the Place will appear not only from the Practice of the Church of God that has continued the use of this Sign from the Apostles time to this day but likewise from the best Interpreters of all sorts and Ages amongst the Ancients St. Chrysostome St. Augustine and Theophylact thus interpret it amongst the Romanists The ordinary Gloss Lyra and many others amongst the Reformers Calvin Beza and Diâ—dati and the Assemblies Notes which I hope will weigh somewhat with you Amongst the Socinians Crellius so that one would think that all Parties were agreed in it Mr. B. indeed gives me very hard words for reckoning this a principle of Christianity tho' I have the express Letter of Scripture for doing so and in his Remark p. 88. interprets Baptisms and laying on of Hands of the Jewish Washings and Sacrifices directly contrary to the Apostles Profession who in the first verse declares that he intends to leave these Principles here named and to pass on to perfection whereas he is so far from leaving those Jewish Washings and Sacrifices that he passes on to them and spends a good part of his Discourse on them as may be seen in the 9. and 10. chapters and indeed the applying Jewish Types to the passages in the New Testament which they prefigured was a Doctrine not for Beginners but as in Chap. 5. 14. for those that by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both Good and Evil when the Lords Supper was thought too great a Mistery to teach such Beginners and therefore is not mentioned amongst these Elements no wonder if the Types of the Law which were much more obscure were thought Improper But to proceed we have here laying on of hands reckoned a Principle of Christianity and judged by all parties a proper Sign to be used when Persons Baptised in their infancy or before full instruction come to Ratify and Confirm with their own Mouths their Baptismal Covenant and to promise a faithful observance of it to the end in which sense it is plainly an obliging Sign on our part as much as a Seal is to a Bond and hence it has been called a Seal from the very Apostles time as may be seen in Clemens Alex. that lived near them and many others of the Ancients yet it is no Sacrament neither hath it any more of a Sacramental nature in it than laying on hands in Ordination Besides this Ratification and Obligation on our part it is used by our Church to Certify those that ratifie and renew their Covenant of Gods favour and gracious goodness to them yet this doth not make it a Sacrament since the Ministers of God by vertue of the Keys have Power to certifie all such as in earnest consent to Gods Covenant at all times of Gods favour and gracious acceptance of them and may especially on such solemn occasions as this of their publick Recognition of their Baptismal Covenant or on their publick Reconciliation after Penance certifie them of it by proper Signs suppose by a kiss as well as by words and such Signs signifie only their intention at that time to exert the general Power God has given them as I shewed before in Anointing the Sick laying on hands for the extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost and for Ordination which have nothing of a Sacramental nature in them because no Promise obliging God is annexed to them VI. Having thus shewed from Scripture that we may make use of such Signs to oblige our selves to Ratifie and Confirm our Covenant with God as general Custom has made proper I come in the second place to shew the same from your own practice And this I shall make appear from two Instances The first is that of the solemn League and Covenant The precedent which your Party took for this was the Jews renewing their Covenant with God Neh. 10. And the General Assembly of Scotland in their acknowledgement of publick Sins call it the Oath and Covenant which they made with God and the Covenant and Cause of God and indeed it obliged them to all the Duties we owe to God and Man which is as large as our Baptismal Covenant Into this Covenant with God they entred not only by Words but Signs also and bound themselves to the performance of it first by Subscribing it which is one Sign as in the Act of the general assembly Act 6. 1648. secondly by standing up at it thirdly by lifting up their Hands so the House of Commons took it Sep. 22. 1641. and by swearing thereunto did worship the great Name of God and Testify so much outwardly by lifting up their hands and subscribed their Names to it Lastly the Parliament ordered Feb. 2. 1641. that the whole Kingdom should take it standing their right hand bare and lift up all these were plainly federal Rites and did declare and signifie the Intention Purpose and Vow of the takers to perform this Covenant with God and consequently were Obliging Ratifying and Confirming Signs on their part and I doubt not but many thought they did therein Dedicate themselves anew to Gods service for as I have already shewed a Sign that signifies our vow and promise to serve God is a dedicating Sign if therefore the Sign of the Cross be a Sacrament because it is a Token that we shall not be ashamed to Confess Christ Crucified and that we resolve to serve him to our Lives end then all these were plainly Sacraments for they were Tokens of the same thing in the Estimation of those that used them I shall add one instance more and that is giving persons names in Baptism this as I observed in my admonition p. 7 2 signifies our giving up our Names to Christ and engaging to be his Servants and therefore these Names are a lasting badge and token to us through our whole lives of our dedication to Christs service and an obligation on us to behave our selves accordingly To this Mr. B. replies two things First Vind. p. 53. that all this is suggested by my own fancy without any ground for you know of no other use of this Practice in Baptism than that the Persons Baptized may be notifyed to the Congregation To this I answer First that it doth not come home to the Point since it doth not determine whether it be Lawful to use this Sign of giving a Name to the purposes I have mentioned if it be lawful so to use it no matter whether you use it so or no for it is still an unanswerable argument that an obliging Sign as such has nothing of a Sacrament in it 2. It is plain the Scriptures direct us to this use of giving Names as well as the general custom of the world for we plainly find names given to signifie that those who receive them were either admitted as Servants Sons or Priviledged Persons and in all these Cases their Names were obligatory Badges To this purpose a name was constantly given by the Jewish Church at Circumcision and
to it I have never heard that any Judge of the Consistory of Derry since June 1691 when I came first into this Diocess receiv'd any Fees but what came through my hands for I attended constantly on the Courts since that time as Surrogate the first year and Chancellor the two last to your Lordships knowledge who was duly present at them when you were in Town Now during these three Years there are or have been about 200 Persons reputed of that Perswasion that Mr. B. seems to vindicate proceeded against in the Ecclesiastical Courts of Derry presented by the Church-Wardens for Fornication Adultery Incest c. From all which there has not been taken for the Judges Fees to the value of Ten Pounds The last Fifteen Months I resided in my Parish Seven miles distant from the Court yet attended without any Surrogate lest I should be obliged to grant the full Fees to others which I remit often my self so that my many necessary Journeys my neglect of my own private Concerns my staying many Nights and Weeks from my own Dwelling being considered any reasonable person may compute my Gains I shall not enter into any Invidious comparison between this Management and the times of Presbitery or Independency but supposing that my Brethren may justify their Courts in the same manner if the Scene of the present Dispute were not laid in this See I shall content my self with this That all men may hence discern whether our Courts have deserved the severe Intimations before-mentioned or whether Mr. B's friends here have been devoured as a prey c. Ballychelaghan June 6 1694. My Lord your Lordships c. Robert Gourney To conclude I dare affirm that all the Officers of the Court of Derry have not had Forty Pound Fees from all the several hundred Criminals that have been in it since I came into the Diocess so far have they been from Oppressing or Squeezing any And yet I am not satisfied that this Mildness is commendable for I find the greater part so lost to all sense of Goodness and so exceedingly sordid in their Temper that they had rather do Penance both at Meeting and Church than pay a few Shilings and perhaps on such people the fear of paying a little Money would work a greater Reformation and awaken them more than all other Endeavours III. Fourthly He represents Ministers in his Sixth Demand p. 173. as depriv'd of their Pastoral Power that belongs to them and Wishes that Bishops would exercise their Authority in concurrence with their Presbyters and another of your Ministers represents Bishops as the sole Pastours of the whole Diocess Mr. Craghead p. 145. Now all these are Misrepresentations For First There are many acts of Episcopal Power and Authority which a Bishop connot exercise without the concurrence of his Presbyters Secondly There is not one act belonging to a Congregation except confirming the Baptised which has ever been peculiar to Bishops but a Presbyter with the consent of his Bishop may exercise it Thirdly A Presbyter has as much power in the matter of Excommunication as any Presbyterian Minister since he can reprove rebuke exhort and suspend from the Sacrament which is all that any of them can do And whereas Mr. B. alledges that he must turn Informer against such as he suspends in the Spiritual Courts where they are sure to be put to great Charges This is another Misrepresentation For there is no such necessity of putting into the Court such Offenders except their Sins be publick or if they should be put into it that they should be put to much Charges except they continue impenitent and then it is necessary they should pay the Fees of the Office which are very small whatever Mr. B. suggests and 't is the Offenders own fault if they be otherwise who make them so by their obstinacy To conclude a Presbyter must act in dependance and with consent of his Bishop in many things but this doth not hinder him from being a Pastour joyntly with his Bishop of the whole Diocess and particularly in his own Cure IV. Let me Observe further That neither Presbyterians or Independents can with any reason Object this to our Presbyters for every Presbyterian Minister depends on his Brethren in these acts And can neither Excommunicate or perform any other Proper Act of Government that concerns the whole Church without consent of a Synod and if his depending on a Synod in these Acts doth not hinder him from esteeming himself a Pastour why shou'd a Presbyter with us not count himself a Pastour since he has as much power alone as your Ministers and as much in Conjunction with his Bishop as yours have with a Synod and especially when it is considered that the presence and consent of a Bishop is easier had than that of a Synod and the Bishop is obliged by known Rules and Laws to concur in those things that are reasonable whereas generally your Matters are Arbitrary and depend on the major Votes As to the Congregational Ministers They in these Acts depend on the consent of their own Congregations in whom according to them the power of the Keys is Originally seated and they cannot Excommunicate any without consent of their People which is more opposite to the nature of a Pastour than acting with the consent of a Bishop and in Subordination to him and indeed such Ministers are rather meer Servants than Pastours of their People In this point therefore Mr. B. has made a very unjust Representation of our Principles and Practice Sect. XV. Concerning Mr. Sq. 1. THE last Matter of Fact of which I shall take notice concerns a person rejected from Orders in our Church and now a Preacher of your Party Mr. B. affirms that your Ministers declare that they know of no such Person and says That if I mean Mr. Sq. he declares he was never examined as to his Learning by us and that most that know him think that if I reject all those of my Clergy that are not Mr. Sq ' s. superiors in Learning I must exclude a great many of those that are now in this Diocess You see how he necessitates me to give an account of this affair This Gentleman whom I did not name out of the great respect I had to his Relations soon after the Troubles procur'd Mr. Robert Gage of this Diocess to present him to the then Bishop of Rapho for the Order of a Deacon the Bishop according to the 31st Canon demanded a Certificate of his Degree good Life and Conversation under the Colledge Seal but that he neither had nor could procure whereupon the Bishop refus'd him After I came to this place he applied himself to me both in person and by his friends but I refused him and them till such time as he was publickly Examined according to the Canons In the mean while I discours'd him several times and found him unfit as to his Learning yet wou'd not discourage him but advised him to
it the people standing as appears by the fifth Verse Then the Levites Jeshua and Cadmiel Bani Hashabniah Sherebijah Hodijah Shebaniah said Stand up and bless the Lord your God for ever and ever And so they go on with the Confession and it is like the People joyned their Voices also for they used to joyn in the Blessings and Praises of God to do which the Levites now invite them And in the latter end of the Confession it is said V. 18. Because of all this We make a sure Covenant and Write it This Confession is then plainly the Preface to that Covenant and therefore these are no clear Instances as he alledges or Precedents for Extemporary Prayers in an Ordinary Setled Congregation much less is there any Command for such Whereas the Precedents for Forms of Prayer are express and the Command to use the Lord's Prayer in particular literal Luk. 11. 2. When you pray say Our Father to which Mr. B's Interpretation is a Contradiction When you pray you need not say Our Father c. either in Ordinary publick Addresses to God or Occasional V. Let me observe further that tho' Mr. B. gives me such hard words for not distinguishing between the Spirit of Prayer and the Grift Rem p. 60. yet he doth not bring one place of Scripture where they are distinguished It was directly my business to shew That there was no such Ordinary Gift without the help of Forms necessary or promised either to the Children of God or which is the same thing as Mr. B. now states it Rem p. 59. to all Ministers or private Christians In the diligent use of such helps as they are furnished with and frequent exercising themselves in this excellent Duty This is a point so material that we ought to have plain Scripture for it and a clear promise that God will give this Gift to us on all occasions ordinary and extraordinary without the help of Forms if we use the means endeavour it heartily and exercise our selves in it But Mr. B. has not produced one particular much less clear promise to this purpose only he argues the Conveniences of it from general Rules which signifie nothing when duly examined neither ought to be put in the balance with our Saviour's Command and Scripture Precedents And therefore I had good reason to suppose that Mr. B. set up his Rule of Human Prudence to the exclusion of any particular Rule or Precedent in Scripture in these Duties he mentioned Nay I had good Warrant to believe that he allows a dispensing Power even against express Scripture-Rules and Precedents when his Human Prudence judges them contrary to Edification He asserts this positively in the matter of Ordination and I had reason to believe the same as to matter of Worship Saith he Reflect p. 37. Positive Precepts must always yield to Moral and Matters of meer Order to the end of the Duty ordered and the former must never be pleaded against the latter This I take to be a dangerous Position for it is in effect to say that all the particular Rules in Scripture about the Worship of God and Discipline of his Church cease to be Obligatory on any party of Men that think them contrary to Edification Whereas we ought to suppose that they never are contrary to it and therefore are never to be laid aside and that tho' they seem to us to be contrary yet they are not but are some way misapplied which is to be amended without Dispensing with them Thus I may be assured that praying to God by a Form is very edifying because I find Precedents for doing so in Scripture and I ought to look on it as a very corrupt Human Prudence that suggests the contrary And herein as I take it lies the principal difference between Mr. B. and Me concerning this Rule I argue that Forms of Prayer singing Prose-Psalms c. are edifying because I find them used in Scripture he argues That they ought not to be generally used because his Human Prudence and Observation finds them contrary to Edification I must leave you to judge which of us pay the greatest deference to the holy Scripture or have the greatest opinion of our own Prudence VI. To conclude this Head I will deal easily with Mr. B. and allow him the Interpretation of his Rule which he now gives and tho' he says That only the general Rules must be regarded yet I will allow he did not intend to exclude particular Directions and I will take the Rule as Mr. Baxter has it from whence I suppose Mr. B. took it in these words Conformity stated p. 13. We never held that the Scripture is a particular Rule commanding every Accident and Circumstance about God's Worship but only a general Rule requiring all to be done in Love and Peace and to Edification and decently c. in those Circumstances which must be some way determined and God hath left to variable Human Determinations such as are Time Place Utensils Translations Sections Metres Tunes Methods and Words in Preaching and Prayer Habits Gestures and many such-like This Rule is laid down in the Name of all your party and I hope you will stand by it for it not only justifies our Holy-days Communion-Table Rails Habits Desks Pulpit and Fonts as I shewed in my Admonitton but also our Office for the Dead for we have a general Rule in Scripture to pray always more especially when we meet with any loss or cause of sorrow And I suppose our Human Prudence doth determine that the death of a Friend is a very sensible loss that the time of his burial is a very proper time for Prayer and his Grave where we take our last farewell of him is a very proper place to express our hope of his Resurrection and to thank God for that hope which is the sum of that Office of our Church The same may be said for the Thanksgiving of Women after Child-birth and indeed for every other Office appointed by our Church and every practice even of our reading the Apocrypha and Standing at the Gospel the one being a gesture within the very Letter of the Rule and as the Prudence of the Church has judged for many Ages very edifying and the other full as warrantable as your Ministers Reading the Covenant and Acknowledgment of Sins which they were ordered to do two Lord's days Octob. 6. 1648. Nay it justifies that which we are no ways obliged to justifie tho' Mr. B. often objects it to us that is Bowing towards the East or Altar it being no Rule of our Church or universal practice For God has in general commanded us to worship him with our Bodies and it is very convenient decent and solemn that the whole Congregation should bow one way without meeting each others Faces If therefore Human Prudence determine that this gesture shall be used at certain times and that it shall be towards the East or Communion-Table it only does what the Rule
Authentick Rule concerning it at all as I shew'd in my Admonition And when Proposals were made concerning it they were rejected by a Parliament of your own Party with great Abhorrence We cannot say they in their Declaration 1646 consent to the granting of an Arbitrary and Unlimited Power and Jurisdiction to near Ten thousand Judicatories to be Erected within this Kingdom and this demanded in a way inconsistent with the Fundamentals of Government excluding the Power of Parliaments The Question then between Your Discipline and Ours is Whether it is better to have no Rules but meer Arbitrary Power in Ten thousand Judicatories to exercise a Discipline inconsistent with the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom and the Power of Parliaments or to have certain and determinate Rules for the Exercise of it such as our Canons and Rubricks which are very consistent with the Constitution of the Kingdom and would certainly reform the World if executed and nothing hinders their execution that I know but Your Separation I cannot reckon it a Happy Progress in Reformation as Mr. B. does to throw down a well-establish'd Discipline founded on good Authority and with good Rules and Establish nothing in the place of it 'T is not Purity of Discipline to make it Arbitrary and have no Rules at all And yet I am afraid many are for reforming Faith as You have reformed Discipline III. Secondly in your Church Constitution you are not yet agreed and we do not know what you would have I observed that Mr. B's sense of these things is much different from yours both as to the Rules and Manner of Proceeding in your Judicatories insomuch as you are not yet agreed who shall have the power of the Keys Whether a single Congregation or a Presbytery Adm. p. 47. To make you a little sensible of this I will compare Mr. B. and his Parties Sentiments with Yours First then You own generally That a National Church is of Divine institution but Mr. B. and his Party declare Reflect p. 4. That such a National Church is not of Divine Institution and is indeed only A Combination of Churches as united under one Civil Soveraign its true Notion lies not in any Combination purely Ecclesiastical and Intrinsical but Civil and Extrinsical Secondly You hold that many particular Congregations may be under one Presbyterial Government Mr. B. and his Party That no particular Church shall be subordinate to another and That none of them their Officer or Officers shall Exercise any power or have any Superiority over any other Church or their Officers Heads of Agreement p. 11. You hold That it is agreeable to the Word of God that there be a Subordination of Congregational Classical Provincial and National Assemblies for the Government of the Church Mr. B. and his Party That Church-Councils are not for Government but for Unity not as being in Order of Government over the several Bishops Reflect p. 58. and Heads of Agreement p. 10. Thirdly You hold that Excommunication is a shutting the Kingdom of Heaven against impenitent Sinners But with Mr B. and his Party Excommunication it self in their respective Churches is no other than a declaring such scandalous Members as are irreconcilable to be incapable of Communion with them in things peculiar to the visible Relievers Pref. to the Heads of Agreement In which sense any two Men may Excommunicate a third It requires no Power at all to declare a Man incapable of Communion with me but only Judgment and so there is an end of Church Governors and Censures Fourthly You hold That those that are Ordained ought not to be Ordained again but Mr. B. and his Party teach That if any hold in case of the Removal of one formerly Ordained to a new Station or Pastoral Charge there ought to be a like solemn Recommending him and his Labours to the Grace and Blessing of God No different Sentiments or Practice herein shall be any occasion of Contention or Breach of Communion amongst you Fifthly You hold That Ruling Elders are of Divine Right and your Constitution so far as appears to us is founded on them but Mr. B. and his Party declare that whereas divers are of Opinion that there is also the Office of Ruling Elders and others think otherwise They agree that this makes no Breach among them Heads of Agreement p. 13. Sixthly You hold That the Ruling Officers of a particular Congregation have only power to suspend from the Lord's Table and that Casting out belongs to the Presbytery But Mr. B. and his Party hold That each particular Church hath Authority from Christ for Exercising Government and of enjoying all the Ordinances of Worship within it self Heads of Agreement p. 4. All these are material Differences and concern the Being of a Government and in all of them you differ from Mr. B. and his Party and only in one of them from us that is in the Fifth and then judge what Progress it is in Reformation to separate from a National Constitution to joyn with such that do not so much as pretend to it IV. Thirdly Your Purity that should invite Men to joyn with you doth not consist in Doctrine for in this confessedly you have no Advantage of us for these very Heads of Agreement acknowledge it sufficient as to Soundness of Judgment in Matters of Faith to own the Doctrinal part of those commonly called The Articles of the Church of England which we all Subscribe You then have made no Progress in this Point Fourthly As to Preaching the Gospel which is a necessary Mark of the Purity of a Church it is manifest You come short of Us the great Mysteries thereof being neither so Diligently so Constantly so Regularly or so Universally taught by your Ministers as in our Church nor so Good and Obliging Rules for doing so So that Men that would hear them taught in this manner ought to joyn with us as I have already shew'd Fifthly As to the Administring the Sacraments which is another necessary Mark of the Purity of a Church Your Ministers have been Notoriously Defective they have let many dye without Baptism that had a Title to it and have been no less Negligent in Administring the Lord's Supper insomuch that not one of them have done their Duty this thirty Years in Administring it often as Christ requires Therefore those of you that would partake frequently of this Sacrament must joyn with our Church Sixthly As to Holiness of Life you have no Advantage over us being no better than your Neighbours and if you take away such as are not of us as a Church but as we are the Governing Party and who will always Joyn themselves to that which is so I doubt whether you be so good There needs no more to convince you of this than to consider that Mercy Justice and Truth are counted by our Saviour to be the great things of the Law and you will not find that the Protestants in the North of Ireland of which You
to us for this purpose Thus we find the Reubenites and Gadites and half Tribe of Manasses building an Altar Josh. 22. 10. without any particular Command from God as sufficiently appears from the whole Affair The design of this Altar was not for Sacrifices but v. 22. that it might be say they a Witness between us and you and our Generations after us that we may do the Service of the Lord before him with our Burnt-Offerings and with our Sacrifices and with our Peace-Offerings that your Children may not say to our Children in time to come Ye have no part in the Lord. Here we have an Altar set up as a Sign Testimony and Memorial Representing and Testifying that these People did Desire Resolve and Purpose to Serve God according to his Commands and that they claimed a Share and Interest in his Favours and Service Yet this Declarative Sign of their Stedfast Intentions to Serve God and perform the Duties he required of them was not Sacramental tho' it was not for Burnt-Offerings yet it was the Pattern of the Altar of the Lord v. 28. and Represented their Claim to that Altar together with their Resolution to perform their Duty at it and surely this is more like a Sacrament than using the Sign of the Cross to testify that we claim an Interest in it and are not ashamed of it For the Cross was the Altar on which our Sacrifice was offered and we may as lawfully make the Pattern of it to testify and claim our Right in the Sacrifice that was offered on it as the Reubenites made the pattern of the Altar of the Lord to testify and claim their right to the Sacrifices offered on it Every Impartial Considerer will see that the Case is Exactly Parallel as to this point I might Instance in many other such Signs in the Old Testament if it were necessary but I shall add one or two out of the New First it was a Duty required of all Men to acknowledge and Recognize our Saviour as the Messias and King of Israel If we look into the 21st Chapter of St. Matthew we may observe that the Multitude did acknowledge him as such and expressed their acceptance of him their Resolution to submit to him and thankfulness for his favours by such Signs as were usual on such Occasions It was the Custom to receive great Kings and Princes with solemn Acclamations to strew the way when they Entered into any place with Branches and Garments Therefore the Multitude did thus own our Saviour to be the Messias and King of Israel and their desire to submit to him And that not only by Acclamations and joyning their Voices in their Praises and Thanksgivings but likewise in the eighth Verse They spread their Garments in the way and others cut down Branches from the Trees and strewed them in the way which tho' not required by our Saviour that we can find were accepted as well as their Hosanna's yet these Representing Signs tho' direct Acknowledgments and Declarations of their Accepting our Saviour as their King and of their submitting to him had nothing of Sacraments in them And therefore the Sign of the Cross tho' it Represent to the World that we own a Crucified Christ and that we resolve not to be ashamed of him has nothing in it of a Sacramental nature any more than the Branches and Garments strewed in his way A Second Instance in the New Testament shall be the Kiss of Charity I shew'd you in my Admonition p. 74. That 't is a special duty to lay aside all Hatred and to be in Charity with one another when we come to the Lord's Supper and that this duty was signified by a Holy Kiss whereby the Communicants represented their Desire Purpose and Resolution to perform this duty This is home to the Point and exactly parallel to the Cross in Baptism and if the one be a Sacrament the other is likewise The same may be said of the Feast of Charity Mr. B. Answered three things to this Vind. p. 52. First That he doth not see that this was a Religious Rite at all But this is directly contrary to Scripture the word Religious is never applied to Rites or Places in it but that which we call Religious is there called Holy and the Scripture gives this Title to the Kiss here mentioned in three places calling it a Holy Kiss to distinguish it as well from the Civil as Prophane Rom. 16. 16. 1 Cor. 19. 20. 2. Cor. 13. 12. and in the fourth place where it is used 1 Pet. 5. 14. it is called a Kiss of Charity I suppose the Difference between Civil and Religious Signs consists in this that one sort of these signifies Civil matters and the other Religious Now this Sign was used in the Christian Assemblies to Signify Declare and Testify the Grace of Charity which is the Sum and Perfection of our Religion there are not clearer Proofs that Baptism is a Religious Sign than these and you may judge with your selves what it is that hinders Mr. B. from seeing it But 2dly He objects Vind. p. 52. that this was a Real expression of their mutual Charity This I own to be true and do believe that every Sign made significant by general Custom when used as it should be is a real Expression and Instance of the thing it signifies so making the Sign of the Cross is a real Expression and Instance of our Glorying in Christ as much as Kissing one another is of our mutual Charity the same thing that made the one so made likewise the other that is universal Custom 3dly He objects That it is reasonable to suppose that it had a temporary Institution I own it is not only reasonable to suppose this but certain that it had since it is Four times Commanded in Scripture but this is so far from preventing the Holy Kiss from being a Sacrament that it shou'd the rather be one because it had this Institution This I look on as a demonstration that a Sign that meerly Represents our Desire Resolution and purpose to perform a certain Duty tho' Commanded in Scripture hath nothing of a Sacramental nature in it and therefore the Cross is not a Sacrament nor has it any thing of a Sacramental use by Representing our Duty to confess Christ Crucified Let me further observe that the Church of God has laid aside this Teaching and Representing Sign tho' Instutited in Scripture and Practised for many Years and therefore must be supposed to have Authority to Institute others of the like nature in the Celebration of the Sacraments since the same Authority is necessary to Abrogate as to Institute any Religious Action or Representing Sign And this is no more in effect than I find owned by some of the most Eminent Men of your party so Mr. Bowles in his Pastor Evangelicus Lib. 3. Cap. 1. Potest Ecclesia sive Signa sive Media statuere c. The Church has Power to appoint both
Religious Duty and a part of worship Now the Church of Scotland in the form of Excommunication in Knoxes Liturgy orders a murtherer to confess his Crime thus He shall stand three several Sundays in a place before the Church-door bare footed and bare Headed cloathed in base and abjected Apparel having the same Weapon which he used in the Murther or the like bloody in his Hand and in conceived Words shall say c. Undoubtedly they that Ordered this made no Question but we might express the sense of our Minds in Religious Matters by Signs as well as Words These were not to express inward Worship in general nor are they meer bodily Gestures but symbolick Signs and Badges of Repentance Mr. B. may think himself unconcerned in these two last instances but I believe you will not IV. His third Objection against my Proof of Scriptures Warranting the use of the sign of the Cross is That the same Argument will serve as well to Justifie many other Rites which the Romish Church has added to Baptism and the other parts of God's Worship Vind. p. 48. Now to this I Answer 1st That it was incumbent on Mr. B. in this Point as I told you in my Admonition to prove by Scripture that it is unlawful to signifie or express the particular Duties we undertake in the Sacraments by Actions that are by general Custom expressive of those Duties and to answer the Scriptures I produced but he has not produced one single Instance from Scripture where such Signs or Expressions of a particular Duty are condemned meerly because they thus signified or expressed it Which I take to be a plain Consession that he wants direct Proofs and till he produce some such Scripture-Proof he cannot acquit himself of teaching that to be unlawful which God has not made so the Sin of those that forbad Meats and Marriage 1 Tim. 4. 2dly To condemn a thing for imagined Consequences without direct Proof is a very uncertain and which is worse a very dangerous Method for it lays a Snare in the way of the Weak A Man that knows that the Church of God has used the Sign of the Cross since the Apostle's time universally that the Church of England and Ireland approve of it together with the Protestant Churches of Sweden Denmark and the Lutheran Churches of Germany and sees what can be said for it will not easily be perswaded that it is unlawful and when he hears Protestants affirm that the many Rites which the Romish Church has added may as well be Justified and that the first Reformers seem to be unreasonable in rejecting them as Mr. B. alledges Vind. p. 49. he will be apt to conclude that there is no great harm in them and I doubt not but the imprudent drawing such consequences has actually reconcil'd many to Popery and some to Atheism and therefore a man that loves his Religion will be very sparing of Drawing them for he will consider if he have direct or Scripture Proof for a thing they are needless and if he have no direct or Scripture proof for his Tenent he has reason to suspect the truth of it For I suppose every ill thing is forbidden in Scripture and may be Condemned from thence As for the drawing Consequences they may serve to render a Tenent Odious but rarely serve to satisfie a reasonable Man without direct Proof 3dly The Advocates of the Church of Rome are deeply concerned to defend their own Worship and have produced all the Arguments they could against us and yet I think I may say have failed in them all and I do not believe Mr. B. will pretend to manage them better than they have done tho' this be not the first time he has lent them his Assistance with what design I will not judge But this consideration alone were sufficient to excuse me from answering this Argument Yet lest it should really have that influence on weak Minds that such Arguments sometimes have in the mouths of pretended Friends or professed Enemies to make them have a better Opinion of the Roman Rites than they deserve I will endeavour to give you a true account of this matter that you may see what Rites we condemn in the Romish Church I think this due to the justification of our Reformers reflected on by Mr. B. as unreasonable 1st Then We condemn such Rites and Ceremonies as signifie any peculiar presence or power of God to be in any place or thing where he has not promised it because it is not in the power of man to dispose of God's Influence or Presence or to tye them to any Action Thing or Place without his own Act Upon this account the Heathen Images Temples and Altars were all unlawful and so are those of the Papists if we take them as they pass in the Estimation of the Vulgar 2dly We condemn all Representations of any glorious Being in order to worship it as being against the Second Commandment expresly 3dly We reject all such Signs as pretend to carry any supernatural efficacy or vertue with them because all such efficacy and vertue must proceed from God and we ought not to presume that he will communicate them to Signs or Rites except we have his Promise for it and on this account we judge the Popish Holy Water Oyl Spittle Crossing c. to be superstitious 4thly Such Rites as by their number or quality engage the Thoughts and divert them from attention on God's Service such are the many Crossings two hundred if I remember right in one Office Bowings Kneelings Kissings and frequent motions from one place to another in the Mass. 5thly Such Signs as are not easily understood Dark and Dumb Ceremonies as our Church calls them whose design and signification are not easily comprehended by the People such are the many Vestments of the Popish Priests the Furniture of their Altars the Lights Oyl and Salt in their Baptism c. 6thly Such as neither present universal Custom or Nature have made proper and significant of the things they are designed to express or if formerly they have been significant are now antiquated having lost their signification by time as words do the Custom that made them significant being changed as it has happen'd to putting off the Shooes at our coming into the House of God covering the Head the Kiss and Feasts of Charity the dipping in Baptism and changing the Cloathing the continuance of which we count burthensome and superfluous 7thly Such as are not proper to influence Mens Minds and engage them to perform the Office they are about with more seriousness and attention or as our Church expresses it that are not apt to stir up the dull Minds of Men by some notable signification such are many Gestures of the Priests in the Mass and many other Ceremonies of the Roman Church 8thly Such as pretend to propitiate or reconcile us unto God because that can only be done by means of his own appointment on this