THE QUESTIONS Between the CONFORMIST AND Nonconformist Truly stated and briefly discussed Dr. FALKNER the Friendly Debate c. Examined and Answered Together with a Discourse about Separation and some Animadversions upon Dr. STILLINGFLEET's Book ENTITULED The Vnreasonableness of Separation Observations upon Dr. Templers Sermon Preached at a Visitation in Cambridge A brief Vindication of Mr. Stephen Marshal Sed hoc nimis doleo quia multa quae in Divinis libris saluberrima praecepta sunt minus curantur tam multis presumptionibus sic plena sunt omnia ut gravius corripiatur qui per octavas suas terram nudo pede tetigerit quam qui mentem Vinolentia sepelierit August Epist 119. Cum Apostolus testetur mysterium hoc iniquitatis suo etiam tempore agi caepisse hinc intelligimus opiniones omnes Traditiones a Sacris Scripturis dissidentes quas Pontificis urgent tanquam a Patribus acceptas ad Apostasiam hanc quam praedixit Apostolus esse referendas Downham de Antichrist p. 151. LONDON Printed for Tho. Cockerill at the Three Legs in the Poultry over against the Stocks-Market 1681. THE Reader may please to take notice that this Discourse was drawn up long before now Doctor Falkner took his Degree else I had given him his Title And so something of Schism was spoke to before the Epistle to Dr. Stillingfleet could be written To the Reverend and my much Honoured Brother Dr. Edward Stillingfleet Dean of St. Pauls SIR I Hope it is no offence unto you though you be a Dean Unreas Separat p. 62. that I call you Brother since you have taught the Press how to speak soberly and amicably calling us Dissenting Brethren this is better language than Sots Rogues Fools Knaves Rebels Schismaticks which we read and hear from others As for Rebels if they be all Rebels that break the Kings Laws I believe the King will have but a few loyal subjects He hath Laws against Drunkenness Swearing Whoring Sabbath breaking and these are agreeable to the Law of God besides Laws about Hares Partridges Pheasants and against Papists c. we see men can live in opposition to these Laws yet these are not called Rebels But if the Laws of men concern the House and Worship of God concerning which God himself hath given us his own Laws to which all Princes and men are bound and unto which all their Laws ought to be conformable as we shall hear your self speak presently but that conformity we cannot see and therefore dare not assent and consent c. now we are called Rebels Schismaticks and what not Aug. Epis 119. Thus it was in pious Augustines time and this he complains of Sir speaking of your Church you tell us p. 302. Our Church is founded upon a Divine Rule viz. the Holy Scriptures which we own as the basis and foundation of our faith and according to which all other Rules of Order and Worship are to be agreeable 2ly Our Church requires a conformity to those Rules which are appointed by it agreeable to the Word of God Twice you tell us agreeable to the Word of God to which we agree also this being the affirmative part of the second Commandment that all things in our worshipping of him be agreeable to his will and word Now Sir had you proved that all the things imposed upon us had been agreeable to the word of God you had put an end to this Controversie But though I honour and love you for the great service you have done to the Church of Christ against the Papists yet in proving the things Imposed upon us to be conformable to the word of God I humbly conceive you fall very short therefore are we still Nonconformists Several things are imposed upon us but in your whole Book I find not one Scripture you produce to shew the agreement of them with it Till then our Separation is reasonable That Schism is a great sin I agree with you and wish Christians were more convinced of it than I see they are But the Questions are 1. What is schism 2. Who is the cause of schism For the first Sir I presume you will grant that the separation against which you preached and now printed do suppose there was a union with that body from which you tell us we are now separated For how can there be a separation from that to which we were not united Now Sir I think by what you have said to remove the mighty stumbling-block as you call it pag. 359. of the Cross there will be found many thousands in England who were never admitted into your Church and if not admitted into it then not united to it as such a Church no members of your body how then can you charge them with this sin of separation from it Thus then Sir you speak of the Cross in Baptism p. 351. when the Minister uses these words We receive this child into the congregation of Christs flock and sign him with the sign of the Cross c. the Minister now speaks in the name of the Church We receive c. then follows as the solemn rite of admission and do sign him with the sign of the Cross All publick and solemn admissions into societies having some peculiar ceremony belonging to them And so as Baptism besides its Sacramental efficacy is a rite of admission into Christs Catholick Church so the sign of the Cross is into our Church of England in which this Ceremony is used without any prescription to other Churches Thus you have interpreted the Cross Whether this will satisfie Mr. B. I leave it to him it doth not me the Imposers of that Ceremony in their Canons do not tell us that it is the Rite of admission into your Church but by this ceremony the Infant is dedicated to the service of him that died upon the Cross And that Book being of publick authority must carry it I had thought that in our Baptism we had been Dedicated to the Father Son and Spirit But it seems this is not enough you annex to his words Another sign to dedicate us to the service of Christ that died upon the Cross This Sir I hope you will prove to be agreeable to the word of God as you told us your Impositions are I am very ignorant of the Text that proves it and you have named none But this is not the thing I aim at it is your interpretation I mind and from it I gather that you and all others who charge us with separation from your Church must prove That we were received and that by this rite of admission the Cross into your Church which you call the Church of England This is clear from your own Interpretation and also from the page before 350 where you illustrate it from the Independent Churches Thus Suppose say you an adult person to be baptized and immediately after Baptism to be admitted a member of an Independent Church and the ceremony of this admission to
elicited from Religion are external worship but such are the Ceremonies in question Ergo they are external worship So that Bellarmine spake plainly and honestly when he calls them parts of Divine worship Hence I see not how the distinctions Mr. Falkner makes about significative signs do help at all but we are still as high as God was and plainly add to his word The Text in the Old Testament Isa 8.20 To the Law and to the Testimony if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them I think no man so absurd to limit it only to that particular case in the 19th ver but this is a standing Rule in all cases concerning God and our duty to him According to this word hence Bishop Hall thus Paraphraseth If any man speaketh either without or against this word it is because he hath not the true light of grace and understanding in him Apply this to both the Questions and tell us according to which word do they speak The last Texts those famous Texts Deut. 12.32 Prov. 30.6 Deut. 4.2 Thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish Addition speaks defect of wisdom in the Law-giver that he is not wise enough to govern his Creatures nor how to provide for his own Worship but we must supply the want of his with our wisdom and intrencheth also upon his Soveraignty To these Texts Mr. Carre and Mr. Falkner answer different ways Mr. Carre p. 56. tells us This we count superstition supra statutum to add any thing to Gods Law or to be too strict in tying our selves to more than God requireth of us But foreseeing how this Text will be turned upon the things imposed he with the other Conformists plow with the Popish Heifers using the same distinctions that Vasquez Bellarmine Cor. a Lapide used to defend their fopperies There is a preserving and corrupting addition a circumstantial and an essential addition the two last he condemns i. e. the corrupting and essential addition To which it is answered 1. To your preserving addition it is a corrupting addition because it is addition Deny the Genus and you deny the Species Addition is denied Particular Laws exactly answering Gods general Law are no additions 2ly Find us such a distinction of detraction or diminishing and show us how there may be a lawful detraction from the word Addition and diminishing are equally forbidden in the Text. 3ly There is no preserving addition brought into the Worship of God but there is another wisdom and will brought in besides Gods Mr. Carre tells us of additions the better to inforce the command the better to perform the service of God We read of a betterness that doth accede to the Worship of God by mens inventions and additions doth not this reflect upon the Law-giver that he hath not sufficiently provided for his own Worship Let but his Worship be performed according to what is written and there will be no want found of any thing besides what is written 4ly No addition could so properly be called a preserving addition as that of Vzzah's staying the Ark to preserve it from falling 2 Sam. 6.6 7. who could use this distinction better than he De Gubern Dei l. 6 p. 203. but that would not save him Upon which Salvian thus writeth Denique Oza ille Levites Dei quid contra mandatum coeleste fecit quod vacillantem Arcam Domini sustinere tentavit nihil enim hinc erat lege praceptum statim dum sustinebat extinctus est Non quia ut videtur ad speciem contumaci aliquid aut in officiosa saltem mente commiserit sed ipso officio inofficiosus fuit qui injusta praesumpsit Salvian knew well enough the Law about the carrying the Ark but in this case when the Ark is in danger of falling what Law is there else Vzzah would not have touched it He aims at this to prove that there is nothing belongs to God ought to be esteemed light Good intentions here will not serve 5ly The Pharisees in their washings c. did but signifie that holiness purity cleansing from sin which God signified in the washings he commanded So they did but inforce the command as Mr. Carre saith For his second Distinction circumstantial and essential addition Essential additions by no means he will admit that is indeed against the Text. But 1. Mr. Carre told us before that Solomon built an Altar more than ever God appointed And Mr. Falkntr will tell us anon that David would build a Temple of his own head and God never appointed it they had no warrant for these but these were essential parts of the Ceremonial worship By these then we may make essential additions to the Worship of God these were the highest pieces of the Ceremonial worship for the Altar sanctified the Sacrifice and for the Temple it is well known 2ly I cannot see how the Church can add any circumstances of her own creating to the Worship of God If she may make one new circumstance and add to the Worship of God she may make a thousand and be changing every week if she will I know no word to forbid her But still I cannot see how Ceremonies such as are in the question can be but circumstances For 1st No circumstance hath a mystical signification of any spiritual grace or duty If it hath a spiritual signification it is by some superadded Divine Institution then it ceaseth to be a circumstance Place in it self is a circumstance but such a place as the Temple is more than a circumstance it is essential to Ceremonial-worship by a Divine Institution 2ly The Ceremonies of the Law which signified that purity holiness c. that ought to be in Saints were not circumstances and these do the same These Ceremonies imposed upon us are not circumstantial but Doctrinal and of Moral signification 3ly Circumstances cannot well be said to be subject to circumstances where then shall we end but mystical ceremonies are subject to time place order decency c. 4ly Circumstances are common to civil actions as place time order decency but these Ceremonies are annexed only to the Worship of God 5ly Circumstances are necessary inseparable from the Worship of God as time and place order and decency ought to be they are inseparable virtute praecepti but these are separable and of no necessity Peter Lumbard puts no necessity in the Popish Ceremonies as you may clearly see in his inquiring into the nature of Baptism Lib. 4. D. 3. c. 1. 6ly Circumstances depend not on the bare will of man but these Ceremonies depend wholly on mans will 7ly The ordering of circumstances in particular is not determinable in the Holy Scripture I do not say what the infinite wisdom of God could have done but upon supposition of the bounds which God did set to his written word Circumstances are many and so changeable that to set down the ordering of every particular circumstance that must occur in
their admission were determined in the Scripture For their Ordination by imposition of hands this he proves out of Mr. Selden For their power and office he proves that Christ owned it Mat. 23.2 3. Though the Scripture had determined nothing about it Ans This Sir belongs to another question viz. Whether in the Jewish Church and if there then why not in the Christian Church Christ did approve of any Officers in the Church that were not of Gods but Humane appointment to preach his word Authoritatively this is a very considerable question but 't is not ours at this time so that this is not ad idem 2ly Yet as to the thing it self Imposition of hands upon men set apart to office was no Humane Invention that Sir you know it was Gods own appointment But whether all that taught in the Synagogues were first Officers 2. And those that had only mans authority for th eir Institution 3. And these had admission by Imposition of hands These are different questions and here we must have Scripture-light to convince us as for Mr. Selden we regard him not nor Scaliger whatever he saith of our ignorance which Quotation of yours out of him I observed well when I read him We are upon things that concern God Humane Quotations and so whatever you bring from Fathers and others I look on them as a Cypher as the Cypher may stand it signifies much and as it may stand it signifies nothing First give me a Scripture then give me Humane testimony suitable to it and it signifies much Yea if there be a Scripture not so clear and plain as some are yet may fairly carry such a sense and there be not another Scripture that doth plainly oppose that sense here the practise of the Churches next to the Apostles and so long since shall carry me into that sense Which I desire the Reader to consider and judg of my opinion because I shall make use of it afterwards but all mens opinions and Churches practises without a Scripture are but a Cypher before or without a figure to me they signifie nothing I know very well that Jews and Gentiles too have a nature that is cross to God in every Commandment our enmity will not let any command escape but even in his Instituted Worship where there is the least temptation there it will shew it self 't is not handsome enough as God appoints it unless we like Apes may dress it If Selden and Scaliger could have given us the practises of such a Church where this root of enmity was not then I should have listned to them very much But to the Argument 1. That all those who did teach in the Synagogues were Officers thus constituted as Mr. Selden tells us I suppose Mr. Falkner will not affirmit the example of our Lord Luk. 4.16 17 c. so of Paul Act. 13.15 16. shews the contrary Grotius we can believe for he speaks with the Scripture De Impor p. 374 saith he Notandum in synagogis Judaicis unicuique exercitato in sacris literis erant autem ferme omnes exceptis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 375. qui mos hodie apud nos viget concessum fuisse sacras Literas Interpretari Afterwards he gives us the difference between the Interpreters of the Law in the Synagogue and of the Gospel in the Church In synagoga docebant quotquot 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 habebant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Ecclesia probati quique honorem testimonio adopti ut Tertullianus loquitur i.e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that according to him they were not Ordained The reasonof the difference he also giveth thus Not only because the Preaching of the Gospel is of more moment than the expounding of the Law but because in the Christian Church the Preachers of the word are likewise dispensers of the Sacraments but the Masters of the Synagogues administred no Sacraments no not Circumcision This is cross to Selden I shall yield to Grotius having Scripture on his side the other not All that teach in the Christian Church are Ordained not so in the Synagogue 2ly Weems exp Cer. Law 122. As to the Pharisees all the Pharisees were not Teaching-Pharisees not Porushim but Parushim Some were but Laick-Pharisees as we may call them saith VVeems Now since all of them were not Teachers and it is agreed by the Learned that many of the Priests and Levites were Pharisees and Gerhard proves from several verses here that these were such no private persons but persons in Office and he with Beza and Hammond ground this Text and Command of Christ upon Numb 11.16 they had Divine Institution 3ly Nor will we refuse to hear those who preach the Gospel soundly as if they expounded the Law truly Christ would have them heard though we judg their Ordination mixed with corruption or doubt whether they be rightly called their Ordination being questioned either because some are Ordained by such who as such are no Officers of Christ and others without Imposition of hands 4ly Dr. Lightfoot understands this Chair de Cathedra Legislativa and tells us that Christ here asserts the Authority of the Magistrates and exhorts to the obedience of them in lawful things And Grotius seems to incline this way and if so this is not to the purpose His second Instance is the habit of the Prophets a rough or hairy garment Ans But was this annexed and appropriated to Divine Worship or was it that garment they wore daily where ever they went so a Minister in his Gown and Cassock if you will make a civildistinction I like it very well but this touches not the question for the Garments in the Synagogal Assemblies out of Suetonius we little regard them if they were used for a Religious mystical signification which doth not appear and so reaches not the question if so you may tell us of the Fact but our question is de Jure His third Instance is from the decent gestures commanded and used in Nehem. 8. ch 9 Standing up c. Ans We like decent gestures very well and if that were all we will stand up at the reading of the Law of the Gospels and Epistles too we shall make no difference being all Divinely inspired Yea if that will content you and our health will bear it we will set uncovered too during the time of holy Worship which in these times is so much in practise and expected over it was in Queen Elizabeth's time though I do not like the ground of their uncovering but the 52 Injunction shews it was their allowance and custom in Sermon-time to sit covered else why do the Injunction require that at the naming of Jesus men should uncover their heads If they sate always uncovered how could they answer this His last Instance is their adding of Baptism or washing to Circumcision initiating their Proselytes Ans I have read indeed of such a practise taken up in the latter time of the Jews
Quia haec scissio maximè perficitur apparet in debita communione Ecclesiastica recusanda id circo illa separatio per appropriationem singularem recto vocatur Schisma Ames Consc Having opened our description for finding out the true Schismatical Church or Persons let me give the Reader my mind under several Propositions First I reassume that which I mentioned before viz. the body of Christ is but one and that Schism is found in the visible body 2ly This body being but one hence then that this one body comes to be divided into so many particular Churches and meeting in so many particular places to celebrate the Sacrament and the other Institutions of Christ it is is but accidental and not essential to this body it being the consequent of that vast number which makes up this one body 3ly Such yet ought to be the Conformity of all these particular Churches unto the Gospel pattern the Law and Rule of their Head in their Faith and Doctrine in their Worship and Discipline in their conversation and practise I may add and constitutions that where-ever the members of this body come they may manifest their Vnity and Christian Ecclesiastical love to and with those particular Churches without any just scruple or doubt It being not in the power of any particular Church to vary in the least from that Rule and Pattern their Lord and Head hath given them for in so doing they deny him to be the Head and make themselves the Head The Head is to direct 4ly If any particular Church shall vary from that Pattern and shall impose upon the members of this body conditions of communion which our Head hath not imposed and such as from the light of Scripture we cannot but apprehend as sinful and yet will force them to subject to such conditions or else no communion that imposing Church is the schimatical Church and the guilt of Schism lyes at their door Let this Imposition be in Faith Worship Discipline or Manners Let the Church be Papal if that be a Church Episcopal Presbyterian Independent Anabaptistical Lutheran Calvinist no matter what the Imposing party is the Schismatick Why do you how dare you if you be members of that Head impose that upon the members of his Body which himself hath not we will not we must not admit any other wisdom or will in things which concern him but his own if we may admit three things which vary from his Rule we may admit three hundred and turn him out from being Head A great stir there is about the power of the Church in circumstances of worship If you mean inseparable circumstances ordering them according to the general Rule our Head hath given for the edification of the Church I know no Nonconformist such a block as to deny it but that the things imposed upon us as conditions of Communion in the Church of England as you call it are such the former discourse hath sufficiently proved the contrary Hence the Church-men of England are the Schismaticks 5ly It is an irrational thing that the Imposers of Conditions in things belonging to God should be the sole Judges of the lawfulness of their Impositions First Because there is but one word or Rule given to which the Imposers and Imposed are strictly bound and the Imposed may understand that Rule as well and better than the Imposfers else how the Protestant party will defend themselves against Rome the Imposer I know not they suppose they understood it better than Rome and so do you now think 2ly The Imposers have sin in them and may sin they are not Infallible therefore their Impositions must be judged by others 3ly If Imposers must be sole Judges and we must obey because they impose then never must the people of God obey the call to come out of Babylon Apoc. 18.4 for Imposing Babylon being the sole Judg will tell you her Impositions are all lawful and therefore you must obey 6ly Christ our Head no where requires but rather forbids our holding Communion with that Church which Imposeth such things as conditions of Communion which his members cannot subject to but with a doubtful conscience Rom. 14 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that doubteth is damned if he eat but not if because of doubting he dare not eat That there are some such giddy Christians who will find such exceptions against any Church that they cannot communicate with a clear conscience though there be no humane invention imposed but only what Christ himself hath appointed I do not deny but then let the guilt of Schism lye at their door But as to your Humane Injunctions we cannot submit to them but with a doubtful conscience at least 7ly There is great difference between a Church in which there are some corruptions but no Imposition and a Church where there is Impösition of Humane Inventions not agreeable to the Word with the first we would not doubt to communicate but not with the second Hence for the examples brought against us out of the Scripture where were corrupt Churches but no command for separation as under the Old Testament It 's very true how could they make a separation there from the Temple and the Levitical Priesthood without going expresly against the Word Might they erect another Temple Is there any such Temple under the Gospel For those in the New Testament 1st Their Churches were rightly constituted 2ly Their Pastors were rightly called 3ly Their Pastors sound in Doctrine we do not read they were charged with unsoundness 4ly For outward scandalous sins we read of none in their Pastors 5ly Their members for the major part sound though some particular members were unsound in Doctrine and conversation yet they were but few 6ly They had Christs Order and Discipline as he appointed to help themselves against those unsound and corrupt members Hence what cause was here for separation what understanding man would scruple communion with these Churches though there were some corruptions Compare yours and these But 1st Where was this Imposition of Humane Inventions in the Worship of God unless some few Schismaticks in the Church of Corinth we do not find the Churches charged with mixing any thing of theirs in the Worship of God 2ly Which of those Churches had sworn to the Great God to reform what was amiss in Doctrine Worship and Discipline and then return to their vomit again 8ly Christ our Head may hold communion with his members living in corrupt Imposing Churches and yet others of his members that see and know these corruptions must not hold communion with them still the Schism lyes upon the Imposer 1st Your Spiritual Courts having Excommunicated many gracious and sincere-hearted Christians for what cause we know a sad thing that such a solemn Ordinance should be so abused But with these gracious Christians Christ holds communion we are sure and will not your Church therefore hold Communion with them 2ly Christ holds Communion with his people in Babylon
hereafter To conclude this If foundness of Doctrine purity of Worship and a conversation in some measure becoming the Gospel be any true notes of a Church of Christ then there have been and I know are such Churches where no Forms of Prayer are composed much less imposed upon the Ministry that it was but a bold assertion of him to say All Churches had them I find no more in Mr. Carre nor the Fr. Debat I see Mr. Falkner hath summed up five Reasons which have been used by others most of them His first The security of the Worship of God This we had before His second That needful comprehensive petitions for all common and ordinary spiritual and outward wants c. with fit Thanksgivings may not be omitted c. Ans Surely Sir he is but a mean Minister that cannot do this without a Book though I know there is a vast difference in gifts yet there is no true Minister but is able in some good measure to do this the different Congregations are to be considered some mens gifts may serve for some places well that will not for others His third That the affections and hearts of pions men may be more devont c. when they may consider before-hand what particular prayers they are to offer up Ans Who are further off from these and care less for them than your most truly pious men who walk most with God such as can pour out their souls before God in prayer I speak of private men in another manner than most of your Ministers can do how have I heard them complain of these as deading their spirits That truly Sir your argument from pious and religious hearts was quite beside the business they are your formal Christians who sooth up themselves in their outward performances that are the most devout at these But 2ly since I see you have twice quoted the Liber Ritualis in the Bohemian Churches on your side and against us let me give the Reader an account of it out of Comenius the same Author and Book which you quote When a Minister is ordained the Ritual-book is given to him so far you say true but then he goeth on which you conceal this Ritual-book the common people were not to see when the Minister died the Book was returned to the Elders again Not that the Ministers were bound up to those words and syllables in the Book saith Comenius but they were left free This is quite against you He goeth on By this means the hearers were made more attentive and greater admirers of the grace of God For to rehearse only Forms or things prescribed what will there be to excite attention Quite cross to you The reason why they suffer not the people to have these Books is that the people might not slight or despise them Had the people the Books as ours the Common-Prayer Book they would more observe whether the Minister read right c. saith Comenius Thus we see when we go from the Scriptures to Humane Reasons how Reasons clash against one another Comen in Annotat. ad Rat. Ord. Discipl Frat. Bohem. p. 100 101. who adds more that makes against you Something I may say as to the Walacrian Classis whose judgment * Thus in the Dutch Churches Minister preces vel dictante spiritu vel certa sibi proposita formula concipiet Har. Syno Belg. Cap. 11. Canon 21. Apollon p. 172. Comment on Exod. 28. Def. of B. Land pag. 102. you produce against us 't is true what you quore but withal if you please to read the latter end of the first Paragraph you will find them rejecting the ceremonies and forms of publick worship in England introduced in these latter times And in the second Paragraph condemning Forms of Prayer and publick worship though materially well disposed if imposed as absolutely necessary and essential parts of Divine Worship with a certain tyranny and violent command upon the consciences of men I could also quote Rivet whom you quote on your side for Ceremonies he mentions your Surplices in England which you retain ex reliquiis Papismi and saith if you do it in imitation of the Jews or for some mystical signification which you do then 't is not to be born saith he In his pious and learned Homily de Orig. errores grounded on the 2 Cor. 11.3 he saith Mens departing from the simplicity of Christ is the original of all error Christs wisdom is too low for men There you will find something more Dr. Stillingfleet according with him in this tells the Jesuit piously and truly If your Church had kept to the Primitive simplicity and moderation the occasion of most contreversies in the Christian world had been taken away I may say the same for England I will not deny but you may quote many against us But 1. I am of that Faith concerning Churches which the Church of England is concerning General Councils Act. 21. when General Councils are gathered together for so much as they be an assembly of men whereof all be not governed by the Spirit and Word of God they may err and sometimes have erred in things pertaining to God c. even good men may err We know but in part 2ly We have Churches if there be any true in the world that are against these things so that here is the Testimony of Churches against Churches 3ly The Holy Scriptures are the Rule of all Churches to which they ought all to conform Wherefore Constantine said right and as became a Christian in the Council of Nice Let us take our resolution of questions out of the Books that are Divinely inspired To be sure they do not err Mr. Falkner's fourth Reason From the difficult parts of Church-offices of Baptism and the Lords-Supper there a Form is needful c. Ans He that doth not understand the nature of those Ordinances and is not able to unfold them to his people is not fit to be a Minister Christ doth not send fools of his Errand he hath provided for those whom he sends Now if they do understand them and be found in the Doctrine of them which is best known by Confession of their Faith they may be able to compose prayers suitable to the Ordinances 2ly Or if such be composed for your Tyrenes when they first come into the work must they needs be continued when they are grown more able the ablest and oldest men in England must be tyed up to words and syllables as if they were still Novices 3ly Truly Sir you must not much boast of your Form in this Administration for the Parental-Covenant which is the only foundation of the administration of that Ordinance to Infants the God of Abraham and his seed this is not at all taken notice of in your Form Besides many other things which I shall not meddle with now for I do not aim at your Liturgy more than any other in my discourse 5. His last reason To be an evidence
Baptism and the Lords-Supper though there was some aptness in the Elements to signifie yet they did not actually signifie till the Ordination and Institution of Christ Such was the washing of the hands De Oratione and putting off the Cloak before Prayer in Tertullian's time which he charges with superstition Such was the girding of their garments about their loins by the Priests in France in Divine Worship Carang p. 150. Concerning which Pope Caelestinus the first wrote an Epistle to the Bishops in France charging the Priests with superstition telling them they might as well hold a burning light and a staff in their hands these having their mysteries and signification as clear as the other For as in the girding of the loins chastity so in the staff your Pastoral Government In the Light-candles the light of good works shining before men are held forth yet Caelestinus reproves them and charges superstition upon them I am sure then these deserve the same Things that signifie by civil custom as the vail did the Womans subjection 1 Cor. 11. in those times have no place in this question the vail was in use many years even among Heathens before Christ was incarnate 3ly These Ceremonies are ordained to signifie some spiritual duty we owe unto God 4ly They are means helps to our spiritual edification being very apt to stir up our minds to our duty 5ly Lastly they are appropriated to Divine Worship yea so that God shall have no worship if these be not admitted Out of this we may make a description of a Ceremony of the Church of England It is an outward sign ordained by men in the time of Divine worship to signifie some special grace or duty we owe to God unto the performance of which and our edification in so doing this outward sign is a mean by its special signification and aptness to stir up our dull minds Before I proceed I observe Mr. Falkner brings many quotations out of antiqutiy to strengthen his discourse about Ceremonies and with these many are taken but for my part I weigh them not at all they signifie nothing to me For the Spirit foretold Apoc. 17.1 there should be a great Whore c. That the Whore there mentioned is the Pontifician or Papal power now at Rome or thus Rome Chriftian not Rome Ethnick I am ready to prove it if Mr. The Whore got not into her Chair per saltum but gradually as the Churches grew more corrupt Falkner deny it That Whore then must be else the Prophecy must be false which cannot be But had all the Churches of Christ and that of Rome which was once a chaste Spouse kept close to the Rule of the Scriptures in VVorship Government and Doctrine it had been impossible for that VVhore ever to sit there Hence the wise God leaves Ministers to their own wisdom and they thought they acted very wisely when they added this and that in the worship of God and formed their Church-Government according to the civil and thus acting freely and wisely as they thought they brought about by degrees the Decree of God the VVhore is set in her Chair as freely as if God had no Decree about her nor reveal'd any Prophesie concerning her So that all Mr. Falkners and others quotations do but serve to shew us how the Churches acted to bring that Whore to her Chair and so sulfil the Prophesie suitable to what Bishop Downham said of Traditions See the Title page But though Mr. Falkner give us these Quotations is he or any man now able to give us a perfect account of the practise of All the Churches in those times some it may be many were far enough from these practises After Bartholomew-day our Church-doors being shut up for a long time I went to hear the Priest in the next Parish He I found was teaching those few that he had present before there used to be a great Congregation and grounding them in conformity and informed them that as God was pleased to institute significant Ceremonies in his Church so the Church thought it meet to appoint her Ceremonies When I heard this that Text Zach. 13.7 came into my mind where God speaking of Christ calls that man his Fellow Indeed for him who is God-man to be called Gods Fellow we can see a reason but how dirty sinful men come to be his Fellows in taking upon them to institute their Ceremonies in his Church because he had done so I could not understand the reason of this Bishop Davenant on Col. 2.20 speaks notably to this point it is too long to transcribe all The sum is this If you be free from the Rites that God did prescribe then are you free from the Traditions of men It is a most wicked thing they should impose this yoke upon you and you are most foolish to submit your necks to it For God would not have abolished the Ceremonial Law instituted by himself that a new one may be invented by men So he goeth on more fully than I transcribe though still he would have Ceremonies for Decency and Order But this is not the state of the Question for the Preface tells us other things wherefore these Ceremonies are invented and imposed Yet that of Decency will not serve the turn of which more presently But to return to that Priest who was thus instructing his people the truth of what he said and what is now in practise you may see in this Parallel 1st God takes things indifferent in their own nature and ordains them to signifie some spiritual grace or duty of man towards God This cannot be denied of seve ral Ceremonies under the Law 2ly God appropriates these to his own Worship the Priests must put off their garments when the Worship is ended 3ly Gods Ceremonies though they had some aptness to signifie yet did not actually signifie but by his Institution 4ly Gods Ceremonies though in their own nature Indifferent yet being commanded by God are now necessary 5ly Gods Ceremonies were so instituted that no Priest must dare to minister without them Exod. 28.43 6ly God punisheth the Priests and that severely if they observe not his Ceremonies Exod. 28.43 1st Man takes things indifferent in their own nature and ordains them to signifie some spiritual grace or duty of man which he ows to God 2ly Man appropriates his Religious Doctrinal Ceremonies to the Worship of God and there only used 3ly Man's Ceremonies though they had some apmess to signifie did not actually signifie but by his Institution 4ly Mans Ceremonies though in their own nature indifferent yet being commanded by humane Authority are now necessary This is their language 5ly Man's Ceremonies are so instituted that no Minister shall perform the Worship of God without them God shall have no Worship without mans Ceremonies 6ly Man punisheth the Ministers of the Gospel severely for not observing his Ceremonies Casting them out of the Lords work spoiling of their goods Imprisonments Excommunications
all the miles from Port to Port that Paul sailed it was two thousand one hundred and fifty six miles if he mistake not 2ly Consider how many days between the Feast of Unleavened bread and Pentecost for Paul to sail these miles 3ly What time Paul set sail from Philippi 4ly How many days he stayed in several places all which I had cast up 5ly When he came at Miletum thirty days at least were spent he had but twenty days of these he stays eight days by the way besides two days journey going and coming between Miletum and Ephesus as they reckon it from Miletum to Jerusalem 844 miles according to Bunting he stays at Philips house Act. 21.8 10. At Miletum Act. 20.16 He hasted if possible c. yet now he sends for the Bishops of Asia this is the fancy of that learned man Besides if he can prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 17 vers and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 28. be words of the Plural Number then his great learning may perswade us to something For his other notion on Phil. 1.1 the Jewish and Christian Bishop Dr. Stillingfleet hath answered him I add 1. In matter of fact one would think Chrysostom and Ambrose should know a little better than Dr. Hammond of yesterday and they could have given other answers than they have done upon the Text. 2ly When Paul Phil. 4.15 saith O ye Philippians he means the same persons in Ch. 1.4 but if one in France should write to the French Church in London would they write O ye Londoners they are but strangers as the Jews in Philippi 3. In the Church of Thessalonica there were Elders 1 Thes 5.12 but none Jewish Christian Bishops 1 Thes 1.9 These turned from Idols c. not so the Jews So in Ephesus several Elders but no Jewish distinct Elders Ephes 2.11 12. make that clear I could give more answers Prop. 2. The Elders in the Gospel-churches had all of them Ministerial power committed to them alike I mean the ordinary teaching Elders So Bishop Jewel If it be a heresie to say that by the Scriptures of God a Bishop and Priest are all one then many of the Fathers whom he mentions yea Paul himself must be a Heretick Dr. Stillingfleet hath yielded this and we desire no more the truth is the same if he be changed this question Learned Pens have discussed I let it alone Prop. 3. This equality of power which the Elders received from Christ did continue all the time the Apostles lived This I think Dr. Stillingfleet yields p. 275. the Epistle of Clemens to the Corinthians after the Apostles time and of Polycarpus to the Philippians declare the same The Teachers Act. 13.1 2 3. did Ordain so several of the ancient and modern Divines Lutherans and Calvinists so understand it there is a full definition of Ordination If this were Peter's see where is that Bishop had there been an Apostle he had been mentioned The Church of Corinth ought to have Excommunicated the Incestuous person though Paul had not sent to them or here joined with them Chrysostom on the Text speaks fully to the point Prop. 4. The number of the Elders increasing in the Church by reason of the increase of the Believers One of these Elders and most probably that Elder which was first Ordained by the Apostles in the Church had a Primacy as to order and honour but not as to power and jurisdiction over his fellow Elders The Text commands it 1 Cor. 14. ult Order must be and where there is a Plurality to avoid confusion there must be one If there be Twenty Justices of the Peace in a County and the King add Ten more it doth not alter the form of Government At the Sessions one must be for order sake the Judg of the Sessions and the other Justices do not devolve the exercise of their power upon him nor hath he more power than the rest every one exerts his own power So in the Parliament a Speaker must be but no superiority of power nor devolving the exercise of the power of the other Members upon him so it is in the Church That Eminent Servant of Christ Mr. Thomas Hooker alloweth of an Episcopus Humanus in the Consociation of Churches to moderate the actions of the Assembly to propound things to be agitated to gather voices to pronounce the Sentence which passed by common approbation Reason and order saith he forceth such a kind of proceeding Survey Chu Disc p. 1. Cap. 2. p. 22 23. only the constancy of it he denies from experience There is the pinch Prop. 5. This Primacy I humbly conceive did continue in that Elder during his life unless for some default he were cast out by his fellow Elders I shall wrangle with none of my brethren nor differ from them in affection about it but I shall ground my notion on the Angel of the Church Apoc. 2. c. 1st The word doth not connote any superiority of power over the rest no more than when the King wrote from Breda or at any other time to the Speaker of the House of Lords or Commons or to the Judg of the Sessions did or do argue any superiority of power but only order what Isidore saith of the word Angelus Angelorum vox est nomen Officii ne naturae cum mittuntur vocantur Angeli So here all Elders are sent Rom. 10.15 if sent then they are Angels Superiority of power among the ordinary teaching Elders was the first step Antichrist took to get into his Chair 2ly The word is to be taken individually not collectively So famous Reynolds against Hart p. 314. So Beza Piscator Paraeus and many others The instances our brethren give to prove collectively some do not prove it others as the Ram the Goat in Daniel the Antichristian Beast c. in the Revel I humbly conceive give away the Cause for there was ever one superiour in power which I will not yield 3ly That this person was during life c. The Argument brought against it is no Scripture but humane Prudence from experience so Mr. Hooker To which I say keep out but superiority of power and the danger is avoided and no doubt while the Churches kept that out this form of government carried on things very well You cannot then charge me with being cross to Scripture in my opinion 2ly Since you cannot prove me so then I prove my sense from the practice of the primitive Churches of which we have the Histories which to me is of great force in proving the sense of a Text that seems very fair and have no other Scripture to contradict that sense how much the Histories of them speak of a single person who is ignorant and that during life Ambrose or whoever it was as ancient as he in his Comment on the 4 Ephes speaks home to the point see Thes Salmar p. 3. p. 299. 3ly By the Seven Epistles to
observe the 11. and 13. ver going before we may well guess 3. If you refer it to his Office as you do and would thence infer the perpetuity of his Office to the Worlds end I deny that to be the meaning For when the Apostle charges him 2 Tim. 4.5 do the work of an Evangelist c. there the word Evangelist is taken in the same sense with Eph. 4 11. not only Calvin and Gerhard but Scultetus though an Episcopal man yieldeth and it were absurd to think otherwise But that Timothy in the 1. Epistle Chap. 1.3 should be ordained a Bishop as you say and long after this charged to do the work of an Evangelist they must have dull Intellects indeed that know nothing of an Evangelist and a Bishop who beelieve it The Evangelist being one fixed to no place and had the power of Miracles as Eusebius and the Scriptures testifie This was a Commandment so incumbent upon Timothy that his Salvation or miscarrying was concerned in it as he performed it and so it is true of all Ministers but for an Evangelist the French Church the Low Countries Scotland New-England where Mr. Eliot hath more right of Superiority over the Churches of the Indians than any Prelate in the World yet would detest your Doctrine nor any Churches that I know of own an Evangelist As yet then the proof fails Thus we find in Clemens Epistle to the Corinthians a Metropolitan Church forsooth there is no mention made of any such Prelate But pag. 2.62 69. and 73. especially he mentions only Elders without any distinction A Bishop being but Primus Presbyter Primi Presbyteri Episcopi appellabantur Ambros in 4 Eph. as Ambrose calls him it may stand with Episcopus Praeses Thus Polycarpus in his Epistle to the Church in Philippi another Metropolis saith Dr. Hammond there is no menion of any such Prelate but pag. 18. he exhorts them to be subject to the Elders and Deacons answering to Paul Phil. 1.1 For Timothy's being twice ordained and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned 1 Tim. 4.14 which you would have understood of Prophets c p. 45 46. What you aim at in Timothy's twice Ordination I know not whether that we may be twice ordained though first by Presbyters let it first be proved that Timothy was twice ordained to the same Office Timothy first ordained by the Apostle himself you say 2 Tim. 1.6 I pray Sir to what Office say and prove from Divine Writ If the second time ordained not to an inferiour Office I hope the first Ordination by an Apostle the second to a higher Office by Inferiour Officers I pray when was he ordained an Evangelist Nor does your notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 take to be meant of any other Prophets different from Paul for we know that Paul excelled in all gifts 1 Cor. 14.18 as of Tongues so no question of Prophesie Why therefore Paul might not be He to whom the Spirit revealed this concerning Timothy as yet so young and so to take him along for his Companion give us a Reason for it seems there was a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 given 1 Tim. 4.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in 2 Tim. 1.6 he bids him stir up the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was in him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Apostles did convey gifts we know by their imposing of hands though the Presbitery joyned with the Apostle in his Ordination and so I know not above One Ordination that ever Timothy had and that to an Evangelist His third and last Topick to prove the Superiority of this Prelate is the practise of the universal Church pag. 42. To which add his saying pag. 53. As for Prelacy the Essence whereof lyes in a Superiority of an Ecclesiastical person over Elders in a certain precinct it was ever owned by the Church as agreeable to the Canon of Scripture Sir did you deliver this in the Pulpit for a Truth where be sure no man ought to speak any thing but Truth Have not you read Austins Epistle to Hierom Epistle 18. in which Austin writes thus to him Quanquam enim secundum honorum Vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major est c. Surely you have read Hieroms Comment upon Tit. 1. Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam Dispositionis Dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse majores To which A. B. Anselm subscribes in his Comment on the same Chapter What Sir is Ecclesiae usus and Consuetudo the same with Canon of Scripture Have not you read Estius Sent. l. 4. d. 24. calling those Hereticks that are not of your Opinion and undertaking to prove the jus Divinum of Prelacy as you do he saith thus Quod autem jure Divino sint Episcopi Presbyteris Superiores si non ita clarum este sacris Scripturis aliunde tamen satis efficaciter probari potest Have you not read what Medina saith of the Fathers in this point and what our Bishop Jewel naming the same Fathers that Medina did adds Paul himself must be a Heretick if Bishop and Presbyter be not the same according to the Scriptures Much more I might add that I wonder you could write such a line And what Sir will you exclude all those Churches from being parts of the Catholick Church that have not nor do own your Prelacy or what Church do you mean when you say the Church hath owned That so many of the Church were of your Opinion this with your Metropolitan Arch-Bishop brought that Whore in Apoc. 17. to her Chair without which that Prophecy had not been fulfilled to this day so that though it is not true what you say yet if it had been true it had not much prevailed with me but God hath left Testimony against it both in his Word and in the Church As for your notion p. 51. The reason why the Apostles wrote to the Churches that were in the cities which were Metropoles was to shew that all the Churches which were in that Province did depend upon that Metropolis Government and this Bishop was an Archbishop p. 50. I pray Sir which of the Apostles told you this was their reason or where do you find this written The Apostle mentions but but one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Pet. 5.4 This notion I see you are so taken with that p. 51. you tell us this Hypothesis gives the most intelligible account why all the Churches in Asia are reduced to Seven An Intelligible account then we have of that which I had a desire to know but because the Lord had hidden it it became not me to inquire after his secrets but now we have a reason why all the Churches in Asia are reduced to Seven 1. I pray Sir give us since you are so acquainted with Christs secrets an Intelligible account why since there were so many Churches in Europe and those Churches in the Metropoles yet the Lord writes not to one of
so nothing but Forms which is the sense of your Church I say may I be but as pleasing to God My reason is I observe it would very much please my corrupt lazy unbelieving heart I should not need then to beg of God the presence of his Spirit to help me as to the matter of prayer nor need I act my faith and dependance upon him as conscious of my own insufficiency 2 Cor. 3.5 for all my prayer is prepared to a syllable I should not then labour with my proud heart to submit quietly to Gods pleasure though he doth substract and not afford that presence sometimes which he doth at other times For here are the same words and syllables at all times his absence or presence hath no room here It may be the Friendly Debater that can jeer I see at Christian experiences will jeer at me too because I give this experience of my corrupt heart but I care not As for Dr. Falkner let but the Question be truly stated and I do not find one Scripture-argument he hath brought that concludes the Question for his own humane reasons I little regard them in divine Worship As for private Christians I know your Clergy look on them as the Pharisees did upon the vulgar Joh. 7.49 but Sir I know more of them than you or Dr. Falkner plain Mechanicks have I known well Catechised and humble Christians excellent in practical piety kept their station did not aspire to be Preachers but for gifts of prayer few Clergy-men must come near them I profess I fall short of them I have known some of them when they did keep their Fasts as they did often they divided the work of Prayer the first began with Confession the second went on with Petition for themselves the third Petition for Church and Kingdom c. the fourth Thanksgiving every one kept to his own part and did not meddle with anothers part Such excellent matter so compacted without Tautologies each of them for a good time about an hour if not more apiece to the wondering of those who joyned with them Such answers of prayer I have known to others that they have praised God for assurance that he had heard them before they rose off their knees and at that time it was done a thing of very great consequence but heard not of it till two days after Here was no reading of Liturgies these were old Jacobs sons could wrestle and prevail with God and yet must be punished if they came not to Church and set above an hour in the cold to hear a Minister read that which their boys could do at home and blessed be God that England in this dark day hath many thousands of such plain but praying Christians however despised and punished As for that Question Whether every particular Congregation makes a particular Church which you deny and oppose the Dissenters p. 234. c. I pray Sir why do you not answer Mr. Alsop's Text which he brings p. 45. from 1 Cor. 11.18 compared with 20. that Text deserves an answer and till that be done they are not confuted you have left out the strongest Argument Sir you must state the Question a little closer else you will not carry it I doubt not but there may be one particular Congregation which may be invested with the power and execute all the power of the keys and I think that is a Church For instance take your own Congregation and a few more in London where four or five thousand meet to worship God so large are your places with Galleries also I would suppose in such a Congregation there would be required four Teaching Elders four Ruling Elders Sir I must own that Officer though I think there hath been an error in assigning him that power which is not due to him and four Deacons Let all these Officers ply their work as hard as they will I doubt not but they will find their hands full and hearts full too unless the Four thousand be the better Christians But Sir will you deny this Congregation to be such a Church as we read of in the Gospel compleat as to exercise of all the power of the keys I am sure you will not As for your Reason for Episcopal Government another ground of difference between us which you give us in your Preface pag. 5. quoting Mr. Noyes of New-England in your Treatise pag. 234. agreeing with you viz. It is hard to perswade considering men that the Christian Church should degenerate so soon so unanimously so universally c. Mr. Noyes Would not Elders so many knowing men at least some of them have contended for Truth wherein their own Liberties were so much interessed Aerius his opposing of Bishops so long after their rise and standing is inconsiderable c. Sir much here might be said but I leave it to those with whom you have to deal as for Mr. Noyes I know him very well and know what may cause him to write for Episcopal Government That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bear with my words for I am sure it is contrary to Scripture and Reason of the Congregational men That the Fraternity or Plebs is the first subject of the power of the keys have made such work in Congregational Churches to my knowledg that their Elders have felt the need of that principle and made them to think again But good Brother what Episcopacy is it you mean if you mean only Episcopus Praeses I am of your opinion it was the government in the Apostles time when Elders in a particular Church were multiplied And if we would but exercise more meekness and patience one with another Consult the Scriptures more attentively we shall find that the true Government and Constitution of the Church takes in somthing of Episcopacy somthing of Presbytery something of Independency But Sir if you mean Episcopus Princeps which is our Case one that hath a Superiority of power above Presbyters with which these must not meddle and this Bishop such large Diocess as ours are and this Bishop also the Sole Pastor over the Diocess as Bishop Morley checking Mr. Baxter tells him that the Bishop of Worcester and not Mr. Baxter is Pastor of Kidderminster as well as of all other Parochial Churches in that Diocess pag. 2. Sir this Episcopacy you and Mr. Noyes have to prove that it was ever in the Apostles time or of Christs Institution for this we utterly deny The Presidential Episcopacy as I may term it lasted as it is conceived by Learned men till the middle of the second Century or towards the end of it your self does not deny it Iren. pag. 275 276. But for this Princely Episcopacy when that began to be set up then began the Degeneracy of the Apostolical Government Though Mr. Noyes makes little of Aerius yet Medina tells the world that Jerome Austin Ambrose Sedulius Primasius Chrysostom Theodore Theophilacct were all of Aerins his judgment and you say Medinas judgment will prove true Iren. 276. So say Bishop Jewel and Learned Whitaker Quam Epiphanius frigidissimis rationibus refellit saith Whitaker Tom. 1. pag. 149. As for their Diocesses beside what I have said before you tell us they were not very large since all the Parishes could communicate on the same day with what was sent from the Cathedral Church Iren. pag. 370. Sure I am what you plead for now does not agree with the last Paragraph of your Irenicum where you were nearer the Truth How they should come to degenerate so soon is easily understood if we believe the 2 Thes 2 3 4 and 7. ver and the 17. Chap. of the Revelation If positâ permissione infallibiliter sequitur quod permittitur which I am sure is true then it is as true if the Spirit foretels what shall come to pass that must come to pass good Austni good Cyprian and other good Bishops by their Superiority of power and large Diocesses did prepare the way for wicked Boniface the third and he made the Catholick Church his Diocess it was impossible for him else to come there had the Churches kept to the Apostolical Government That Counsel and prediction of God was secretly and severely brought about by men This was once your your Opinion Ire pag. 197 198. Though the Elders had equal power from Christ yet being it was to be exercised but in a co-ordinate way with others you tell us they might devolve the exercise of their power to others Iren. 276. and Dr. Templer tells us there is a greater probability of an Vnion of Judgment when all within a certain precinct lie under an obligation to be determined by the reason of One c. when there is only matter of Right and Liberty which require care pains watch but no profit or gain come into the Purse as here we can easily and readily listen to Reason that may take us off from Duty and part with that Right which hath no profit but only pains annexed to it FINIS
the Church and Worship of God to the end of the world would have hindered our Pocket Bibles Individua sunt Infinita But for significant Ceremonies all the Mosaical Ceremonies were set down to the pins of the Tabernacle and if God had liked Ceremonies as we do he could have set down twice as many as Popery affords 8ly These mystical ceremonies are external worship as I said before but so are not circumstances Mr. Falkner evades these Texts in Deut. 12 c. telling us as the Author of the Er. Deb. that the Text concern'd the Judicial Law as well This I have spoken to before Also he tells us That divers things referring to the worship of God Pag. 360. were allowably under the Jewish dispensation ordered as matters of decency and expediency by humane prudence But Sir this reaches not our Question we are inquiring for a warrant for such Ceremonies as your Preface and our Question from thence treat of else I yielded before that the Jews were not determined in every particular circumstance But M. Falkner refers us to a former Section where he had instanced in such things At p. 311. I find there he begins First With the discumbing gesture at the Passover which they changed from standing To this I spake before 2ly He instanceth in the white garments that the Levites did wear 1 Chron. 15.27 For which there was no direction given in the word yet the Scripture speaks of the allowableness of these Levitical garments Answ 1. But the Question is Whether these Levitical garments were ordained by men to signifie a spiritual duty they owed to God and were to stir up their dull minds to their duty and to edifie them If not they reach not the Question but of this not a word in Scripture Sanctius 1 Sam. 2. conceives and others with him that these were not holy garments which Samuel while a child did wear and David also wore when he danced before the Ark who was not of the Priests Order And certainly they knew the garments of the Levites to be according to the mind of God else they would not have dared to have used them when God had so lately made a breach for want of due order they had ways to know Gods mind that we have not 2. For the Levites 1st They were of the same Tribe with the Priests 2ly Their work was about the holy things of God as was the Priests 3ly There was nothing determined about the apparel or garments of the Levites by God Numb 8. neither for matter whether linnen or woollen nor for the colour 4ly But yet black colour was not I conceive allowable about the Temple worship The bread of Mourners Hos 9.4 was but unclean hence the Text Deut. 26.14 and that of Aaron Levit. 10.19 when there was such a cause of mourning did not eat God required cheerfulness in his worship and service Deut. 12.7 Whiteness was the colour that betokeneth cheerfulness in all sorts of persons Eccles 9.8 Let thy garments be always white We find a threatning against the Chemarims Zephan 1.4 those black Priests Atrati because clothed in black So Schindl Pagn Buxtorf Vatablis Drusius Jun. Tremel God had appointed white in his Priests and Worship Lay all these together and we may see good reason why the Levites chose white garments and so David partly for lightness and the joy now dancing befor the Ark. So that this instance doth not yet prove the question Besides I do not see how the carrying the Ark or Davids dancing were parts of Worship His third instance the Altar of Witness made by the two Tribes But I know not how this reaches the case for that was not intended with any respect to Divine worship the ten Tribes feared it and sent their messengers about it but the two Tribes protested against it they had no such intent Josh 22.29 God forbid c. There was no worship and our question is about Religious humane Ceremonies appropriated to Worship His fourth Instance the Temple it self designed by David and approved by God 1 King 8.17 18. Ans 1. If this be followed then you will tell us that something essential to the Worship of God may be invented by man as I touched before will you Sir affirm it I am sure the Temple was essential to their Worship 2. Place is but a circumstance of worship if the place were more splendid and sumptuous it was but a place still But I pray did David intend to build a place to have that mystical signification that the Temple had prove this I pray else you reach not the question there is nothing of this appearing in the Chapter David was moved from the zeal he bare to the honour of God the want of this the Lord reproves Hag. 1.4 9. 3. David did ground his design upon Deut. 12.10 VVhen he giveth you rest from all your enemies round about c. then there shall be a place which your God shall chuse To which Text 2 Sam. 7.1 answers When the King sate in his house and the Lord had given him rest round about from all his enemies c. then David is thinking to prepare a place so that David had ground for his enterprize only he was mistaken as to his enemies for he had much War after this and that Solomon renders as one cause why he could not build the House 1 King 5.3 And in the 4th v. But now the Lord my God hath given me rest on every side so that there is neither adversary nor evil occurrent So that David and Solomon had respect to that Law 4ly I know no error in it if I should say God also inspired David God had a great councel a decree of his to reveal to David of building him a House and of Christ to come of him after the flesh Rom. 1.3 Act. 13.23 he puts David upon it having also declared his purpose before in the Law Deut. 12.10 11. and takes occasion from this love of his to God to open his love and decree towards David that God did inspire him Bradwardin doth intimate de caus Dei l. 1. c. 25. those words in the fifth vers Shalt thou build me c. Diodati thinks to be words of admiration rather than reprehension And the 7th v. Spake I word c. God had often said in his Law that he would chuse himself a place but had not expressed where or when it should be and therefore lovingly admonisheth David to wait for this expression Thus Diodati But this still intimateth that David took the word for his ground Hence Psal 32.5 Vntil I find a place for the Lord. David useth the same word which Moses doth in Deut. 12.11 His next Instance is in the Synagogue-worship in which they were left in some particulars to their own prudential determinations which the Christian Church is not Instance is given in their Synagogal Officers admitted by imposition of hands when neither their office and authority nor