is there any such Temple under the Gospel For those in the New Testament 1st Their Churches were rightly constituted 2ly Their Pastors were rightly called 3ly Their Pastors sound in Doctrine we do not read they were charged with unsoundness 4ly For outward scandalous sins we read of none in their Pastors 5ly Their members for the major part sound though some particular members were unsound in Doctrine and conversation yet they were but few 6ly They had Christs Order and Discipline as he appointed to help themselves against those unsound and corrupt members Hence what cause was here for separation what understanding man would scruple communion with these Churches though there were some corruptions Compare yours and these But 1st Where was this Imposition of Humane Inventions in the Worship of God unless some few Schismaticks in the Church of Corinth we do not find the Churches charged with mixing any thing of theirs in the Worship of God 2ly Which of those Churches had sworn to the Great God to reform what was amiss in Doctrine Worship and Discipline and then return to their vomit again 8ly Christ our Head may hold communion with his members living in corrupt Imposing Churches and yet others of his members that see and know these corruptions must not hold communion with them still the Schism lyes upon the Imposer 1st Your Spiritual Courts having Excommunicated many gracious and sincere-hearted Christians for what cause we know a sad thing that such a solemn Ordinance should be so abused But with these gracious Christians Christ holds communion we are sure and will not your Church therefore hold Communion with them 2ly Christ holds Communion with his people in Babylon
Apoc. 18.4 how were they made and kept his people else must we therefore hold Communion with Babylon 3ly Christ holds Communion with his people in the Lutheran Churches I doubt not but if they impose upon you the Doctrine of the Ubiquity of Christs Humane Nature as a condition of Communion will you hold Communion with them 9ly Persecution joined to Imposition upon the members of Christs body what Christ never imposed renders the sin of the Imposing-Church much greater and refusing Communion with such a Persecuting Imposing Church is no Schism If Christ doth give us leave to flee from one Persecuting City to another where there is no Persecution then if a City be a Persecuting City by reason of a Persecuting Church surely he doth not bind us to hold Communion with that Persecuting Church 10ly Though one particular Church cannot communicate with another particular Church because of their corrupt Impositions yet if that Church which cannot communicate with the other will admit of those members of that Church who walk as become Christians in all other points excepting those Imposed corruptions which at present they cannot see being blinded with those deluding notions of indifferency and circumstances that Church cannot be charged with Schism though they refuse communion with the Imposing Church for we give communion to their members only exclude their imposed corruptions I do not mean such members as voluntarily took that solemn Oath c. of reforming those corruptions and now return to them again I look on this as a greater sin but for others I know several of our Churches would give them communion I do not say all will but then how are we Schismaticks 11ly Particular Churches may be so corrupt both in Doctrine Worship and Conversation that the sounder members not only may but ought to separate from them to save their own souls from infection and this is not Schism but Duty 12ly The case of those who are actual members of those Churches where these corruptions are is different from those who are no members of such Churches they have something else to do before they may separate 13ly If it be our sin to communicate with such as we know to be notoriously wicked unless we follow the rule of Christ Mat. 18.15 16 c. to seek the removal of them or do not our duty to reform the Pastor Cure of Church-Division pag. 100. or remove him as Mr. Baxtar tells us How we shall communicate without sin though we had nothing else to trouble us I know not that many such come to the Sacraments and who more boldly than they we know which way shall we reform them the Curate hath no Juridical power To the Spiritual Court must we go To the Diocesan must we go we are like to mend it carry Witnesses how many miles when yet the power we cannot own to be of Christ When all is done have a Writ upon our backs to bring us to the common Law and what then Whence to conclude they have dealt unworthily by us who bring the old Nonconformists against us to condemn us as if the state of this Church were the same with the true Church of England POSTSCRIPT AFTER I had finished I met with a Pamphlet Entituled The reason of Episcopal Inspection asserted in a Sermon at a Vesitation in Cambridg by John Templer D. D. The scope of the Sermon is to prove the Divine Right of Prelacy over Elders and Congregations And that the Author might shew himself to be a true Son of the Church he hath given sufficient proof in every particular For the Liturgy that is so perfect that he saith the most accuminated Intellect is not able with justice to charge it with any error p. 18. All then the old Nonconformists Parker Ames Bradshaw Cartwright Richardson Didoclavius c. together with the latter Nonconformists who were appointed with others by the Kings command to review the Liturgy and have given an account what things in it were to be corrected Calvin also for saying he found in it some Tolerabiles Ineptiae are all by this accuminated Doctor dub'd for so many Dunces They must be men of higher Acumens than these that can find any just cause against it these have said nothing considerable But whatever be the opinion of this Author yet Mr. Jeans a man of an acute Intellect one of their own and as great a Zealot once as he can be confesseth when he intended to write in defence of the Discipline and Ceremonies when he read these mens Books he found such arguments in them as were never answered and thereupon layed by his Pen his judgment being quickly altered but if you be a person of a more accuminated Intellect why did you not answer those dull fellows and therein do us a kindness that we might have conformed as well as you He tells the Reader p. 17. If this order of Prelacy had a period the Dissenters would never pitch upon any one way A. 1. The same saith the old Gentleman at Rome these Dissenting Protestants cannot pitch upon one way Hence no period must be put to the Papal Government 2ly You were very cunning Sir to pitch upon the warm side of the hedg thereby to save your selves from persecution and keep your fat Livings then cry up obedience to Governours pity the Martyrs had no better Intellects to have taken this course too and so have saved their stakes 3. If men would lay by their self-interests we might sooner pitch upon one way but so long as he sits at Rome and the Jews are uncalled I look but for little of this unity in the Gentile-Churches But to the main scope of his Sermon Had it been to prove the Divine Right of an Episcopus Praeses or Primus Presbyter as Ambrose calls a Bishop with the Presbytery or Ecclesiastical Senate I should not have been his opposer but it is an Episcopus Princeps and that not with but over the Presbytery superiour in power which he contends for how strongly proved we shall see His Text was Act. 15.36 Paul said to Barnabas Let us go again and visit our Brethren c. That the Doctor intended out of this Text to prove such a Visitation as was then when he Preached and so in England when Bishops visit I presume else he deceived him to whom he dedicates it and the four Doctors that Licensed it See how the Text will force it The Proposition or Antecedent is this Paul and Barnabas two Apostles Act. 14.14 Persons of extraordinary mission commission and qualifications for the office having by their Preaching converted many people from Heathenism to the Faith of Christ gathered them into Churches and set Elders over them These Elders and Churches being but all young Converts and through the relicts of corruption in them and the malice of Satan and his Emissaries without them being in danger to miscarry in Doctrine or manners these two Apostles go to visit the Churches which they had planted
ordained before Pauls journey to Jerusalem Acts 20. for he tells Timothy 1 Tim. 3.14 he hoped to come unto him shortly but Act. 20.25 when he sent for the Elders of Ephesus he tells them they shall see his face no more If Timothy then were Bishop of Ephesus before this time then he was there now and was now sent for which I shall never believe that Paul would not mention him in particular whose Name he uses to joyn with his in several Epistles But if Timothy did come with the other Elders here is no difference made of this Prelate from the other Elders but 28. ver he gives the same alike to them all Therefore I deny your Consequence If Timothy were Bishop of phesus what need Paul tell him in his second Epistle to him Chap. 4.12 Tychicus I have sent to Ephesus he might have spared that line for Timothy must needs know it if he came to him there But you add for a further Confirmation p. 28. the words of Christ Joh. 20.21 As my Father sent me so I send you But the Commission of Christ as an Apostle did undoubtedly extend to a superintendency over the Clergy and the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 justifie the same as to the Apostles c. A. Undoubtedly Christs Commission did extend as you say without limiting it to any precincts which you tell us several times the Apostles were and especially in p. 6. you would labour to prove it from 2 Cor. 10.16 Though that Text I conceive will not do it But if the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will force their superintendency over the Clergy it will as well force it without limitation to such precincts for his Father did not so send him and how their Commission runs we read But I shall not give my thoughts about this now you tell us pag. 34. that among the Bishops Peter leads the Van in the Church of Antioch Pope Innocent this does not make for you I pray tell us in your next in which Church did Paul lead the Van among the Bishops But if Peter were Bishop at Antioch indeed Paul went beyond his Precinct when he dealt so roundly with a Bishop in his own See as he did with this Bishop of Antioch Gal. 2.11.14 2ly I conceive you stretch this Text beyond the intent of our Lord. For the work which our Lord undertook he had a Call from his Father who sent him Heb. 5.4 Joh. 6.27 and 10.36 His Father had Authority to send him and was with him Joh. 16.32 So he the Head and King of his Church having all power given to him in Heaven and in Earth Math. 28.18 had Authority to send forth his Apostles to their work they might show their Commissions or Credentials He promised also to be with them and their Successors to the end and I think all Gospel-Ministers are their Successors but that the Lord intended in these words the setling of a Superiority of one person above his brethren in the Ministry to the end of the world this is but Petitio pincipii your gloss and I deny it for the Reasons and Scriptures before mentioned 3ly Those Apostles had Superiority over Bishops if there were such then as you say there were yea Arch-Bishops who is now over them His third Text is Eph 4.12 13. Apostles were given and their Suffregans as you call them Prophets and Evangelists for the perfecting of the Saints hence pag. 30. you conclude for the duration of Prophets and Evangelists to this day Thus then we have to this day Apostles Prophets and Evangelists in the sense of this Text unless he will abuse the Text a rare sight I would go many miles to see such persons and to their Superiority willingly submit Calvin Gerhard Beza Zanchi the Leyden Professors c. tell us these were Ministri extraordinarii Temporarii but they were men of no Acuminated Intellects their judgements signifie little Well Sir what Apostles were you tell us not neither need you we know them well but where you can find such I know not but such you must find if your proof hold For the Prophets you tell us they were such as had an excellent skill to preach the Gospel out of the Books of the Old Testament 1 Cor. 13.2 Evangelical Doctrines locked up in the Figures of the Law and Predictions of the Prophets If this were all we shall find many such Prophets amongst the Nonconformists But Sir you have spoken very short of the Prophets Dr. Hammond Zanchy and Gerhard add two things more 1. A foretelling things to come 2ly They spake all from the Spirit from a Divine Afflatus These three are somewhat like I pray shew us these Prophets now The Evangelists you tell us are such as had a profound insight into the Gospel as contained in the Writings of the New-Testament and could with singular dexterity open and explain its true importance Such there are also amongst the Nonconformists But Sir what if there were Evangelists before there was any part of the New-Testament writtens how then does your description agree I question not if the Ancients say true of the time when John wrote his Gospel but Timothy was an Evangelist long before and in that Gospel are the deep Mysteries contained more than in the other three If the first Epistle to the Thessalonians were the first Epistle that Paul wrote as Divines generally think Timothy is joyned with Paul in the 1. ver so that very little was written when he first was made an Evangelist I see by some of your own and those Learned men Philip was an Evangelist when he preached the Gospel at Samaria and wrought Miracles Acts 8.5 6 7. but at that time no part of the New Testament was written For Matthew wrote first and that was eight years after the Ascension as our Divines for the generality of them agree But for the Evangelists Eusebius l. 3. Chap. 37. a fitter man to tell us what an Evangelist was than you gives us another description and that which agrees with Philip in Acts 8.5 6 7. and other Scriptures I shall note only these 1. That they watered the Churches every where planted by the Apostles 2. They preached Christ to them which as yet heard not of the Doctrine of Christ 3. Having planted the Faith in new and strange places they ordained there other Pastors committing to them the Tillage of the new ground pressing themselves to other People and Countries 4. By the power of the Holy Ghost they wrought miraculously Show us these Evangelists now His last Text is 1 Tim. 6.14 Keep the Commandments until the appearing of the Lord Jesus c. A. 1. By the appearing of the Lord c. exitus vitae is meant thinks Austin and some others But if not yet this appearing is an Argument used not only to Timothy but to all Christians to look to their duty Col. 3.4 Tit. 2.13 1. Pet. 17. 2. What Commandment this was if we well
the Church and Worship of God to the end of the world would have hindered our Pocket Bibles Individua sunt Infinita But for significant Ceremonies all the Mosaical Ceremonies were set down to the pins of the Tabernacle and if God had liked Ceremonies as we do he could have set down twice as many as Popery affords 8ly These mystical ceremonies are external worship as I said before but so are not circumstances Mr. Falkner evades these Texts in Deut. 12 c. telling us as the Author of the Er. Deb. that the Text concern'd the Judicial Law as well This I have spoken to before Also he tells us That divers things referring to the worship of God Pag. 360. were allowably under the Jewish dispensation ordered as matters of decency and expediency by humane prudence But Sir this reaches not our Question we are inquiring for a warrant for such Ceremonies as your Preface and our Question from thence treat of else I yielded before that the Jews were not determined in every particular circumstance But M. Falkner refers us to a former Section where he had instanced in such things At p. 311. I find there he begins First With the discumbing gesture at the Passover which they changed from standing To this I spake before 2ly He instanceth in the white garments that the Levites did wear 1 Chron. 15.27 For which there was no direction given in the word yet the Scripture speaks of the allowableness of these Levitical garments Answ 1. But the Question is Whether these Levitical garments were ordained by men to signifie a spiritual duty they owed to God and were to stir up their dull minds to their duty and to edifie them If not they reach not the Question but of this not a word in Scripture Sanctius 1 Sam. 2. conceives and others with him that these were not holy garments which Samuel while a child did wear and David also wore when he danced before the Ark who was not of the Priests Order And certainly they knew the garments of the Levites to be according to the mind of God else they would not have dared to have used them when God had so lately made a breach for want of due order they had ways to know Gods mind that we have not 2. For the Levites 1st They were of the same Tribe with the Priests 2ly Their work was about the holy things of God as was the Priests 3ly There was nothing determined about the apparel or garments of the Levites by God Numb 8. neither for matter whether linnen or woollen nor for the colour 4ly But yet black colour was not I conceive allowable about the Temple worship The bread of Mourners Hos 9.4 was but unclean hence the Text Deut. 26.14 and that of Aaron Levit. 10.19 when there was such a cause of mourning did not eat God required cheerfulness in his worship and service Deut. 12.7 Whiteness was the colour that betokeneth cheerfulness in all sorts of persons Eccles 9.8 Let thy garments be always white We find a threatning against the Chemarims Zephan 1.4 those black Priests Atrati because clothed in black So Schindl Pagn Buxtorf Vatablis Drusius Jun. Tremel God had appointed white in his Priests and Worship Lay all these together and we may see good reason why the Levites chose white garments and so David partly for lightness and the joy now dancing befor the Ark. So that this instance doth not yet prove the question Besides I do not see how the carrying the Ark or Davids dancing were parts of Worship His third instance the Altar of Witness made by the two Tribes But I know not how this reaches the case for that was not intended with any respect to Divine worship the ten Tribes feared it and sent their messengers about it but the two Tribes protested against it they had no such intent Josh 22.29 God forbid c. There was no worship and our question is about Religious humane Ceremonies appropriated to Worship His fourth Instance the Temple it self designed by David and approved by God 1 King 8.17 18. Ans 1. If this be followed then you will tell us that something essential to the Worship of God may be invented by man as I touched before will you Sir affirm it I am sure the Temple was essential to their Worship 2. Place is but a circumstance of worship if the place were more splendid and sumptuous it was but a place still But I pray did David intend to build a place to have that mystical signification that the Temple had prove this I pray else you reach not the question there is nothing of this appearing in the Chapter David was moved from the zeal he bare to the honour of God the want of this the Lord reproves Hag. 1.4 9. 3. David did ground his design upon Deut. 12.10 VVhen he giveth you rest from all your enemies round about c. then there shall be a place which your God shall chuse To which Text 2 Sam. 7.1 answers When the King sate in his house and the Lord had given him rest round about from all his enemies c. then David is thinking to prepare a place so that David had ground for his enterprize only he was mistaken as to his enemies for he had much War after this and that Solomon renders as one cause why he could not build the House 1 King 5.3 And in the 4th v. But now the Lord my God hath given me rest on every side so that there is neither adversary nor evil occurrent So that David and Solomon had respect to that Law 4ly I know no error in it if I should say God also inspired David God had a great councel a decree of his to reveal to David of building him a House and of Christ to come of him after the flesh Rom. 1.3 Act. 13.23 he puts David upon it having also declared his purpose before in the Law Deut. 12.10 11. and takes occasion from this love of his to God to open his love and decree towards David that God did inspire him Bradwardin doth intimate de caus Dei l. 1. c. 25. those words in the fifth vers Shalt thou build me c. Diodati thinks to be words of admiration rather than reprehension And the 7th v. Spake I word c. God had often said in his Law that he would chuse himself a place but had not expressed where or when it should be and therefore lovingly admonisheth David to wait for this expression Thus Diodati But this still intimateth that David took the word for his ground Hence Psal 32.5 Vntil I find a place for the Lord. David useth the same word which Moses doth in Deut. 12.11 His next Instance is in the Synagogue-worship in which they were left in some particulars to their own prudential determinations which the Christian Church is not Instance is given in their Synagogal Officers admitted by imposition of hands when neither their office and authority nor
their admission were determined in the Scripture For their Ordination by imposition of hands this he proves out of Mr. Selden For their power and office he proves that Christ owned it Mat. 23.2 3. Though the Scripture had determined nothing about it Ans This Sir belongs to another question viz. Whether in the Jewish Church and if there then why not in the Christian Church Christ did approve of any Officers in the Church that were not of Gods but Humane appointment to preach his word Authoritatively this is a very considerable question but 't is not ours at this time so that this is not ad idem 2ly Yet as to the thing it self Imposition of hands upon men set apart to office was no Humane Invention that Sir you know it was Gods own appointment But whether all that taught in the Synagogues were first Officers 2. And those that had only mans authority for th eir Institution 3. And these had admission by Imposition of hands These are different questions and here we must have Scripture-light to convince us as for Mr. Selden we regard him not nor Scaliger whatever he saith of our ignorance which Quotation of yours out of him I observed well when I read him We are upon things that concern God Humane Quotations and so whatever you bring from Fathers and others I look on them as a Cypher as the Cypher may stand it signifies much and as it may stand it signifies nothing First give me a Scripture then give me Humane testimony suitable to it and it signifies much Yea if there be a Scripture not so clear and plain as some are yet may fairly carry such a sense and there be not another Scripture that doth plainly oppose that sense here the practise of the Churches next to the Apostles and so long since shall carry me into that sense Which I desire the Reader to consider and judg of my opinion because I shall make use of it afterwards but all mens opinions and Churches practises without a Scripture are but a Cypher before or without a figure to me they signifie nothing I know very well that Jews and Gentiles too have a nature that is cross to God in every Commandment our enmity will not let any command escape but even in his Instituted Worship where there is the least temptation there it will shew it self 't is not handsome enough as God appoints it unless we like Apes may dress it If Selden and Scaliger could have given us the practises of such a Church where this root of enmity was not then I should have listned to them very much But to the Argument 1. That all those who did teach in the Synagogues were Officers thus constituted as Mr. Selden tells us I suppose Mr. Falkner will not affirmit the example of our Lord Luk. 4.16 17 c. so of Paul Act. 13.15 16. shews the contrary Grotius we can believe for he speaks with the Scripture De Impor p. 374 saith he Notandum in synagogis Judaicis unicuique exercitato in sacris literis erant autem ferme omnes exceptis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 375. qui mos hodie apud nos viget concessum fuisse sacras Literas Interpretari Afterwards he gives us the difference between the Interpreters of the Law in the Synagogue and of the Gospel in the Church In synagoga docebant quotquot 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 habebant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Ecclesia probati quique honorem testimonio adopti ut Tertullianus loquitur i.e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that according to him they were not Ordained The reasonof the difference he also giveth thus Not only because the Preaching of the Gospel is of more moment than the expounding of the Law but because in the Christian Church the Preachers of the word are likewise dispensers of the Sacraments but the Masters of the Synagogues administred no Sacraments no not Circumcision This is cross to Selden I shall yield to Grotius having Scripture on his side the other not All that teach in the Christian Church are Ordained not so in the Synagogue 2ly Weems exp Cer. Law 122. As to the Pharisees all the Pharisees were not Teaching-Pharisees not Porushim but Parushim Some were but Laick-Pharisees as we may call them saith VVeems Now since all of them were not Teachers and it is agreed by the Learned that many of the Priests and Levites were Pharisees and Gerhard proves from several verses here that these were such no private persons but persons in Office and he with Beza and Hammond ground this Text and Command of Christ upon Numb 11.16 they had Divine Institution 3ly Nor will we refuse to hear those who preach the Gospel soundly as if they expounded the Law truly Christ would have them heard though we judg their Ordination mixed with corruption or doubt whether they be rightly called their Ordination being questioned either because some are Ordained by such who as such are no Officers of Christ and others without Imposition of hands 4ly Dr. Lightfoot understands this Chair de Cathedra Legislativa and tells us that Christ here asserts the Authority of the Magistrates and exhorts to the obedience of them in lawful things And Grotius seems to incline this way and if so this is not to the purpose His second Instance is the habit of the Prophets a rough or hairy garment Ans But was this annexed and appropriated to Divine Worship or was it that garment they wore daily where ever they went so a Minister in his Gown and Cassock if you will make a civildistinction I like it very well but this touches not the question for the Garments in the Synagogal Assemblies out of Suetonius we little regard them if they were used for a Religious mystical signification which doth not appear and so reaches not the question if so you may tell us of the Fact but our question is de Jure His third Instance is from the decent gestures commanded and used in Nehem. 8. ch 9 Standing up c. Ans We like decent gestures very well and if that were all we will stand up at the reading of the Law of the Gospels and Epistles too we shall make no difference being all Divinely inspired Yea if that will content you and our health will bear it we will set uncovered too during the time of holy Worship which in these times is so much in practise and expected over it was in Queen Elizabeth's time though I do not like the ground of their uncovering but the 52 Injunction shews it was their allowance and custom in Sermon-time to sit covered else why do the Injunction require that at the naming of Jesus men should uncover their heads If they sate always uncovered how could they answer this His last Instance is their adding of Baptism or washing to Circumcision initiating their Proselytes Ans I have read indeed of such a practise taken up in the latter time of the Jews