Questions Between the Conformist and Non-Conformist, Postscript 1
POSTSCRIPT.
AFTER I had finiſhed, I met with a Pamphlet, Entituled, The reaſon of Epiſcopal Inſpection aſſerted, in a Sermon at a Veſitation in Cambridg, by John Templer, D. D.
The ſcope of the Sermon is to prove the Divine Right of Prelacy over Elders and Congregations. And that the Author might ſhew himſelf to be a true Son of the Church, he hath given ſufficient proof in every particular. For the Liturgy, that is ſo perfect, that he ſaith, the moſt accuminated Intellect is not able with juſtice to charge it with any error, p. 18. All then the old Nonconformiſts, Parker, Ames, Bradſhaw, Cartwright, Richardſon, Didoclavius, &c. together with the latter Nonconformiſts, who were appointed with others by the Kings command, to review the Liturgy, and have given an account what things in it were to be corrected; Calvin alſo, for ſaying he found in it ſome Tolerabiles Ineptiae, are all by this accuminated Doctor, dub'd for ſo many Dunces. They muſt be men of higher Acumens than theſe, that can find any juſt cauſe againſt it; theſe have ſaid nothing conſiderable. But whatever be the opinion of this Author, yet Mr. Jeans, a man of an acute Intellect, one of their own, and as great a Zealot once as he can be, confeſſeth when he intended to write in defence of the Diſcipline and Ceremonies, when he read theſe mens Books, he found ſuch arguments in them as were never anſwered, and thereupon layed by his Pen, his judgment being quickly altered; but if you be a perſon of a more accuminated Intellect, why did you not anſwer thoſe dull fellows, and therein do us a kindneſs, that we might have conformed as well as you?
He tells the Reader, p. 17. If this order (of Prelacy) had a period, the Diſſenters would never pitch upon any one way.
A. 1. The ſame ſaith the old Gentleman at Rome; theſe Diſſenting Proteſtants cannot pitch upon one way. Hence no period muſt be put to the Papal Government
2ly. You were very cunning, Sir, to pitch upon the warm ſide of the hedg, thereby to ſave your ſelves from perſecution, and keep your fat Livings; then cry up obedience to Governours; pity the Martyrs had no better Intellects to have taken this courſe too, and ſo have ſaved their ſtakes!
3. If men would lay by their ſelf-intereſts, we might ſooner pitch upon one way; but ſo long as he ſits at Rome, and the Jews are uncalled, I look but for little of this unity in the Gentile-Churches.
But to the main ſcope of his Sermon: Had it been to prove the Divine Right of an Epiſcopus Praeſes (or Primus Presbyter, as Ambroſe calls a Biſhop) with the Presbytery or Eccleſiaſtical Senate, I ſhould not have been his oppoſer; but it is an Epiſcopus Princeps, and that not with, but over the Presbytery, ſuperiour in power, which he contends for; how ſtrongly proved, we ſhall ſee.
His Text was, Act. 15.36. Paul ſaid to Barnabas, Let us go again, and viſit our Brethren, &c.
That the Doctor intended out of this Text to prove ſuch a Viſitation as was then when he Preached, and ſo in England when Biſhops viſit, I preſume; elſe he deceived him to whom he dedicates it, and the four Doctors that Licenſed it. See how the Text will force it.
The Propoſition or Antecedent is this: Paul and Barnabas, two Apoſtles, Act. 14.14. Perſons of extraordinary miſſion, commiſſion, and qualifications for the office, having by their Preaching converted many people from Heatheniſm to the Faith of Chriſt, gathered them into Churches, and ſet Elders over them. Theſe Elders and Churches being but all young Converts, and through the relicts of corruption in them, and the malice of Satan and his Emiſſaries without them, being in danger to miſcarry in Doctrine or manners, theſe two Apoſtles go to viſit the Churches, which they had planted.
Therefore one Prelate but of ordinary miſſion, commiſſion and qualification, that never converted one Church, (may be not one perſon in truth), ſhall have power over many Elders and Congregations where he never Preached; over ſo many, that if he Preached every Lordsday, he could not preach once in a year to them; yea ſo many, that if he Preached every day in the year, he could not preach once in a year to them, (ſome Dioceſſes are ſo large.) This conſequent from ſuch an Antecedent, my dull Intellect cannot reach I deny the Conſequence.
What might be ſaid, I foreſee, and would have prevented it, but I am in a Poſtſcript, and ſo can only touch things as I paſs.
Arguments he fetches from three Topicks, to prove the ſuperiority of one ſingle perſon over other Elders.
1. From Reaſon, p. 23. Though the Ʋniverſal Church be built upon a Rock, yet particular Churches are ſubject to Dilapidations, &c. Ergo.
A. In matters belonging to the Houſe of God, I thought the will of him that built the Houſe, and is Lord over it, ſhould firſt have been conſulted: His will hath reaſon in it, we are ſure; but for our reaſons, they will put no end to the debate, for one thinks his reaſon is as good as another, Quot capita, tot ſententiae It is Inſtituted worſhip we are upon, depending upon the poſitive command of the Law giver. But however I deny your conſequence: And that,
1ſt. Mr. Baxter Church-Hiſtory, gives ſufficient proof.From the woful experience the Church hath found of your Repairers; theſe having been as great cauſes of the Dilapidations, as any other. That Biſhops have been both great Schiſmaticks and Hereticks, Bellarmine will tell you. What woful work theſe have made in the Church of England in our time, we do ſtill remember; but I will ſpare names, let them alone in their graves. Muſculus (not an Engliſh Nonconformiſt) from the experience the Church had found of the miſchiefs it ſuffered by theſe Repairers, Muſc. loc. Commun. p. 195.ſound out to prevent and heal Schiſm, as Hierom tells us, ſaith, Had Hierom lived to theſe days to ſee how this counſel of ſetting up the Biſhop above the Presbyter hath profited the Church, he would have acknowledged it was not the counſel of the Holy Ghoſt to take away Schiſm, as was pretended, but the counſel of the Devil, &c. Thus he, with much more he adds.
2ly. There are other means to repair, without ſuch Prelacy, as experience hath proved in ſeveral Churches, where Hereſie and Schiſm have either been kept out, or healed when crept in; Profaneneſs ſuppreſſed better than ever it was in England by Prelacy.
3ly. That one Prelate is as ſubject to corruption in Doctrine, and converſation, as other Miniſters; and who ſhall repair him? the Presbyters being inferior to him, they muſt not be ſo ſawcy; that kind of Creature whom you call the Metropolitan, is as ſubject to corruption, as the other Prelate.
As to the proof you give, p. 26, 27. There is a greater probability of an union of judgments, when all within a certain precinct lye under an obligation to be determined by the reaſon of one, &c.
A. I thank you for this, ſaith the now Pope Innocent; this helps to ſtrengthen my old worm-eaten Chair, weak in the joints, and ready to crack. Hereſie and Schiſm muſt be avoided in the Ʋniverſal Church, as well as in the Church in your Precinct; but if the Biſhops in your ſeveral Precincts differ in their Judgments about Hereſie and Schiſm as they have done, and will do, now what more probable way for union of Judgments, than to have them lye under an obligation to be determined by the reaſon of one; and who ſhould that one be, but my ſelf? this is but the ſame reaſon that Bellarmine hath given for Pontifex Maximus.
2ly. In one Dioceſs are ſome hundreds of Elders, all having the power of Juriſdiction ex aquo from Chriſt, as the Learned Dr. Stillingfleet hath proved; but however, if this Doctor deny it, among theſe there may be many as godly men, of as ſolid reaſon and judgment, as is this one Prelate, yea it may be excel him in all, and in years his Elder too; yet all theſe muſt have their reaſons and judgments ſubject to the determination of the reaſon of that one Prelate. I ſhall not applaud him for a man of an accuminated Intellect, that ſhall aſſert ſuch an irrational Propoſition.
2. His ſecond Topick is Gods Declaration for the perpetuity of Apoſtolical Government, which was over other Elders and Congregations, p. 28. Yea, Sir, this is of moment, if you can carry it.
Firſt Text, Mat. 28.20. Teach, baptize, inſtruct all Nations to obſerve whatſoever was commanded them I pray add this, And he commanded them to teach That one Prelate, while the Church ſtands, ſhould have ſuperior power over other Elders and Congregations, then you do ſomething.
Becauſe you mention commands for Government, name two or three Texts to ſtop the mouths of theſe Eraſtians.
But to the Text. It is not for nothing that our Lord while he mention, Teaching, Baptizing, and under this the Lords Supper; yet ſaith nothing of Government. Surely he had a reaſon for it.
2. I yield from the Apoſtles and other Elders, Government recorded in the Scripture, that Government belongs to the Elderſhip (with the Eraſtians leave) but from hence to infer that becauſe the Apoſtles did exerciſe power over other Elders, Ergo, now one Prelate over other Elders: I ſhall deny the Conſequence.
For, 1. you tell us, p. 25. It's true the Ʋnction whereby they were qualified for it, was not of the vulgar compoſition.
But ſay I, the Unction theſe Prelates have, is but of the vulgar compoſition. Hence to argue from extraordinary to ordinary, is a kind of fallacy, a kin to foreign.
They that exerciſe Government over other Governours (as all Elders are) had need be in Wiſdom, Learning, Holineſs, and fitneſs for Government, as Saul among his brethren, higher by head and ſhoulders; ſo were the Apoſtles and Evangeliſts above thoſe Elders over whom they exerciſed Authority. We find no ſuch things amongſt the men of the vulgar Ʋnction.
2. Thoſe Elders, as well as the people, were the Apoſties Converts: theſe being but newly brought home to the Faith, well may their Fathers have power over them, and cauſe enough to viſit them; the caſe is not ſo here.
3ly. When the Apoſtles come to deal with the ordinary Elders, there is no intimation left of any ſuch power of one Prelate over the reſt. You tell us p. 45. that Timothy was Ordained Biſhop of Epheſus about the 13th. year of Claudius. I hope you will not force it from 1 Tim. 1.3. As I beſought thee to abide ſtill at Epheſus. He muſt have an illuminated Intellect indeed, who can force the ordination of a Biſhop out of theſe words. Beſides, certainly had he been Biſhop there, Paul need not have beſought him to be reſident there; but however ſure I am, he muſt be ordained before Pauls journey to Jeruſalem Acts 20. for he tells Timothy, 1 Tim. 3.14. he hoped to come unto him ſhortly, but Act. 20.25. when he ſent for the Elders of Epheſus, he tells them they ſhall ſee his face no more. If Timothy then were Biſhop of Epheſus before this time, then he was there now, and was now ſent for, which I ſhall never believe, that Paul would not mention him in particular, whoſe Name he uſes to joyn with his in ſeveral Epiſtles. But if Timothy did come with the other Elders, here is no difference made of this Prelate from the other Elders, but 28. ver. he gives the ſame alike to them all. Therefore I deny your Conſequence. If Timothy were Biſhop of pheſus, what need Paul tell him, in his ſecond Epiſtle to him, Chap. 4.12. Tychicus I have ſent to Epheſus? he might have ſpared that line, for Timothy muſt needs know it, if he came to him there.
But you add, for a further Confirmation, p. 28. the words of Chriſt, Joh. 20.21. As my Father ſent me, ſo I ſend you. But the Commiſſion of Chriſt as an Apoſtle, did undoubtedly extend to a ſuperintendency over the Clergy, and the particle foreign juſtifie the ſame, as to the Apoſtles, &c.
A. Undoubtedly Chriſts Commiſſion did extend as you ſay, without limiting it to any precincts, which you tell us ſeveral times the Apoſtles were, and eſpecially in p. 6. you would labour to prove it from 2 Cor. 10.16. [Though that Text I conceive will not do it.] But if the particle foreign will force their ſuperintendency over the Clergy, it will as well force it, without limitation to ſuch precincts; for his Father did not ſo ſend him, and how their Commiſſion runs, we read. But I ſhall not give my thoughts about this now; you tell us, pag. 34. that among the Biſhops, Peter leads the Van in the Church of Antioch. [Pope Innocent, this does not make for you: I pray tell us in your next, in which Church did Paul lead the Van among the Biſhops.] But if Peter were Biſhop at Antioch, indeed Paul went beyond his Precinct, when he dealt ſo roundly with a Biſhop in his own See, as he did with this Biſhop of Antioch, Gal. 2.11.14.
2ly. I conceive you ſtretch this Text beyond the intent of our Lord. For the work which our Lord undertook, he had a Call from his Father, who ſent him, Heb. 5.4. Joh. 6.27. and 10.36. His Father had Authority to ſend him, and was with him, Joh. 16.32. So he the Head and King of his Church, having all power given to him in Heaven and in Earth, Math. 28.18. had Authority to ſend forth his Apoſtles to their work; they might ſhow their Commiſſions, or Credentials. He promiſed alſo to be with them and their Succeſſors to the end: and I think all Goſpel-Miniſters are their Succeſſors: but that the Lord intended in theſe words the ſetling of a Superiority of one perſon above his brethren in the Miniſtry to the end of the world this is but Petitio pincipii, your gloſs, and I deny it, for the Reaſons and Scriptures before mentioned.
3ly. Thoſe Apoſtles had Superiority over Biſhops, if there were ſuch then, as you ſay there were, yea, Arch-Biſhops; who is now over them?
His third Text is Eph 4.12, 13. Apoſtles were given and their Suffregans [as you call them] Prophets and Evangeliſts, for the perfecting of the Saints, hence pag. 30. you conclude, for the duration of Prophets and Evangeliſts to this day.
Thus then we have to this day Apoſtles, Prophets, and Evangeliſts, in the ſenſe of this Text [unleſs he will abuſe the Text:] a rare ſight: I would go many miles to ſee ſuch perſons; and to their Superiority willingly ſubmit.
Calvin, Gerhard, Beza, Zanchi, the Leyden Profeſſors, &c. tell us theſe were Miniſtri extraordinarii & Temporarii; but they were men of no Acuminated Intellects, their judgements ſignifie little.
Well Sir, what Apoſtles were, you tell us not, neither need you, we know them well: but where you can find ſuch, I know not: but ſuch you muſt find, if your proof hold.
For the Prophets you tell us, they were ſuch as had an excellent skill to preach the Goſpel out of the Books of the Old Teſtament, 1 Cor. 13.2. Evangelical Doctrines locked up in the Figures of the Law, and Predictions of the Prophets.
If this were all, we ſhall find many ſuch Prophets amongſt the Nonconformiſts. But, Sir, you have ſpoken very ſhort of the Prophets; Dr. Hammond, Zanchy, and Gerhard, add two things more.
1. A foretelling things to come. 2ly. They ſpake all from the Spirit, from a Divine Afflatus. Theſe three are ſomewhat like, I pray ſhew us theſe Prophets now.
The Evangelists you tell us, are ſuch as had a profound inſight into the Goſpel, as contained in the Writings of the New-Teſtament: and could with ſingular dexterity open and explain its true importance.
Such there are alſo amongſt the Nonconformiſts.
But Sir, what if there were Evangeliſts, before there was any part of the New-Teſtament writtens how then does your deſcription agree?
I queſtion not, if the Ancients ſay true of the time when John wrote his Goſpel, but Timothy was an Evangeliſt long before: and in that Goſpel are the deep Myſteries contained, more than in the other three. If the firſt Epiſtle to the Theſſalonians, were the firſt Epiſtle that Paul wrote, as Divines generally think, Timothy is joyned with Paul in the 1. ver. ſo that very little was written when he firſt was made an Evangeliſt; I ſee by ſome of your own, and thoſe Learned men, Philip was an Evangeliſt when he preached the Goſpel at Samaria, and wrought Miracles, Acts 8.5, 6, 7. but at that time no part of the New Teſtament was written. For Matthew wrote firſt, and that was eight years after the Aſcenſion as our Divines for the generality of them agree.
But for the Evangelists, Euſebius, l. 3. Chap. 37. a fitter man to tell us what an Evangeliſt was, than you, gives us another deſcription, and that which agrees with Philip in Acts 8.5, 6, 7. and other Scriptures; I ſhall note only theſe.
1. That they watered the Churches, every where planted by the Apoſtles.
2. They preached Chriſt to them, which as yet heard not of the Doctrine of Christ
3. Having planted the Faith in new and ſtrange places, they ordained there other Paſtors, committing to them the Tillage of the new ground, preſſing themſelves to other People and Countries.
4. By the power of the Holy Ghost they wrought miraculouſly.
Show us theſe Evangeliſts now.
His laſt Text is, 1 Tim. 6.14. Keep the Commandments until the appearing of the Lord Jeſus, &c.
A. 1. By the appearing of the Lord, &c. exitus vitae is meant, thinks Auſtin, and ſome others. But if not, yet this appearing is an Argument uſed not only to Timothy, but to all Chriſtians, to look to their duty, Col. 3.4 Tit. 2.13. 1. Pet. 17.
2. What Commandment this was, if we well obſerve the 11. and 13. ver. going before, we may well gueſs
3. If you refer it to his Office as you do, and would thence infer the perpetuity of his Office to the Worlds end: I deny that to be the meaning.
For, when the Apoſtle charges him, 2 Tim. 4.5. do the work of an Evangelist, &c. there the word Evangelist is taken in the ſame ſenſe with Eph. 4 11. not only Calvin, and Gerhard, but Scultetus, though an Epiſcopal man, yieldeth, and it were abſurd to think otherwiſe.
But that Timothy in the 1. Epiſtle Chap. 1.3. ſhould be ordained a Biſhop as you ſay, and long after this charged to do the work of an Evangelist, they muſt have dull Intellects indeed, that know nothing of an Evangeliſt, and a Biſhop who beelieve it: The Evangelist being one fixed to no place, and had the power of Miracles, as Euſebius and the Scriptures teſtifie.
This was a Commandment ſo incumbent upon Timothy, that his Salvation or miſcarrying was concerned in it, as he performed it, and ſo it is true of all Miniſters; but for an Evangeliſt, the French Church, the Low Countries, Scotland, New-England, [where Mr. Eliot hath more right of Superiority over the Churches of the Indians, than any Prelate in the World, yet would deteſt your Doctrine] nor any Churches that I know of, own an Evangelist.
As yet then the proof fails. Thus we find in Clemens Epiſtle to the Corinthians, a Metropolitan Church (forſooth) there is no mention made of any ſuch Prelate. But pag. 2.62, 69. and 73. eſpecially, he mentions only Elders without any diſtinction. A Biſhop being but Primus Presbyter, Primi Presbyteri, Epiſcopi, appellabantur, Ambroſ. in 4 Eph.as Ambroſe calls him, it may ſtand with Epiſcopus Praeſes. Thus Polycarpus in his Epiſtle to the Church in Philippi, another Metropolis, ſaith Dr. Hammond; there is no menion of any ſuch Prelate, but pag. 18. he exhorts them to be ſubject to the Elders and Deacons, anſwering to Paul, Phil. 1.1.
For Timothy's being twice ordained, and foreign, mentioned 1 Tim. 4.14. which you would have underſtood of Prophets, &c p. 45, 46.
What you aim at, in Timothy's twice Ordination, I know not; whether that we may be twice ordained, though firſt by Presbyters: let it firſt be proved that Timothy was twice ordained to the ſame Office.
Timothy first ordained by the Apoſtle himſelf, you ſay, 2 Tim. 1.6. I pray Sir to what Office? ſay, and prove from Divine Writ.
If the ſecond time ordained, not to an inferiour Office I hope; the firſt Ordination by an Apoſtle, the ſecond to a higher Office by Inferiour Officers. I pray when was he ordained an Evangeliſt?
Nor does your notion of foreign, take, to be meant of any other Prophets different from Paul; for we know that Paul excelled in all gifts, 1 Cor. 14.18. as of Tongues, ſo no queſtion of Propheſie. Why therefore Paul might not be He to whom the Spirit revealed this concerning Timothy; as yet ſo young, and ſo to take him along for his Companion, give us a Reaſon, for it ſeems there was a foreign given, 1 Tim. 4.14 foreign and in 2 Tim. 1.6 he bids him ſtir up the foreign, which was in him, foreign. That the Apoſtles did convey gifts we know, by their impoſing of hands; though the Presbitery joyned with the Apoſtle in his Ordination; and ſo I know not above One Ordination that ever Timothy had, and that to an Evangeliſt.
His third and laſt Topick to prove the Superiority of this Prelate is, the practiſe of the univerſal Church, pag. 42. To which add his ſaying, pag. 53. As for Prelacy; [the Eſſence whereof lyes in a Superiority of an Eccleſiaſtical perſon over Elders in a certain precinct]: it was ever owned by the Church as agreeable to the Canon of Scripture.
Sir, did you deliver this in the Pulpit, for a Truth, where be ſure no man ought to ſpeak any thing but Truth?
Have not you read Auſtins Epiſtle to Hierom, Epiſtle 18. in which Auſtin writes thus to him, Quanquam enim ſecundum honorum Vocabula quae jam Eccleſiae uſus obtinuit Epiſcopatus Presbyterio major eſt, &c. Surely you have read Hieroms Comment upon Tit. 1. Epiſcopi noverint ſe magis conſuetudine, quam Diſpoſitionis Dominicae veritate Presbyteris eſſe majores. To which A. B. Anſelm ſubſcribes, in his Comment on the ſame Chapter. What Sir, is Eccleſiae uſus and Conſuetudo, the ſame with Canon of Scripture?
Have not you read Eſtius, Sent. l. 4. d. 24. calling thoſe Hereticks that are not of your Opinion, and undertaking to prove the jus Divinum of Prelacy as you do? he ſaith thus. Quod autem jure Divino ſint Epiſcopi Presbyteris Superiores, & ſi non ita clarum eſte ſacris Scripturis, aliunde tamen ſatis efficaciter probari poteſt. Have you not read what Medina ſaith of the Fathers in this point; and what our Biſhop Jewel, naming the ſame Fathers that Medina did, adds, Paul himſelf muſt be a Heretick if Biſhop and Presbyter be not the ſame according to the Scriptures. Much more I might add, that I wonder you could write ſuch a line.
And what Sir, will you exclude all thoſe Churches from being parts of the Catholick Church, that have not, nor do own your Prelacy? or what Church do you mean, when you ſay the Church hath owned?
That ſo many of the Church were of your Opinion, this with your Metropolitan Arch-Biſhop brought that Whore in Apoc. 17. to her Chair, without which that Prophecy had not been fulfilled to this day, ſo that though it is not true what you ſay, yet if it had been true, it had not much prevailed with me: but God hath left Teſtimony againſt it, both in his Word, and in the Church.
As for your notion, p. 51. The reaſon why the Apoſtles wrote to the Churches that were in the cities which were Metropoles, was to ſhew that all the Churches which were in that Province did depend upon that Metropolis Government; and this Biſhop was an Archbiſhop, p. 50.
I pray, Sir, which of the Apoſtles told you this was their reaſon? or where do you find this written?
The Apoſtle mentions but but one, foreign, 1 Pet. 5.4. This notion I ſee you are ſo taken with, that p. 51. you tell us, this Hypotheſis gives the moſt intelligible account why all the Churches in Aſia are reduced to Seven.
An Intelligible account then we have of that, which I had a deſire to know; but becauſe the Lord had hidden it, it became not me to inquire after his ſecrets; but now we have a reaſon why all the Churches in Aſia are reduced to Seven.
1. I pray, Sir, give us (ſince you are ſo acquainted with Chriſts ſecrets) an Intelligible account, why, ſince there were ſo many Churches in Europe, and thoſe Churches in the Metropoles, yet the Lord writes not to one of them in the Apocalyps, only to Aſia? Was not Rome a Metropoles, and there a Church?
2ly. Are you ſure theſe were all Metropoles? It ſeems there is ſome queſtion about Philadelphia, and your ſolution does not ſatisfie. So for Thyatira, it ſeems Pliny doth not give it this honour, but Ptolomy doth. So that we muſt reſt upon a Humane Faith, and prove which of theſe was the trueſt Writer.
3ly. But are you ſure there were no more Churches in Aſia than fell under the ſeven Archbiſhops? Which of theſe was Archbiſhop to the Churches in Galatia? that was a Province in Aſia; but none of theſe Cities Metropolis there, for Ancyra was. Antioch a Metropolis then under none of theſe, yet there a Church. To which I pray did Coloſſe belong? Cappadocia, Pontus, Bithinia, were all Provinces in Aſia, and in theſe were Churches no doubt, for the Apoſtle writing to the Believers in theſe Provinces, 1 Pet. 1.1. in the 5th Chap. v. 1, 2. He charges the Elders to feed the flock. Yet none of the ſeven Churches were Metropoles in any of theſe Provinces. I could inſtance in divers more.
This I ſuppoſe the Doctor Preached to make amends for the fault he committed in being ordained firſt by Presbyters; for now he talks of Archbiſhops in the Apoſtles days; whereas Mr. Thorndike, pag. 45. Prim. Gov. and the old Epiſcopal men tell us, Archbiſhops came in long after.
As for your diſcourſe from p. 60. to the end, in which you tell your Reader ſomething concerning Rules about Order, Decency, Circumſtantials in Religion. Adiaphorus matters, &c. and what the Church may do to preſerve it ſelf againſt oppoſers, that thereby p. 62. you might juſtifie the puniſhment inflicted upon us for our Nonconformity.
Sir, this is but the old Cheat to blind the people, as if we oppoſed Order, Decency, and Circumſtantials in Religion; and for the puniſhment inflicted, will you juſtifie it that Governours may for every errour in things pertaining to God, puniſh their people for not conforming to them, as we are puniſhed? but how much leſs then for nonconforming to Humane Inventions in the Worſhip of God? which as yet all the Pulpits and Preſſes have not proved to be our error, (I mean our non conformity to them) but our Duty.
And for that which p. 61. you would bring as a proof, viz. That the Churches Determination upon ſome particu ars, in conformity to the general command, is no addition to the Rule, &c.
It is very true, if there be a conformity to the general command; but if you will undertake, (as here you implicitely aſſert) to prove that the Forms of Prayer, Ceremonies, Prelacy, Re-ordination, Abjuration of the Covenant (all which are impoſed upon us) are all of them but particulars conformable to the general command of God; Sir, let us but have the liberty of the Preſs, and you ſhall ſoon find one that will anſwer you. I ſuppoſe there are but few pious Conformiſts in England that will juſtifie the caſting of about two thouſand Miniſters out of their work, becauſe they could not ſubmit to theſe Impoſitions in the matters of God; had it been in things concerning the Commonwealth, that had been another caſe, then let him blame us. Whence we are quite miſtaken in Dr. Templer.