Questions Between the Conformist and Non-Conformist, Tract · Chapter 2

Questions Between the Conformist and Non-Conformist · Tract · Chapter 2

p. 28CHAP. II.

WE come now to the ſecond Queſtion concerning Ceremonies. Queſt. 2.That the Church hath power in circumſtances of Divine Worſhip, I have before eaſily yielded. The Independents have declared it, witneſs the aforeſaid Mr. Norton in the ſame Book, p. 133, who helps us a little to underſtand circumſtances. I ſhall only tranſcribe his own words: Adjuncta cultus, licet non praeſcribuntur in particulari, determinantur tamen in generali, multiplici ratione, (How near we and the Friendly Debate ſhall come, we ſhall ſee anon.)

1. Reſpectu materiae: non ſunt cultus ipſe, ne dum circumſtantiae a cultu ſeparabiles ſed inſeparabiles, ut tempus locus.

2. Reſpectu finis: omnia ad aedificationem fiant, 1 Cor. 14.26.

3. Reſpectu modi: omnia decenter & ordine ſiant, 1 Cor. 14.40.

4. Ex natura ipſarum rerum, & circumſtantiis occaſionalibus; anne natura quidem ipſa nos docet, 1 Cor. 11.14. Ʋbi agit Apoſtolus de virorum & faeminarum decenti habitu, in conventibus publicis Eccleſiaſticis.

Porro determinantur aliquo modo in particulari: nempe ut fiant tali modo, qui circumſtantiis omnibus conſideratis, eſt maxime conveniens adificationi.

Si nullus ſit error hominis in hac circumſtantiarum determinatione conſtituenda, constitutio illa, habenda est quaſi ſimpliciter divina. Thus Mr. Norton.

By this we may ſee the modeſty of Dr. Goodman, that can tell his Reader ſo confidently, that this is our grand Hypotheſis, and the Characteriſtical Doctrine of the Nonconformiſt party, That nothing is lawful in the ſervice of God but what is expreſly preſcribed in Scripture. The contrary to which he might have read in this Author, and in others, I queſtion not.

But whether Ceremonies be but ſuch circumſtances, or only circumſtances, is the queſtion. Let me ſtate the queſtion.

The Queſtion concerning Ceremonies ſtated.

Q. Whether Man may inſtitute Doctrinal-ceremonies, (or means for a ſpiritual end) impoſe them upon the Church, annex them to Gods own worſhip, yea ſo, that without the uſe of theſe, God muſt have no publick worſhip performed to him?

That this is the true ſtate of the Queſtion, obſerve the Preface to the Ceremonies in the Common-Prayer Book, and the practiſes of men.

p. 29They tell us in the Preface, The Ceremonies they have retained, are not dark and dumb ceremonies, but are ſo ſet forth, that every man may underſtand what they mean, and to what they ſerve, and ſuch as be apt to ſtir up the dull mind of man to the remembrance of his duty to God, by ſome notable and ſpecial ſignification, whereby he might be edified.

Hence we may obſerve: 1. Man owes Duty to God; this is expreſſed. 2ly. Becauſe the wiſe God hath not ordained means enough to put us in mind of this our duty to him by his Command, Threats, Promiſes, and his Ceremonies in both the Sacraments, men will inſtitute Ceremonies to ſignifie and repreſent to us this our duty to him; this is plain; for 'tis expreſſed to be the end of theſe Ceremonies.

3ly. Theſe Ceremonies are ſo clear, point out and ſpeak ſo plainly (not dark nor dumb) our duty, that any man may underſtand what duty or grace they ſignifie.

4ly. Whereas our minds are dull to our duty, theſe Ceremonies help to ſtir up our dull minds to our Duty; and ſo ſtirring up, they help to edifie us.

Theſe things are clear in the words of the Preface, no denying them; and in this they ſpeak more, and commend more their Ceremonies, than ever the great God did ſpeak of his.

When I have urged the Conformiſts with theſe words, they would fly off from them; what care they for the Preface! But in ſo doing, do they ſhew themſelves rational men? does any wiſe man read a Law or Statute of men, and not look into the ſcope of the Law, the Preface to the Statute, ſo underſtand the mind and aim of the Legiſlators? Do they ſhow themſelves ſuch Chriſtians as they ought to be, by ſhutting the window for fear light ſhould ſhine in to hinder them from what they are reſolved to do? Let the Conformiſts conſider it.

To proceed: 2. That theſe Ceremonies are impoſed upon the Church, and annexed to Gods own worſhip, is ſo viſible, that there needs no more words about it.

3. That they are ſo annexed, as without theſe God muſt have no publick worſhip.

Witneſs, firſt, Bartholomew-day, upon which day ſo many hundred Miniſters were turned out from their publick worſhipping of God, becauſe they would not ſubſcribe to them.

2ly. Witneſs the Pariſh where I was Miniſter (and divers others) where for ſeveral weeks, yea months, the Church-doors were ſhut up, God had no publick worſhip, becauſe I would not conform to theſe Inventions.

3ly. Witneſs a Pariſh in Suffolk before the unhappy Wars began, while Biſhop Wren there Domineered, becauſe there was no Surplice p. 30in the Church, the Church-doors were ſhut up two Lords-days, no publick worſhip performed to God until they got a Surplice to annex to his Worſhip.

So that the ſtating of the Queſtion cannot be denied. Now let the Reader obſerve that worthy Mr. Falkner, and tell me which argument of his from Scripture concludes the queſtion.

If it were no more but the firſt part, I thought it had been only in his power to inſtitute means to a ſpiritual end, and impoſe them on his Church, who is able to make a connexion between the means and the end. But it ſeems mens Ceremonies are ſo clear, bright, and ſpeak ſo plain (being not dark nor dumb, as they ſay) that they can teach men, and help them on to their duty, and ſpiritual ends, without the Spirit of God; or elſe the Spirit of God muſt truckle and come down, and make uſe of their means, becauſe they have appointed them, which I am ſure he hates.

Do Kings ſtand upon their Prerogatives? ſhall any man dare to ſet his own Image upon Copper to have it paſs for a farthing in a Commonwealth? and yet ſhall men be ſo bold to ſet their ſtamp or inſtitution upon a ceremony, as a means to a ſpiritual end, impoſe this upon the Church? What is this but to incroach upon Gods Prerogative? will he not require it?

But ſo to annex them to Divine worſhip, that God ſhall have no worſhip without them; I wonder how ſuch thoughts could enter into the hearts of ſuch men as did own the true God, and believed him to be a jealous God, and the Holy Scriptures the Law of that God.

Let me proceed to the further clearing of the Queſtion!

Firſt, Theſe Ceremonies are humane Inſtitutions, depending only upon the will and pleaſure of man. So that all natural Ceremonies, ſuch as are found among thoſe that have nothing but the light of Nature to inſtruct them, as lifting up the eyes, or hands: Bowing of the knees in prayer, &c. found among Heathen: Theſe are excluded this queſtion.

For theſe Ceremonies in the queſtion have nothing but ſome particular mens wills for their ground.

2ly. Theſe Ceremonies have an Ordained ſignification; though the things in themſelves may have ſome aptneſs to ſignifie ſomething, yet they do not actually ſignifie, without the Ordination and Inſtitution of man.

As in 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.

p. 31Such 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, p. 32they 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.

p. 331ſt. 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, &c.

Thus Man runs even with God; but if Mr. Carre gives us the true notation of Superſtition, that which is ſupra-ſtatutum; if here be not ſuperſtition and very great boldneſs with God, I am much miſtaken.

Mr. Falkner once or twice tells us, though he allows ſuch Ceremonies, yet by no means will allow too many, for then they would be burdenſome.

But, Sir, if your Ceremonies have ſuch a vertue in them to ſtir up our dull minds to our duty towards God, where there is one, I pray p. 34give us ten, our hearts are dull enough, and we want helps, if theſe indeed be helps.

He tells us p 419. That all Eccleſiaſtical Conſtitutions muſt be in themſelves certainly lawful.

By lawful I hope you mean agreeable to the Law of God; make but this good, and they ſhall certainly be obeyed. But this is the thing we much deſire, which Law of God do theſe agree with? I ſee and hear enough of the 1 Cor. 14. ult. but that this Text will warrant Ceremonies thus inſtituted by men in the Worſhip of God, I muſt ſee and hear more than ever I ſaw or heard to this day.

Bellarmine and Vaſquez, I ſee, make much uſe of this Text for all their Popiſh Trinkets; and Bellarmine tells us, that Holy garments, lighting of Wax-candles, and their other Ceremonies, may be as well proved from this Text, as bowing the knee in Prayer. But the Jeſuit wanted a Candle here I am ſure.

I have often wondered how men of Learning, that had read over the 1 1th and the 14th Chap. of this Epiſtle, where we may plainly ſee what the Apoſtle points at, by his reproving the undecency and diſorder in their Congregation, ſhould make this Text a ground to ſet up humane Ceremonies of Doctrinal or Moral ſignification, in the Houſe and Worſhip of God.

I ſhall add but a ſew words:

1. Decency and Order are no ſpiritual graces; for though the holineſs and majeſty of the Worſhip of God, is in ſome meaſure violated without them; yet they are in themſelves but external circumſtances, common to Civil actions, Civil Courts and Societies, where undecency and diſorder are blamed, and muſt be avoided, as well as in the Worſhip of God.

2ly. Come to Decency, how they ſerve for Decency I know not. I think light of Scripture, light of Nature, and common approved Civil cuſtom ſhould be rules for Decency, not mens bare wills. For then ſome men will appoint ſuch Ceremonies of ſuch a colour, and ſuch a Form; and he ſaith the worſhip of God cannot be decently performed without them. Another appoints Ceremonies of a contrary colour, and different Form, and ſaith the Worſhip cannot be performed decently without them. So many Heads and VVills, ſo many Rules for Decency, that we ſhall never know when the Worſhip of God is performed decently. For the Woman to be vailed, as the note of her ſubjection, was the civil cuſtom before the Worſhip of God was known in Corinth; for the woman now to lay it by, was undecent.

3ly. That is decent, the contrary to which is undecens; but for a Miniſter to pray without a Surplice is not undecent. You know how p. 35many foreign Churches will not uſe it; what then? is the Worſhip of God therefore performed undecently in all thoſe Churches? Nay, appeal to your own Sons; the chief Gentleman in my Pariſh, and a Son of your Church told me, I think you are as decent and more decent in your Gown and Caſſock, than you are in a Surplice. I have ſpoken with ſeveral Miniſters, Conformiſts, and they all tell me, they would not care if they were all thrown out of the Church; only they are commanded, therefore they uſe them. But were they ſuch things as without which the Worſhip could not be decently performed, they would not ſpeak ſo ſlightly of them, and wiſh them thrown out; they are men of reaſon, fit to judg of decency.

4ly. Decency is of neceſſity, it muſt be; the command and reaſon for it are clear; then we muſt have a neceſſity put upon theſe, if Worſhip cannot be decently performed without them.

5ly. Decency is as neceſſary in the Pulpit, as in the Desk; I hope there is the Worſhip of God in Prayer and Preaching as well as in the Desk; but always I ſaw the Surplice put off, when the Miniſter aſcends the Pulpit, unleſs a Sacrament were to be adminiſtred.

6ly. Decency is neceſſary in our Family-worſhip, muſt we then have a peculiar garment to put on when we pray in our Families?

7ly. They cannot be uſed to ſignifie Decency; for the thing ſignified by any outward ſign or ceremony, does not come into my eye, but my underſtanding; but if Decency lye in the whiteneſs and fineneſs of the Linnen, I ſee it with my eye.

As for Order, I know not how theſe help here; what diſorder there was in the Church of Corinth, Chap. 11.33, 34. declares; and what diſorder among the Prophets is intimated Chap. 14.33. there was very great reaſon for this Rule; but I hope very good Order may be in the Church without a Surplice, or Croſs, or Kneeling.

Mr. Falkner tells us, p. 391. that the Surplice properly ſignifies the reverence we owe to God, and the high eſteem we have of his Ordinances. This Text then for Decency muſt be layed by.

The next Text I find in Mr. Carre, is 1 King. 8.64 Solomon's Altar, For which he had no word.

A. This is Bellarmine's alſo, who joins Jacob's new Ceremony, Gen. 28.18. but yet ſaith, Dee quidem impellente, ſed non expreſſe mandante, novam Ceremoniam excogitavit; that is ſufficient, but for this of Solomon, Biſhop Hall ſaith it was by command and inſtinct from God. Diodati, that he was divinely inſpired.

I would have added more, but Mr. Falkner lays this extraordinary caſe by as not cogent, p. 309.

Mr. Carre's next, They had no command for building of Synagogues.

p. 36I anſwer, But they had commands for their holy Convocations on the Sabbath day, Levit. 23.3. Place muſt be a neceſſary circumſtance, they muſt meet ſome where. Levit. 26.31. God threatens their Sanctuaries in the Plural number; ſome Hebrews interpret Synagogues. Hence Pſal. 74.4, 8. they burnt All the Synagogues. The Temple is mentioned diſtinct, v. 7. Sanctuary, in the ſingular number. This before their laſt Captivity; it may well refer to the Babyloniſh, not to Antiochus.

Mr. Palkner, p. 311, as I ſee Mr. Carre and Biſhop Morley in his Letter againſt Mr. Baxter, and all our Conformiſts, make uſe of Chriſts diſcumbing at the Paſſeover, to ſhew Chriſt his conformity to the Jewiſh cuſtoms, departing therein from the firſt Inſtitution. Biſhop Morl. pag. 29.words are theſe: It is certain that Chriſt and his Diſciples ſate at the Paſſover, and this no doubt was according to the Jewiſh Church at that time; but it is as certain that this was not the manner according to the firſt inſtitution, which was to eat it ſtanding. Read Exod. 12.11. thus he proves we ought to kneel at the Sacrament, though Chriſt and his Apoſtles ſate.

Anſw. Twice we have the word certain, and it is certain there is no ſuch word as ſtanding in the Text, which I have read ſeveral times, as he bids us. Harmon. c. 129.Janſenius ſaith, they might have their loins girt, feet ſhod, ſtaff in hand, and yet ſit, and ſitting at that time might be their manner as he thinks from Gen. 43.33. Surely the Jews did not tear the meat from the bones like dogs; how then they could hold their ſtaves in their hands, and cut their meat when they were in haſte, I cannot well tell

2ly. It is very obſervable that the Jeſuits, Maldon. and a Lapide, and Gerhard the Lutheran, and the Calviniſts abroad, are more wary what they write concerning Chriſt, than are our Engliſh Conformiſts; for they all conclude that Chriſt kept the Paſſover according to the Law, not Jewiſh cuſtoms. If Joſiah gave ſuch charge, 2 King. 23.21. That the Paſſover be kept as it was written in the Book of the Covenant; Shall Chriſt come ſhort of Joſiah? Hence the Jeſuit a Lapide agrees with Gerhard and Calvin, that Chriſt eat the Paſſover ſtanding, but his diſcumbing was at the other Supper.

3ly. Moſt of the Learned that I ſee, as Jun. Tremel. Rivet, Beza, Scaliger, Paraeus, Piſcator, Grotius, Ainſworth, Diodati, &c. do all agree, that God appointed the geſture of ſtanding; only for that firſt Supper in Egypt, as all the other circumſtances noted in Exod. 12.11. all ſetting forth perſons in haſte, but were never uſed after, when they came to reſt in Canaan. If they did ſo. I doubt not but it was according to the mind of God; but indeed there is no geſture mentioned p. 37in the Law that I read of. Nor ſhall all the Rabinical men in the world make me believe that Chriſt would depart from the Inſtitution of God, to conform to any Jewiſh cuſtom; muſt we needs caſt a blot upon Chriſt, to juſtifie our own inventions?

I know no man that maketh ſitting eſſential to a Sacrament, as Mr. Falkner ſuppoſeth, p. 474. and as ſtrange is his next ſuppoſition of a Feaſt without Bread or Wine, (or Ale or Beer with us.) For our parts, 'tis all one to us, ſit or kneel; but that we find as it was a Supper, ſo it was a Supper-geſture Chriſt uſed with his Apoſtles, there is no other geſture recorded; what geſture our Lord uſed when he bleſſed the Elements, I do not inquire, we ſtand or kneel in Prayer; but the Text ſaith, Mark 14.18. They ſate and eat at his own Supper, as well as at the Paſſover; for ought I can read the Scripture mentions this geſture only at his eating. If you can find any Evangeliſt ſpeak otherwiſe, name him. I doubt not, were there any ſuch controverſie or queſtion among the Mahumetans, and their Alcoran did ſpeak but ſo much for one ſide, as our Bible doth in this, they would give ſo much honour to their Alcoran to determine the queſtion on that ſide which it did moſt favour; but it ſeems we cannot give that honour to our Holy Bible, as the Turk will to his Alcoran.

2ly. It is all one to us to ſit or kneel; one geſture is as eaſie as the other. Till Tranſubſtantiation was hatching, kneeling was not commonly known in the Church, but for ſome time of the year it was forbidden; much leſs was it contended for: and ſuch puniſhments inflicted upon them who refuſe it, as amongſt us. The Popiſh party blame us for kneeling, denying their Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation.

3ly. That your Kneelers worſhip Chriſt in and by the Elements, the great contenders for kneeling have confeſſed, Pag. 167.as the Author of the diſpute againſt Engliſh Popiſh Ceremonies, have ſhewn out of Dr. Burgeſs, Dr. Morton, and Paybody the Biſhop of Edenburgh, Archbiſhop of St. Andrews, upon which he undertakes to prove that kneeling in the act of receiving the Lords Supper is Idolatrous.

Mr. Nichols urged the ſame, Treaſure out of Rubbiſh, p. 65. See more there.that kneeling in the act of receiving the Lords Supper, being a bodily religious adoration of God before a creature, with reſpect unto it, having no ſpecial allowance from God, was unlawful; when this was urged before Biſhop Morton, he found more favour from the Biſhop than we can.

4ly. Reverence in Gods worſhip we do commend as much as any. I wiſh ſometimes that which men call Reverence be not Idolatry. But was David ſuch an irreverent perſon, when he ſate before the Lord in Prayer, 2 Sam. 7.18, 27. all the Verſions hold to the word ſate, and that at this time when his heart was enlarged from the ſenſe of Gods p. 38love. Cannot I pray reverently, when I lye upon my bed? and may we not as reverently receive the ſigns of the Lords body and blood, while we ſit at his Supper? Cannot we know our own hearts? Who more profane in their converſation, and deſpiſers of the commands of Chriſt, than moſt of theſe, who can kneel at Sacraments? Upon the ſame ground, i.e. Reverence, the Church of Rome will not put the Bread in the Sacrament into the peoples hands (though Maldonate grants for a long time the Church did ſo) but into their mouths forſooth, Multo plus habet reverentiae, Mat. 26.26.

But it is far from my intention to produce any new arguments againſt theſe Ceremonies, when there are ſo many produced by Dr. Ames Didochevius, and divers others. It is very obſervable what Mr. Schol. & pract. Divin. 2 par. p. 93, 94.Jeans an acute Schoolman and Conformiſt in former times, who cenſured the Nonconformiſts as ſharply as any, and wrote againſt them, while he had read but one ſide, as he ſaith, and was a ſtranger to what the Nonconformiſts could ſay for themſelves, their adverſaries repreſenting their objections and anſwers ſo weak, and ridiculous) hath left upon record. When the Parliament began, he intended to write a full vindication of the Diſcipline and Ceremonies of the then Church of England, to which end he read all ſuch Books of the Nonconformiſts as he could procure: Upon the peruſal of them, ſaith he, I ſoon found that their adverſaries moſt diſingenuouſly miſrepreſented all that they ſaid; that they refuſed to join iſſue with them in the ſtate of the queſtion; that they came not up to an ordinary grapple with them with their Arguments; and that they ſeldom regularly replied unto the ſolutions which were given to their objections; and this (ſaith he) quickly produced an alteration in my judgment, and I believe it will do ſo too in all that will make ſuch an impartial ſearch into the matter as I have done.

This is the ingenuous confeſſion of that learned man, making excuſe for what he had written againſt the Nonconformiſts.

I ſhall ſhut up this with the judgment of the learned and pious VVhitaker, as I ſee him quoted, by Maccovius upon this queſtion.

Q. Theol. loc. Q. 43.Whether when we receive the Lords Supper, ſhould we kneel, ſtand or fit?

A. Reſpondet Whitakerus, ſaith Maccovius, to kneel doth not only exclude the Rites of the Inſtitution, but doth much violate the ſecond Commandment concerning ſhunning Idolatry.

To ſtand about the Lords-Table, doth partake of the Rites, and detracts nothing from the Inſtitution.

But to partake, ſitting is the moſt convenient, becauſe by this neither are the rites of Institution violated; nor doth it attract danger of ſuperstition, p. 39or Idolatry; but this geſture is commended by the example of Chriſt himſelf in the firſt Inſtitution, and of the Apoſtles after the Inſtitution. Thus he; with whom Maccovius agrees.

Before I go any further, let me make uſe of one thing I meet with in the Fr. Debate, part 2d. pag. 397, 399. this Author finding fault with us, becauſe we charge theſe Ceremonies, as being additions to the word of God, contrary to the command, Deut. 12.32. (yea, Sir, I own the argument) he anſwers us: Theſe words, ſaith he, from the old ſeparate Mr. Ainſworth, you reſtrain to worſhip, when as the Text ſpeaks of the whole Law. v. 1. Judicial as well; but the Jews never thought that no particular Law might be made agreeable to the general Law. And again, p. 421. To ſave Chriſtian Liberty, (ſaith he) in matters of worſhip, Gods Law hath only given us general rules, whereby things are to be ordered in the Church; according to which our Governours are to make particular Laws, and we are to obey them.

I anſwer, as to Mr. Ainſworth, whatever were ſome of his private opinions, his learning and piety command reſpect. Whether the Judicial Law be there included, I now liſt not to examine. This you have affirmed.

1. There are ſome general rules which the Lord hath preſcribed in his word, or general Laws.

2ly. Our Governours may make particular Laws.

3ly. But thoſe particular Laws muſt be according to, and agreeable with (both which words you have uſed) the general Law of God.

As when men cut little Creeks to bring water to a place, they let in the water in the great River into theſe leſſer Creeks. **Pag. 61.Dr. Templer's ſimilitude of gold being beaten out, aims at this. Now let Conformity ſtand or fall, according to this ſaying of our adverſary.

1. Then produce you that general Law of God, wherein he giveth liberty in general to ordinary Miniſters in his Church, to compoſe and impoſe their Forms of prayer upon all his other Miniſters whom he hath given gifts ſufficient for that office, and tye them up to their Forms and ſyllables in their Adminiſtrations. Upon this general Law your Church in England have made your particular Law, and impoſed your Forms. The French Church have made their particular Laws, and impoſed their Forms. The Dutch theirs; and ſo on. I pray, Sir, keep to the ſtate of the queſtion.

2ly. Produce the general Law, where God hath given men that power to invent, inſtitute, and adjoin Religious myſtical Ceremonies to his worſhip. Upon which general Law, Rome makes her particular Laws, and impoſe hers; the Church of England makes her particular Laws, and impoſes hers; the Lutherans make their particular Laws, p. 40and impoſe theirs. (I hear but of few of other Proteſtant Churches that have ſuch Ceremonies, if any at all), and without theſe God ſhall have no worſhip.

3. For the third, I know not whether this Author be of that mind, that God hath left us only a general Law for the Government of the Church, but appointed no particular Form of Government, as the learned Dr. Stillingfleet hath aſſerted.

But for the two former we expect this Author to tell us where we ſhall find thoſe two general Laws.

That common Evaſion, Though theſe things be not according to the word, yet they are not contrary to the word, will not ſerve the turn. Yea this Author quite overthrows that diſtinction.

For he tell us, Our Governours particular Laws muſt be according to, and agreeable to the general Law of God.

A Law is a poſitive thing, ſo are Governours particular Laws, then ſo muſt the general Law be. To ſay not contrary to the word, what Law is this? Non ens is no Law. How can theſe particular Laws be ſaid to be according to the Law, and agreeable with the Law, when no ſuch Law can be found? If the Law can be found, then that diſtinction is but vain.

Though this Author hath ſaid enough, yet becauſe this diſtinction is ſo common in their mouths; I will but add a few Scriptures in which we ſhall find an injunction laid upon us, that in matters concerning God, our duty towards him, we look that all things be according to his word.

The firſt Text is, col. 2.8. Beware leſt any man ſpoil you through Philoſophy and vain deceit, according (though we read after, that makes no difference, foreign with an Accuſative Caſe, ſecundum) to the Traditions of men; according to the rudiments of the world, and not according to Chriſt.

Expoſitors differ about thoſe words, vain deceit: I ſhall not trouble my ſelf nor the Reader about them; but by Traditions of men, I ſee generally they underſtand thoſe ſuperſtitious cuſtoms which have only mans authority for their inſtitution, ſuch as the Phariſaical Traditions. So Anſelm, &c. but Baldwin, Davenant, Beza, Gomarus, Diodati, apply them to the Popiſh worſhip.

What the rudiments of the world are, Gal. 4.9. explains. This is certain, the troubles the Apoſtles met with in the Churches, aroſe from theſe three heads. Philoſophy, Superſtitious Traditions, and Moſes Law. Now all theſe are oppoſed to Chriſt; if they were according to them, and not according to Chriſt, then they were contrary to Chriſt.

The ſecond Text, 1 Tim. 1.3. That they teach no other Doctrine: p. 41upon which words Dr. Featly gloſſeth thus: Timothy was to forbid any to preach, not only Doctrine that was contrary, but that which was beſide that which the faithful had received from the Apoſtles. And are not the things in queſtion beſide that the faithful received from the Apoſtles?

The third Text, Mat. 28.20. Teaching them to obſerve what I have commanded you. If he hath commanded theſe things you impoſe, they ſhall be obſerved, but not elſe. Thus ran the Apoſtles Commiſſion; but we have found an art to interline the Commiſſion, and what is not expreſly contrary to my command, teach them to obſerve that alſo. This interlining was under a hedg; ſhould an Ambaſſador thus interline his Commiſſion, it may coſt him dear.

The Author of the Fr. Deb. here demands of us What command we have to take a Text and gloſs upon it? to pray before and after Sermon? to ſing Davids Pſalms in Engliſh Meeter.

I ſee this Author will play at ſmall games rather than ſtand out; he will join with the Quakers for an argument.

1ſt. But, Sir, remember firſt your own words, a general Law will help to ſerve our turn as to Prayer. We have a command for it; the time when, left to our prudence. We think when we are to preach the Word, 'tis a fit time now to confeſs ſins; to beg pardon for ſins, that they may not ſtand in the way to hinder Gods bleſſing; crave for his preſence with us, and aſſiſtance of us in our Preaching &c. ſo after Sermon to bleſs him for mercies, and to beg for his watering of the ſeed ſown, &c.

For a Text: Why did not this Author put the queſtion to Chriſt, what command he had to take a Text and gloſs upon upon it, Luk. 4.16, 17, 18, 19. Alſo why Ezra; or the Prieſts, Ezr. 8.8. take a Text, give the ſenſe, and apply it? We have a command to teach the word, 2 Tim. 4.2. To teach to obſerve what Chriſt commanded, Mat. 28.20. Shall we not then take a portion out of that word? Shall we not take that command, and open that word, firſt explain it to their underſtandings, then apply it to their wills and affections, as doth the Apoſtle, Heb. 3. his Doctrinal part, in Chap. 4.1. the application of it: how ſhall we ſhew our ſelves Miniſters of the Word, but this way? ſhall we take a Text out of our own brains?

For Pſalms: Why did you not ask me for a command to read the Pſalms in Engliſh? The Romiſh Prieſts will put this queſtion: Is there not a command to ſing Pſalms, Hymns, and ſpiritual ſongs? Col. 3.16. Were not Davids Pſalms of old commanded to be ſung? 2 Chron. 29.30. & 35.15. and the authority we may learn, 2 Sam. 23.1, 2, 3. The Jews ſung then according to the Poetry of the Hebrew Language; p. 42and ſome have obſerved ſeveral verſes in David's Pſalms run in Rimes in the Hebrew. Our Engliſh Songs according to the courſe of our Engliſh Poetry run in Meeter, ſo we ſing in ſuch verſes as are ſuitable to our Engliſh ears. If you will teach us to ſing a better way, we will follow your way.

De metro Pſalmorum teſtatur Joſephus, L. 2 Antiq. Jud. cap. 14. & l. 7. cap. 12. and Hieronymus in Prefatione Chronici Euſebii, ſaith Sobnius, Tom. 3. p. 68.

The fourth Text, Mat. 15.9. with Mark 7.7. In vain do they worſhip, teaching for Doctrines the commandments of men.

To this Mr. Falkner anſwers, p. 361.

1. This Tradition did not refer to the order of the publick Worſhip of God.

Anſ. I hope it was never the worſe for that; it is well they let the worſhip of God alone, which you do not.

But ſaith Mr. Falkner, The queſtion between Chriſt and the Phariſees was, whether it was to be admitted as a Doctrine, that eating with unwaſhed hands defileth a man?

Anſ. So the queſtion between you and us is, Whether this be to be admitted for a Doctrine, That men may inſtitute Religious, doctrinal, or myſtical Ceremonies, and annex them to the worſhip of God? You teach this Doctrine firſt as a general Law, and then you bring it into practiſe, by inſtituting and commanding yours by a particular Law. I know not where you and they differ, only they let Gods worſhip alone, you ſay, and you do not.

His ſecond anſwer is, that Chriſt obſerved the Prudential Rules.

Anſw. But, Sir, do you make Prudential Rules, and theſe Religious, myſtical ceremonies, all one? for what you have ſaid of Chriſt at the Paſſover, I ſhall add a little more to what I have ſaid already; but becauſe Chriſt ſate in the middle of the Doctors, as others ſate, hearing and asking queſtions, Luk. 2.46. hence to argue Chriſts conformity to Jewiſh religious myſtical Ceremonies, is very ſtrange, for a man of your worth and learning.

At the end of that Section I ſee you condemn the Popiſh Ceremonies, Many of them being Sacramental, and deſigned to be operative of grace, and ſpiritual help

But I pray, Sir, do not you ſay as much of yours, when you tell us that yours ſignifie ſuch ſpiritual duties, and have ſuch an aptneſs in them to ſtir up our dull minds to our duty, Treaſure out of Rubbiſh, p 43.and help to edifie us?

And do not you make them Sacramental? It is one proper end of Sacraments (ſaith Mr. Cotton) by ſtriking of the ſenſes, by outward repreſentative Elements, to teach the underſtanding, help the memory, ſtir p. 43up the affections, excite devotion.—And after, The Scripture expreſſeth the nature of a Sacrament, rather under the name ſign (than ſeal) which conſiſteth in the Analogy which is betwixt a ſign determined to ſignifie, and the thing ſignified. This is ſo true, that I have known Chriſtians who not out of a principle of cavilling, but from a deſire to help their Faith in the uſe of the Sacraments, that have queſtioned whether they were ſeals, and have wiſhed for other arguments than uſually we give them, to help them in their doubts, looking on them as not cogent that we give; but for ſigns, they queſtioned them not. Thus in our Ceremonies, 1. Here are ſigns. 2. Here is a ſpiritual thing, a duty we owe to God, ſignified by them. 3. Theſe ſigns are not dark and dumb, but ſo ſet forth that every man may underſtand what they mean or ſignifie. 4. They are apt means to ſtir up our dull minds to what they do ſignifie, and help to our edification. I think you ſpeak plain enough.

There is as much given to them as was to Gods own Ceremonies, which did ſignifie ſpiritual graces and duties they owed to God. Yea ſomething more. All may underſtand what yours ſignifie; and they are not dark nor dumb, but fit to ſtir up dull minds.

That they contain external worſhip alſo in them, and ſo are as Bellarmine ſaith of them, (and theſe you took from the Papiſts), Ceremoniae ſunt pars quaedam cultus Divini.

Divine and true worſhip, I think may be thus deſcribed, It is ſome act commanded by God, in which we do reverently acknowledg his excellency, immediately ſerving, and having communion with him therein: whether that act be ſuch as we immediately offer up to him, (as Prayers, Sacrifices, &c.) or ſuch as we offer from God in his name unto his people, as Preaching and Sacraments, &c.) ſome give other deſcriptions, but I think this will hold.

This Worſhip having the Authority and Command of God to warrant it, is true Worſhip. If it hath not, but only mans invention and authority, it may be called Divine worſhip in one ſenſe, but it is Willworſhip, ſuperſtition, and falſe.

In teaching, is worſhip: In vain do they worſhip me, teaching, &c. Mat. 15.9. It is me they pretend to worſhip, this was in teaching; but the worſhip was vain.

God teacheth us two ways: 1. By his Word. 2. By Signs. By the laſt the Phariſees taught ſpiritual things by their waſhings; as God taught by his waſhings in the Law, ſo do you teach us by your Ceremonies; and it ſeems very lively. Now all actions whereby ſpiritual duties are taught in Gods ſolemn worſhip, are acts whereby God is worſhipped; and ſuch acts are worſhip; as all acts whereby he is obeyed, are obedience.

p. 44Some argue thus: Thoſe external Ceremonies whoſe proper uſe is the honouring of God, are external worſhip; but the Ceremonies in queſtion are ſuch: Ergo. Others thus:

All external Ceremonies in their nature formally 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.

p. 453ly. 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 Ʋzzah'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 Ʋzzah 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.

p. 46But 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 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.

p. 47Alſo 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 p. 48black. 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 p. 49before 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. Ʋntil I find a place for the Lord. David uſeth the ſame word which Moſes doth in Deut. 12.11.

His next Inſtance is in the Synagogue-worſhip, in which they were left in ſome particulars to their own prudential determinations, which the Chriſtian Church is not. Inſtance is given in their Synagogal Officers, admitted by impoſition of hands, when neither their office and authority, nor their admiſſion were determined in the Scripture. For their Ordination by impoſition of hands, this he proves out of Mr. Selden. For their power and office, he proves that Chriſt owned it, Mat. 23.2, 3. Though the Scripture had determined nothing about it.

Anſ. This, Sir, belongs to another queſtion, viz. Whether in the Jewiſh Church (and if there, then why not in the Chriſtian Church) Chriſt did approve of any Officers in the Church, that were not of Gods, but Humane appointment, to preach his word Authoritatively? this is a very conſiderable queſtion, but 'tis 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 p. 50are, 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, 'tis 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. 374ſaith he, Notandum in ſynagogis Judaicis unicuique exercitato in ſacris literis (erant autem ferme omnes, exceptis foreign, 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 foreign, habebant foreign, in Eccleſia, probati quique, & honorem teſtimonio adopti ut Tertullianus loquitur, i.e. foreign. 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.

p. 513ly. 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, in imitation of Johns Baptiſm; but ſtill, Sir, we want one thing, and this God approved of; how prove you that? quo jure? by what Divine warrant was it done? If you intended to ſhow us your reading, that is one thing; but if you intended to convince us, you know this is not the way; for you do but prove the Jews had as carnal hearts as we, unleſs you can ſhow us that what they did in Divine p. 52Worſhip was agreeable to that Rule, which is the Law to them, and to us, by which we muſt all be judged.

Next, Mr. Falkner comes to Natural Worſhip, and ſhows their cuſtoms about an Oath, which I ſhall take into conſideration when I anſwer the Fr. Debate, where I find an argument againſt us from hence.

His next, the Rites (as he calls them) of Memorial, Stones ſet up by Samuel, Jacob, Joſhua.

Anſ. But how do theſe reach the queſtion? If they at London will erect a Monument that Poſterity may know where that ſore Judgment of God (as Samuels was Mercy) in the deflagration of the City began. If Laban and Jacob will make a heap of ſtones in the place where they ſware, though it may be neither Laban or Jacob ever came to the place again to ſee theſe ſtones, what are theſe to our queſtion? ſo that of Joſhua; what ſignification of an Oath is there in a ſtone lying on the ground? they may remember, that in this place Joſhua made us ſwear. The ſtone ſerves for a Witneſs that there was ſuch a part of Worſhip there celebrated. If Joſhua had called men of other Nations to hear the Covenant, and witneſs what they ſware, what would you make of thoſe witneſſes to force the queſtion in hand?

The Stone was a witneſs on both ſides, Joſh. 24.27. for it hath heard all the words of the Lord which he ſpake unto us; as well as of their engagement to God. The Stone did not ſignifie the Oath.

His next Inſtance is in the uſe of ſackcloth and aſhes, &c.

Anſ. But were theſe invented among the Jews, and uſed by them only in a Religious way, or were they common to others, Heathens as well as Jews, to ſhow by a civil cuſtom their ſubmiſſions, fear, ſorrow they were under, lying low before their ſuperiors; or noting an afflicted ſtate? The ſervants of Benhadad come to Ahab with ſackcloth on their loins, 1 King. 20.31, 32. theſe were no Jews. The King of Nineveh, Jon. 3.8. cauſe men and beaſts (more than we read of among the Jews that I remember) to be clothed with Sackcloth. God threatens Moab with Sackcloth, Jer. 48.37. The Prophet Joel in the name of God, Joel 1.13. calls to the Prieſts to lye in Sackcloth. Do but you ſhow us as much for the queſtions in hand, and we ſhall be ſatisfied.

When Tamar, 2 Sam. 13.19. put aſhes on her head, was it upon a Religious account? Who taught the Heathen King of Nineveh to ſit in ſackcloth and aſhes? Jon. 3.6. did the Church of the Jews, and he obeyed them? Still theſe conclude not the queſtion.

As for the indifferency of the things which Mr. Falkner next mentions, I ſhall leave that, till I have conſidered his other Scripture-arguments, for that I only regard.

p. 53He paſſeth on to the New Teſtament, where I ſee Mr. Carre, Dr. Stilling fleet, Mr. Falkner, and all of them agree in urging the Holy kiſs, the Love-feaſts; and Dr. Stillingfleet adds the Deaconeſs, which are alterable Rites, though Apoſtolical, and layed by, even by the Nonconformiſts.

But this ſtill will not prove the queſtion, unleſs you will do it thus: If we may detract from the word, then we may add to the word (both are forbidden) but you detract from the word. As indeed this is Omiſſion, the other is poſitive.

But I pray, Sir, do not you argue from our ſin (if we be guilty) to juſtifie yours. For if they be indeed of Apoſtolical Inſtitution, we will take them all up again.

For the Love-feaſts, that they were of Apoſtolical Inſtitution, eſpecially as joined to the Lords-Supper, I find nothing to perſwade me to it. Feaſting was a civil cuſtom for the maintaining of love, long before any of the Apoſtles were born. The Apoſtle finds them in uſe, but 1 Cor. 11.22, 34. he finds fault with them, and takes them away from the Lords Supper. Calvin and Beza both affirm the ſame. If ſome Churches did retain them, yet not all. Juſt. Mart. Apol. 2. giving us an account how they performed the worſhip of God on the Lords-day, makes no mention of this, though he doth of the Lords-Supper. And for Feaſting after Tertullian's faſhion, if we adminiſter at noon time; the poor Nonconformiſts uſe to have the poor of the Church to dine with them. So that this reaches not me.

So for Kiſſing, men kiſſing men, and women kiſſing women, which you ſay was meant by their kiſſing, not men kiſſing women. This alſo was a civil cuſtom a thouſand of years before any Apoſtle was born; how then this ſhould be called an Apoſtolical Conſtitution I cannot underſtand. Our civil cuſtom is to give the right-hand, or the hand, and ſignifies the ſame that kiſſing doth; the Apoſtle modifies a civil cuſtom of their own; and we ſtand obliged to the ſame duty the Apoſtle intends in it, even Love without Diſſimulation.

For the Deaconeſs, if it were indeed an office required in all Churches, I think we have done ill to omit it. If the Council of Laodicea, Can. 11. did remove the Deaconeſſes, as ſome think, we regard no ſuch Councils. The Churches of Bohemia did keep up that Office, as Comenius relates.

That it was an office, properly ſo called, I queſtion; The Deaconeſs was not ordained, as were all Church-officers, and that with Impoſition of hands; they who omit Impoſition of hands, let them anſwer it. Danaeus ſaith, Non tam fuit munus hoc publicum quam ſubſidium aliquod a Diaconis quaeſitum, ſhe was a help to the Deacon in ſuch p. 54thing as were not comely for a Deacon to meddle in, if the Siſters of the Church were ſick. As to this point, in Churches rightly conſtituted, the Deacon takes ſo much care of the ſick, though poor, that as to the Nurſe, Food and Phyſick, there is no want, this I know by good experience. 2ly. Danaeus thinks they were helpful at their Love-feaſts to waſh, dreſs, &c. this end is eaſily anſwered, they being removed. The third was in the entertainment of ſtrangers, waſhing of feet, as in thoſe Countries was their cuſtom; but in our Countries, where there is no ſuch cuſtom, wearing ſhoos as we do, and not ſo hot a Climate, and here all are Chriſtians nomine tenus, that end and uſe is laid by. The firſt uſe then only remains, which is anſwered as I ſaid before.

Dr. Stilling fleet, he tells us dipping in Baptiſm is out of practiſe.

Anſ. It is but very lately then; a Gentleman told me he well remembred the dipping of Infants; the Common-Prayer-Book doth not lay it by, but that leaves you to uſe it, or ſprinkling. I thought Baptizing had been the command. Can there be no Baptizing but by dipping? will he affirm it, that the Baptizing of the three thouſand in Act. 2. and the Jaylor and his Family, Act. 16. was by dipping? It is all one to me whether by dipping or pouring of water, Ezek. 36.25. What Mr. Falkner would gather from the praying and prophecying uncovered, 1 Cor. 11.4. I know not, it is our practiſe he knows, though I have ſeen a French Miniſter Preaching with his Hat on; would he have it that Paul from a private ſpirit did give this Rule contrary to the practiſe of other Churches who had uſed to pray and preach covered? For Order and Decency, which Mr. Falkner mentions, I never oppoſed it; nor doth this concern our queſtion.

For the Decree mentioned in Act. 15 which Mr. Falkner produceth, if that had been well obſerved, much of our trouble might have been ſpared. The Apoſtles and Elders, with the direction of the Holy Ghoſt, Impoſed only things neceſſary; that neceſſity was antecedaneous to the Decree, either neceſſary in themſelves, as abſtaining from fornication, &c. or neceſſary by a poſitive Law of God long in force, and which the weak believers could not underſtand to be repealed, nor did moſt I believe of them ſo ſee it, till the Temple it ſelf, the Head of all was deſtroyed. The Apoſtle James at verſ. 21. gives the reaſon, Moſes (ſaith he) is read in the Synagogues every Sabbath-day; to hear Blood ſo often for bidden in Moſes (yea this near to the ſeventh Command given to the Sons of Noah, Gen. 9.4. which Laws if a Heathen did not obſerve he was not permitted to live among the Iſraelites) and now to ſee the believing Gentiles eating of blood, &c. what a horrible offence had this been, and hinderance to the Goſpel? Hence the things were p. 55firſt neceſſary, Ergo, the Decree; but not neceſſary only becauſe of the Decree. Bleſſed Auſtin ſpeaks very well to theſe Ceremonies, Epiſt. 19.

This is a good Rule for Impoſers, Primum in uno quoque genere eſt menſura reliquorum, Impoſe only neceſſary things.

For thoſe who refuſe to eat blood at this day from that Decree, I think they err very much. Let them obſerve Levit. 17.11. the reaſon of the Command; and tell me whether they deny the blood which maketh atonement for our ſouls to be ſhed.

That Decree then commanded no poſitive duty, as our queſtions do, but a forbearance of ſome things in point of ſcandal, which God had forbidden.

The laſt Scripture I ſee Mr. Falkner mentions, is Chriſt his waſhing of Peters feet, a Jewiſh Paſchal Rite.

Anſw. As to the waſhing, being a thing in civil uſe in thoſe Countries, and not in ours, if the thing Chriſt intended in it to which we are ſtrictly bound, will not ſerve, though we uſe not to waſh feet according to the mode of thoſe Countries, we will take up that alſo, rather than omit any of his Inſtitutions.

But that Chriſt uſed it as a Jewiſh Paſchal Rite, that is another queſtion, and brings me on to the conſideration of an argument Mr. Carre and others out of Scaliger make uſe of to prove Chriſt his Conformity to Jewiſh Ceremonies, as Chriſt his dipping the ſop in the Charoſeth, a ſawce they made. His waſhings, &c.

Anſ. Here would fall in ſeveral things to conſider, but I muſt not meddle with them.

As to this Sop, Grotius and Maldonate deny that Chriſt dipped the Sop in the Charoſeth, but in ſome other ſawce at their common Supper. Yet I queſtion whether they had any other Supper beſide the Paſchal Lamb; a whole Lamb would ſerve thirteen of us to ſup well, though our Climate be colder; I ſee Piſcator and Beza incline to my thoughts.

2ly. But if the ſawce Charoſeth were made of Cichory, Lettice, and other bitter herbs, as Scaliger ſaith, & aliis neſcio quibus, and with him agree Capellus, then Chriſt kept to the Inſtitution; for the Law was only general, for Bitterneſſes; but neither is this ſawce yet proved at Chriſts Table.

3ly. For waſhings, there were Civil, Religious, and ſuperſtitious waſhings; let Scaliger prove that Chriſt conformed to the Superſtitious waſhings: They did bleſs God for the waſhing of hands, and then waſhed their hands. We know how conformable Chriſt was to them in waſhing of hands, but this is waſhing of feet: More prorſus inſolito, p. 56ſaith Gerhard Great debate there is among Divines when this waſhing was, whether before, after, or in Supper time. Druſius finds ſuch a knot here, that he that can untye it, ſhall be to him Magnus in Oculis.

4ly. This waſhing of Peter is recorded in Joh. 13.5. at that Supper; now what if that Supper were not the Paſchal Supper? then all that Scaliger and Mr. Car with others have built upon it, falls to the ground.

I had my eye upon thoſe words in the firſt verſe, foreign, before the feaſt of the Paſſover; which made me think the Supper mentioned in the 2. v. could not be the Paſſover; there being nothing in thoſe words from the firſt verſe to the ſecond verſe to force a mans reaſon to conceive that thoſe words, Supper being ended, in the ſecond verſe, to be meant of the Paſchal Supper; but I was fearful to declare my thoughts, Gleanings out of Exodus 1. S. 19.Exod 1till reading Dr. Lightfoot I found him fully of my mind, denying any Charoſeth at this Supper, &c.

Having ſuch a man on my ſide, I will prove his and my opinion as well as I can.

Our Bibles in the Margent refer us to Mat. 26.2. now to know what time that was John means, when he faith, before the Paſſover, Joh. 13.1. Matthew tells us, it was two days before the Feaſt of the Paſſover. So doth Mark 14. ch. 1. but where is Chriſt at this time two days before the Paſſover? Mark tells us, Ch. 14.3. at Bethany; neither Matthew nor Mark tell us whether it were Dinner or Supper, but that he ſate at meat; but John tells us, Supper being ended.

2. While Chriſt is at Bethany, the chief Prieſt and Scribes were conſulting how to take him, Mark 14.1, 2, 3. & Mat. 26.2, 3, 4, &c. now from this Supper goeth Judas unto them, who were now conſulting to bargain, Mat. 26.14, 15.

3. I doubt not but there was ſome ſpace of time between Judas bargain made with the Prieſts, and his delivering Chriſt up to them the Text is plain, Mat. 26.16. And from that time he ſought opportunity to betray him. So that he had not opportunity ſo ſoon as he had ſold him, Luk. 22.6. He ſought opportunity to betray him. But when then did he make his bargain? when Satan was entred into him, Luk. 22.3, 4, 5 when did Satan enter into him? After the ſop Satan entred into him, Joh. 13.27. What Supper then was this at which Judas received the ſop? not the Paſſover; for the Prieſts conſulted how to take him two days before the Paſſover, while Chriſt is at Bethany; but the opportunity which he had been ſeeking to make good his bargain, he found it ſo ſoon as Chriſt had eaten the Paſſover, inſtituted his own Supper, and was gone forth; then that could not be the time he made his bargain; ſo the ſop could not be at the Paſſover, for then you will make the time of his bargain and delivery to be almoſt the ſame, contrary to both the Texts.

p. 574. When Chriſt bad Judas, Joh. 13.27. That thou doeſt, do quickly; the Diſciples thought the meaning was that Judas having the Bag, he bad him buy thoſe things we have need of againſt the Feaſt, verſ. 28, 29. What Feaſt was that? the Paſſover no queſtion; ſo ſaith a Lapide, Ad emendum neceſſaria pro inſtante Paſcate. But if this were the Paſchal Supper at which Judas received the ſop, then what need to buy againſt the Feaſt, when the Feaſt was paſt, and Chriſt knew he was now to die?

I ſee but two things that trouble me, but the ſame doubts are moved by Gerhard, Maldonate, and a Lapide, who interpret this Supper of the Paſſover as others commonly do. To which doubts they have given anſwers, and their anſwers will ſerve me better, than if I ſhould interpret it as they do of the Paſchal Supper. As yet then Chriſt is no Conformiſt.

Having done with theſe men, now to our good friend the Author of the Friendly Debate, in whom I find ſomething more, p. 102. he tells us, We uſe Ceremonies in Divine Worſhip, as in an Oath, laying the hand upon the Book, kiſſing the Teſtament, which are outward ſigns accompanying ſwearing though they belong not to the eſſence of it.

A. 1. I have heard of ſome, and may be there are more than we are aware of, who will lay their hand on the Book, kiſs it, and do it readily, becauſe they think they do not ſwear, and ſo regard not what you ſay to them; but if you put them to lift up their hand, as we read in Scripture they did who ſware, they would not do that, becauſe then they thought they ſhould ſwear indeed; though I do not juſtifie theſe perſons in this, yet if an Oath be of conſequence, it deſerves to be looked into. A Lawyer tells me he hath ſeen it, and a Gentleman tells me hath ſworn in the Court by lifting up the hand; whether the Law binds only to this form of laying, &c. I know not, but I could never yet learn the meaning of this form of ſwearing. If the Chriſtians did it in Chryſoſtom's time upon the Book of the Goſpel, and the Jews upon the Book of the Law, as Mr. Falkner ſaith, to be ſure we find the Scripture mentioning more than one Form of ſwearing. Sometime Abraham lifts up his hand, Gen. 14.22. another time we find him, bidding his ſervant put his hand under his thigh, Gen. 24.2. that is, my Maſter made me ſwear. Thus Iſrael makes Joſeph, Gen. 47.29 31. put his hand under his thigh. So the giving the hand under Solomon, 1 Chron. 29.24. is by ſome interpreted, that the Princes ſware unto Solomon; as we take the Oath of Allegiance to our King; the cuſtom of ſeveral Countries is various in this point, in which we are indifferent; though I know ſome refuſe to ſwear at all; unleſs it be by lifting up the hand; but the Scripture hath not ſo tyed us up, we ſee.

p. 582ly. But that he ſaith theſe ſigns belong not to the eſſence of an Oath; certainly he is miſtaken; theſe ſigns have a cauſal influence into the effect, the Oath. For, he that gives the Oath doth not ſwear; the perſon to whom the Oath is given, ſwears not by words; then take away theſe ſigns, and where is the Oath?

Again, p. 220, 221. He tells us of Ceremonies the Parliament appointed, and Miniſters uſed in giving the ſolemn Oath and Covenant.

As firſt, Tho whole Congregation uncovered.

Anſ. Then it ſeems they were not againſt decent geſtures. It was in a ſolemn piece of Worſhip of God, at the adminiſtring of Baptiſm, the whole Congregation ſit uncovered, and who oppoſes it?

2ly. Standing, and very meet, not to ſit when they are thus dealing with God in ſuch a ſolemn manner; we like reverent geſtures well in theſe caſes; the Parents ſtand at the Infants baptizing, there is a Covenant made.

3ly. It is the right hand; this and not the left, is attributed to God, Pſal. 17.7. & Pſal. 98.1. where it is not determined which hand in Scripture we will take, which hand our ſuperiours pleaſe; but if manuum fortior eſt dextra; why not that?

4ly. The hand muſt be bare; If the hand muſt be lifted up, let us ſee the hand, not the glove. If Vaninus were to ſwear, it may be he hath under his glove ſome writing that he owns no God at all, as he and his Diſciples taught; ſo others might have ſomething quite croſs to the Covenant that did ſwear the contrary, be the Covenant never ſo holy and paſt diſpute, as ſome did queſtion this. Theſe are but trifles.

But p. 106. he tells us, (and this is that which Mr. Falkner and all make uſe of, as an argument againſt us), The things commanded are indifferent, and remain ſo after they are commanded in their own nature, no neceſſity put upon them. Upon which, to illuſtrate the ſtrength of his argument, and ſhow the Knavery of the non-conforming Miniſters, (for they muſt be the perſons in the Reddition whom he intends) he gives his Reader an elegant ſimilitude, Part 1. pag. 107.

If you (ſaith he) who are a maſter in your family, will have your ſervants come in to worſhip God at ſuch a time in the Parlor, not in their Frocks, in which they rub'd your horſes heels, but in their Liveries, this is but reaſonable; it is indifferent in it ſelf, all one to God whether the hours be ten or eleven, but you appoint Ten; whether in the Hall or Parlour. If your ſervant would not come in at Ten, or into Parlor, (being thus indifferent) were not this ſervant guilty of contempt, and faulty? If your ſervants were ſuch fools, and cannot underſtand common ſenſe, they are the more to be pitied; but yet thoſe Knaves that abuſed their p. 59ſimplicity, and inſtilled theſe principles, deſerve to be puniſhed, and put out of his ſervice, &c. I leave you to apply this caſe, &c.

Anſ. This apt ſimilitude of the Frock, whereby the Fr. Deb. would illuſtrate the Knavery of the Nonconformiſts, puts me in mind of a ſtory which a Conformiſt and neighbour-Miniſter told me, being about four years ſtanding in the Colledg of Dublin, when the thing was done. A Laundreſs bringing home a Scholars Linnen, inſtead of his Surplice, leaves him a Smock, (I ſuppoſe unwittingly), Dr. Chappel was then Provoſt (if that be the title they give the Head) of the Colledg; if it were that Chappel, who was fellow of Chriſts Colledg in my time, he was a ſevere man indeed, and fit for Biſhop Laud's purpoſe. The Bell ringing to Chappel early in Winter-time, the Lad puts on the Smock (and why not? for I ſuppoſe the ſignificancy lyes in the whiteneſs) inſtead of the Surplice; when he comes into Chappel, the paultry boys were fain to ſtop their mouths with their Surplices till Service was done, leſt they ſhould laugh out-right; but when Service was finiſhed, there was no little noiſe made in the Chappel. The Doctor hearing it, ſent to know what the matter was? anſwer is returned; the Lad is ſent for, he makes his excuſe; but that would not ſerve his turn, the Lad was puniſhed I forgot to ask the kind of puniſhment); as for the Smock, he ſends for an Officer that belonged to the Kitchin, and cauſed a fire to be made, and there burnt the Smock. Had the Doctor ordered it to be burnt to Tinder, and not to aſhes, he might have made as ſignificant a Ceremony of it, though it was black, as his white Surplice was. And I may ſay of it as it is ſaid of theſe Ceremonies, they are ſo ſet forth, that every man may underſtand what they mean.

I commend you Sir, this is like a Diſputant, you have maintained Eartholomew-day very ſtoutly. But Sir,

The Nonconforming Miniſters are not the Knaves, as your Reddition make them; they hate the Frock, it doth ſmell ſo of the Jades in the Stable at Rome; they will by no means come into the Parlor with the Frock; ſo that he that wears the Frock in the Parlor, is either the Fool or the Knave, according to your Logick.

2ly. We call them Knaves who cheat the perſons with whom they deal. I do not call you Knave, I have learned more moralily than ſo, which you ſo much talk of; but that you have cheated your Reader, I ſhall make it appear.

1. With that piece of Sophiſtry called foreign, here are Time, Place, and Livery, i. e. your Surplice, put together as if there were no difference, when as we deny it. Time and Place are but circumſtances, inſeparable from the Worſhip of God; hence 'tis all one to us, p. 60whether nine, ten, or eleven of the Clock; whether in the Hall or Parlor; if it be beſt for edification, or conveniency of the Church, we are very indifferent; but the Livery hath a moral ſignification, ordained by men for another end, to put us in mind of our Duty to God, and a means to ſtir up our dull minds to the performance of it.

2. Here is Ignoratio Elenchi, your ſimilitude doth not touch the ſtate of the queſtion; the queſtion ſpeaks of one thing, and your ſimilitude argues another.

That by this Livery you muſt underſtand ſome Ceremony, and if any, the Surplice, muſt be the Argutum, is plain, for that ſuits a Livery beſt; and ſomething you would argue, as you declare when you bid the Reader make the Reddition. In this ſenſe your ſimilitude is very apt, it doth repreſent a Livery indeed, but I pray who gives this Livery? we can well diſtinguiſh between what comes through Rome, and that which is Romiſh. Why do you ſpeak ſo againſt that Woman in Rev. 17. ſince you wear her Livery?

But to this indifferency, that the uſe of them is indifferent, I ſuppoſe you will not ſay; you declare your mind plain enough; They are indifferent, and ſo remain after they are commanded in their own nature, no neceſſity put upon them. To Mr. Falkner and this Author.

I pray tell us what Ceremony you can invent that is not indifferent in its own nature; tell us of one Ceremony that is neceſſary in its own nature.

1. All Gods Ceremonies were indifferent in their own nature, not one neceſſary; let but God recall his Poſitive Law, I will put on all the High Prieſts garments, and make uſe of any Veſſels of the Temple, &c. Pray, Sir, name that Ceremony which in its own nature is morally good or evil.

2ly. Bread and Wine in the Lords Supper, as to their own nature are but indifferent, unleſs you will own Tranſubſtantiation; his poſitive Law make them neceſſary, both neceſſitate praecepti, & medii. When the Elements have ſerved their uſe or end, the Sacrament's over, we eat and drink what remains, as other drink, &c. you make yours a means to edification, as well as Chriſt doth his; and ſo much neceſſity of command lye upon them, that all the Miniſters (whom you call Knaves) that will not uſe them, be the Miniſters never ſo able and holy, they muſt be turned out of their Lords ſervice by your verdict, as they are.

3ly. All the Popiſh Ceremonies are indifferent in their own nature, and may plead as much for the uſe of them all, as you do for yours. Yea, take their Pictures; being in a Papiſts houſe, I ſaw the Picture of a very Old man, I thought nothing of it, the Cloth, the Paint or p. 61Colours, the Effigies, the frame, were all indifferent in their nature; but when one told me that Picture was to repreſent the Ancient of Days, then I underſtood ſin enough in it.

4ly. The Papiſts put no neceſſity upon their Ceremonies, as witneſs their Maſter Lombard, that tells you Baptiſm, i. e. Water applied in the Name, &c. the Elementum & Verbum, meeting together, make the Ordinance perfect without any Ceremony.

But ſince they are thus indifferent, as you ſay, and Mr. Carre blaming us for making a Schiſm, becauſe of theſe, which he terms thus, Trifles, poor needleſs things, ſuch as ſcarce come nigh to touch the fringe of Chriſts veſture. But to us they appear ſinful; and did we not ſo apprehend the things impoſed upon us, but that we might be acceptable and pleaſing to God in our Conformity to them, we proteſt in his preſence who ſearcheth our hearts, and will judg both you and us, we would not ſtay one day from Conformity. The Queſtion is, Whether you may better lay by theſe things, and not impoſe them, being ſo indifferent, or may we better take them up, who at leaſt ſuſpect them to be ſinful, and cannot with a clear conſcience yield unto them?

Are we more guilty of ſchiſm that will not take up theſe things becauſe we apprehend them from the word to be ſinful, or you, that will not lay them down, but impoſe them, though you ſay they are indifferent? I challenge Mr. Falkner and all the Conformiſts to anſwer it before God.

If the things impoſed be but indifferent, as all the Conformiſts ſay, then Mr. Falkner meets with an argument of the Nonconformiſts; it is urged ſaith Mr. Falkner, p. 434. No ſuch indifferent things ought to be impoſed, but to be made the matter of mutual forbearance, according to the duty charged upon Chriſtians, Rom. 14. & 1 Cor. 8.

Here Mr. Falkner beſtows about 32 Pages to take off the Argument, and to give us the mind of thoſe Chapters.

It is very true, Sir, the argument hath been uſed by the old Nonconformiſts, and in particular I knew it urged by one, and the 13th v. of the 1 Cor. 8. preſſed hard upon the Prelate Laud in his Viſitation; to whom the Prelate gave this anſwer: True, when Paul was alone, and ſpake alone, thus he ſaid; but would Paul have ſaid ſo, if he had been in a Conſiſtory with the reſt of the Apoſtles? my friend made no reply, but held down his head, ſuppoſing thereby he might make the Prelate recall his words; this anſwer was becoming an Archbiſhop, and worthy of Laud! To be ſure he ſilenced my friend.

Only this, Sir, let me ſay, they uſed the argument upon your Hypotheſis, that the things are indifferent; but though we grant the things conſidered abſolutely, or abſtractedly in their own nature are indifferent; p. 62yet conſider them in their uſe, we look on them as ſinful.

To examine all that learned Mr. Falkner hath written, would be tedious and needleſs, for I ſhould yield to him in many things, had not the ſtate of the queſtion been miſtaken.

Briefly therefore I will conſider the caſe the Apoſtle had before him, and apply our caſe to it.

The Lord having in the old Law forbidden divers meats, and commanded the obſervation of divers days, when Chriſt the ſubſtance, the body was come, theſe ſhadows vaniſhed. Some Believers in Chriſt underſtood this; they knew, though once they were under a Law, yet at this time they were indifferent, and ſo they knew their liberty. Others, becauſe the Law was ſo expreſs, the obſervation had been many hundred years, the words for ever added to thoſe Laws, they could not yet underſtand what the ſtronger Chriſtians did. The Apoſtle guided by the Spirit of Chriſt, chargeth theſe ſtronger Chriſtians not to judg, deſpiſe, refuſe, or offend theſe weaker Chriſtians; but to receive them into their hearts, into Church-fellowſhip, and all Church communion, and not perplex their minds with thoſe doubtful diſputations or reaſonings, but wait, and bear tenderly with them, till the Lord ſhall reveal that truth alſo unto them.

For our caſe; the things in queſtion are no neceſſary circumſtances of Divine Worſhip, as time, place, &c. which are neceſſary attendants of Worſhip, and Antecedaneous to any act of mans will; but ſuch as have their dependance upon mans pleaſure only. Hence you tell us, you may change them when you pleaſe. Thoſe things fell under the command of God; and ſo not theſe, unleſs as forbidden by the general Law of God, as thoſe meats were by particular Laws. For a man, a creature, to inſtitute a Doctrinal, Religious Ceremony, to teach men their duty they owe to God; ordain it as a mean to help, ſtir up their minds to their duty, and annex this to the worſhip of God; yea ſo as there muſt be no Divine Worſhip unleſs this Ceremony be uſed, it is ſuch high boldneſs, it doth ſo touch the Lords Prerogative, and tacitely ſo charge him with defect of wiſdom, as if he had not appointed means ſufficient to teach his Creature, but we muſt ſupply his defect by adding to his word; that let ſuperstition ſpeak never ſo ſmoothly, as it always comes with ſome pious end in the mouth, it is no other but wretched impiety, not will we by the help of his Grace conform unto it.

You who tell us theſe things are indifferent, are yet ſo far from anſwering the Duty that Chriſt commands by the Apoſtle in theſe Chapters, i. e. to receive us, not to judg us, not to offend us, that in oppoſition to the command, you thruſt us out of the Lords work; you p. 63ſhut us out from the Sacraments; you excommunicate us, impriſon us, and do what in you lye to deſtroy us both ſoul and body.

As to what you ſay, p. 410. quoting Mr. Thorndike, with whom you agree, It is not meant a bare diſpleaſing of our Brother, but doing ſuch actions which tend to occaſion ſome to fall from Chriſtianity, diſguſt Chriſtian Religion, for which you quote the 15. v. Deſtroy not him, &c.

The firſt part in ſome ſenſe I ſhould yield; but for the latter part which carries this ſenſe, that the deſtruction in the 15. v. was by making them to fall from Chriſtianity, as if there were no other way to deſtroy them but that; I conceive humbly that your ſelf with Mr. Thorndike, are both miſtaken.

For that weak Chriſtian might be ſtrongly convinced that Chriſtian Religion was true, though he could not as yet ſee the repealing of thoſe Laws upon the reaſons I gave before; yet through the unkindneſs, pride, cruelty of the ſtronger Chriſtians who would judg, deſpiſe him, and not receive him unleſs he would eat the forbidden meats, as they did; and through their example, whom he ſaw to eat, he might be put upon a temptation to eat ſuch meats too, not in faith, but with a doubtful conſcience, and ſo doing, he was condemned according to the laſt verſe. So their pride, unkindneſs, and example, did help to deſtroy their brother as much as in them lay.

Hence in the firſt verſe of the Chapter, the Apoſtle charges them not to trouble ſuch a one with doubtful diſputations: foreign, &c. **Non cumeo diſputis, de uſu libertatis quam nondum poteſt intelligere, quod plus anxietatis & kaeſitationis, rudibus animis parit, quàm utilitatis. Vatabl.In the laſt verſe he ends with, He that doubteth, foreign, is damned; ſo that he begins and ends with doubtfulneſs. Now had the weak Chriſtian fallen off from the Faith, the weak Chriſtian would not have eaten ſuch meats doubtfully, and ſo bring himſelf under the danger of condemnation for ſo doing; for to be ſure he would eat none of thoſe meats which made him fall off from Chriſtianity, becauſe he ſaw Chriſtians eat them, there was no danger of his damning for eating with a doubting conſcience; ſo that this implys, that he who eats with doubting, did yet hold his Chriſtianity.

Thus have ſome by reaſon of that unkindneſs and ſeverity in impoſing theſe Laws upon us, been put upon Subſcriptions with a doubtful Conſcience in their temptations, and afterwards have met with that which hath ſtung them. This is the charity of your Church towards your brethren.

Nor doth that you ſay, p. 435. help it, viz. That theſe different practiſes had a peculiar reſpect to thoſe times only, of the firſt dawning of Chriſtianity; for the Church afterwards in their Canons condemned all thoſe who obſerved thoſe Moſaical Laws.

p. 64For we are under the ſame condition with thoſe Chriſtians who dare not eat the meat then, becauſe they had been forbidden in the Law; ſo, nor dare we ſubmit to your Humane Inventions in the Worſhip of God, becauſe they are forbidden in the general Law, Thou ſhalt not add, Deut. 12.32. They are not according to Chriſt, Col. 2.8. Chriſt put no ſuch things into the Apoſtles Commiſſion to Preach, Mat. 28. ult. So that with a doubtful conſcience at leaſt we muſt practiſe them, and what is next, we know.

Nor doth your obedience to authority help here, which ſo many are glad they have that ſtarting hole to run into, and your ſelf ſo much urge. Had theſe ſtrong brethren in this, Rom. 14. been Princes, or Archbiſhops, and they ſhould have commanded the weak brethren to have eat theſe meats, they had ſinned in their command; nor were they bound to obey them with a doubtful conſcience; to hazard amnation by obedience to ſuperiors, is no good Divinity. Yet, Sir, we do give obedience, and will preach up obedience to Princes, as much as any other, only in the matters of God, he is the ſuperior and ſupreameſt, Nemini fit injuria, cui praponitur Deus.

For your next Section, pag. 442. where you labour to defend your Ceremonies, though they have been abuſed in a corrupt way of worſhip in Popery. As for this Section Mr. Falkner might have ſpared it; for Humane Doctrinal Ceremonies to be annexed to Gods own Inſtitutions, we judg them ſinful additions, intrenching upon the Soveraignty, and flighting of the wiſdom of Chriſt, though Rome had never known them; as if the wiſe holy God could not have appointed more Doctrinal Ceremonies, had he cared for them, as well as fooliſh ſinful man; but ſince then theſe were and are ſtill in the Popiſh worſhip, and retained here when England threw off the Papal yoke, I will conſider what he hath ſaid, and but touch it briefly.

1. Rome then, as now it ſtands, is that Whore deſcribed Apoc. 17.1. this I doubt not; of this judgment were our Engliſh Biſhops, the moſt learned of them; the Profeſſors of Divinity in both Univerſities, and generally of our pious and learned men in this Nation, before our troubles began; and alſo of foreign Divines. Was it ever known that a chaſt Virgin, as the Church ſhould be to Chriſt, 2 Cor. 11.2. would dreſs up her ſelf with the reliques of a known Whore? Come out of her my people, Apoc. 18.4. this is not obedience to that call.

2ly. It ſeems very ſtrange that when Gods own Inſtitution came to be abuſed to Idolatry, as the Brazen Serpent, 2 King. 18.4. that muſt now be broken in pieces; and muſt a Humane Inſtitution uſed in ſuperſtitious worſhip, in an Idolatrous Church, be yet retained in a Reformed Church?

p. 65I ſhall not write out his Argument at length.

1ſt. In Regeneration the bodies and ſouls once abuſed to the ſervice of the Devil, Luſt, Idols, may yet find acceptance with God, in ſerving of him.

Anſ. A ſtrange argument for a learned man! If ſo excellent a Creature as man, made after the Image of God, under a neceſſity of obedience to his Creator, being fallen from God, but by Gods rich mercy, the Obedience, Blood, and Sacrifice of Immanuel, and the renewing of the holy Ghoſt, be accepted of God; Then a paultry human Ceremony indifferent in its own nature, and no neceſſity for the uſe, if abuſed in an Idolatrous Church, may yet be retained in a chaſt Church, and the uſe of it acceptable to God. This Logick I underſtand not: Conſequence denied. I could enlarge my anſwer, but will not.

2d. Arg. From ſingle merſion, and threefold merſion in baptizm.

A. Was the water, ſo baptizing in water, a Human Ceremony and Invention, or Chriſts own Inſtitution? For dipping in the water, or pouring of the water upon the perſon, your Church allow both, becauſe the word foreign ſignifie both. If any did dip thrice, denying the Trinity of perſons to be of the ſame eſſence, that was their Hereſie: but if any did hold the Trinity of perſons in the Unity of the eſſence, and yet would dip thrice, though I do not much like it, yet I ſhould not condemn them of Hereſie, the Text mentions nothing, whether once, or thrice. But prove Baptizing in water to be mans invention.

3ly. The Chriſtians lawfully uſed thoſe fountains where the Gentiles drew water for their Sacrifices, &c.

A. And why not? did the Heathen and Julian make thoſe Fountains, or God make them for the uſe of Man and Beaſt? ſhall therefore an Idolater deprive the Chriſtians of thoſe which God made for the uſe and neceſſity of Man and Beaſt, What is ſold in the ſhambles? 1 Cor. 12.25. But this you are to prove, if you will make an Argument of it, that when the Idolaters had taken water out of thoſe Fountains, carried it to their Idol Temples, made uſe of it in their Idol worſhip, that then the Chriſtians would take that water, and baptize believers in it; though yet there is more to be ſaid for them, than for your Ceremonies, becauſe to baptize in water, was Chriſts Inſtitution. For the fountains, Julian might have Dedicated the Land thereabouts to Idols, and Devils, as well as the Fountains, and ſo the Chriſtians ſhould be afraid to ſow Corn to maintain Life.

4ly. We meet in their Churches or places they built, uſe their Bells, Tenths, for maintenance of Miniſters. Ergo.

p. 66A. 1. For places. 1ſt. Place hath no moral ſignification, as your Ceremonies. 2. Place is neceſſary, ſo not your Ceremonies. 3. Thoſe places were built for the worſhip of the true God and Chriſt; though theſe blind Idolaters might alſo intend ſome Saint: But if they had been built only for the worſhip of a Saint, in imitation of the Heathens Demons, we would not meet in them, but done by them as Conſtantine did by the Idols Temples, razed ſome to the ground, and ſhut up others.

2. Bells. It ſeems you uſe them all the while you are reading Prayers, and worſhipping God in your Surplice, the Bells are Chiming: I thought the Bells had done when worſhip began.

2. Something muſt be done to give notice to the people what time the worſhip of God begins; ſo the Bell doth this day; to morrow it calls the people to a meeting about Town-affairs

3. Bells have no moral ſignification in them, as your Ceremonies.

4. I believe few Bells in England, but have been caſt ſince the throwing off Popery, to make them muſical; and none uſe them for that end. No ſuch muſical tunes did I obſerve in Spain, but a confuſed jangling in time of Thunder.

3. Tenths, Miniſters maintenance, have no moral ſignification, nor annexed to Divine Worſhip. The people tell you, Tenths are Levitical, not Popiſh. Though, by their ſavour, twice we read of Tenths being paid to God before the Levitical Law. But for maintenance, poor Nonconformiſts are not concern'd in this argument.

4 The Heathens lifted up their eyes when they worſhipped their Idols, their gods, Sun, Moon, &c.

A. 1. Did the Heathen call a Convention, and there decree, That when men did worſhip God, they ſhould lift up their eyes to heaven as your Convocation appointed theſe? or did Natures light teach them this geſture?

2. Were the Heathens the firſt that in worſhipping of Idols lifted up their eyes to heaven? Did not Adam, Abel, and the Saints before the Flood; and Noah, Sem, &c. after it, lift up their eyes in their worſhipping of God? If the Heathen will imitate the Church, muſt the Church lay by duty? becauſe the Heathen worſhip Devils, therefore we muſt not worſhip God?

5 I dolatrous ſacrifices were practiſed before the giving of the Law, yet God continued and commanded ſaerifices after the Law.

A. Your Argument ſpeaks thus much: If the Devil will be Gods Ape, and hateful enemy, then God muſt have no worſhip; and every time the Devil imitates Gods worſhip, God muſt change his worſhip, and appoint new means of worſhip.

p. 67I pray Sir, did the Devil, or God firſt appoint Sacrifices? why may I not think the Devil underſtood ſomething of the promiſed ſeed, and the meaning of the Sacrifices; and in the following Ages, in hatred and revenge againſt God, and hatred of ſouls, drew men to ſacrifice to himſelf, not only beaſts, but men, as being the beſt of Creatures, and ſo moſt acceptable Sacrifice, in the imitation of Iſaac, that ſhould have been ſacrificed? and thus he got before God.

Sir, I pray do this: ſhew us where there were Ceremonies firſt invented by Idolators, depending only on their wills (as yours do, and you tell us you may change them when you pleaſe) theſe were uſed in idalatrous worſhip, and the Church of God tranſlated thoſe Ceremonies (I do not mean individual) from the idolatrous Temples into the worſhip of the holy and true God, and he approved of them. This you muſt prove, or elſe you ſpeak not home to our Caſe.

The laſt thing Mr. Falkner brings, is the Teſtimony of worthy men about retaining ſome Ceremonies, &c. I only ſay, I honour the men; but I am of Mr. Falkner's opinion, that the holy Scriptures are the only unerring Rule, and I will willingly follow them; ſo men, where they follow Chriſt.

Several Diſtinctions about ſignificant ſigns, Mr. Falkner makes; but I ſee not how any of them reach the Queſtion, no not ſo much as one.

1. Here are ſigns depending only on the Wills of Men.

2. Theſe ſigns are Inſtituted to Inſtruct us in our Duty towards God.

3. Theſe are ſaid to be helps for our Edification.

4. Theſe ſigns are appropriated and annexed to the Worſhip of God. While we Adminiſter his ſigns, we ſet up our ſigns.

5. He that uſeth not theſe ſigns, is turned out of the work of the Lord, and ſhall not worſhip the Lord.

I deſire Mr. Falk would either from expreſs Scripture, or neceſſary conſequence from Scripture, or from the example of any holy and ordinary perſons in Scripture approved by God; I ſay, I deſire from either of theſe he would prove ſuch ſigns in this manner Impoſed. Did Moſes ever dare to Inſtitute one Exciting (which is one Diſtinction) ſign, and annex it to the worſhip of God, more than he had in charge from God? yea and turn out thoſe Prieſts that would not uſe it?

It is ſaid of your Ceremonies, they are not Dark and Dumb, but ſo ſet forth, that every man may underſtand what they mean.

May every man underſtand, &c? truly I have known the Surplice above fifty years, but never underſtood that the putting on a Surplice p. 68ſhould properly ſignifie the Reverence we bear to God, and the high eſteem of his ordinances, till Mr. Falk. told me ſo, p. 391. nor I believe did few Preiſts ſo underſtand it.

It ſeems then when you put off the Surplice, going into Pulpit, now you declare a lower eſteem of God and his Ordinances

Others tell us, it ſignifies Purity; others Decency; it ſeems you are not agreed in the ends of your own inventions.

But for your exciting ſign in the Croſs; many thouſands, if not millions of Children in England have been baptized with this ſign. I pray Name but One of theſe that ever was Excited to fight under Chriſts Banner, by this ſign. Reaſon is a word in which the Conforming party glory much; all Learning and Reaſon they have engroſſed. I pray, Sir, ſhew us the Reaſon, how the moving of a Prieſts finger over an Infants Fore-head, in its Baptiſm, comes to have that efficacy to excite that Infant to fight under Chriſts Banner? How the Chriſtians of old uſed the real ſign of the Croſs, I know (I do not go about to juſtifie or condemn their practiſe) but this is another thing, or ſhadow of a thing; no wonder though your own Mr. Carr calls your Ceremonies trifles, things of which come no good. Surely, Sir, while you ſpeak of the Reverence of God, we ſhould ſhow more Reverence to that Majeſty, in being content with his Soveraignty and wiſdom in his own Inſtitutions, and not annex vain empty trifles to them, and turn out thoſe men who will not ſubmit unto them.