a Manner of Worship not determined by any Council but brought in by civil Custom and so made decent that it was a fault to do otherways so it were a fault among us for a Minister to Preach in an Antick and ridiculous Garb which Custom hath made such Or the manner of Worship is something that is peculiar to Religious Worship and in that case it is Religion or Worship it self being Designed that by it GOD may be Honoured tho it be a Mode of that Species of Worship V. Gr. the Cross is a Mode of Baptism yet it is a piece of Worship it self being devised for a Sacred signification and being peculiar to Religion this sort of Manner of Worship must be fixed and Established by the Authority of CHRIST neither do I know any lower Authority of any Judge that is Competent for it § 3. His Third Argument or Axiom is that we ought to express our Adâ—ration in the publick Worship of GOD by such significant Signs of Piety and Devotion as are known in that Nation where we live to express our Reverence and Esteem The former Distinction will easily shew how little this will make for him If he speak of natural or civil â—ites that is Actions or Gestures or Things that Nature or civil Custom hath made so Expressive we yield all that he saith but if he mean Religious Rites or Ceremonies that is such Things Actions or Gestures as have no place nor are not lookt on as so Expressive in any other Solemnity but in Religion I deny his Assertion for what ever Custom hath crept into a Church or Nation which is peculiar to Religion and tho it be never so well known in the Nation that the Church hath introduced it into Worship meerly by her own Authority So as it is neither made decent by Nature nor by Custom in other Solemnities or Actions nor enjoyned by Divine Authority it ought not to be in the Church of CHRIST Hence we can allow Sighing lifting up the Hands or Eyes in Worship Nature hath made them Expressive also a grave and decent Garb because civil Custom hath made that â—it Also using Water in the Baptism and Bread and Wine in the LORD'S Supper because Divine Institution hath made them Significant and Useful but the Cross in Baptism the Surplice c. we cannot allow because their Signification and Use in Religon ariseth from none of these but only from Mans will His Fourth Assertion is these significant Signs being indifferent in their Nature are variable according to the â—ge or Country with whom we have to do and may be Changed by the Authority and Wisdom of our Superiors as oâ—t as there is sufficient Reason of which they only are the Judges Other Ceremonialists use to Plead for the Churches Ceremonie-making Power with a little more Caution and Limitation so as they are careful to Shut the Door against the Popish Ceremonies Some because of their ineptitude the Bulk of them because of their Number being a Burden but this Author is troubled with no such Scruples or Fetters he setteth the Door as wide open as the Pope or any Church-Rulers yea or Rulers of the State please to have it no other thing but their Opinion and Will can keep out a Deluge of Ceremonial Fopperies That the Ceremonies we Contend about I mean Religious Ceremonies are indifferent in their own Nature he supposeth but this is not to Instruct but to Hoodwink the Reader for he should have Distinguished the Nature of a Significant Ceremonies It hath a general Nature as it is such an Action V. Gr. the Motion of the Finger whereby the transient Sign of the Cross is made on the Fore-head of a Child let that pass for indifferent It hath also a particular Nature as it standeth in such Circumstances viz. as it is Appointed to be annexed to Baptism as it is Stated in Religion and appointed to it and as a Religious Signification for a Spiritual end is put on it and all this not by CHRISTS but by Mans Authority we deny it to be indifferent in its Nature while it is thus Considered as it must needs be in this Debate But suppose we should allow an Indifferencie to be in the Ceremonies as they are humane Actions to be used in Worship it is said without all Warrant that our Superiors may Determine and take away this Indifferencie and Change their Injunctions about these Actions when and as often as they see Reason so to do tho no Body else can see any such Reason This is to make our Superiours absolute and to give them an arbitrarie Power in these things that we can make appear to be parts of Religion and which himself cannot deny to have a great influence on Religion and in which it is nearly concerned Beside to say that Superiors may Determine every thing that is in its Nature indifferent wherein Religion is concerned is to open a Door to so many Impositions as might make Gospel Worship a greater Yoke than that which the Jewish Church was not able to bear as the Apostle saith Acts 15. 10. For Circumstances of Actions are innumberable and few of them are Determined and Enjoyned by the LORD We know the Church may determine the Actions in and about Worship which are not Determined in the Word and yet must be Determined but that she may Determine what ever she thinketh fit is not to be Admitted § 4. He telleth us p. 152. that it is impossible to make Objections against the decent visible Motions of the Body in publick Worship which may not be improved against the vocal Expressions of the Tongue If he must be allowed to Determine what Motions of the Body are decent this his Assertion could be not Opposed but there are who call most of these Bodily Motions decent even in Worship which are Learned at the Dancing School which yet it were hard for the Church to Enjoyn Wherefore these Motions that were made decent in Worship by Nature by civil Custom other grave and serious Actions or by Divine Institution we make no Objection against them but blame them who neglect them but for Motions that Men will call decent without ground from any of these we make Objections which yet have not been sufficiently Answered against their being Injoyned in â—â—orship which he shall never be able to Improve against all the Vocal Expressions of the Tongue He saith we allow all these VVhat he meaneth by so saying I cannot Divine we allow Vocal Expressions and Bodily Motions too that such of them as are fit should be used But we do not allow that the Church by her own Authority without such Warrant as is above-mentioned should enjoyn her Determinations either in the one or in the other I hope he hath no ill meaning when he saith Nature led us at first to the Worship of the DEITIE I think Revelation had as early and as effectual a hand in it after the Fall I confess Nature
to be known which the People must be helped to understand tho at first View they Comprehend them not yea somethings must be taught to all the People and are necessary to be known by Christians which tho they are intelligible yet are not so easily understood nor so fully as some other Things can be If this Author will take on him to judge of the Labour of such a Grave and Learned Assembly as was that at Westminster and conclude that they Acted Foolishly in Proposing Unintelligible Doctrines to the People let him give also his Censure of the Apostolick Catechism the Substance of which is set down Heb. 6. 1 2. where are Matters that as many Difficulties may be raised about as he Starteth on this Question and Answer 4. I hope he doth not Dream that no Truths are to be Proposed to the Catechumeni but such as the meanest yea or the greatest Capacity can fully Comprehend and Solve all the Difficulties yea or Understand all the Debates that arise in the Heads of Learned Men about them for then they must be kept in Profound Ignorance of all the Mysteries of our Religion yea of the Greatest most Fundamental and most Necessary Truths that the Scripture Teacheth us If he were put to Frame a Catechism so Qualified he would find it hard to get Matter for it He should consider that the Use of a Catechism is not to make the People Polemick Divines at first Hand but to Acquaint them with the Positive Doctrine of Salvation and to Lay before them Scripture Grounds for Assenting to it 5. The Doctrine of this Question and Answer is very necessary to be known as on other Grounds so in Order to the Exercise of Gospel Repentance which is hard to say any can have who is wholly Ignorant of Original Sin which is here as plainly and fully Described as hath been done by any in so few Words One may be Jealous that Picking this Quarrel with the Catechism ariseth rather from Dislike of the Truths here Taught than from the Obscurity of it If he allow Original Sin to be Taught to the People at all let him â—ry if he can Frame a plainer Question and Answer about it 6. It is the Care of Presbyterian Ministers that People may understand the Grounds of our Religion as well as may be not only to lay down even in the Catechism the Scriptures where such Doctrines are Taught that the Peoples Faith may stand on that sure Foundation but also they Explain the Catechism and all the Doctrines contained in it to them when they Catechise and sometimes in Preaching and do not content themselves that the People can Repeat the Words of the Catechism and therefore it is no sufficient Objection against the Catechism that any Passage in it is not so Obvious to every Capacity as might be wisht Notwithstanding of all that I have said I do not yield that this or any other Passage in the Catechism is Unintelligible by an ordinary Capacity where Attention and Diligence is used toward Attaining of Knowledge 7. Tho it were to be wished that all the Lords People were Prophets and that every one of them were able to Debate for the Truth and to stop the Mouths of Gainsayers yet we think it should be endeavoured that cople generally should know the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of these Revealed Truths which are Conducible to their Salvation and to Direct them in the Way of Duty and if some cannot Attain such a Measure of Knowledge in them as is Desireable others who are more Docile should not be Deprived of what Advantage they can attain § 20. Our Author having set down the Question and Answer saith there is nothing in it but is Dark and altogether beyond the Comprehension of Illiterate People yea that it cannot be understood without Acquaintance with the Language of the School Men he calleth it Clouds of Unknown Language all this is as easily denyed as it is asserted and with far more Reason for we can give the Instances of many tho may be they will not be willing to be Named as he requireth who can give a good Account without School Terms of the Doctrine here Comprised who yet know no other Language but their Mother Tongue He telleth us that the first Difficulty is de reatu peccati primi hominis I confess if he propose it thus in Latine it will puzzle most of the Vulgar whom he Despiseth under the Name of Plow Men but there are Plow Men and others who in their own Language can tell you that thus it is with us that we are guilty of Adams Sin and can bring Scripture Proof for what they say out of Rom. 5. 12 14 15 16 17 18. Our Countrey People can understand that in that Passage of Scripture it is plain that we are guilty of Adams Sin and that we are justified by Christs Righteousness and so they will tell you that Scripture holdeth forth the Imputation of both and they understand what is meant by that hard Word His next Difficulty is de privatione justitiae originalis and he Complaineth that the English Word doth not determine whether it be Privation or Negation our People can tell and some are Sensible of it and Weighted with it that they have no Righteousness of their own nor Rectitude in their Nature that they are neither Born with it nor can Acquire it but must have it from Christ or perish without it for the Terms he mentioneth they do not trouble themselves about these nor do we think it necessary that they should His third Remark seemeth to make the Answer to the Question not only Obscure but Erroneous for he maketh it to insinuate that the Rectitude of Mens Souls is wholly lost and that there are no remains of the Divine Image left on the Soul of Man It is no wonder that he thinketh the Vulgar cannot understand this Answer when so Learned a Dr. doth so foully Misapprehend it I shall not impute this to want of Capacity nor to the Objective Darkness of the Thing but to his Prejudice or want of Attention for it is plain to any who will understand that this is neither said nor hinted and that it is manifest that the Corruption of all the Faculties not the total Corruption of all or any of them is there Expressed Such a Blunder as this in another he would have Insulted over A further Evidence of the Obscurity that he would Prove that our sinful Estate consisteth also in all the actual Transgressions that proceed from this Original sin He must have a very dark mind to whom this is unintelligible But the Great Matter is that he that Answereth must Re-collect all these â—hings and they are but 4. in Number before he understand this Matter What mighty Difficulty is in that or wherein lyeth the Necessity of Metaphysicks for understanding these Particulars or making Re-collection of them I cannot Comprehend nor can I understand how Peoples being
Reply but the words of Psalms 12. 3 4. The Lord shall cut off all flattering lips and the tongue that speaketh proud things who have said with our tongue will we prevail our lips are our own who is Lord over us and Psal. 120. 3 4. What shall be given unto thee or what shall be done unto thee O false tongue We can answer his Arguments and are willing to be Instructed by him and attacked that way But who can stand before this kind of Topicks I have not met with any Person who is of opinion that Presbyterians think to make their Calling and Election sure only by Division and Singularitie save this Author p. 8. Who seemeth to take the same Liberty to himself of speaking all the ill he can devise of Presbyterians that the Author of pax vobis doth against Protestants of all sorts I am not at leasure to enquire how much he hath borrowed from that Author But it is evident that the strain of both is the same I shall take little notice of his confident insinuation p. 9. That Prelacy was revealed by our Saviour taught by his Apostles and received by all Churches in the first and best Ages For the truth of this is to be tryed in the following Debate But I cannot overlook his suposing that we reject certain Ritualls and practises which by the plainest and most undenyable consequences are agreeable to the general Rules of Scripture and the uniform Belief of all Christians If he can prove the Contraverted Ceremonies to be such we shall correct our Opinion about them § 8. He layeth some Foundations p. 10. and 11. For his following Dispute which we cannot allow as first that the first Christians were agreed among themselves about not only the great Articles of Religion but also about the General Rules of Ecclesiastick Order and Discipline under which Head he plainly includes the Rituals of the Church It is to be lamented that even in Doctrine there was not that Unitie that was fit in the Primitive times we read of many Heresies early broached for Order it was not the same among all there were sad Schisms as well as Heresies and for Ritualls we find no General Rule they agreed in for Ordering them save the Word of GOD contained in the Scriptures For General Councills that medled most with these were later than the times we speak of And it is well known what Fatal Contentions there were about some of them such as the time of observing Easter Yea the first Churches had different Ritualls about which they made no Divisions but used Christian forbearance Socrates hath a whole Chapter to prove this which is C. 21. of lib 5. of hist. Ecclesi Iraeneus reproving Victor for Excommunicating the Quarto Decimani hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And at large sheweth that the Primitive Christians did not censure one another for difference of Rites and Customs observed among them Every one knoweth how far the Churches of the first Ages were from uniformity in their Fasting Some abstaining from that which others did not Scruple to eat in the frequency of Communicating about the time and manner of Baptising about the time and degrees of publick penance placing the Altar or Communion Table c. It is evident then that the first Christians did not look on Ritualls as that about which Christian Concord should be judged of They minded things of higher moment and greater necessity § 9. Another Paradox that he Advanceth is that by this uniformity in Doctrine and Rituals they the Primitive Christians strenghned themselves against Infidels and Hereticks This Assertion with respect to Rituals is wild and absurd not only because such Uniformity was not found nor much regarded among them as hath been shewed but also because this Uniformity in Matters so extrinsick to Religion could afford them no strength more than an Army is the stronger by all the Souldiers wearing Coats of the same Fashion and Colour It was their Unity in the Truths of God their Managing the Ordinances of God by one Divine Rule and their Love and forbearance of one another in the different Practice of such Rituals as were not Instituted by Christ in these as the Means did their strength ly Yet another strange Position he supposeth the Constitutions wherein he and we differ to have been received among all Christians which never hath yet been proved and affirmeth that despising these overthroweth the Foundations of Peace and Charity and consequently we exclude our selves from the visible Fellowship of Christs Houshold and Family His Supposition which p. 11. and often else where he considently layeth as a Foundation of his whole Debate is groundless as I hope will appear in the Progress of this Disquisition His Assertion is false and dangerous For 1. There was Peace amongst the primitive Churches where several of the Constitutions he talketh of were practised by some and neglected or despised by others as may be Instanced in the Trina Immersio and many others 2. Even about some Truths and Ordinances of God there were Debates in the primitive Churches and some differed from that which was generally held and yet they were not Excommunicated but dealt with by more soft Means and born with till the Lord should enlighten their Mind according to the Apostles direction Phil. 3. 15 16. 3. It is the way of the Antichristian Church but of few others to unchurch all Sister Churches who differ from them in any thing even in Rituals this is not the Spirit of the Gospel If he understand that they only exclude themselves from the Church who differ from what all and every one hold who are Christians his Assertion cannot be contradicted yet it may be Ridiculed for that is impossible for any who is a Christian to do but if he speak of what is commonly received this very Assertion doth Sap the Foundation of all Peace and Unity in the Church that all they were to be Treated as Apostats from the Church and Christianity who have a singular Sentiment about any one Point of Doctrine or Ceremony even though they Dissent never so modestly and this will Authorize all the Severities of the Inquisition Whether will mens furious Zeal for Humane Devices carry them § 10. What followeth doth surmount all that we have heard p. 11. Whatever is uniformly determined by the wisest and best of Christians their learnedst Bishops and Presbyters must be received as the infallible Truth of God else we have no certain Standard to distinguish the Catholick Church in former Ages from the Combinations of Hereticks And a little below The uniform Voice of Christendem in the first and purest Ages is the best Key to the Doctrine and Practice of the Apostles and their Successors I make here two Observes before I consider the thing that is thus boldly Asserted The former is that may be through oversight he giveth Presbyters a share in Determining or decisive Power about what must be received as the
the Countrie and in Villages as well as in Cities 2. That the City Bishops had no Authority over the chorepiscopos or Countrie Bishops 3. That there were but two sorts of Church Officers Bishops and Deacons besides some other things which are not so much to our present design Our Author in his Answer overlooketh the two former which tend most to ruine his Cause for the Bishops of that time could not be Diocesans but Pastors of Congregations if these two Observations hold as they plainly follow from Clement's words and he insisteth only on the third the Dichotomie of the Clergy which hath less probative forâ—… than the rest yet it hath more strength in it than his Answers are able to enervate which I now shall make appear His Answer is that he hath already answered our Argument taken from the Dichotomie of the Clergie Reply Though we do not make that an Argument by it self in all cases where it is found yet in some cases and this in particular it is concludent Clement is here giving account what Officers the Apostles settled in the Churches and if they settled Bishops distinct from Presbyters and Deacons this account is very lame and useless His second Answer is p. 44 c. Clement by Deacons here understandeth all Ministers of Religion whether Presbyters in the Modernnotion or Deacons who by the first Institution were obliged to attend upon Tables And so by Bishops and Deacons we may saith our Author understand Apostles Bishops Presbyters and Attendents upon Tables And then at great length he proveth that which no body denyeth that the word Deacon is used iâ— a great Latitude for all sorts of Church Officers Reply The Question is not how the word Deacon may be used in some cases on some occasions but what Clement here understandeth by it I affirm that it is absurd to understand it here in that Latitude that our Author fancieth For first his meaning should be the Apostles appointed in the Churcheâ— that they settled Apostles Bishops Presbyters and Attendents on Tables so that every Church in every Village must have its Apostle and Bishop too beside inferior Officers 2. If Clement had so meant it was superfluous to mention Bishops and Deacons too it had been enough to tell the Corinthians that the Apostles settled Deacons that is Officers in Churches seing all sorts are signified by Deacons 3 To say that Presbyters are to be understood by Deacons rather than by Bishops is without all imaginable ground the word Presbyter is as largely used in Scripture as that of Deacon if we thus at pleasure expound Names or rather Words we may maintain what we will 4. This Dichotomy being used on such a design as to inform the people what were the ordinary Officers in the Church by Apostolick Warrand that they were to have regard to it would not answer its end if there were Bishops whom they and the Presbyters must obey for either they were to understand that the Presbyters were comprehended under the word Bishops but then they had no Instruction about the Ruling Bishop and the Teaching Bishop as distinct and how they should regard each of them or under the word Deacon and then they were at as great a loss what sort of Deacons he meant whether the Rulers or Servants of the Church 5. Though the word Deacon be often applyed to any who serve God in publick Office in his Church yea or in the State yet that ever the Rulers or Teachers of the Church are signified by it when it is used distinctively from some other sort of Church Officers as it is here is more than I know § 4. Another Answer he bringeth to this Passage of Clement p 46. that Clement speaketh not of Ecclesiastical Policy as it was at last perfected by the Apostles but of the first beginnings of the Christian Church immediatly after the Resurrection of Christ. Reply If it be granted that at first the Aposties settled Churches to be ruled by Presbyters and served by Deacons as this Answer seemeth to yield they must let us know the Grounds on which they believe that the Apostles did alter this Policy and set Bishops over the Churches that they had once thus settled we find no Warrand in Scripture for this Conceit though I know that some of our Prelatick Brethren affirm that the Churches were governed by Presbyters under the Inspection of the Apostles while they lived but after their Death Bishops were appointed to rule over them We may rationally expect that they should give us good assurance for this Change which yet I have not seen if they will bring Arguments for it we shall consider them A 4th Answer he bringeth p. 47. that Clement's words cannot bear such Parity as Presbyterians plead for because he doth also Dichotomise the Jewish clergy among whom were the High Priest Chief Priests Priests and Levites Reply If Clement when he so divides the Jewish Clergy were on purpose instructing us how and by whom the Affairs of the Jewish Church were managed this Answer were pertinent but if this Distinction be used occasionly without this design it is not at all to the purpose in the one case Distinction is required in the other case it is enough to express the thing in general and undistinguished terms He bringeth yet a 5th Answer p 47 48. That Clement exhorting the Corinthians to Order and Harmony setteth before them the beautiful Subordinations under the Temple Service and immediatly recommends to them that every one should continue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his own order Reply If this Reasoning be at all significant it will conclude there must be a Pope as well as Bishops in the Christian Church as there was a High Priest over all the Priests and other Jews We must then understand Clement that there must be Order in the Christian Church as well as in the Jewish Church and every one must keep within the Station that God hath set him in but it noways hence followeth that there must be the same Degrees of Church Officers in the one that was in the other What he citeth out of Jerome Ep. ad Ewagr admitteth of the same Exposition and is plain to be the whole that Jerome intendeth by these words quod Aaron filii ejus atque Levitae in Templo fuerunt hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri vendicent in Ecclesia viz. That as in the Temple there was a Subordination of the Levites to Aaron and his Sons so should the Deacon be to the Presbyter whom Jerome through that whole Epistle proveth to be the same with the Bishop But it is like we may afterward hear more of this from our Author A 6th Answer is p. 48 49. for this Citation galleth him sore and maketh him look on all hands for Relief Clement himself distinguisheth the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the last may signifie Office and Age both together Reply He no otherways
for it was not used either for its Advantage or disadvantage but an occasional Observation cast into a Parenthesis to shew that it was merely the Deed of the Church however it might afterward be taken notice of by Parliaments Our Author now p. 166. imagining that he hath dispelled all the Mists cast by Presbyterians on what he pleadeth for about the Principles of our Reformers with respect to Church Government proceedeth to give us Accompt of a second Modell that Church Government was cast into But as an Introduction to this he falleth on the Mistakes and weaknesses of the Reformers with the Preface of a pretended unwillingness to expose them so the sincerity of which pretension the Reader may Judge of if he consider that the whole of this Discourse is wholly Impertinent for we are to consider their Actions rather than guess at their Motives if the Reader also reflect on his page 7. where he reproacheth our Reformation as a violent and disordered Reformation Their weakness he exposeth in two things one is that they went on this Principle that the best way to Reform the Church was to recede as far from the Papists as they could to have nothing in Communion with them but the essentials the necessarie and indispensible Articles and Parts of Christian Religion what else was in its nature indifferent and not positively and expresly Commanded in the Scripture if it was i◠fashion in the Popish Church was therefore to be laid aside and avoided as 〈◊〉 Corruption as having been abused as made Subservient to Superstition and Idolatry Here is a false representation of our Reformers and that in three things 1. This Principle was never held nor Practised by them in the Latitude nor extensiveness that he mentioneth they indeed were against Religious Ceremonies devised by Men as on other Grounds so on Accompt of their being Symbols of Idolatrie and Superstition and having been so used but there were many parts of Religion that were not fundamental but of inferior Note that they did not so deall with 2. They never Rejected any thing that was truelie a part of true Religion and was peculiar to it whether it were of greater or lesser Moment onlie on the Ground he mentioneth but always were able to give other Reasons for their Opinion or Practice 3. They always were willing to receive what could be by good consequence proved by Scripture though it were not positively and expresly Commanded I advise my Adversarie if he have little regard to the reputation of the Reformers that he would be more careful not to Wound his own by speaking what is not Truth For the Principle it self duly stated according to what I have said I am willing to Debate it with him but that is not his business but rather to expose it by Invectives The next thing that he Representeth them in as weak is they were for the Revenue that had belonged to the Church in Poperie to be Imployed still for the Churches use I think this Debate is little to our purpose and therefore I wave it § 24. His next Attempt is to prove that there was a second Model of the Government of the Church of Scotland after the publick Establishment of the Reformation and that this was Episcopacy And here he bringeth a Labyrinth of History in which it is hard for any Man to follow him rejecting what ever disliketh him and casting Dirt on all that have written the History of our Reformation not sparing Spotswood himself when he doth not please him only he hath had the hap to light on a Manuscript out of which he alters adds and contradicteth all the other Accounts that we have of the Affairs of our Church whence that Manuscript came what Authority it hath whither it be his own or any other Mans he is not pleased to tell us He calleth it his Manuscript whether he would have us take him for the Author or for the Owner of it I cannot determine nor do I see what Title he hath to it on either Account I have the present use of a Manuscript which as I am credibly informed is the very individual Copy that he had which now belongeth to the University of Glasgow Whether any other Copies of it be extant I am uncertain It was Transcribed by William Laing Reader of Ebdie Kirk in the year 1638. It containeth the Acts of the General Assemblies from 1560 to 1616 inclusive and other things relating to Church Affairs I shall in a few Words shew how little Advantage he hath by this Manuscript by shewing that it is far from setting forth our Reformers as enclined to Episcoprcy and by pointing at some of his false Citations out of it for the former it will be evident to them who without Byass consider the following Passages Assembly 1562 p. 6. not the Superintendent alone but they with the Ministers and Elders are to expone to the Kirk the State of the Kirk among them and note Offences that the Kirk may find some Remeed for them p. 7. Superintendents as well as other Ministers are removed and tryed in Order to Censure by the Assembly so also p. 8. and almost every where This looketh not like Episcopal Jurisdiction p. 7. Sess. 4. the Assembly giveth Power to Superintendents to transport Ministers but with this express Limitation that it be done in the Synod and with Consent of the most part of the Ministers and Elders Ibid. Sess. 3. Speaking of Inhibiting such as have unduly entered into the Ministry it is said this Act is to have strength as well against them that are called Bishops as others pretending to any Ministry in the Kirk Where even the Name of Bishops as then used seemeth to be disliked and their Prelation disowned and their Subjection to the Ministers met in an Assembly supposed so far were they from owning sole or superior Jurisdiction in them Assembly 1565. p. 21. Ministers must be tryed at their Entry by Learned Men of the Kirk such as are presently the Superintendents appointed thereunto where the Perpetuity of the Superintendents Office and Power is disowned they for the present not always were to do that Work also that their Power is derived from the Assembly not Divine Institution is plainly insinuated Assembly 1566. A Petition to the Council with Expostulations against the Queens restoring the Arch-Bishop of Saint Andrews to his Jurisdiction where they affirm that the Causes for the most part judged by his usurped Authority belong to the true Kirk Ibid. Bishops Abbots c. warned by Superintendents within whose Jurisdiction they lived to compear before the Kirk to answer for not waiting on their Flocks Assembly 1567. Sess. 4. p. 44. The Bishop of Orkney deprived of all Ministerial Function of the Ministry for Marrying the Queen to the Earl of Bothwell a Divorced Adulterer On his Repentance he is restored again to the Ministry of the Words No mention of restoring to Episcopal Jurisdiction The Manuscript giveth a very
was endeavoured toward the setting up of Episcopacy he bringeth Reasons for the States Men and Reasons for the Church men that might move them and that with as much Confidence as if he had been at the Consult the States Men considered that Episcopacy was still established by Law the Ecclesiasticks made one of the three Estates and to take it away was to shake the Civil Constitution and they might have been called to an account for it when the King should come to Age who was then Minor But this is a pure Fallacy the Bishops were still by Law possessed of their Temporalities Revenues and Parliamentarie Priviledges but not of their Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction it was the preserving of these not of this that the Courtiers were accountable for with respect to the Civil Constitution That this was the best way to preserve the Right of the Church is said without Book unless he can prove that Christ gave her such Rights her Civil Rights might have been and afterward were otherwise preserved It was very evident that many of the States Men were Acted by other Motives I do not say all of them were for a Jus Divinum or Acted Conscienciously even to get the Revenues in their hands Which he doth plainly enough confess while page 189. he telleth us of their Playing their Tricks and Robbing the Church For the Reason that he maketh the Clergy go upon viz. The ill Effects of the former Scheme laid in the first Book of Discipline that had arisen to the Church there is no Hint given by him of any such ill Effects as apprehended by the Men of that Time except that they who designed a Change for their own Ends would readily pretend some such thing neither he nor any else can prove that any Detriment to the true Interests of Religion did arise from it It is evident that some Church Men had a design to advance themselves though they were disappointed as to the advantagious part of their design they got the Titles and the great Men got the Revenues which he would fain deny or dissemble but it is so evident that he must contradict our plainest Histories if he deny it 3. That another was Moderator in the General Assembly than a Bishop is brought as an Argument that Prelacy was not got to its height even by the greatest Efforts the Party could make at that time All he saith to this is that George Buchannan was chosen Moderator in the General Assembly 1567. which yet inferreth not the Ruine of Presbytery The Strength of this Evasion is soon taken off the Episcopal Church look on Bishops as so far above Presbyters that it is Essential to them to Rule and the Presbyters to be Ruled by them so that for a Bishop to be a single Member of an Assembly and a Presbyter to be Moderator is inconsistent with the Bishops Prerogative but Presbyterians hold no such distinguishing Principle they think a Minister is in a superior Order above a Non-Preaching Elder but do not think that the one hath Jurisdiction over the other but that both have equal Ruling Power and therefore though it be now so Customary that only Ministers preside in our Meetings that it would be thought odd if it should be otherwise yet for a Ruling Elder such as Master Buchannan was and a Man of his singular Eminency to preside in a Meeting is not against any Principle of Presbyterians that I know of tho the Way we use is most Rational and Decent and there is no Reason for receding from it But to make this Observation yet stronger Calderwood p. 56. if I may Name him without Firing this Gentlemans Choller and being Charged with Ignorance and knowing no other History telleth us that never one of them had the Credit to be Moderator of the General Assembly which is a Token I shall not speak in his Dialect an infallible Demonstration that their Episcopal Jurisdiction was not then owned by the Church § 26. A fourth Observation I make on his Historical Debate is that he endeavoureth to prove against Petrie and Calderwood that the Articles at Leith were approved by the General Assembly that Episcopacy was s◠approved that it cost much Stuggling before it could be Abolished What he gaineth by all this I know not The Opposition that was made to that Way did soon appear and it was soon abolished that it is said that it was not allowed by the General Assembly is only meant of the first General Assembly that sat a few Weeks after the Agreement at Leith though afterward the Party grew stronger and got it approved I know none that asserteth that it was never approved in any General Assembly though his Proofs that he bringeth for its being approved might tempt one to think that it was never approved viz. That they sat in Assemblies and voted and that even as Bishops Their sitting and voting proveth that they were tollerated what he meaneth by sitting and voting as Bishops I do not well understand that Reduplication must either import the Exercise of the Episcopal Authority or it is a Word without Sense or Signification now that they Exercised Episcopal Authority in any of the Assemblies I do not find nor doth he attempt to prove it The Arch-Bishop of Saint Andrews being present and first named in a Committee as p. 203. is such an Argument for Episcopal Preheminence as the Papists use not a few for Peters Supremacy that Superintendents are continued ibid. is a weak Argument for the Assemblies approving Bishops of the second Model as he calleth it It is another such Argument that the Assembly declare what they mean by the Names Arch-Bishops Deans c. and wish these changed into Names less offensive that the Articles agreed on at Leith which contain his second Model are voted by the Assembly to be received but for an Interim These and some more of the same or like Importance are his Arguments for the Approbation of Episcopacy by the Church of Scotland at that time I do not say they Acted as Men for the Divine Right of Parity it was a time of Temptation and many yielded too far but there was a Party that did not thus Comply and who prevailed to get this Yoke cast off at last many of the Acts of the Assemblies that he citeth do Direct the Bishops and Limit their Power and appoint them to be subject to the General Assembly and to have no more Power than Superin endents had this looketh like no good Will to Episcopacy but a Hedging it in when they could not for present cast it wholly out But he will prove p. 212 c. That all this was out of no Dislike to Episcopacy and that by a Petition consisting of nine Articles drawn by the General Assembly 1574. Wherein Bishops are several times mentioned and that as Acting as Bishops in Naming Ministers for Places where yet Superintendents and Commissioners are also mentioned as equally concerned in that Work yea in
Commemoration of some Mystery of our Religion by Men and as a part of Gods Worship And another whither such Days may be set apart for Worshipping God merely as a piece of good Order and Policy The first the Papists are for the other most of our Prelatists owne though some of them differ little from the Papists in this Matter 6. The Question is not whither a Day may be set apart occasionally for Religious Worship that is when any special Providence giveth occasion for Fasting and Humiliation or for Thanksgiving and Rejoycing seing in that Case there is a special Providential Call to that Solemn Work but whither a Day may be set apart to be observed constantly and as it recurreth every Year The one maketh a Difference between that Day of the Year and other Days and exempteth it altogether and constantly from Civil Use the other doth not so the one maketh a Difference among Days the other maketh the Difference only in the Works or Dispensations of God which occasioneth such Work on that Day and not on another All that the Church doth in the one Case is whereas the present Providence calleth to the Work as it is expressed Isa. 22. 12. The Church only determineth the Circumstance of Time which must be done in the other the Church determineth more than a necessary Circumstance viz. That there shall be such a Solemnity Which the Lord hath not injoyned neither do we doubt but that the Church may appoint recurrent Days for Solemn Worship to wit while the present Providence that calleth to such Work continueth Weekly or Monthly Fasts may be appointed under a lasting Calamity or Threatning 7. One Question is whither any Anniversary Holy Days should be allowed or may be appointed by Man another whither any are to be allowed in Commemoration of the Saints for some are for the great Days as they call them which respect Christ and our Redemption such as the Nativity Resurrection Ascension and some others who are wholly against Holy Days that respect only the Saints 8. It is a Question whither Days may be Dedicated to Saints as the Papists do and another whither the Commemoration of Saints may be made on set Days this last our Brethren are for though it will be hard to separate these two of which afterward § 3. I shall now set down our Opinion and wherein we differ from others And first we maintain that God hath instituted the Observation of the Weekly Sabbath as a part of that Religious Worship we owe to him I do not expect that our Brethren will directly and expresly controvert this though some of them teach Doctrine not very consistent with it which belongeth to another Head than what we are now upon Only I take notice that they who are most for observing other Holy Days do usually shew least Zeal for the strict observing of the Lords Day either in their Principle or their Practice 2. I assent that the Lord hath not instituted under the Gospel any other recurrent Holy Days nor enjoyned the Observation of them If any think otherwise they must prove what they affirm 3. The Church hath no Power to institute or injoy the Observation of any recurrent or Anniversary Holy Days for Religious Use without a special and present Occasion 4. Any Days that the Church setteth apart occasionally for Religious Work are no further Holy than that Holy Work is the Design of their Appointment they have no Sanctity in themselves nor can Men impart it to them 5. Though we are far from severe Censuring either Ancient or Modern Churches or Persons who are for some of these Holy Days yet we cannot be of their Sentiment in this nor look on these Days as indifferent things as some of them do 6. That the Reader may be undeceived about the Opinion of the Reformed Churches which our Author talketh so much of and blameth us for differing from them he may know that our Episcopal Brethren are at greater Distance from them in this Matter than we are for they condemn the Saints Holy Days so Paraeus in Rom. 14. Dub. 4. so Calvin in both the Epistles cited § 1. The Helvetick Confession of Faith cap. 24. in Cor. Confess p. 54. Baldwin citeth Danaeus disowning all the Holy Days in these Words Dies Christo dicatos tollendos existimo judicoque quotidie nobis in Evangelii praedicatione nascitur circumciditur moritur resurgit Christus Turretin Theolog. Elentic loc 11. cap. 15. Though he allow Liberty enough for observing of the Holy Days that relate to Christ yet he determineth the Controversie about Holy Days far otherwise than our Episcopal Brethren do I shall transcribe his Words after he hath told us that we ought always to remember Christ and his Benefits and should do it in the Word and Sacraments he addeth sed questio est an ad singulorum illorum beneficiorum mysteriorum recordationem certi quidem dies festi Deo sacri annuatim recurrentes a Christianis quotannis celebrandi sint quod nos negamus he also denyeth these Days to be more Holy than others or a part of Gods Worship or to be Celebrated sub ratione mysterii Markius also Compend cap. 12. § 17. He condemneth the Difference of Days that was brought into the Church from the first Christians yearly Commemoration of the Martyrs When my Antagonist hath duly considered these things I hope he will not find cause to represent us as so widely differing from the Reformed and himself so near to them as he would now make the World believe I do not pretend that they are generally wholly on our Side in this for many of them look on the Observation of these Days as indifferent in which we cannot assent to them But I know of none of them who imposeth them with such Rigour and talk so highly of the necessity of observing them being recommended by the Church or of the Religion that is in this Observation as the Episcopal Party in England and Scotland do Our Brethren do also stand by themselves in their keeping of Saints Days and in the Number of their Holy Days which in England is greater than the Number of these that God injoyned to the Jews forthe Primitive Church at some Distance from the Apostolick Times may be they may have some Countenance there yet these Saints Days were not then so so injoyned and urged as they urge and impose them nor made such a Yoke to the People as may be gathered from Socrates histor Eccles. lib. 5. cap. 22. whose Words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. I am of Opinion that as many other things crept in by Custom in diverse places so the Feast of Easter prevailed among all People from a certain private Custom and Observation in so much that as I said before not one of the Apostles hath any where prescribed to any Man so much as one Rule of it it was observed not by Canon but of Custom and afterward he
the Order Decencie and Policie that the LORD requireth in his Church may be obtained without them as the Patrons of them do on the Matter confess when they tell us that these and all the rest of the Ceremonies are in themselves and antecedently to the Churches imposing them indifferent Beside not the Principle only or the Opinion that Men have about these Days is condemned in these Scriptures but the Practice it self § 7. Our Fourth Reason is the imposing of the Holy Days doth derogate from that Christian Libertie that the LORD hath given to his People which the LORD doth not allow Gal. 5. 1. They are contrarie to this Libertie two ways 1. It is the Libertie of Christians to be under no Yoke in matters of Religion we refuse not civil Subjection to our Rulers in all lawful things but that of Christ to have him for their only Law-giver James 4. 12. He hath not given Power to Men to make new Laws for his Church but to declare his Laws and to Execute his Censures that he hath Appointed on the Breakers of them Wherefore when Christ hath given us one Holy day to be perpetually Observed and no more if Men will enjoyn moe Days they make Laws of their own and bring the People under their Yoke which is not Christs And the Places last Cited do evidently Import this The LORD had now delivered his People from the Yoke of Ceremonies which himself had laid on them and the false Apostles were endeavouring to wreath that Yoke still on their Necks and it is as much Bondage if any will wreath another Yoke upon them which is none of Christs now that Scripture biddeth them beware of such Yokes 2. The fourth Commandment alloweth the People of GOD six days of the Week for their lawful worldly Imployments this Instituting of Holy days Abridgeth that Libertie and that merely by the Authoritie of Men. It is not so when occasional Solemnities are Appointed because the Religious Solemn Work on which abstinencie from Labour doth necessarily follow is determined by the Lord and intimated to us by his Providence the Church doth no more but Chuse this Day rather than that If it be said that Magistrats may Restrain People from their Work for civil Causes why not then for Religious Reasons Answer Men have not the the same Power in Religion as in Civil Things though restraint from Work is the same in both so is not the occasion the one must be chosen by the LORD the other may by Men. Beside that Magistrats must have some good Ground for such Restraint otherwise they will not be appointed of GOD though obeyed by the People I might here add all the Arguments that we commonly use against Humane Ceremonies in Religion that it is an Addition to the Word or Rule that GOD hath managed the Affairs of His house by A symbolizing with the Papists without Necessitie It is Superstition being above and beyond what GOD hath Enjoyned c. I shall only adde that the Scripture calleth the weekly Sabbath the LORDS Day as a Name of distinction from other Days but it could be no distinguishing Name if the Nativitie Circumcision c. were all Dedicated to our LORD for every one of these were the LORDS Day as well as it And therefore when John said he was in the Spirit on the LORDS Day we could not know whether it was Christmass day or Easter day or Good Friday or the first of January the Circumcision Day or some ordinary first day of the Week § 8. I come now to Examine what my Antagonist bringeth for his Holy Days and against our Opinion He sayeth p. 169. they were Originally appointed to Commemorat the Mysteries of our Redemption with all possible Zeal gratitude and Solemnity If he can shew us that Christ or his Apostles appointed them for these Ends we shall lay our hand on our Mouth and not mutter against them but if they be so Appointed by Men we ask quo warranto CHRIST himself hath appointed Ordinances for these Ends particularly the LORD'S Supper is Instituted as a Commemoration of the Mysteries of our Redemption this do in remembrance of Me if he hath said so of any of the Controverted Holy Days we shall receive them But I desire to know what Power the ordinarie Pastors of the Church have to Institute special Ordinances for commemorating the Mysteries of our Redemption I shall further Debate this with him by and by Mean while I observe that he is beyond many of his Brethren who disown the Mysterie of these Days and all Religious Worship in the Observation of them and set them no higher than that they are for Decencie Order and Policie And himself some times when it is for his purpose seemeth to be of the same mind as p. 170. he frameth an Objection to himself from the Abuse of them which alas is too notour and gross and frequent His Answer is so may the most Holy Exercises and the highest Mysteries and there is nothing so Sacred in Religion or so universally useful in Nature against which some such Objection may not be started I do much wonder that a Man of his pretensions to Learning and Reading and who doth so superciliously despise others for defectiveness in both should so superficially Propose so slightly Answer an Argument that hath been so much insisted on and his Answer so fully refuted Doth he not know if he hath Read any thing of the Controversie about Ceremonies that the Presbyterians never pleaded that Holy Exercises Mysteries of Religion or things universally useful in Nature yea or what hath the Stamp of Divine Authoritie were it never so small should be Abandoned because Abused The Abuse should be Reformed and the thing retained But this our Argument speaketh only of indifferent things which have no intrinsick Necessitie nor Command of GOD to injoyn them these we say and have often Proved it should be removed when grosly and frequently Abused and that the Holy Days are so indifferent I think he will not deny if he do deny it he is obliged to prove the Necessitie of them not only against the Presbyterians but also against his own Partie who reckon them among the Indifferent things the Regulating of which is in the Courches Power § 9. I now Consider his Debate with the Vindicator of the Kirk as he calleth him about this verie Matter and particularly about observing the anniverssary Feast of CHRISTS Nativity which we call Christmass The Reader who is at pains to Compare that Book from p. 27. with what my Antagonist here sayeth against it will find that the most part and the most material Passages and what is most Argumentative in that Book to this purpose are passed over in silence and but a few things touched The first thing he is pleased to Notice is I had said the Question is not about the Commemoration of it the Nativity of CHRIST but whether this Commemoration should be by an
obstante sacrorum canonum Authoritas laudabilis approbata consuetudo Ecclesiâ— servavit servat et licet haec consuetudo ad evitandum aliqua pericula scandalâ— est introducta rationaliter quod licet in Primitiva Ecclesia hujusmodi Sacramentum reciperetur a fidelibus sub utraque specie postea a confecrantibus sub utraque a Laicis tantummodo sub specie panis recipiatur c. Also the Council of Trent Ses 21. chap. 21. Recognosceth the Councils Power in this that though Christ did Institute the Sacrament in both kinds yet they make a Law against it which cannot be changed but by the Church it self Let the intelligent Reader judge whether here be not a harmonie of Principles in this Matter of the Churches Power between these two Anti-Christian Councils and this Author who owneth himself a Protestant let it be also left to the Judgment of all who regard the Authority of Christ more than that of Man whether it be not more rational to say that seing it is evident that some Rules about the Passover which were at first enjoyned to the Israelites in the Wilderness were afterward not observed by the Church and even by Christ himself who was a strict Observer of the Mosaical Law while it stood in Force were appointed but for that present time and that the â—hange that the Church afterward made was from her Knowledge of this Temporarie Institution and not from any Power that the Church pretended to to Alter what GOD had Instituted § 18. Another Instance he bringeth of CHRIST'S complying with the Jewish rites not Instituted by the LORD is the Jews used a postcoenium of Bread and Wine after the Paschal Lamb This Christ not only complyed with but he adopted it into his own Religion and gave it a high Signification and made it a Faederal rite of the New Covenant c. here is another piece of his Divinitie which I confess is not so singular as the former for some pretenders to be Antiquaries and great Criticks have in this trode the way before him Answer If we should yield what they here demand as to Matter of Fact viz. that the Jews used to eat Bread and drink Wine after eating the Paschal Lamb and that Christ did the like will any rational Man say that this is an Approving of their Adding to the Ceremonies of the Passover For 1. Can they prove that Christ did this in imitation of that Jewish Custom or that he had any regard to it may not we do the same Action that another doth yet do it on other Designs than imitation of that Person or is it imaginable that our Lord would build so great a Gospel Ordinance on such a Foundation as is the Practice of such an Apostate People as the Jews then were sure he had a higher Design in this Heavenly Institution Again if there was such a Custom then in the Jewish Church there is no ground to think that it was of any great Antiquitie or that is was brought in while that Church continued in any measure of Puritie but it must have had its rise in the time of that Apostace that ushered in their rejecting the Messiah and their being utterly rejected of God for so doing for we read nothing of it before the Captivitie nor after it while the Maccabees lived Now can any Man think that Christ who had reproved their Religious Washings and other Ceremonies would be so fond of these which stood on the same bottom with them I further Answer that this Tradition of the Postcâ—nium is a groundless fancie I find no such Custom among the Jews of taking Bread and Wine after the Paschal Supper Scaliger first broached this Opinion of a Postcaenium or two parts or Services in the Paschal Supper And is reprehended by Buxtorf for it but Defended by Capell de literis Hebrae p. 167. who out of Maimonides giveth a long Account of all the rites used by the Jews in the Celebration of it Lightfoot also and Grotius give a verie critical Accompt of their Rites out of the same Rabbi Addison also in his Description of the present State of the Jews in Barbarie describeth that Feast as Celebrated by them but what our Author allegeth is found in none of them but on the contrarie I find two things that they agree in which maketh against his Postcaenium of Bread and Wine and Christ imitating of it The 1. Is the Jews used many Benedictions at several Cups and Morsels they took so did not our Lord he Blessed the Meat that they eat no doubt and we read of this Blessing Bread and Wine in the LORD'S Supper but to say that he repeated so many Benedictions which were no fewer than Eight or Nine beside several Instructions that that they read out of the Scripture which Reading they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and other Composers of their own and all these Benedictions were by a set Form of Words If my Antagonist will perswade us that our LORD conformed to all these Rites he must prove it by good Arguments and not Authoritatively impose on Peoples Credulitie The 2. Thing that I observe out of the Accompt that these Authors give of the Passover is that they begin with a Cup then they take the quantitie of Olive of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or bitter Herbs and dip it in Sauce made for that Feast then they eat what each one listeth and after some other Observations they take the quantitie of an Olive dipt as before and after they may eat nothing that Night here is no concluding with Bread and Wine for a Postcaenium Yea Capellus who seemeth to be too fond of our Authors Notion that Christ had regard to the Passover rites in Instituting His Supper giveth yet a quite other Accompt of it than he doth for he telleth us that Christ took Bread and Wine in stead of that Morsel of the bigness of an Olive whence it clearly followeth that Christ did not appoint Bread and Wine in Imitation of the Postcaenium consisting of the same Materials If he have no better Argument to Prove the vanity of Presbyterian Speculations as he phraseth it their Opinions will be able to stand against all his Assaults I adde the Observation of Buxtorf Synagog Judaic cap. 13. who after a full Accompt of the Jewish Passover and all the Rites of it hath these Words p. 307. ex paucis istis facile perspici potest Judaeos â—estum paschatis amplius ex Mosis vel Dei praecepto sed juxta Rabbinorum suorum Traditiones â—â—lebrare quas pluris faciunt quam Dei Precepta § 19. His next Work is to Justifie his high Extoling of the Holy Days he had said it is certain that nothing perserveth the knowledge of the Christian Religion among the Bodie of the People more than the Festivities of the Church and this I called raving the Word and Sacraments being more useful for that End To this he Answereth two things
p. 181. 182. The first is that he did not Attribute this effect to the Festivities without the Word and Sacraments to which they are subordinate as being the fittest seasons for Christian Exercises I still think this is no sober Doctrine for there is a fitter Season for these of Christs appointment even the Christian Sabbath Beside it is evident that he Spake of his Festivities though not in a separated Notion yet in a distinct Notion from the Word and Sacraments and I not only think that GOD'S Ordinances are more effectual without than with Mans devices I mean the Holy days because having no Institution they have not the Promise of the Blessing and are but vain Worship but that GOD'S Ordinances used with the Holy days if any Efficacie be to be expected from that Conjunction have a greater Efficacie toward preserving Knowledge among the People than the Holy days can have therefore there is a more Efficacious mean for that end what ever notion he take the Holy days in But the Reader may know that this Expression was not the only ground why raving was imputed to him but several others of that or a higher strain which were Examined but he is pleased to Pass what was said against them with this shift he is not at leasure to follow the Vindicator every where far less is he inclined to Examine all these Exceptions against the Author of the Apologiâ— I find him at leasure for as needless Work as it were to Clear to us these and the like Passages do we not see all Nations agree in this that publicke Solemnities and annversarie Festivities and Fasts are necessarie to the Beeing and Beautie of Religion this is a soaring flight of his fancie they preserve and increase our Mortification They oblige the most Stubborn and Impenitent to think of his Soul and the visible Practices of the Church Preach Repentance more effectually and make more lasting Impressions than the loose and definite Homilies of self conceited Men all the Sermons of the Presbyterians no doubt are here meant the Reformation of the Greek Church is hindred by neglecting of Fasting the Holy days are the Catechisms of the People all the Notes made on the Passages for exposing of them he passeth over in silence the Reason is if ye will believe him not that he could not Answer all but because he was not at leasure A second Answer he bringeth is that the Festivities cannot be considered without the Word and Sacraments and other Exercises of Religion and this he taketh a great deal of Pains to illustrate as it is usual in Disputing for one to say most when he hath least to say and he calleth it gross ignorance to think otherwise I need not tell him how many of his Partie make more than a Metahysical Precision either formal or objective of the Holy day from the Religious Work of it while they Celebrate it without going to Prayers in idleness or that which is worse I know this is not the intent of the Church yet it is evident that these Days are capable of such an abstracted Consideration I mean in Practice what ever be in the speculations that Men have about them All that he so laboriously sayeth about the Conjunction of the Holy days with Religious Exercise on them will evanish if we consider that our Question is not whether the Serious and Solemn Exercises of Religion be necessarie to these Great Uses and Effects that he speaketh of for that we are agreed in that these are necessarie to the Beeing and Beautie of Religion they preserve and increase our Mortification â—hey aw the most Stubborn and Impenitent c. that is they are Means adapted to these Ends but that which we Debate is whether these Ends may not be attained as well by the Serious and Solemn Exercises of Religion in the use of these Means and Ordinances that GOD hath Appointed or if the Holy days be necessarie or the Religious Exercises as performed on the Holy days be ne cessarie for that End This we deny and we require that they may Prove it And the Question is not whether the Holy days separated from Religious Exercises are abominable but whether Religious Exercise or the times of GOD'S Appointing it to wit the Weekly Sâ—bbath's without the Holy days be defective I take Notice of a Learned distinction he hath about the Holiness of these Days p. 183. that they are not Holier than other Days in themselves or because the Sun is in such a part of the Zodiack but such a time being separated for such an Exercise receives its Denomination from the Authoritie and Exercise it self by which it is distinguished from other Days This seemeth to be shuffling and not the distinct plainness that ought to be in Disputation For 1. Some of his Partizans ascribed more Holiness to them than can be in extrinsick Denomination even a relative Holâ—ness by which Religious work on them is more Acceptable than at other times So Hooker above Cited He should have told us whether he understandeth this relative Holiness or a mere Denominative Holiness that they are called Holy but there is nothing of Holiness in them even with respect to the Authoritie and Work that they have relation to He doth indeed tell us that they are called Holy days by a relative and extrinsick Denomination which is a Metaphysical notion not easily intelligible he Chargeth others with non-sense and gross ignorance on less Ground a relative Denomination must be a Denomination built on a Relation which supposeth a relative Holiness in these Days which yet he seemeth to disown again If the Authoritie by which they are Instituted and the Exercises performed in them can communicate a relative Holiness to them wherein doth their Holiness differ from that of the LORD'S Days It hath no more but a relative Holiness resulting from Divine Authoritie injoyning it and the Holy Exercises that the LORD hath Commanded to be performed in it The Difference then must be only this that it hath a relative Holiness of GOD'S making these a relative Holiness of Mans making and so Man as well as GOD shall have a Power to Communicate a relative Holiness to Days and consequently to Places and other Things and how much of the Popish Superstition and Power of Consecration that will bring in I know not neither I suppose was himself aware of it I think it is evident that the first Day of the Week which we own as the LORD'S Day hath no intrinsick Holiness of it self the Sun being in such a Degree of any Sign of the Zodiâ—k as maketh up the Number of Eight from where we begin to Count doth not Communicate any Holiness to such a Day Now if he think the Church can give the same sort of Holiness to these Days that the LORD giveth to the Christian Sabbath he must prove that such Power is granted to her I am sure some of his Party disown that Notion What he Objecteth
Evividence of what is agreeable to true Reason I deny both these Propositions 1. How will he prove that all Nations were agreed about the Necessity and Usefulness of Holy Days Or I distinguish this Proposition all Nations are agreed in general that there should be some Religious Holy Days if I should put him to the Proof of this it might puzzle him but for our part we think it of great Use and necessary also necessitate praecepti whatever may be said of the necessitas medii we think it a Wise and Excellent Constitution of the Divine Will that we have recurrent Days I mean the Christian Sabbath and Occasional Times of Solemn Worshipping God but that all Nations are agreed about the Necessity of Holy Religious Anniversary Days of Mans Appointing this is yet unproved the Jewish Holy Days till that Church fell into manifold Apostacy were appointed by God the Heathenish Religious Rites and their Holy Days among the rest were appointed as they pretended by these whom they owned for gods which I could prove if it were not to digress with that Pretension Numa and others gained the People to submit to their Religious Rites For his second Proposition it is utterly false that the Agreement of Nations is the best Evidence of what is according to right Reason this might hold if Men were generally Perfect in Knowledge and Holiness if their Mind Will and Affections had no way been hurt by the Fall but in the present State of Fallen Corrupt and Sinful Men it is a False Dangerous yea Pernicious Position if understood as here it must be of Matters of revealed Religion such as instituted Worship is His Proof of this Assertion is most absurd which is two Maxims of the Civil Law wofully misunderstood and misapplyed viz. Quod major pars Curiae efficit pro eo habetur ac si omnes egerint and Refertur ad universos quod publice fit per majorem partem This is to be understood of Humane Courts in any Nation or Society not of the Consent of all Nations otherwise one Nation could not make Laws for it self but must peruse the Volumns of all Nations that they may know what Laws obtain in most Nations Again which is yet more to our purpose these Maxims hold in Civil not Religious Matters to make the Consent of Nations to be the Rule of Religion as this Author manifestly doth hath so many Absurdities wrapt up in it that it is a wonder that such a Fancy could fall into the Head of one who owneth revealed Religion and is not far from Hobbism or Deisin with which he is not sparing to charge the Presbyterians on far less Cause given I am far from charging him with these horrid Opinions but I advise him to beware of Zeal for Humane Holy Doly Days on such Principles as would lead Men into that Snare If we must be determined by a Pole among Mankind as his Assertion doth plainly import in the Matters of our Religion Heathenism will clearly carry it against Christianity Yea Turkism will bid fair for it and Popery will clearly Outvote Protestantism This is a thousand times worse than what he or his Friend is so angry with a Presbyterian Parliament for having regard to the Inclinations of the People in settling Presbyterial Government we must now receive the Holy Days because the Inclinations of the Apostate World Heathens Jews Papists c. incline that Way His distinguishing of such Constitutions by considering their general or abstracted Nature and considering them with their Ends and Objects will not help him for corrupt Men will always be generally for what is worst consider it as ye will neither can it be said that this Rule of Judging of Religion holdeth not in the Essentials and great Points but in the inferior Matters and Rituals for the instituted part of Religion lieth more remote from Mans Reason as a Contriver of it than other things in Religion do because these depend merely on Institution and the Will of the Instituter as ye can less give a Reason why Bread and Wine should signifie the Body and Bloud of Christ except from the Wiâ—l of him who appointed this than ye can do why we should Pray to God obey him c. § 25. He taketh it very ill and calleth it strong Natural Nonsense that the Holy Days and other Religious Ceremonies of Mans Devising are called new Means of Grace which are not to be appointed by Mens Reason but by Gods Authority He saith they are only appointed to increase our Devotion for the old Means of Grace they are but Circumstances of time determinable by the Church All that is sufficiently refuted already but he repeateth and forceth me to do so First That which is appointed to increase our Devotion toward Prayer the Word and Sacraments which are the old Means of Grace is a Mean of Grace it self for increase of Devotion is Grace therefore the Means toward that End must be Means of Grace and if these be appointed by the Lord as the Sabbath is for increase of our Devotion in Prayer c. this is one of these he calleth the old Means of Grace viz. Means of Gods appointing if appointed by Men for the same end they must be new Means of Grace appointed by Men and superadded to these of Gods Appointment But the Holy Days are such ex tuo ore being appointed to increase our Devotion this cannot be said of mere determining a Circumstance of Worship as appointing a Week Day Sermon 2. That which is necessary to the Beeing and Beauty of Religion to keep us in mind of the Mysteries of our Religion is the Peoples Catechism c. must be a Mean of Grace but all this and more he hath ascribed to the Holy Days not only to the Work to be done on them but to it as done on such a Day they must then be new Means of Grace beside what God hath instituted 3. That they are but Determinations of the Time of Worship is above refuted and himself refuteth it by affirming that they are appointed for increasing our Devotion I should allow him not only to Smile but to burst out into Laughter if it had been said as he pretendeth that Christmass was kept in Honour of Julius Caesar before Christ was born he need never want Matter of Laughter if he be allowed thus to Devise what may make him Merry All that was said is that Holy Day was so kept and thence called Yule in Scotland The Import of which is no more but this that the same Day being kept by the Heathens on one Account some Christians changed it into another Use and Celebrated it as the Day of Christs Nativity as I could shew they did with many other both Times and Places His Criticising on the Word Yule making it Noel and then turning it to a nouvelle and Expounding it a Day of Tidings I might rather Smile at I think it not worthy a Laborious Examination I
sheweth that it was in it self before Lawful and decent And it is Lawful to us on the same Reasons that made it Lawful to them who first Practised it In Pursuance of this his Reply he allegeth that we hereby Grant that many such Usages are alluded to in Scripture which are merely of Humane Appointment and yet Deny their Lawfulness which is to make all Men that Lived before us to be Sottishly Superstitious To this Purpose he Discourseth p. 158. 159. Let it be Considered that we do not make bare Allusion made in Scripture to any Usage to be a sufficient Proof of its Lawfulness for some were Alluded to that were very far from being Lawful Instances may be given of putting the Branch to the Nose kissing the Hand or kissing the Images that they worshiped which and many more were Practised by Idolaters Our Opinion in this Matter is that what Rites are mentioned in Scripture as used in the Worship of the True GOD by His People and are not any where Condemned we ought to look on as Lawful and Approved of GOD that is as they then were used Now some of these Rites were of Divine Institution as all the Jewish Ceremonies Enjoyned by Moses these were then Lawful but now are not so because they are Abrogated by CHRIST also all these Instituted by CHRIST are still Lawful Others of them are Natural Expressions of the Acting of the Mind such as Sighing lifting the â—…yes c. these are always Lawful others of them were Civil Customs which by Use acquired a Significancie and fitness to express our Affections that we should have in Religious Worship such as Sackcloth renting our Cloaths Incurvation c. these are certainly Lawful to be used in Worship when and where they have that Significancie by the Force of Civil Custom but in Times and Places where that Significancie is not the Ground of it being ceased I see not how they can be Esteemed Lawful having then and there no Use or Significancie in GOD'S Worship but what they have from Man's will which ought not to Regulate GOD'S Worship Our Author Mistaketh when he saith that we think some ceremonies Lawful which are mentioned or alluded to in Scripture though they had no other Original than Humane Appointment this we Disown for none of these Three ways by which Rites get their Significancie which 〈◊〉 have now mentioâ—…ed can be justly called Humane Appointment Civil Custom is that which cometh nearest to it but yet Differeth far from it for Humane Appointment is an Act of Authority i. e. a Law or Injunction or Declaration of the Will of one or more Men expresly Concluding that so it shall be Custom is a Tacite Consent of People whether Great or Small whether Placed in Authority or not in using such an Action or Word for such an End or Signification I shall not Debate what Men in Authority may do toward putting a Civil Signification on Words and Actions and making them Current in Civil Selemnities but 〈◊〉 Maintain that they cannot give a Religious Signification or Use to any Word or Action or Gesture that is they cannot Appoint it to be used so in Religion when it hath no Aptitude for that Use or Significancie from its Common Use in other things for this were to Dispose of the External Worship of GOD at their will § 7. For the Rite of Lifting up the Hand so often mentioned in Scripture as Practised by good Men by good Angels yea by God Himself speaking of Him after the Manner of Men that it had its Original from Humane Appointment is simply denyed We have no Footsteps of such a Law Antecedent to the Practice of it either in Sacred or other Records I may with Confidence conclude that this Usage had its Original if not from Nature as Lifting up of the Eyes to Heaven yet from an Universal Custom and that of all or many Nations It is true other Rites were also used in Swearing but none of them so frequently mentioned as this Wherefore it can be no Precedent for nor give any Countenance to Ceremonies peculiar to the Worship of God brought into it by the Authority and Appointment of Men alone It is hence evident that we are not guilty of counting all them Sottishly Superstitious who used such Rites and that even in Religion tho we think Humane Religious Ceremonies unlawful Our Author p. 159. is pleased to make himself Merry with the Distinction I have used of Civil Rites which he with little Accuracy of Speech calleth Civil Ceremonies and Religious Ceremonies that the one may be used in Religion without Divine Institution the other not so He calleth it a Metaphysical Distinction and new Phylosophy and Co-aeval with Presbytery in its last Figure These Sarcasms are the Tokens of his Surprize and Admiration not of his being much Conversant with their Writings who Treat of this Subject Let us hear his Thundering Arguments after these silly Squib If the Civil Authority can introduce a â—iâ—nificant Ceremony into the Worship of God why may nâ—t the Ecclesiastick Authority do it A. He will not understand what we say we deny that Civil Authority can introduce a Significant Ceremony into the Worship of God tho Civil Custom may make a Rite sit to be there used If the Magistrat should appoint any Habite or Gesture to be used in Gods Worship to signifie either Gods Will toward us or our Duty to Him which hath no such Signification nor Use but by the Law or Will of the Magistrat we should disowne such a Religious Ceremony as much in that Case as if it were appointed by Church Authority But it is a quite other Case when an Action or Gesture hath got a Signification by long and general Use in Mens other Actions so as that they are thereby made significant of what we are to express in Worship This may be cleared by a parallel Instance Words which have got their Signification by Use in other Things may be well used in Religion yet it doth not thence follow that the Magistrate may enjoyn Words to be used in our Worshipping of God which have no Signification but from his Will for if this were allowed the Magistrate might not only enjoyn Latine Service to be used among a People that understand not that Language but might enjoyn Words that now signifie Error or Blasphemy and give them an Orthodox Signification which I hope our Brethren will not affirm If Men may enjoyn a Surplice because white Garments in some Ages and Places were used commonly to signifie Purity or Gladness why may he not enjoyn the Language to be used in Religion that our Ancestors used many Hundreds of Years ago tho it may be now neither used nor understood it would come in Time to be as Significant to us and as Religious as now the Surplice is where it hath been long used He Mistaketh or Misinterpreteth the Vindicator when he saith that he alloweth of Civil Ceremonies in
the Worship of God he owneth no such Ceremonies if we speak properly what hath its Use and Significancy from Civil Custom in other Actions is no Ceremony it is a Civil Rite and may well be used in Religion he repeateth also his former Mistake as if we thought that Civil Authority might appoint Ceremonies for Religion but not Church Authority our Opinion in which I have made plain to them who will understand what we say I have also Answered his Question how the Civil Rite used in Religion is Innocent while a Religious Ceremony appropriated to Religion if it be of Humane Appointment whether by the Authority of Church or State is not so I deny what he so confidently asserteth p. 261. that Lifting up the Hand in Swearing is of Humane Appointment neither is his Proof of it sufficient viz. that it hath no Divine Institution for what is brought in and gets its Use and Significany by Civil Custom is a Middle between these 2. I am not at Leasure to repeat my Answer as often as he doth his Objection taken from the Equality of the Civil and Ecclesiastick Authority to institute Ceremonies with which he filleth several Pages with a nauseous saying the same thing in Words little different The Immemorial Possession of any Rite in the Church which he insinuateth as an Argument cannot justifie it if it be appropriated to Religion and had no Divine Original We are not concerned to account for Kissing the Evangel in taking an Oath whether it came in by Civil Custom or Ecclesiastick Authority Let them who use it Answer such Doubts or rather let them shew us any Ground for it from Nature from Civil Custom or from Divine Institution if it be destitute of all these he should prove not barely assert the Stubbornness that is in Refusing it It is absurd to say that the Ecclesiastical Ceremonies having the Civil Sanction are under that Reduplication to be looked upon as Civil Ceremonies for he might say the same of the Sacraments of the New Testament when enjoyned by Law it is not the Civil Authority but Rites being used in Civil Actions and not being peculiar to the the Worship of God it is their having their Use and Significancy from Civil Custom that giveth them that Denomination § 8. He Starteth a Scruple p. 263. which hath no Rise from what any of his Adversaries had ever said nor any where else that I know but in his Imagination It is If a Ceremony have one Signification in Civil Actions and another in Religious Worship Quaeritur Whether it maketh it lawful in Worship A. No. Because its â—awfulness is founded on the Significancy that it acquireth in Civil Actions I gladly would know what Ground was ever given him to say so confidently as he doth that we hold that a Ceremony is lawful in Religion if it hath been used in Civil Solemnities tho in a different Signification If he find any Body asserting that let him call such Persons Absurd Ridiculous Foolish c. at his Pleasure as he very freely calleth us on that Imaginary Account but if no such thing have ever been held by any of us I shall give him no Epithet but leave it to the Reader to call him as he deserveth He hath another Argument for the Lawfulness of Humane Ceremonies peculiar to Religion which he Ushereth in with that Degree of Confidence and Insolent Contempt of his Adversaries that might Fright us into Silence as the Lion by his Roaring Terrifieth his Prey into a Consternation calling all our Exceptions against Significant Ceremonies in the Worship of God little and idle frivolous Impertinencies And no wonder he be so fond of his mighty Argument I believe it is the Birth of his own Brain I never met with it before and I have seen few that are of less weight It is that the Apostle Rom. 6. 4. maketh a palpable Allusion to the Significant Ceremony of Immersion when he saith we are Buried with Him by Baptism into Death c. To strengthen this Argument he telleth us of Immersion being used by Jews and by Christians that it is founded on no Divine Institution but on the Practice of the Jewish Church and thence derived to Christians and was never established by any other Authority but what was purely Humane and Ecclesiastical He telleth us this Custom was so known that all their Learned Neighbours were acquaint with it and for this he very wisely citeth Tacitus hist. lib. 5. speaking of their Circumcision but not one Word of Immersion He calleth for the particular Text where this Ceremony is founded on express Institution also that we should shew where it was used in Civil Actions That Scripture Example for it is but the Consequence of itâ— being Pracâ—ised and supposeth it At last to make all sure he condescendeth to the Jargon of the Schools with which this Soaring Eagle thinks we Poor Worms are only acquainted that is to put his Argument into â—â—gical â—orm and â—igure thus a Significant Ceremony founded upon no Divâ—… Institution and alluded to in Saint Pauls Reasonings Rom. 6. 4. is lawful in it self But the Ceremony of Immersion in the Administration of Baptism was founded on no Divine Institution and yet alluded to by Saint Paul is a thing received in the current Practice of the Apostolical Church Ergo such a Significant Ceremony in the Worship of God founded on no Divine Institution is in it self lawful I shall far more easily dispatch this Argument than he hath framed it If it were not to Hazard his further Despising us as Conversant only with the School Jargon of Syllogising I should observe that he flyeth so high as to take little notice of Syllogistical Form for all his pretending to it for the Major Proposition is the very Conclusion of the Syllogism only he hath altered the Word putting such a Significant Ceremony for a Significant Ceremony alluded to by the Apostle Paul other Informalities in it I pass it is below him to mind them Aquila non captat Muscas For a more material Answer I first deny the Major as thus universally proposed Allusion to a Ceremony is no Proof of its Lawfulness as I have proved § 6. Next I deny the Minor I affirm that Immersion was founded on Divine Institution which I prove 1. Because it is here mentioned as the lawful and approved Way of Administration of Baptism which Ordinance Christ had appointed it were a strange â—ancy to think that Christ had enjoyned baptism and not told them who were to Administer it what He meant by it or what they should do Next Whereas he demandeth a particular Scripture for its Institution tho we be not obliged to that Exactness yet I adduce Matth. 28. 19. where Baptizing is Commanded every one knoweth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth properly to Dip or Plunge in Water and that it is taken more largely for any Kind of Washing or â—insing as Mark 7. 4. it is not to be
for using the Words and if he can shew us a Command for using them we shall Obey it He saith it was Enjoyned by CHRIST to his Disciples If he mean that the Words should be Recited we desiderate the Proof nor do we find that any of the Apostles in their Publick Administrations so used it It is true the Presbyterians formerly used it and if they should do so still I should not Reclaim but I know that his Parties making it their Shibboleth together with Conviction of the Indifferency of so using it gave the first Occasion for disusing it It is an unaccountable Fancy that the Omission of these have no Tendency but to promote Atheism this is the general â—â—nt of the Partie concerning what ever is out of their Road. As this his Assertion is most unreasonable and groundless in it self there being other means far more Effectual to keep out Atheism than the Use of these Forms can be supposed to be so Common Observation and Experience sheweth that the Atheism that we all should Lament is no more visible nor common among that Party of Christians who do not use these Forms than among them who are fond of them I can draw no other Conclusion from what follows p. 290 291. but that the Author was when he Wrote these Things in the Paroxism that he professed to be in when he Wrote another Book viz. provocked to the Indecency of Passion to see his beloved Forms neglected Hence he telleth us of the Madness and Dreams of idle People and the Humour of Schism hindring the Holy Scriptures to be Read in the Assemblies as heretofore whereas it is evident and the Reverend Mr. Boise hath made it appear on occasion of the like Accusation against us by the Bishop of Lâ—ndonderry that the Scripture is more Read in our Congregations and People is made more acquained with them than heretofore in the Episcopal Meetings I mean where the Orders of our Church are observed for them who Read but a verse or two for a Lecture I cannot Answer for their Practice and we make the People understand the Reading as Ezra did Neh. 5. 5. which was not done in the Episcopal Church of Scotland but Men who had no Authority nor were Teachers in the Church were set up to dispence this Ordinance of CHRIST the Reading of the Scripture in the Congregation He next blameth us under the same Epithets of Madness Dreams Humour of Schism that when Children are Bâ—ptized the Parents are not allowed to know into what Religion or Faith they are initiated and this because they are not made to repeat the Creed I first ask him what Faith do the Generality of Parents of his Partie understand their Children to be Intiated into by their Repeating that which we call the Apostles Crâ—â—d which they cannot understand by our Conduct seing some of them understand it not and seing it doth not sufficiently Discriminate the sound Faith which we own from Socinianism Poperie Antinomianism and several other gross Errors Next I Answer that it is false and Calumnious that he Asserteth they are not only allowed to know the Faith that their Infants are Baptized into but pains is taken so far as Ministers can to make them understand that Faith and they are Solemnly taken Engaged to adhere to that Faith and to breed their Children in the knowledge of it and it is told them what Faith we mean by designing it from the Scripture the great Rule of it and the Confession of Faith of this Church drawn out of the Scripture If any have no other Notion of Baptism but that it is an Engagement to be a â—ovenanâ—â—r which he would have us believe tho I am perswaded he knoweth better things we give no ground for such a Thought but endeavour to present things otherwise to them § 15. He saith we are so unfixed and variable that not two in the Nation in publick follow the same Rule c. This is a horrid Abusing of the Reader and can have no other Design but to make the Presbyterians odious where they are not known for in Scotland even among his own Party the contrarie is well known But all this Noise is because we have no stinted Liturgie without which we follow the same Rules both Divine and Humane as I shewed before we all teach the same Truths and Administer the same Ordinances and in the same manner except that we use not the same Words wherein yet we do not studie a diversitie as he injuriously Asserteth His Apology for the Episcopal Church of Scotland for wanting a Liturgie is odd the Clergy Composed Prayers for themselves from which they seldom varied It may be some of them did so either from insufficiency or lazieness but I am sure neither the greatest nor the best part of them did so but what ever be in that both on his side and on ours they who did not tie themselves to the same Words at all times managed their Work with as much plainess gravity and coherence of their Words and left the People as little in the Dark as they did whom he so much Commendeth on these Accounts His calling Praying without a set Form Rambling and Ascribing to it no Order nor Dependence but what is caused by the heat of the Animal Spirits I neglect as shewing a Temper of mind that is to be pitied rather than Redargued by Argument He waveth the Debate about stinted Forms p. 292. which any who Readeth this Discourse must understand that he intendeth not to Dispute by Scripture or Reason against him whom he Opposeth in this but to Rail at him And because I intend not to engage with him at that Weapon I shall wave it too Yet he bringeth Calvines Testimony for the Preference of a well Composed Liturgie out of one of his Epistles which he so Citeth as no Man shall find it unless he happen to have the same Edition of Calvines Epistles that he used which I have not had he named the Epistle by its Number or the Person to whom Addressed I might have found it by some pains I oppose Calvine to Calvine he said of the English Liturgie and I suppose that will pass with my Author for a well Composed one that it had in it some Tollerabiles ineptias He bringeth some what that looketh like Argument even in this Debate that he waveth The great things of Worship is not to be left to the Wisdom and Discretion of every private Administrator A. This is provided against by the Churches trying Men well before they be Intrusted by setting the Word and the Acts of the Church before them as their Rule and Directorie and by Watching over them and Correcting them for mismanagement These are GOD'S ways of preventing Inconveniency a stinted Liturgie is a way of Mans devising without any Warrant or Footstep of it in the Scripture Another of his Arguments every Priest isnot wise enough to manage an Affair of such great Importance A.