The Good Old Way Defended, Treatise · Section 12

The Good Old Way Defended · Treatise · Section 12

p. 275SECTION XII.

Of Ceremonies, and the rest of the Enquirers Quarrels with the Presbyterians, which have not yet been touched.

THe last Effort made by this Author against the Presbyterians in his fifth Chapter, is made up of his Essay against our Opinion about Ceremonies, and other Miscellany Purposes, which hardly can be reduced to one Head: which I shall consider as his Discourse shall bring them in. Before I Examine his Dissertation, I observe two things in general concerning it. The first is, the course Treatment he giveth the Presbyterians, without Exception, as if he had them under his Feet, in this Conflict, before he enter on the Debate. He calleth our Opinion (or rather his own mistaken Apprehension of it; for it is none of ours, as will by and by appear) a silly Theorem, on which he saith, we have broken the Unity of the Church, and filled the Heads and Mouths of People with a thousand Airy and Unaccountable Fancies: he calls what we say on this Head, Raveries, and a Labyrinth of Idle Talk, Fooleries. My other Observation is, his odd Representation of our Opinion, which he maketh to be altogether new, and our own: and indeed as he representeth it, it is wholly new, and none of ours, but his own: it is, that a Significant Rite in the Worship of God, not founded upon Divine Institution, is Superstitious, Unlawful, and Abominable, and such as may Legitimate a Separation from any Church, where it is enjoyned to preserve Order and Uniformity. Against this I have two Objections, 1. That we did never p. 276condemn all Significant Rites in Religion, even tho they be not founded on Divine Institution. Uncovering the Head is a Significant Rite, and we know no Divine Institution for it; and yet we use it in the Worship of God, viz. Prayer, and several other Exercises; and will separate from no Church because of it. That a Minister Preach in a Decent Garb, and not in a Fools Coat, is a Significant Rite used in Religion, not founded on Divine Institution, yet we shall not separate for enjoyning that. This loose and indistinct Way of Refuting an Adversary, cannot Instruct, nor Convince any Body. I shall not Retaliate his Harsh Words, by giving this Way the Epithet it deserveth. They who write on this Subject with Judgment and Understanding, use to distinguish three sorts of Modes of Mens Actions; that are found in Religion, viz. Circumstances, Rites, and Ceremonies. Circumstances are Modifications of Actions, as Time, Place, Person; or, a Circumstance is any thing that accompanyeth an Action which is not of its Essence, but is used with it, relateth to it, and is an Accident, or Adjunct of it: and it may be such, either with respect to the Physical or Moral Beeing of the Action: Circumstances use to be sorted in these Memorial Verses,

Quis, quid, ubi, quibus auxiliis, cur, quomodo, quando.

And forma, figura, locus, tempus, stirps, patria, nomen.

Circumstance is a Word of larger Extent than Rite, and that than Ceremony; a Rite is the Manner of going about any Action (chiefly that which is Publick or Solemn) confirmed by Law or Custom. In a more large Sense▪ it is taken for any Action or Thing that belongeth to the Mode or Solemnity of another Action, rather than to the Substance of it: such Rites are used in Judicatures, Marriages, Burials, Inaugurations, &c. some of them are Civil, some Military, &c. and some also are Sacred; when they are appropriated to Religion. A Ceremony is a Sacred Rite: the best Authors that I have seen, whether Heathen or Christian, Popish or Protestant, agree in this, that a Ceremony is peculiar to Religion: however the Word be sometimes, in common Speech, more largely taken. This applyed to our Purpose sheweth, that our Author doth widely mistake, when he representeth us as against Significant Humane Rites in Religion: we oppose only these of them which are appropriated to Religion, and so are Religious Rites, or Ceremonies. He cannot but know that there are many Actions used in Religion, which are not Religious.

p. 277§ 2. The second Thing that I Observe in his Representation of the Opinion of his Adverstaries, is, that they found separation on Ceremonies imposed to preserve Order and Unity. It is no so. Let them devise what Ceremonies they will (which are not down-right Idolatry) and impose them on the most plausible pretences they can think on: yea, let them use them as much as they will; we do not think all this a sufficient Ground of Separation from a true Church whereof we are Members: but if they impose on us Religious Rites, or Sacred significant Ceremonies; so as we cannot be suffered to Worship God with the Church, unless we either approve them, or use them, this we think a just Cause of Separation: seing such Complyance were our Personal Action, and sinful in the sight of God. And yet the Separation of them who thus scruple, is rather a passive Separation, than active: they are driven away, rather than run away. Let us now hear what he hath to say in Defence of the Ceremonies, the Question about which he hath so Stated. He will not gather together all our Raveries, but in a few Words, Vindicate the Practice of all Churches, &c. Those are but Words. He had done wisely if he had excepted the Apostolick Churches. And tho I deny not, but that some Ceremonies did early and unobservably creep into the Primitive Church, and that through the Zeal of some Good Men, who saw not the …mportance, nor bad Consequences of such Observations; it may be made appear that some of the Ceremonies that they now observe had no such early Original; and that some of these which were observed in the first Ages are laid aside by them. Of the first Sort, I instance Kneeling in the Act of receiving the LORD'S Supper, the Cross in Baptism, and some of the Holy Days, of which before. Of the other Sort, I instance the Trin… Immersio in Baptism, the Aagapae, Baptising on Whitsunday, or Dominica in albis, rather than on any other Day; the Osculum pacis, all the Steps of the Catechumeni, and Paenitentes, before they could be received into Communion with the Church; and many other things which one may find in Albaspin▪ Observ. Ecclesiast. which is Compendized by Keitembellius: there are also not a few modern Churches who are not for the Cermonies as they are Pleaded for by Him and his Party. If what I have said be Considered, his first Argument proposed by way of Question admitteth of an easie Answer. The Apostolick Church Worshiped GOD without Religious Ceremonies not Instituted by CHRIST; and I hope he will own these as Societies of Men, who are to be more Considered than others. A sett of Arguments he next p. 278bringeth. 1. The Light of Nature teacheth us to Worship GOD, and all Men have Agreed in this, that Solemn W…rship of the DEITIE ought to be performed in Unity and Society. A. If he make the Consequence (which he hath Suppressed) to be, Ergo, we must have humane Religious significant Ceremonies; we deny this Consequence, as not having a shadow of Reason. Again, if this Argument have any weight, humane Ceremonies must be necessarie: And GOD cannot be Worshiped without them: and all the Presbyterians are not only Defective in their Worship; but there is a Nullitie in it through want of such Ceremonies: which looketh more like Raverie than any thing he can Charge us with. 2. Saith he, This publick Worship should be fixed and Established by the Wisdom and Authority of Competent Judges, as to the Manner and Method. Ans. 1. Are the Manner and Method of Worship Religious significant Ceremonies? The Method is a Circumstance; neither Rite nor Ceremonie: for the Manner, it is either some-what that is common to Religion, and other Publick and Solemn Actions; and it consisteth in some civil Rites, therefore used in Worship because they have by Custom, Obtained in other publick Solemnities: this manner of Worship is not to be Determined by the Wisdom and Authority of any particular Judges; but the Tacite Consent of the Nation bringeth it in by using it in all such Actions: So in the Apostles time, for a Man to Prophesie with his Head uncovered, and to wear long Hair; was a Manner of Worship not determined by any Council, but brought in by civil Custom, and so made decent, that it was a fault to do otherways: so it were a fault among us, for a Minister to Preach in an Antick and ridiculous Garb, which Custom hath made such. Or the manner of Worship is something that is peculiar to Religious Worship; and in that case it is Religion, or Worship it self; being Designed, that by it GOD may be Honoured: tho it be a Mode of that Species of Worship: (V. Gr. the Cross is a Mode of Baptism) yet it is a piece of Worship it self; being devised for a Sacred signification, and being peculiar to Religion: this sort of Manner of Worship must be fixed and Established by the Authority of CHRIST, neither do I know any lower Authority of any Judge that is Competent for it.

§ 3. His Third Argument, or Axiom, is, that we ought to express our Ad…ration in the publick Worship of GOD, by such significant Signs of Piety, and Devotion, as are known in that Nation where we live, to express our Reverence, and Esteem. The former Distinction will easily shew how little this will make for him. If he speak of natural or civil …ites, that is, Actions, or p. 279Gestures, or Things, that Nature or civil Custom hath made so Expressive; we yield all that he saith, but if he mean Religious Rites, or Ceremonies; that is, such Things, Actions, or Gestures as have no place, nor are not lookt on as so Expressive, in any other Solemnity but in Religion; I deny his Assertion: for what ever Custom hath crept into a Church or Nation, which is peculiar to Religion; and tho it be never so well known in the Nation that the Church hath introduced it into Worship meerly by her own Authority; So as it is neither made decent by Nature, nor by Custom, in other Solemnities or Actions; nor enjoyned by Divine Authority, it ought not to be in the Church of CHRIST. Hence we can allow Sighing, lifting up the Hands, or Eyes in Worship; Nature hath made them Expressive: also a grave and decent Garb; because civil Custom hath made that …it. Also using Water in the Baptism, and Bread and Wine in the LORD'S Supper; because Divine Institution hath made them Significant and Useful: but the Cross in Baptism, the Surplice, &c. we cannot allow, because their Signification and Use in Religon ariseth from none of these; but only from Mans will. His Fourth Assertion is, these significant Signs being indifferent in their Nature are variable according to the …ge or Country with whom we have to do; and may be Changed by the Authority and Wisdom of our Superiors, as o…t as there is sufficient Reason; of which they only are the Judges. Other Ceremonialists use to Plead for the Churches Ceremonie-making Power with a little more Caution and Limitation▪ so as they are careful to Shut the Door against the Popish Ceremonies: Some because of their ineptitude, the Bulk of them, because of their Number, being a Burden: but this Author is troubled with no such Scruples, or Fetters, he setteth the Door as wide open as the Pope, or any Church-Rulers (yea, or Rulers of the State) please to have it: no other thing but their Opinion, and Will, can keep out a Deluge of Ceremonial Fopperies. That the Ceremonies we Contend about (I mean Religious Ceremonies) are indifferent in their own Nature, he supposeth: but this is not to Instruct, but to Hoodwink the Reader: for he should have Distinguished the Nature of a Significant Ceremonies: It hath a general Nature, as it is such an Action, V. Gr. the Motion of the Finger, whereby the transient Sign of the Cross is made on the Fore-head of a Child; let that pass for indifferent. It hath also a particular Nature, as it standeth in such Circumstances, viz. as it is Appointed to be annexed to Baptism; as it is Stated in Religion, and appointed to it: and as a Religious Signification for a p. 280Spiritual end is put on it, and all this, not by CHRISTS, but by Mans Authority; we deny it to be indifferent in its Nature, while it is thus Considered: as it must needs be in this Debate. But suppose we should allow an Indifferencie to be in the Ceremonies, as they are humane Actions to be used in Worship; it is said without all Warrant, that our Superiors may Determine, and take away this Indifferencie, and Change their Injunctions about these Actions when, and as often as they see Reason so to do; tho no Body else can see any such Reason. This is to make our Superiours absolute, and to give them an arbitrarie Power, in these things that we can make appear to be parts of Religion; and which himself cannot deny to have a great influence on Religion, and in which it is nearly concerned. Beside to say that Superiors may Determine every thing that is in its Nature indifferent, wherein Religion is concerned, is to open a Door to so many Impositions as might make Gospel Worship a greater Yoke than that which the Jewish Church was not able to bear; as the Apostle saith, Acts 15. 10. For Circumstances of Actions are innumberable, and few of them are Determined and Enjoyned by the LORD. We know the Church may determine the Actions in, and about Worship, which are not Determined in the Word, and yet must be Determined: but that she may Determine what ever she thinketh fit, is not to be Admitted.

§ 4. He telleth us, p. 152. that it is impossible to make Objections against the decent visible Motions of the Body in publick Worship, which may not be improved against the vocal Expressions of the Tongue. If he must be allowed to Determine what Motions of the Body are decent; this his Assertion could be not Opposed: but there are who call most of these Bodily Motions decent, even in Worship, which are Learned at the Dancing School: which yet it were hard for the Church to Enjoyn: Wherefore these Motions that were made decent in Worship by Nature, by civil Custom other grave and serious Actions, or by Divine Institution, we make no Objection against them, but blame them who neglect them▪ but for Motions that Men will call decent, without ground from any of these, we make Objections (which yet have not been sufficiently Answered) against their being Injoyned in …orship, which he shall never be able to Improve against all the Vocal Expressions of the Tongue. He saith we allow all these. VVhat he meaneth by so saying, I cannot Divine, we allow Vocal Expressions, and Bodily Motions too, that such of them as are fit should be used. But we do not allow that the Church, by p. 281her own Authority, without such Warrant as is above-mentioned, should enjoyn her Determinations either in the one or in the other. I hope he hath no ill meaning when he saith Nature led us at first to the Worship of the DEITIE. I think Revelation had as early, and as effectual a hand in it, after the Fall. I confess Nature alone will lead Men to Worship the DEITY; but that Worship will not be such as even this Author will think sutable to Gospel Purity; but will have worse Mixtures than those that we Contend about. He concludeth, that the Reverence we owe to GOD, must needs bring along with it these outward Significations of respect that are made Decent by Custom and Authority, to whose Decision alone GOD left these exterior Rituals of Worship. Thus he still endeavoureth to lurk under ambiguous Expressions: we confess the Decision of some exterior Rituals in Worship is left to civil Custom: and others to Divine Authority: but that the Decision of any Rituals in Worship is left to Church Custom, where the Thing hath no Decencie but in Religion; or to Humane Authority: this is what we Question; and he should Prove. He speaketh, p. 153. of Rites in the Worship of GOD (among the Jews) that were only Significations of Reverence and Uniformity which were still retained, as they were transmitted to them by Patriarchal Custom, and Traditions, though only founded on Humane Appointment. But he hath not thought fit to give us any one Instance of such Rites. If he mean Religious Ceremonies; that is, Actions peculiar to Worship, I think he can give no Instance of such in the Jewish Church, before its great Apostacie, except these that were Instituted by GOD, and taught in the Law of Moses.

§. 5. He cometh next, p. 154. to renew the Arguments he had managed in his Apology, p. 155. &c. and were Answered, Def. of Vindic. p. 38. He telleth us of a General Medium he had used, that there are several significant Ceremonies mentioned in, and alluded to in the Scripture, which were Practised in the Worship of GOD under the Patriarchal, Jewish, and Christian AEconomie, which had no other than Humane Appointment. The first Instance he giveth is, Discalceation, Exod. 13. 5. He had in his Apology, joyned with this, looking to our Feet when we go to the House of GOD; Eccies. 5. 1. But he hath now wisely left out this last: and Insisteth only on Discalccation. What was Objected here, with some freedom, that was bad Logick, he representeth as reflecting on Mr. Mede, who discourseth of that Observation among the Eastern-Nations. I have as high Esteem of Mr. Medes Learning as he hath; and have said nothing that p. 282can import the Contrarie. The Answer given to this Instance, was, this was Commanded of GOD; and so is no Argument for Observing what is brought into the Worship of GOD merely by the Authority of Man. All the Reply that he bringeth is, that this Command was no new Institution of a Ceremonie, whereas he saith, what GOD said to Moses was only an Advertisement to Observe a Custom that he knew to be used in the Eastern-Nations; so that had Moses put off his Shoes before that Advertisement, he had done nothing amiss: and so this is a strong Confirmation of Ceremonies that express our Reverence though founded on Humane Appointment. Here I remark. 1. Whether this was a new Institution of a Ceremonie or not, is not to our Purpose: Moses had express Divine Warrant for what he did: if he can shew the like for our Ceremonies we shall Observe them. The LORD might Enjoyn what he would, either for that time, or for perpetual Observation: either what was used among the Nations; or what was not so used: Let us see an Approbation of any of our Ceremonies that is Paralel to this, and we shall lay our Hand on our Mouth. 2. It is evldent that this was a Civil Custom, and made expressive of Reverence by that Civil Custom; and therefore, the LORD is not here either Instituting, or Approving, a Religious Ceremonie, but requiring to express profound Reverence in the Ordinarie way, and that on such an Extraordinarie Occasion. Corn. a lapide; saith, Minus enim audacter & curiose accesserat Moses. That this was a Civil Custom, and had its Signification, not from Man's Authority Appropriating it to GOD'S Worship (which is the Foundation of the Ceremonies we Debate about) is clear from Mr, Mede, and what my Antagonist bringeth out of him. Also, the same Learned School-Man (I mean A Lapide) saith, his ritus a mancipiis descendit, qui nudis pedibus incedebant, in signum subjectionis, and therefore he Paraphraseth that Text, Exod. 3. 5. ut totus in Dei jus & obsequium transeas. It is Observed by Ainsworth on the same Text, that this was a Civil Sign of transferring our Right to another, Deut. 25. 9. Ruth 4. 7. It was also by Civil Custom, an Expression of Sorrow. 2 Sam. 15. 30. Isai. 20. 2, 4. Ezek 24. 17, 23. Now, if he can shew that the Ceremonies have, by Civil Custom, such aptitude to Signifie what we ought to express in the Worship of GOD, we shall not Oppose them. It is, 3. Evident from his own Words, p. 55. where to my Question, why do not they Observe it, if it be a fit Ceremonie to express our …everence in Worship; he Answereth; what is so Expressive in one Age or Countrey may be not so in another. Surely this Change can only come from Civll Custom: what is peculiar p. 283to Religion is the same every where. If then this Action was broug…t into Religion by the Significancie and Aptitude it had been got by Civil Custom, it is no Praecedent for such Ceremonies as that cannot be Pleaded for.

§ 6. Another Instance he had brought was, Sackcloth and Ashe…, as signifying grief and sorrow in their Solemn Humiliation; To these 2 Things were Answered; The One, Why do not the Prelatists use these? This he Rejecteth, as unparalelled Nonsense; because, if they were still in use in our Countrey who would refuse them that was not resolved to be singular. A. I should be none of these singular Persons: If they had now Significancie by civil Custom: I should be willing that they should be used in Religion, when Humiliation and Sorrow were Solemnly to be exprest: but when they want that, I think our Brethren do well not to use them in Religion. Yet I must say still, that if they were Religious Ceremonies of Old; that is peculiar to Religion; they should be still used without any Dependence on the civil Custom of our Time. I see not what Nonsense is in this. If he did not look on them as Religious Ceremonies, but only as used in Religion from their Signification that they had by Civil use; the Nonsense was in bringing this as an Instance of Religious Ceremonies of Humane Appointment, for they had no Authority but from Men; therefore they never were, nor now should be, Religious Ceremonies. His next Instance is (as he saith) ad hominem. Lifting up the right hand to Heaven, in Swearing the Covenant. It was Answered, that this …ite, not only hath Warrant from Scripture Example, but is the Civil Custom of the Nation, the like cannot be said of the Controverted Ceremonies. His Reply is, a Ceremonie being mentioned in Scripture maketh it not only allowable; but sheweth, that it was in it self, before Lawful and decent. And it is Lawful to us, on the same Reasons that made it Lawful to them who first Practised it. In Pursuance of this his Reply, he allegeth, that we hereby Grant, that many such Usages are alluded to in Scripture, which are merely of Humane Appointment, and yet Deny their Lawfulness; which is to make all Men that Lived before us to be Sottishly Superstitious. To this Purpose he Discourseth, p. 158. 159. Let it be Considered that we do not make bare Allusion made in Scripture to any Usage, to be a sufficient Proof of its Lawfulness: for some were Alluded to that were very far from being Lawful: Instances may be given of putting the Branch to the Nose, kissing the Hand, or kissing the Images that they worshiped, which (and many more) were Practised by Idolaters. Our Opinion p. 284in this Matter is, that what Rites are mentioned in Scripture, as used in the Worship of the True GOD, by His People, and are not any where Condemned, we ought to look on as Lawful, and Approved of GOD, that is, as they then were used. Now some of these Rites were of Divine Institution, as all the Jewish Ceremonies Enjoyned by Moses: these were then Lawful, but now are not so; because they are Abrogated by CHRIST; also all these Instituted by CHRIST are still Lawful. Others of them are Natural Expressions of the Acting of the Mind: such as Sighing, lifting the …yes, &c. these are always Lawful: others of them were Civil Customs, which by Use acquired a Significancie, and fitness to express our Affections that we should have in Religious Worship; such as Sackcloth, renting our Cloaths, Incurvation, &c. these are certainly Lawful to be used in Worship, when, and where they have that Significancie, by the Force of Civil Custom; but in Times and Places where that Significancie is not, the Ground of it being ceased, I see not how they can be Esteemed Lawful, having, then, and there, no Use or Significancie in GOD'S Worship; but what they have from Man's will, which ought not to Regulate GOD'S Worship. Our Author Mistaketh when he saith, that we think some ceremonies Lawful which are mentioned, or alluded to in Scripture, though they had no other Original than Humane Appointment: this we Disown: for none of these Three ways by which Rites get their Significancie (which … have now mentio…ed) can be justly called Humane Appointment: Civil Custom is that which cometh nearest to it, but yet Differeth far from it: for Humane Appointment is an Act of Authority, i. e. a Law, or Injunction, or Declaration of the Will of one, or more Men, expresly Concluding that so it shall be: Custom is a Tacite Consent of People, whether Great or Small, whether Placed in Authority, or not; in using such an Action, or Word, for such an End, or Signification. I shall not Debate, what Men in Authority may do, toward putting a Civil Signification on Words and Actions, and making them Current in Civil Selemnities: but … Maintain that they cannot give a Religious Signification or Use to any Word, or Action, or Gesture: that is, they cannot Appoint it to be used so in Religion, when it hath no Aptitude for that Use or Significancie from its Common Use in other things: for this were to Dispose of the External Worship of GOD at their will.

p. 285§ 7. For the Rite of Lifting up the Hand, so often mentioned in Scripture, as Practised by good Men, by good Angels: yea, by God Himself, (speaking of Him after the Manner of Men) that it had its Original from Humane Appointment, is simply denyed. We have no Footsteps of such a Law, Antecedent to the Practice of it, either in Sacred, or other Records. I may with Confidence conclude, that this Usage had its Original, if not from Nature, as Lifting up of the Eyes to Heaven, yet from an Universal Custom, and that of all, or many Nations. It is true, other Rites were also used in Swearing; but none of them so frequently mentioned as this. Wherefore it can be no Precedent for, nor give any Countenance to, Ceremonies peculiar to the Worship of God brought into it by the Authority and Appointment of Men alone. It is hence evident, that we are not guilty of counting all them Sottishly Superstitious, who used such Rites, and that even in Religion, tho we think Humane Religious Ceremonies unlawful. Our Author, p. 159. is pleased to make himself Merry with the Distinction I have used of Civil Rites, (which he, with little Accuracy of Speech, calleth Civil Ceremonies) and Religious Ceremonies; that the one may be used in Religion, without Divine Institution; the other not so. He calleth it a Metaphysical Distinction; and new Phylosophy; and Co-aeval with Presbytery in its last Figure. These Sarcasms are the Tokens of his Surprize, and Admiration; not of his being much Conversant with their Writings who Treat of this Subject. Let us hear his Thundering Arguments after these silly Squib. If the Civil Authority can introduce a …i…nificant Ceremony into the Worship of God, why may n…t the Ecclesiastick Authority do it? A. He will not understand what we say: we deny that Civil Authority can introduce a Significant Ceremony into the Worship of God; tho Civil Custom may make a Rite sit to be there used. If the Magistrat should appoint any Habite or Gesture to be used in Gods Worship, to signifie either Gods Will toward us, or our Duty to Him; which hath no such Signification, nor Use, but by the Law, or Will of the Magistrat, we should disowne such a Religious Ceremony, as much in that Case, as if it were appointed by Church Authority. But it is a quite other Case; when an Action, or Gesture, hath got a Signification by long and general Use in Mens other Actions; so as that they are thereby made significant of what we are to express in Worship. This may be cleared by a parallel Instance: Words which have got their Signification by Use in other Things, may be well used in Religion: yet it p. 286doth not thence follow, that the Magistrate may enjoyn Words to be used in our Worshipping of God, which have no Signification, but from his Will: for if this were allowed, the Magistrate might not only enjoyn Latine Service, to be used among a People that understand not that Language; but might enjoyn Words that now signifie Error, or Blasphemy: and give them an Orthodox Signification: which I hope our Brethren will not affirm. If Men may enjoyn a Surplice, because white Garments, in some Ages, and Places, were used commonly to signifie Purity or Gladness: why may he not enjoyn the Language to be used in Religion, that our Ancestors used many Hundreds of Years ago; tho it may be now neither used nor understood: it would come, in Time, to be as Significant to us, and as Religious, as now the Surplice is, where it hath been long used. He Mistaketh, or Misinterpreteth the Vindicator, when he saith, that he alloweth of Civil Ceremonies in the Worship of God; he owneth no such Ceremonies, if we speak properly: what hath its Use and Significancy from Civil Custom in other Actions is no Ceremony; it is a Civil Rite, and may well be used in Religion: he repeateth also his former Mistake: as if we thought that Civil Authority might appoint Ceremonies for Religion, but not Church Authority: our Opinion in which, I have made plain to them who will understand what we say. I have also Answered his Question, how the Civil Rite used in Religion is Innocent, while a Religious Ceremony, appropriated to Religion, if it be of Humane Appointment (whether by the Authority of Church or State) is not so. I deny what he so confidently asserteth, p. 261. that Lifting up the Hand in Swearing, is of Humane Appointment: neither is his Proof of it sufficient, viz. that it hath no Divine Institution: for what is brought in, and gets its Use, and Significany, by Civil Custom; is a Middle between these. 2. I am not at Leasure to repeat my Answer, as often as he doth his Objection taken from the Equality of the Civil and Ecclesiastick Authority to institute Ceremonies; with which he filleth several Pages, with a nauseous saying the same thing, in Words little different. The Immemorial Possession of any Rite in the Church (which he insinuateth as an Argument) cannot justifie it, if it be appropriated to Religion, and had no Divine Original. We are not concerned to account for Kissing the Evangel in taking an Oath; whether it came in by Civil Custom, or Ecclesiastick Authority. Let them who use it Answer such Doubts: or rather, let them shew us any Ground for it from Nature, from Civil Custom, or from Divine Institution: if it be destitute p. 287of all these, he should prove, not barely assert the Stubbornness that is in Refusing it. It is absurd to say, that the Ecclesiastical Ceremonies having the Civil Sanction, are, under that Reduplication, to be looked upon as Civil Ceremonies: for he might say the same of the Sacraments of the New Testament, when enjoyned by Law: it is not the Civil Authority, but Rites being used in Civil Actions, and not being peculiar to the the Worship of God; it is their having their Use and Significancy from Civil Custom, that giveth them that Denomination.

§ 8. He Starteth a Scruple, p. 263. which hath no Rise from what any of his Adversaries had ever said; nor any where else, that I know, but in his Imagination. It is, If a Ceremony have one Signification in Civil Actions, and another in Religious Worship; Quaeritur, Whether it maketh it lawful in Worship? A. No. Because its …awfulness is founded on the Significancy that it acquireth in Civil Actions. I gladly would know what Ground was ever given him to say so confidently as he doth, that we hold that a Ceremony is lawful in Religion, if it hath been used in Civil Solemnities, tho in a different Signification. If he find any Body asserting that, let him call such Persons Absurd, Ridiculous, Foolish, &c. at his Pleasure; as he very freely calleth us, on that Imaginary Account: but if no such thing have ever been held by any of us, I shall give him no Epithet, but leave it to the Reader to call him as he deserveth. He hath another Argument for the Lawfulness of Humane Ceremonies peculiar to Religion; which he Ushereth in with that Degree of Confidence, and Insolent Contempt of his Adversaries, that might Fright us into Silence, as the Lion by his Roaring Terrifieth his Prey into a Consternation; calling all our Exceptions against Significant Ceremonies in the Worship of God, little and idle frivolous Impertinencies. And no wonder he be so fond of his mighty Argument; I believe it is the Birth of his own Brain. I never met with it before: and I have seen few that are of less weight. It is that the Apostle, Rom. 6. 4. maketh a palpable Allusion to the Significant Ceremony of Immersion; when he saith we are Buried with Him by Baptism into Death, &c. To strengthen this Argument, he telleth us of Immersion being used by Jews, and by Christians; that it is founded on no Divine Institution: but on the Practice of the Jewish Church, and thence derived to Christians; and was never established by any other Authority, but what was purely Humane and Ecclesiastical. He telleth us this Custom was so known, that all their Learned Neighbours were acquaint with it; and for this he very wisely citeth Tacitus hist. lib. 5. speaking p. 288of their Circumcision, but not one Word of Immersion. He calleth for the particular Text where this Ceremony is founded on express Institution; also that we should shew where it was used in Civil Actions: That Scripture Example for it, is but the Consequence of it… being Prac…ised; and supposeth it. At last, to make all sure, he condescendeth to the Jargon of the Schools (with which this Soaring Eagle, thinks we Poor Worms are only acquainted) that is to put his Argument into …gical …orm and …igure; thus: a Significant Ceremony founded upon no Div… Institution, and alluded to in Saint Pauls Reasonings, Rom. 6. 4. is lawful in it self. But the Ceremony of Immersion, in the Administration of Baptism was founded on no Divine Institution, and yet alluded to by Saint Paul, is a thing received in the current Practice of the Apostolical Church, Ergo, such a Significant Ceremony in the Worship of God, founded on no Divine Institution, is in it self lawful. I shall far more easily dispatch this Argument, than he hath framed it. If it were not to Hazard his further Despising us, as Conversant only with the School Jargon of Syllogising: I should observe that he flyeth so high, as to take little notice of Syllogistical Form, for all his pretending to it: for the Major Proposition is the very Conclusion of the Syllogism, only he hath altered the Word, putting such a Significant Ceremony, for a Significant Ceremony alluded to by the Apostle Paul: other Informalities in it I pass: it is below him to mind them: Aquila non captat Muscas. For a more material Answer, I first deny the Major, as thus universally proposed: Allusion to a Ceremony is no Proof of its Lawfulness: as I have proved §. 6. Next, I deny the Minor: I affirm that Immersion was founded on Divine Institution: which I prove, 1. Because it is here mentioned, as the lawful and approved Way of Administration of Baptism: which Ordinance Christ had appointed: it were a strange …ancy to think that Christ had enjoyned baptism, and not told them who were to Administer it, what He meant by it, or what they should do. Next, Whereas he demandeth a particular Scripture for its Institution, (tho we be not obliged to that Exactness, yet) I adduce Matth. 28. 19. where Baptizing is Commanded: every one knoweth that foreign signifieth properly to Dip, or Plunge in Water: and that it is taken more largely for any Kind of Washing, or …insing, as Mark 7. 4. it is not to be thought, that when ever the Jews came from the Mercat, they Plunged themselves over Head and …a…s in Water, act. 1. 15. the Spirits Cleansing the Soul is expres…ed by that Word, so Act. 11. 16. 1 Cor. 10. 2. Hence it plainly followeth, that Christ p. 289enjoyneth a Sacramental Use of Water in Baptism, for a Mystical Washing; and the Word being of so large a Signification; and Christ not having determined how much Water should be used in Baptism: whether the Body should be wholly Dipt, or a part of it, or Water should be Thrown, or Sprinkled on the Body; or what Quantity should be Cast on: that all these ways of Washing have Divine Warrant: and tho none of them be enjoyned exclusively of another; yet every one of them hath Christs Warrant: the Consequence of which is, that this Dipping is no Humane Ceremony, especially considering, that every one of these ways of Baptizing, hath a Mystical Signification put on it, even in the Scripture: Dipping in the Text that he citeth; and Sprinkling and Rinsing in the Old Testament, see Ezek, 36. 25. And this will be yet further confirmed, if we consider, that Christ Teacheth, that however applying Water to the whole Body may be a sit, and allowable Ceremony to express Spiritual Washing; yet that is not necessary; but a little may be as effectual for that Mystical Use, as the whole: Joh. 13. 10. What I have said precludeth the Objection, that Christ maketh the three ways of Baptizing only lawful, and alloweth the Church to determine which of them ought to be used: for the general Word implyeth a Disjunctive Command; neither is it in the Power of the Church to determine one way, exclusive of another: nor should different Practices in this Case be Censured, as receding from Institution; each of these ways is a Mode of Baptizing, which is within the Compass of Christs Institution.

§ 9. That this Immersion was used in the Jewish Church, (yea, it may be proved to have been used among Heathens also) is no Proof that it is not of Divine Institution, as it is used in the Christian Church; for the same may be said of Baptism, which Christ made a Sacrament. Neither doth its Mystical Signification make it to be a Humane Ceremony; seing it hath that from Christs Institution: nor doth that make it so necessary, as to exclude all other Modes of Baptizing; seing other ways have their Mystical Significancy, as hath been shewed: yea, Casting Water on the Person may aptly signifie the same with Dipping, viz. being buried with Christ, a part of the Body under the Water, may signifie the being under it, as Washing the Feet signifieth Washing the whole Body, Joh. 13. 10. He inferreth, p. 268. that the Power of Rituals is still lodged in the Church, which she may vary and alter, to serve the Ends of Edification. This is a most absurd Consequence: for, 1. p. 290He doth not here distinguish Rituals, nor exclude these of Divine Institution; but layeth them, in the Bulk, open to the A…bitriment of the Bishop…; if they think it for Edification, they may dispose, even of the Sa…ments as they will: for these also come under the general Head of Rituals. 2. It no way followeth, the Lord hath left some Circumstances of his Worship undetermined, and variable: Ergo, he hath left the Power of Rituals to the Church. For the Imm…n he speaketh of, is no more than a Circumstance of Baptism, viz. what Quantity of Water should be used, and to how much of the Body it must be applyed: this is left variable: it doth not thence follow, that the Church may bring in new Rites, that have no Found…tion in the Word; as for Example, the Sign of the Cross. He telleth us, p. 271. of the Protestants abroad, who have furthest receded from the Practice of the Roman Church; that they never thought a Significant Ceremony in the Worship of God, was in it self Superstitious and Unlawful. And we in this agree with them. I have already often told him, what Ceremonies we owne, and what we reject. He instanceth in the Wald…nses retaining the trina immersio, and the trine Fraction of the Bread in the Eucha…ist. We never thought the Wald…nses perfect: tho it is very evident to all who know any thing of that History, that they were far from using the Ceremonies used in the Episcopal Church, and that they condemned them generally: and that the Simplicity of the Apostolick Church was very much imitated by them.

§ 10. Another Debate he commenceth, p. 272. about the Episcopal Church of England not admitting any to Labour in the Work of the Ministry am…g them, tho they had been Ordained by Laying on the Hands of the Pre…by…ery, unless they will submit to be Re-ordained by a Bishop: which he very slightly passeth over: taking no notice of what had been said against that Practice: only he telleth us what Sol…cisms he could pick out of my Book, even more than a hundred: but is content with one Instance in the Title Page; the Apology of the Clergy; in stead of, for the Clergy: he is very Charitable who overlooketh; and hideth the Shame of more than a hundred Solae…ism…, and cometh over this Passage now the second time, which is no Solaecism at all. What followeth is yet more f…i…olous, and is designed to Reflect on a Person of more Wo…th than I am, who had said, that he had paid Material Canonical Obedience to the Bishop; but not formally; by which he meant no more, but that he had performed the Duty of his Ministerial Office, when the Bishops enjoyned it, p. 291which he, would have done without it. And now, if that Assertion do not please our Author, he denyeth he payed Canonical Obedience at all. Also this is a false Accusation, and though this Author was challenged oft about his false Assertions against this Minister; yet he had never the Confidence to Answer one of them, nor to Vindicat himself from being a false Accuser, but made a silly Quible on that …xpression; which he doth here again repeat, which needs no other Answer then the repeating that Reverend Brother's Words, which our Author c…peth at, as they may be seen in the Postscript to the second …indication of the Church, p. 2…0. His Words are these, Thinking my self free to joyn in these Duti…s to which I was Authorized by my Office, altho there had been no Bishop in the World; nor do I think that by this I payed Formal Canonical Obedience; so that the asserting of this, may be accounted a thirteenth of our Authors Lies. I am no further concerned to take notice of his Discourse on this Head. He returneth now, p. 275. to resume the Matter about Presbyterian Ordination, and only telleth us that he will wave it, and will not tell us his Opinion about it: after he had been pretty plain in the Matter, in his former Book: it is Wisdom to medle no further in a Matter that hath been made to appear to be Indefensible: yet he will not dismiss this Subject, without a parting Blow to the Ordination of the later … Presbyterians: which he saith, p. 277. is left naked, and destitute of all such Arguments, as might excuse the Ordination of other Forreign Churches. And he doth more than insinuate that Presbyterians have no Ordination. His Arguments (so far as I can pick them out of his Discourse) are, 1. They were under no necessity to separate from their Bishops in the Isle of Britain, A. 1. Want of Bishops might be the same Excuse for the want of Episcopal Ordination, that it was to other Protestant Churches for whom he pleadeth it: they might have had Bishops if they would, in France, Geneva, Switzerland, &c., as well as we might. 2. The Necessity lay in this, that we thought, (and still must think, till he, or some else, instruct us better) that Bishops ought not to be in the Church. 3. He speaketh of separating from our Bishops in the Isle of Britain: that plainly insinuateth, that not only the Bishops in the Church of Scotland are ours, but the Bishops of England also, and that we are under their Jurisdiction; as some of them have pleaded: this, from a Minister of the Church of Scotland, is Unworthy Flattery of that Clergy that he now dependeth on for his Bread. 3. If Ministers in Scotland have no Ordination, because, in want of Bishops p. 292among themselves, they went not to the English Bishops for Ordination, why is not the same Defectiveness imputed to these in France, who might have come over to England for the same End. But the Scots Presbyterians are the Men of his Indignation: and therefore, any Weapon that cometh to Hand, must be used to beat them down. Before I leave this Point, I shall make it evident that the other Reformed, who are without Bishops, can no more have a lawful Ordination than Scotland hath, 1. Because they might have had Bishops to rule them; for what could hinder them? their Magistrats did not; for they are of Opinion with themselves: except in France, where the Popish Magistrats did not, nor would oppose that piece of Conformity with themselves. Yea, Thuan. blameth the Protestants for not setting up Bishops: the Primitive Church under Heathen Magistrats, had Bishops in our Authors Opinion: and we think they wanted no needful Church Officer, even in that State. 2. It is plain that the Reformed were against Episcopacy, as no Ordinance of Christ, as I have shewed: and it is evident from Confession of the French Church, Art. 30. and of the Belgick, Art. 31. which being read in the Synod of Dort, was not disliked by any of the Externi, save these from England.

§ 11. His second Argument that the Scots Presbyterians have no Ordination is, It is very uncertain, whether they retain such Solemn and Formal Words, when they impose Hands, as expresly declare, that the Priestly Power of Administrating Sacraments, and Absolving Poenitents, is then Conveyed to him that is Ordained. If there be no such Conveyance, there is no Ordination; and if the Words made use of, doth not plainly and formally signifie such a Power, then there is no such Power Conveyed. A. This Uncertainty can be no good Medium to prove his Point. For such Words may really be used, tho both he and I be uncertain, whether they were used or not. Again; how can he prove the necessity of such Words: what if Words be made use of, which do really and materially signifie the thing designed; tho they do it not formally and plainly? He is the first that I have met with, who layeth so much weight on the Form of Words. It is one of the new Opinions he hath broached, while he pretendeth to refute new Opinions. Against it I thus argue, 1. No Words are enjoyned in Scripture: which must needs have been, if the Nullity of Ordination, and consequently of the Ordinances Administred by such Ministers, had been the necessary Consequent of Words not sufficiently formal and plain. What a sad Uncertainty and Confusion should follow on this p. 293Necessity of such Words? not unlike that which, in the Popish Church, followeth on the Opinion of the Necessity of the Priests Intention in his Administrations. 1. Can he tell us what Form of Words the Apostles used, when they Ordained Ministers; how plain and formal they were? if Uncertainty about that Nullify the Scots Presbyterian Ordination, it will by good Consequence, make void all the Ordinations of the Apostolick Church: I am sure he can give us no Account of their Words from any Authentick Records. 3. In the Administration of Baptism, no Church that I know of, useth Formal and plain Words that express either Admission into the Church, or Communication of Christian Priviledges, or Covenanting with GOD, or our Renouncing the Devil, &c. I am sure I Baptise thee in the Name of the Father, &c. are not Formal, plain Words, to express these Things; tho I doubt not but that they Include them all: and if Baptism be valid without such a Form of Words, why not Ordination also? He says, p. 278. that there are many of their Number in the West, who think Imposition of Hands unnecessarie. I suppose he hath no Personal knowledge of this: and he should be sure of his Informers before he cast such a Reproach on his Brethren: for my part, I know no Minister in Scotland, West, East, South, or North, who professeth that Opinion: tho mean while I can tell him of others who are not far from it: even the Church of France, in their Synod, at Paris 1565. C. 6. Quick. Synod. p. 62. but I far rather agree with Mr. Firmin, who hath Written a Treatise to prove the Necessity of it. He inferreth likewise, p. 279. from what he had Discoursed, that we have no Organical Church. We are not afraid of his Censures: we can Prove, not only that we have the Essentials of Ordination; but that, for the Manner of it, it is nearer to the Gospel Pattern than what is Practised in that Church which he owneth. I find him to be of the same Sentiments with that Bishop in England that was mentioned to him, who said of a Presbyterian Minister that he was no better than a Mechanick, tho he had never been Bred to any Art but the Liberal Arts, and had Presbyterial Ordination. It is strange that he should Insinuate, that we derive our Power from the People: he cannot but know that we Disown that Principle: but Calumniare audacter, aliquid adhaerebit: he hopeth that some will believe what ever evil he saith of us.

§. 12. His next Controversie is about the Presbyterian Church Discipline: which he had most Abusivly and falsly Reproached, Apolog. p. 22, 23. p. 294and was Checkt for so doing by a Modest Answer, Def. Vindic. p. 17, In which that which is most Material he wholly passeth over: bringing some what like an Answer to Two or Three Things. It was asked, what is that Discipline of the Antient Church (which he wisheth were Restored) which is not either the same with ours, or far more strict and Severe. He Answereth that he never found fault with our Discipline for its being strict; but for being factiously Pragmatical, and endlesly Inquisitive, and from its having no Tendency to Edifie the Christian-Church, or to Reclaim wicked People. What can an unbyassed Reader understand by these Words, but that the Man is angry, and hateth the Presbyterians, and their Way: and would fain cast Dirt on them, if he could find it. These indefinite and gross Accusations must either be Proved, that thus the Presbyterians do Manage the Discipline of the Church; and this must be in many Instances, and many Ministers and Elders; and all this well Attested: or the Man who thus Writeth must pass for a Slanderer, rather than a Disputant. Our Discipline we Manage by the Rules of the Word, and the Principles of sound Reason; we do not Indulge Sin in these of our own Way; nor medle with Things that are without our Line: nor do we enquire into Scandalous Sins till they become such, by being openly known: and if Occasion be given for Enquirie, and nothing be found, we Desist, and leave Secret Things to GOD, to whom they belong; for the Tendency of our Exercise of Discipline, we are sure it is for Edification; and we can make it appear that sometimes it is Blessed with Success; and if it Irritate some, or Harden others, or have no Fruit on many, we Lament it: but are not to be blamed for it; for the same Thing may be said of Preaching the Gospel, and that in a Commendable manner. I Deny not but that some are short of that Dexterity that others have; and that there is Imperfection in the best of us: and if they that blame us can say otherways of their own Church, either they are strangly Deluded, or the World is generally Deceived about their Way. He commenceth a new Debate, p. 283. about Non-resistance which he had raised, Apolog. p. 20. and yet waved, and of which very little was said, Def. of Vindic. p. 16. he now resumeth the Debate, and talketh more freely than before; being behind the Curtain, and not in Hazard of Censure. I was then unwilling, and am still more so, to medle in that Matter; both because it is a Controuerne that belongeth to the Politicks rather than to Divinity; and Lawyers are sittest to Mannage it. Also, because it is not now between Prelatists and Presbyterians: the Generality p. 295of both having of late years Agreed in what is Inconsistent with the Prelatical Doctrine that was Current some years ago.

§ 13. Another of our new Opinions he will have to be, p. 289. that they (the Presbyterians) abhorre and cast off all Established Forms and Rules in the Worship of GOD, &c. we have under this Head a parcel of the most False and Impudent Assertions, in Matters of Fact, and the most unjust Calumnies, that ever the Press groaned under. And it is a wonder that a Person pretending to Conscience, or to Christianity, could give such Scope to his Passion, as to have no regard to Truth: and indeed here is little, or no Matter of Debate, nor place for Vindication, but by Denying what he Asserteth without any Attempt to give Evidence for what is Asserted. I Deny not but that there may be found some few among the People that own Presbytery, who through Ignorance, and a mistaken Zeal, run into some of these Excesses that he Taxeth: but I know none who are Guilty of all that he Imputeth to us, sine discrimine: and I am sure the more Sober and Intelligent sort of Presbyterians, abhorreth many of these things that he Chargeth them with. He Asserteth that the Presbyterians of Scotland abhorre and cast off all Established Forms and Rules in the Worship of GOD. I Challenge him to Prove what he saith: it is a palpable Falshood. For, 1. We neither abhorre nor cast off the Form of Sound Words, I mean the Scriptures of Truth, recommended by the Apostle for us to hold, foreign. 1 Tim. 1. 13. nor do we abhorre or reject the Form of Baptizing, and Administring the LORD'S Supper; nor of Blessing the People at the Dismissing of the Assembly. 2. Even some Forms that we Reject, as needles, and therefore unfit to be used in this state of the Church, yet we do not abhor them; such as Forms of Prayer, we think they were both Lawful, and necessarie, when the Church was not Provided with Qualified Ministers: yet we think they should now be laid aside, when they are not so needed: as a Man should not use Crutches when he is well Recovered from his Dameness. 3. To say that we abhorre and reject Rules in the Worship of GOD is beyond all bounds of Truth, and Modesty. We own, and use the Word of GOD as the Rule of Worshiping Him: neither do we abhorre or reject the Help of Humane Rules which are drawn out of that Supreme and Divine Rule: we have our Directorie, and many Good Acts of General-Assemblies, yea, of Synods, and Presbyteries, in their respective Districts. His next Assertion is shameles above measure: that since the Revolution, they Turn out the Episcopal Clergy out of their Livings, if they retain any of the Ancient forms, tho never so short, Catholick, or Orthodox. p. 296Pray Sir, when was this done, by whom, where, or to whom? none of them were ever Turned out of their Livings on these Heads, either by Church or State; and none by the Church except for Ignorance, Error in some Great Point of Faith, supine negligence, or Scandal in Things that are not Controverted among us whether they be Sins, or not. It is true, Uniformity, even in these little Things, is required of these who will Joyn with us, be Received into Ministerial Communion, and have a Share of the Government of the Church with us (and much Tenderness, and Forbearance hath been used even in these, for some time) but they who think not fit to Joyn with us, are suffered to follow their Ministerial Work in their Parishes, and Enjoy their Livings, without such Uniformity with us, as he Talketh of. And if we had Required this, or Turned them out, it had been but an Imitating of the Practice of his own Party. Whom do they Suffer to Enjoy Publick Livings who do not Conform to their Way, to the Height?

§ 14. He persists in his false Assertions, while he saith, the Episcopal Clergy are Enjoyned to forbear the LORD'S Prayer, Reading the Holy Scriptures in their Assemblies, the Apostolick Creed, and the Doxology. This is far from any Semblance of Truth: no such Prohibition was ever given. He insisteth a little in Pleading for the Use of the LORD'S Prayer: but taketh no Notice of the State of the Question about it, as it hath been Proposed by his Antagonist. His Business seemeth to be, not so much to Convince, as to Accuse. It is False that we have Banished that Prayer. We duely use it as a Directory, and Pray according to it; we Teach it to our Catchum…ni, we do not Judge, nor Blame any Man for using the Words: and if he can shew us a Command for using them, we shall Obey it. He saith, it was Enjoyned by CHRIST to his Disciples. If he mean, that the Words should be Recited, we desiderate the Proof: nor do we find that any of the Apostles, in their Publick Administrations so used it. It is true, the Presbyterians formerly used it; and if they should do so still, I should not Reclaim: but I know that his Parties making it their Shibboleth, together with Conviction of the Indifferency of so using it, gave the first Occasion for disusing it. It is an unaccountable Fancy, that the Omission of these have no Tendency but to promote Atheism: this is the general …nt of the Partie concerning what ever is out of their Road. As this his Assertion is most unreasonable, and groundless in it self; there being other means far more Effectual to keep out Atheism than the Use of these Forms can be supposed to be: so Common Observation and p. 297Experience sheweth, that the Atheism that we all should Lament, is no more visible, nor common, among that Party of Christians who do not use these Forms, than among them who are fond of them. I can draw no other Conclusion from what follows, p. 290, 291. but that the Author was, when he Wrote these Things, in the Paroxism that he professed to be in when he Wrote another Book, viz. provocked to the Indecency of Passion, to see his beloved Forms neglected. Hence he telleth us of the Madness and Dreams of idle People, and the Humour of Schism: hindring the Holy Scriptures to be Read in the Assemblies as heretofore. whereas it is evident (and the Reverend Mr. Boise hath made it appear, on occasion of the like Accusation against us by the Bishop of L…ndonderry) that the Scripture is more Read in our Congregations, and People is made more acquained with them, than heretofore in the Episcopal Meetings. I mean where the Orders of our Church are observed: for them who Read but a verse or two for a Lecture, I cannot Answer for their Practice: and we make the People understand the Reading, as Ezra did, Neh. 5. 5. which was not done in the Episcopal Church of Scotland: but Men who had no Authority, nor were Teachers in the Church, were set up to dispence this Ordinance of CHRIST, the Reading of the Scripture in the Congregation. He next blameth us (under the same Epithets of Madness, Dreams, Humour of Schism) that when Children are B…ptized, the Parents are not allowed to know into what Religion or Faith they are initiated; and this, because they are not made to repeat the Creed. I first ask him, what Faith do the Generality of Parents of his Partie understand their Children to be Intiated into by their Repeating that which we call the Apostles Cr…d, which they cannot understand by our Conduct: seing some of them understand it not; and seing it doth not sufficiently Discriminate the sound Faith which we own, from Socinianism, Poperie, Antinomianism, and several other gross Errors. Next, I Answer, that it is false and Calumnious that he Asserteth: they are not only allowed to know the Faith that their Infants are Baptized into; but pains is taken so far as Ministers can, to make them understand that Faith▪ and they are Solemnly taken Engaged to adhere to that Faith, and to breed their Children in the knowledge of it, and it is told them what Faith we mean, by designing it from the Scripture, the great Rule of it, and the Confession of Faith of this Church, drawn out of the Scripture. If any have no other Notion of Baptism but that it is an Engagement to be a …ovenan…r (which he would have us believe, tho I am perswaded he knoweth better things) p. 298we give no ground for such a Thought, but endeavour to present things otherwise to them.

§ 15. He saith we are so unfixed and variable, that not two in the Nation in publick follow the same Rule, &c. This is a horrid Abusing of the Reader, and can have no other Design but to make the Presbyterians odious where they are not known; for in Scotland, even among his own Party, the contrarie is well known. But all this Noise is, because we have no stinted Liturgie: without which we follow the same Rules, both Divine and Humane, as I shewed before, we all teach the same Truths; and Administer the same Ordinances; and in the same manner, except that we use not the same Words: wherein yet we do not studie a diversitie, as he injuriously Asserteth. His Apology for the Episcopal Church of Scotland for wanting a Liturgie is odd; the Clergy Composed Prayers for themselves from which they seldom varied. It may be some of them did so, either from insufficiency or lazieness: but I am sure neither the greatest, nor the best part of them did so: but what ever be in that, both on his side, and on ours, they who did not tie themselves to the same Words, at all times, managed their Work with as much plainess, gravity, and coherence of their Words, and left the People as little in the Dark as they did whom he so much Commendeth on these Accounts. His calling Praying without a set Form, Rambling, and Ascribing to it no Order, nor Dependence, but what is caused by the heat of the Animal Spirits: I neglect, as shewing a Temper of mind that is to be pitied rather than Redargued by Argument. He waveth the Debate about stinted Forms, p. 292. which any who Readeth this Discourse must understand that he intendeth not to Dispute by Scripture, or Reason, against him whom he Opposeth in this, but to Rail at him: And because I intend not to engage with him at that Weapon, I shall wave it too. Yet he bringeth Calvines Testimony for the Preference of a well Composed Liturgie; out of one of his Epistles, which he so Citeth, as no Man shall find it, unless he happen to have the same Edition of Calvines Epistles that he used; which I have not: had he named the Epistle by its Number, or the Person to whom Addressed, I might have found it by some pains. I oppose Calvine to Calvine; he said of the English Liturgie (and I suppose that will pass with my Author for a well Composed one) that it had in it some Tollerabiles ineptias. He bringeth some what that looketh like Argument, even in this Debate that he waveth. The great things of Worship is not to be left to the Wisdom and Discretion of every private Administrator. A. This is provided against p. 299by the Churches trying Men well before they be Intrusted: by setting the Word, and the Acts of the Church before them, as their Rule and Directorie, and by Watching over them, and Correcting them for mismanagement. These are GOD'S ways of preventing Inconveniency; a stinted Liturgie is a way of Mans devising, without any Warrant, or Footstep of it in the Scripture. Another of his Arguments: every Priest isnot wise enough to manage an Affair of such great Importance. A. That is so true that none is wise enough for it, as the Apostle saith, 2 Cor. 2. 6. And if so, who is fit to Compose a Liturgie for others; which all Men must be tyed to? On this Consideration, the Church ought to chuse the fitest Men she can get; and when that is done; both the weaker, and stronger Sort should beware of leaning to their own Wit and Parts in that Great Work; and should take the Word of GOD for their Directorie, and Depend on the Spirit of GOD for His assistence: and this is a better Remedy of the Evil feared than a sti…ted Liturgy is; and hath more Countenance in the Scripture, Rom. 8. 26. Another Argument. Though a Minister should be very Wise, yet at all times he is not in the same Temper, and it is not reasonable that the Worship of GOD should be less decent when his Intellectuals are clouded than when he is in perfect health. A. 1. If this Argument have any strength, we must have a Form of Preaching, as well as of Prayer; and always tyed to it: for a Disordered mind may make sad work there. 2. Some have been out of Temper for Reading the Service, as well as for Extemporary Prayer; when their Brain hath been clouded: and this hath as often hapened in the Reading Pue, as in the Presbyterian Pulpit. Wherefore, we must have another Remedy against it in both, than a Liturgie. 3. I confess a lesser Degree of decency in the Worship of GOD than should be, or hath been, is never reasonable: but how can it be prevented either in Praying, Preaching, or Reading, as long as, the Temper both of Mens Bodies, and of their Minds are variable. 4. If a Mans Intellectuals be at any time so clouded, whether by a Hypochondriack Distemper, or by Drinking too liberally, or by any other Sickness; as that it is probable to make the Worship of GOD to be unduely Managed, that Man (what ever have been his Wisdom or Abilities) should not be suffered to Officiate at that time; whether with, or without the Book: I am sure there was never any Church, Ancient or Modern, which appointed a Liturgie for such Men; no… to countenance the Putting, or Keeping, such in the Sacred Fu… ction. 5. There is another Cause of Worship being better or worse p. 300Managed at diverse times, which our Author hath not thought on, nor will his Liturgie serve for a Remedie of it; that is the better or worse Frame of his Soul, with respect to Heavenly things, and the Degrees of the Presence and Aids of the Spirit of GOD: therefore, however unreasonable it be, yet it is manifest, that there is not the same measure of Decency, and Spiritual Luster on the Worship of GOD at all times: nor can there be a Remedie for this, till we be better Men: nor even then, if the LORD for His own Holy ends, withdraw his presence: I know this will be slouted by some: but the Apostle himself had his unusual Inlargements, 2 Cor. 5. 11. and found it needful that the People should Pray for assistence to him, Col. 4. 3.

§. 16. He bringeth yet another Reason: the spiritual necessities of the People ought at all times to be …qually Provided for. A. 1. That is impossible for Man to do: unless we can find unchangeable Men to be Ministers. It is fair if they be always well, and sometimes, if they be tollerablly provided for. 2. This is the improperest Reason that he could have fallen upon; for it cutteth the Throat of his Cause: because the Spiritul Necessities of the People are very various: diverse People have diverse Necessities: and the same Persons Needs may be far other, or greater, at one time than at another: they know little of the Spiritual state of Souls, who know not this; now a …int…d Liturgie can never reach these, half so well as a Minister may do, who hath the Gift of Prayer; and who endeavoureth, as much as may be, to be acquainted with the Cases of the Peoples Souls. Next, he Pleadeth Uniformity for the use of a stinted Liturgie, which is a weak Argument: for Uniformity in Words (and that is all that we can have by a Liturgie, which can not be obtained without it) is not so valuable. If we all speak the same things what great Matters is it if they be exprest in diverse Words. Again, what Reason is there for the Necessity of Uniformity in Prayer, more than in Preaching? which yet our Brethren do not Enjoin. That the Forms he mentioneth are the Tessera's if Uniformi…y, is an absurd and groundless Assertion: there was Uniformity in the Apostolick Church, and is in our Churches, without them. If he deny this last, let him shew what Dissormity is among us, further than in Words, which he cannot shew to be among his own Partie; yea, it is evident that such Discrepancie is in their Worship, in one Church from another, that he cannot Charge us with the like: for the Cathedral Service, and that in Countrey Churches, are more unlike to one another, than the Latter of p. 301them is to the Meetings of some Dissenters. He next Argueth, that a Litu…gie obviates Mens v…nting their own Conceits. A. This is far more readily and frequently done in Preaching than in Prayer: and therefore will either Prove that free Preaching, without a Book, should be Restrained; or it Proveth nothing at all. And indeed the way to prevent Inconveniency in both, is not a Liturgie, but to be careful that none but well Qualified Men be in the Ministry, and Watchfully to look to the Administrations of them who are in that Office.

§ 17. Our Author, p. 295. & seq. Haleth in a Discourse by Head and …ars, without Occasion given, or Coherence with what he was upon, concerning Superstition; wherein he taketh it for granted that his Way, in all the Parts and Steps of it, is right, and ours wholly wrong: and on this Begged Hypothesis, he Declaimeth against the Presbyterians as the most Superstitious, yea, the most Atheistical Men in the World. This is an easy Way of Running down any Adversary whatsoever. Whether a Groundless Scrupulosity, either in Matters of common Practice, or in Matters of Worship, be Superstition or not, I know is controverted by some: I shall not now enter into this Debate; knowing that it issueth into a mere Logomachy. Tho I think Superstition, being a sort of false Worship, or a Sin against the Worship of God, in Strickness of Speech, nothing should be called Superstition, but that whereby People intend, or pretend to Worship God. Scruples about what is not Worship may be very Sinful, because Unreasonable and Groundless, and yet not be Worship, nor Superstition. If he can prove that our Scrupling the Holy Days, Liturgy and Ceremonies, is without all Ground, and that these things are well Warranted, and Approved of God; and that there is no Sin in Using them: we shall change our Opinion, and submit to what Censure he shall put on us. But while that is not done, (as I am sure it hath not hitherto been performed) we regard little his Railing Accusations that he …lleth his Pages with. Most of what he here Loadeth the Presbyterians with, may be evidently, and with good Reason, Retorted on himself, and his Party. For Instance, he saith when we represent the Deity, as one that is plea…ed with the imaginary Notions that we Groundlesly entertain of Things; this is Superstition, that Poysons the Soul and all its Faculties. Now whether Presbyterians or Prelatists be more guilty of this, let the Reader Judge. The one think that God is pleased with nothing as Worship, but what He hath Prescribed in His Word: And that He hateth Will-Worship, and all Notions about that, which p. 302have no Foundation in Scripture. The other think God is pleased with a great many Things that Men have have Devised for Adorning His Worship; and for an Order and Decency that they imagine to be such; but the Lord hath never declared it to be such. Whether of the two entertain these Groundless Notions of the Deity, which are the Superstition that Poysoneth the Soul and all its Faculties? Another Instance: to say that such a thing is forbidden of God, only because we forbid it our selves, is to teach for Doctrines the Commandments of Men: but to regulate our Actions in themselves indifferent, according to the Prudent Determination of our Superiours, cannot fall under that Censure. Let us see whether we, or his own Party be thus guilty. We disowne that we say of any one thing, that it is forbidden of God, because we forbid it: if we say of any thing, that God hath forbidden it, and do not prove that it is so; we refuse not to bear the Blame of such Impiety: but it is manifest, that his Party use somethings, as if God had enjoyned them, when they cannot prove that it is so; but only the Church hath enjoyned them: they Command People to obey, to Use their Ceremonies, they Urge them with Rigour, they do more severely Censure the Neglect of them, than they Punish Breaking of Gods plain Commands. And yet they cannot shew, nor do they pretend to, any other Warrant for them, but the Authority of the Church; which he calleth the Prudent Determination of our Superiors. It were needless, as well as endless, to take notice of all the Fantastick Notions that he expresseth about Superstition, and his Ungrounded Suppositions, that the Presbyterians are of these Sentiments, in which he placeth it: what is said may give a sufficient Taste of his Way of Refuting his Adversaries: only I cannot pass, that p. 29…. he insinuateth, that the Presbyterians esteem the Means more than the End; and separate the Ecclesiastical Laws from their Subordination and Relation to the Laws of God. It must be a strange Degree of Prejudice, that could seduce him into such Distorted Notions. Do we esteem the Means more than the End, because we would have the End, Edification, carried on by Means that God hath Appointed, and that He hath Promised a Blessing to, rather than by Means of Mans Devising, which have no Promise of a Bles…ing or Success? It is not only Conscience of Pleasing God, but Concern for that End, that maketh us so Careful, that the Means we use be Approved of God. Or do we separate Ecclesiastical Laws, from their Relation and Subserviency to the Laws of God: we are so far from it, that we owne no Ecclesiastical Laws, which are without the Relation of Dependency p. 303on the Law of …od; or without due Subordination to it: and it is on this Head that we reject the Church Laws, that enjoyn Humane Ceremonics peculiar to the Worship of God; because the Church hath no Warrant to make such Laws, (if he say that she hath, let us see it) and because these Laws are not Subordinate, but rather Co-ordinate to the Laws of God, setting up the Churches Institutions beside his. That the Negative Scrupulosity that he mentioneth from Coloss. 2. 21, 22, 23. is a great Evil, we doubt not: and if he will call it Superstition, we will not contend about Words (tho the Reason of that Denomination is doubtful; the Will-Worship that is mentioned, being rather to be referred to the Worshipping of Angels, spoken of v. 18. which is there, and also in Conjunction with this Will-Worship, called Humility; that is a vain Shew, of it.) But nothing of this maketh for his Purpose, unless he can prove, that our Scruples about the Ceremonies, are wholly Ground▪ l…ss, as these Scruples were; and as the rest of the Abstinc…ces are, that he mentioneth; wherefore all that he, at great length Discourseth on this Head, is wholly impertinent. If he can prove the Ceremonies to be Excellent and Useful, as he insinuateth, p. 297. our Cause can…ot stand before him.

§ 18. He undertaketh to prove our Scruples to be more dangerous than these, in that the Scruples there mentioned, had a Shew of Wisdom; but the Presbyterian Scruples have more dangerous Consequences, in that they co… demn those Solemnities of Religion, which have a direct Tendency to promote Religion, in all its most Excellent Branches. The import of this Ratiocination is, the Way of the Ceremonialists is right, Ergo, the Presbyterians are to be condemned. All this is purely Begging of the Question. We deny any such Tendency to be in the Ceremonies; and cannot be perswaded of what he saith, by his Confident Asseverations, and Big Words. If I could find any thing in his following Pages, that is worth Answering, and hath not been already Answered, (for he repeateth ad nauseam) I should consider it. The Persons that he knew, who were so Fearful and Superstitious, that they would not Break up a Letter on Sunday, we do not approve; nor do our Scruples Countenance such Misapprehensions: if we meet with any such, (for I know none of them, but rather observe that an undue Liberty is taken generally, on the Lords Day) we shall endeavour to instruct them better. He telleth us, p. 302. the fifth or sixth time, that Superstition leadeth to Atheism; and addeth, that by the Power of Prejudice, and Faction, it maketh a Man Despise the Omniscience p. 304of God, and to Venture upon the most Daring Impieties, Tho I will not be an Advocat for Superstition, nor for Ignorant or Groundless Scrupulosity: yet this his Assertion I cannot understand: for it is the Apprehension of Gods Omniscience, that maketh these Poor Souls, who dare not Break up a Letter on the Lords Day, to Fear where no Fear is; and it is want of all Scrupling, even where there is just Ground, that maketh People Venture on the most Daring Impieties; it is because they are Stout Hearted, not because they are Fearful Hearted. And how Faction cometh in to make up the Scene, I cannot see; but that Presbyterians, whom he hath concluded to be Factious, must be the Persons to be thus Loaded. His Probative Instance of what he had said, is yet less Accountable. It is, that the Covenanters, when they in their full Career against the ancient Constitutions of Church and State, (thus his Prejudice against them, doth represent them to him, and his Hatred of them, maketh him so represent them to the World) with Hands lifted up to Heaven abjured the Primitive Stations: and these Stations he highly extolleth; and thinketh the Presbyterians know not what they are, and concludeth, that we are bound by the Covenant, never to be present at such Exercises of Mortifications, &c. The Stations were their Meetings on Wednesdays and Fridays, for Fasting till Nine of the Clock, and for other Spiritual Exercises. So Albaspin. whom he citeth, and his Adnotator Keitombellius, Observ. 16. p. 23, 24. who also telleth us that this they did, primis i…is saeculis, quibus miseriis & persecutionibus undique, & quasi perpetuis stiparentur. I know no Presbyterian, who either hath Sworn against, or Condemneth these Stations; so far as we have a distinct Account of them: have not we, in great Towns the same thing, on the Matter, with these Stations: Morning Exercises for Confession of Sin, Prayer, and Instructing of the People; and that of…ner, in some Places, than Twice a Week. That the Primitive Stations are abjured in the Covenant, is falsly asserted: indeed in the National Covenant, or Confession of Faith, which was Subscribed by the King, the Nobility, and the whole Nation, they Renounce a great many of the Popes Doctrines, and Practices; and his Stations are mentioned among them: but will any Man, who understandeth what he saith, or who doth not look on the whole of Popery as Pure and Primitive, say, that the Popish Stations, (under the present Degeneracy of that Church) and the Primitive Stations, were the same thing? the best Account that I can find of what now is called Stations among the Papists, is from Onuphrius Panvinius, de stationibus urbis Romae: p. 305where he confesseth that their Original is obscure: he maketh them, in the Primitive Church, to have been Prayers with Standing, in Opposition to these with Kneeling: to which sometimes Fasting was joyned, and he sheweth how several Popes Limited them, and others appropriated them to certain Days: and sheweth how in his time they were fixed to Days; and to Churches in the City of Rome: as it may be presumed was done also in other Churches. He sheweth also their Number, viz. in fourty seven Churches, ninety six Stations, on eighty three Days, and telleth us of Indulgences granted to these Stations by Pope Boniface. This Term may also be applyed to their Solemn Processions, for Perambulating any Piece of Ground: wherein they do often Stand at such a Cross, or at such a Turning, and Rehearse certain Prayers. This Supestition is what is renounced in the Covenant, and it is joyned with Peregrinations and such other Fopperies. He calleth Superstition a Bastard Kind of Worship, p. 305. but Scrupling at Ceremonies, hath nothing in it like Worship, whether Bastard or Legitimate: how will he then Reconcile this, with Calling our Scruples Superstition? The Jewish Superstitions, the Murdering of A. Bishop Sharp, the Heathens Superstitions, that he hath Consulted Juvenal about, none of these touch the Presbyterians; tho one of them was Acted by some who bare that Name, to the great Dislike of the rest of them. He further Argueth, p. 307, 308. that we Contend for our own Opinions, he for the Church and her Catholick Constitutions. The same Arguments the Papists use against Protestants: the Name of the Church is the Shelter that some flee to, when they have no other Cover for the Nakedness of their Opinions. We affirm (and our Assertion is as Probative as his is) that we maintain the Opinions that we have Learned from the Scripture, and not such as we have Groundlesly Chosen for our selves.

§ 19. He next, p. 309. falleth on the Catechism which is owned and taught in this Church; after he hath Loaded us with Servile Condescending to Popular Fancies, and Leaving the People in Profound Ignorance. This is his Strain, his Genius, and to be Neglected; his Reproaches, and Praises are of the same Value with us. The Quarrel that he hath with the Catechism, is, it is Unintelligible by the People, (which were a great Fault if true) and that it is Adapted to serve the Hypothesis of a certain Order of School Men: he meaneth, as is evident by what followeth, the Dominicans, or Jansenists, in Opposition to the Jesuits: his Grievance is, our Catechism is not Pelagian, nor Arminian enough. I shall free duplicate page p. 304duplicate page p. 305p. 306him of a Fear that he expresseth, p. 315. that if the Vindicator (as he calleth him) take these Paragraphs to Task, he will most Zealously Undertake the Defence of all that Orthodox Stuff, that is Contained in their Publick Catechisms, and Write out a whole System to Confute his Adversary. Whatever be that Persons Zeal to Defend our Catechisms, as intirely Orthodox; he need not Fear Writing of a System on this Occasion; the Person he Aimeth at, will be more Sparing than so, of his Ink and Paper; and yet more of his Time and Labour: unless he saw more Hazard to Truth, than can arise from this Authors Attempt: and unless there were none who could do it to better Purpose, as there are many: seing he intendeth not to Question the Orthodoxy of the Catechism, (tho he often Lasheth it that Way by severe Innuendo's) but only to Prove its Unintelligibleness: I shall engage with him only in that. He Talketh Big, of many Instances which might be brought, wherein our Catechisms are Unintelligible; but he is pleased to pitch but on one; which is that Question; Wherein consisteth the Sinfulness of that Estate whereinto Man fell: to which the Answer is, The Sinfulness of that Estate whereinto Man fell, consisteth in the Guilt of Adams first Sin, the Want of Original Righteousness, and Corruption of his whole Nature, which is commonly called Original Sin, together with all Actual Transgressions which proceed from it. I shall An… madvert a few Things on this his Essay, before I consider particularly the Proofs of Obscurity and Unintelligibleness of this Doctrine. 1. If I should yield all that he here proposeth to himself, he falleth short of his Design; which is to Reproach the Scots Presbyterians: for tho they owne that Catechism, and look on it as one of the best extant, yet it is not of their Composure; it was done by the Divines Assembled at Westminster, few of whom were Presbyterians. 2. Few Men of Sense, who are Concerned about the Promoting of Religion, and the Salvation of Souls, will prefer it to the Church of Englands Catechism, which beginneth, What is thy Name; Who gave thee this Name, &c. but will owne that there is more sound, plain, useful Truth, and what is necessary to be known by the …eople, in our, than in their Catechism. As might easily be made appear, if I might Digress to State a Comparison between them, from the Beginning to the End. 3. We must not imagine, that whatever is put into a Catechism, must be so plain, that the meanest Capacity, without Help, can sufficiently understand it: for there are Truths needful to be known, which the People must be helped to understand, tho at first View, they Comprehend them p. 307not: yea, somethings must be taught to all the People, and are necessary to be known by Christians, which tho they are intelligible, yet are not so easily understood, nor so fully, as some other Things, can be. If this Author will take on him, to judge of the Labour of such a Grave and Learned Assembly, as was that at Westminster, and conclude, that they Acted Foolishly, in Proposing Unintelligible Doctrines to the People, let him give also his Censure of the Apostolick Catechism; the Substance of which is set down Heb. 6. 1, 2. where are Matters, that as many Difficulties may be raised about, as he Starteth on this Question and Answer. 4. I hope he doth not Dream, that no Truths are to be Proposed to the Catechumeni, but such as the meanest (yea, or the greatest Capacity) can fully Comprehend, and Solve all the Difficulties, yea, or Understand all the Debates, that arise in the Heads of Learned Men about them: for then, they must be kept in Profound Ignorance of all the Mysteries of our Religion, yea, of the Greatest, most Fundamental, and most Necessary Truths that the Scripture Teacheth us. If he were put to Frame a Catechism so Qualified, he would find it hard to get Matter for it. He should consider, that the Use of a Catechism, is not to make the People Polemick Divines at first Hand, but to Acquaint them with the Positive Doctrine of Salvation, and to Lay before them Scripture Grounds for Assenting to it. 5. The Doctrine of this Question and Answer, is very necessary to be known, as on other Grounds, so in Order to the Exercise of Gospel Repentance: which is hard to say any can have, who is wholly Ignorant of Original Sin, which is here, as plainly and fully Described, as hath been done by any, in so few Words. One may be Jealous, that Picking this Quarrel with the Catechism, ariseth rather from Dislike of the Truths here Taught, than from the Obscurity of it. If he allow Original Sin to be Taught to the People at all, let him …ry if he can Frame a plainer Question and Answer about it. 6. It is the Care of Presbyterian Ministers, that People may understand the Grounds of our Religion, as well as may be, not only to lay down, even in the Catechism, the Scriptures where such Doctrines are Taught, that the Peoples Faith may stand on that sure Foundation, but also they Explain the Catechism, and all the Doctrines contained in it, to them, when they Catechise, and sometimes in Preaching: and do not content themselves, that the People can Repeat the Words of the Catechism: and therefore it is no sufficient Objection against the Catechism, that any Passage in it is not so Obvious to p. 308every Capacity, as might be wisht. Notwithstanding of all that I have said, I do not yield that this, or any other Passage in the Catechism, is Unintelligible by an ordinary Capacity, where Attention, and Diligence is used, toward Attaining of Knowledge. 7. Tho it were to be wished, that all the Lords People were Prophets, and that every one of them were able to Debate for the Truth, and to stop the Mouths of Gainsayers: yet we think it should be endeavoured, that cople generally should know the foreign of these Revealed Truths, which are Conducible to their Salvation, and to Direct them in the Way of Duty; and if some cannot Attain such a Measure of Knowledge in them as is Desireable; others who are more Docile, should not be Deprived of what Advantage they can attain.

§ 20. Our Author having set down the Question and Answer, saith, there is nothing in it but is Dark, and altogether beyond the Comprehension of Illiterate People: yea, that it cannot be understood without Acquaintance with the Language of the School Men: he calleth it Clouds of Unknown Language: all this is as easily denyed as it is asserted, and with far more Reason: for we can give the Instances of many, (tho may be, they will not be willing to be Named, as he requireth) who can give a good Account, without School Terms, of the Doctrine here Comprised; who yet know no other Language, but their Mother Tongue. He telleth us that the first Difficulty is, de reatu peccati primi hominis: I confess, if he propose it thus in Latine, it will puzzle most of the Vulgar, (whom he Despiseth under the Name of Plow Men) but there are Plow Men, and others, who in their own Language, can tell you that thus it is with us, that we are guilty of Adams Sin; and can bring Scripture Proof for what they say, out of Rom. 5. 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. Our Countrey People can understand, that in that Passage of Scripture, it is plain, that we are guilty of Adams Sin, and that we are justified by Christs Righteousness: and so they will tell you, that Scripture holdeth forth the Imputation▪ of both; and they understand what is meant by that hard Word. His next Difficulty is, de privatione justitiae originalis; and he Complaineth, that the English Word doth not determine, whether it be Privation or Negation: our People can tell, (and some are Sensible of it, and Weighted with it) that they have no Righteousness of their own, nor Rectitude in their Nature, that they are neither Born with it, nor can Acquire it, but must have it from Christ, or perish without it: for the Terms he mentioneth, they do not trouble themselves about these, nor p. 309do we think it necessary that they should. His third Remark seemeth to make the Answer to the Question, not only Obscure, but Erroneous: for he maketh it to insinuate, that the Rectitude of Mens Souls is wholly lost, and that there are no remains of the Divine Image left on the Soul of Man. It is no wonder that he thinketh the Vulgar cannot understand this Answer, when so Learned a Dr. doth so foully Misapprehend it; I shall not impute this to want of Capacity, nor to the Objective Darkness of the Thing; but to his Prejudice, or want of Attention: for it is plain to any who will understand, that this is neither said nor hinted and that it is manifest that the Corruption of all the Faculties, not the total Corruption of all, or any of them, is there Expressed. Such a Blunder as this, in another, he would have Insulted over. A further Evidence of the Obscurity that he would Prove, that our sinful Estate consisteth also in all the actual Transgressions that proceed from this Original sin. He must have a very dark mind to whom this is unintelligible. But the Great Matter is, that he that Answereth must Re-collect all these …hings, (and they are but 4. in Number) before he understand this Matter. What mighty Difficulty is in that? or wherein lyeth the Necessity of Metaphysicks for understanding these Particulars, or making Re-collection of them, I cannot Comprehend: nor can I understand how Peoples being I…cumbred with the Affairs of Humane Life, putteth them out of Case for attaining the Knowledge that we Debate about. What he further hath under this Head, is made up of Harsh Words and bitter Censures, not to be Answered: that the Catechism was only designed as the Badge of a Partie (as if the Prelatists met at Westminster designed a Shibboleth for the Scots Presbyterians to be distinguished by) this is wise talk: he calleth it such Words as Monks and ill natured Zealots pitched upon: it is nothing else but to lift up a Banner for Faction, Ignorance, and Superstition. They (the People) are Taught by their Leaders to baule against the Ancient Methods of the Christian Church, and that which they set up in Oposition to it, leads them naturally to Pride, and Enthusiasm: Let any Man whose Tongue is under any Restraint from the aw of GOD, or regard to Man, tell us how this can be applied to the Catechism. More stuffe of this Stamp, he hath, which I am wearie to Transcribe. He saith, this Charge may be fairly managed against the Catechism in general, as well as against this Question. And I am Confident all such Attempts may receive a full and plain Answer. He is pleased also to Reproach the Homilies of the Presbyterians (so in Contempt he calleth their Preaching of the Gospel) with the same strain; he must mean unintelligiblness: p. 310from which he falleth into a new Fit of calling his Opposites by what ill Names he pleaseth. Such an Indefinite Charge as this is not to be Answered; but by Denying it: and I am sure he can never Prove it, the Stories collected, or devised by his Friend, the Author of the Presbyterian Bloquence, are not Probative, where Sense or Reason, or Candor have place, no, not among his own Party, who know the Presbyterians.

§. 21. His next Charge against us is, a Repetition of what he brought, and I Answered before: that the Scripture is not Read in Publick; and this he saith, is pursuant to the Design of keeping the People in the Dark. He saith, the Canonical Scriptures, as well as the Apocryphal (a double Grievance in his eyes) are laid aside from publick use, which he calleth a bold stroke of Atheism, and Enthusiasm▪ But wise Men will think that there is far more of Atheism in such a Bold, Publick, Unlimited Assirming of what is an Evidence of having no regard to Truth. If there were any thing Argumentative (as the whole is most Abusive, and destitute of Truth) in his Harangue that he seteth off these Falsehoods with, I should be at the pains to give them a fair Answer: see what is said of this § 14. He next, p. 317. Quarrelleth with our Ruling Elders: which he Introduceth with a Falsehood that is palpably such, viz. that we have put away Deacons, as well as Bishops: the World knoweth the contrarie: and if this Author do not know it, he is very unfit to talk of the Presbyterians, who is such a Stranger to their Way, and Constitution. We have Deacons, whose Work it is to take Care of the Poor, according to Apostolick appointment. It is true, our Deacons are not allowed to Preach and Baptize, as these who in the Episcopal Church go under that Name: for we find no Warrant for giving them that Power, except it be immediately, and extraordinarily given them by the LORD; as it was to some (not to all) of the Primitive Deacons. It is also true, that in some places, the Office and Work of Ruling …lder, and of Deacon, is in the same Person: which hath Warrant from the Word: but that we have no Deacons, is said without any Semblance of Truth. Tho he knoweth that, that Controversie about Ruling Elders, who have no Preaching Power, hath been much agitated between his Partie and us, and his Antagonist (whose Writing he never failleth to Oppose, when he thinketh he can) hath Written on that Subject; yet he is pleased here to content himself with setting his Nigrum theta on this our Oppinion, without endeavouring to Refute it▪ except he will call it an Argument, p. 311that he saith, it is a Sacrilegious Usurpation on the Ecclesiastical Authority. He hath Two Quarrels with them: One is, that they are not set apart by Imposition of hands. I have no other Answer to this, but that some among our selves are unsatisfied with this: but they are Solemnly and Pubickly set apart for their Work, and taken Engaged to it: and therefore, that want doth not Nullifie the Office. That such an Office should be in the Church by CHRIST'S Institution, I hold, tho I will not undertake to justifie the Practice of our own, or other Churches, in some things concerning these Elders. His other Fault that he findeth with them is, that the Preachers encroach so on them, that they never suffer them, whose sole Office is Government, to interpose in the most Essential Points of Jurisdiction, viz. the Solemn and Authoritative Imposition of hands, Administration of Sacraments, and Absolution of P…netents. This Objection amounteth to no more but this: Ruling Elders, by Divine appointment, have a Share in the Government of the Church for curbing of sin (for they are Inspectores morum populi) Ergo, they have also all the Authority that CHRIST hath given to the Pastors of the Flock, such Reasoning is not only in it self weak and fallacious, but it doth ill su…e the Principles of this Author: do not his Party, at their own hand, give some part of Church Authority to their Deacons, as Preaching and Baptizing; and withhold from them all the rest of it: why then may not we (with much more reason) allow, that CHRIST hath given part of Church Power to these Elders, and yet not the whole of it? But I consider his Objection more particularly: the first Power (mentioned by him) as denyed them is, Imposition of Hands on the Pastors of the Church. If he can Prove that any other than Pastors have that Power, by Divine Warrant, he shall gain this Point. Neither is it consistent with Reason that Imposition of Hands, by which the Authority for dispensing the Word and Sacraments is conveyed, should be done by them who have not that Power themselves: for nemo dat quod non habe…. The next is Administration of Sacraments, This is not due to them because they are not the Pastors of the Church; and because they are only Rulers of the Church: whereas this Administration is no part of Government. The 3d. is Absolving of Paenitents: to which he might have Added excommunication, and other Church Censures. A. This belongeth to the Government of the Church; they have a Hand in it; nor is it done without them, for both Censures, and taking off Censures, are Decreed in the Consistorie, where they sit, and vote: only the Pronouncing, or p. 312Executing of these Sentences, in the publick Congregation, is the Work of the Pastor; both because publick Administration of CHRIST'S Ordinances are in his hand: and because these Administrations are intermixed, or conjoyned with the Word, and publick Prayer; which are the Work of the Minister, not of the Elder.

§ 22. Another New Opinion he Taxeth (but will not be at pains to Examine or Refute it) is, that we think the People have a Right to Chuse their Pastors. The Novelty of this Opinion is most absurdly Asserted: for it not only was the way of the Apostolick: but of the Primitive Churck for many Ages, as I have shewed Rational, Def. of non conformity, § 6. p. 197. &c. and should now further have Debated it with him, if he had insisted on it. He misrepresenteth our Opinion, while first he saith, we maintain this Right to be unalterable: whereas we think a People may lose it, as to its present Exercise, by their inhability or negligence, and it devolveth into the hands of the Rulers of the Church. While 2dly, He insinuateth, p. 320. that this Power is allowed in the Body of the People, without due Restrictions and Limitations. We think the People in this, as in all their other Religious concernments, are under the Inspection and Government of the Presbytery, Congregational, or Classical. Instead of Arguing against this Way, he laboureth to cast Dirt on it; which easily may be wiped off. I have proved, in the Place Cited, that they who were designed for the Ministry were not only named in the Congregation for their Assent, or Objecting against them; but they were chosen a Clero et Plebe: for the 36. Canon of the Apostles (it is, Mihi, 37.) which he Citeth: not only we Reject it, with the rest, as not Authentick, nor Probative: but it also Censureth the Bishop that doth not undertake the Office, and Charge: Doth it thence follow that a Bishop may be Imposed on a People without his own Consent, as well as without theirs? that Canon seemeth to be meant of some incident Dislike, either on the part of the Pastor, or of the People, after Ordination; which should not excuse them from mutual Duties: and so it is nothing to our purpose. How popular Election would hinder Uniformity, more than the Patrons Election doth; iss hard to be understood. That People will chuse such as themselves for Intellectuals and Morals, doth not always hold: People generally think that their Pastors ought to have both more Learning, and more Religion, than themselves. And if they be of such perverse Inclinations, they are to be Over-ruled by the Presbytery. What he saith of the scandalous effects p. 313of Popular Election (I suppose he meaneth Tumults and Divisions) were far more visible, frequent. and horrid, when Bishops were otherwise chosen: there was never so much Blood-shed at Election of a Presbyterian Minister, as hath been at Chusing of some Bishops, in the Later Primitive times, after that Office was settled in the Church. What are we concerned more than his own Party is, in the Ridiculous Insinuation he hath of a Company of mean Mechanicks laying Wagers that such a one shall Preach better than another. Is any Church accountable for either the Follies, yea, or the Sinful Excesses of every one of her Members, further than to Rebuke, or Censure them, according to the degree of Offence given; when they come to be known? I know of no such Wagers laid among our People, tho may be, there is too much of being Puffed up for one, against another; as it was in a Church that I hope he will have more respect for than for he hath for the Presbyterian Church, 1 Cor. 4. 6. That he Asserteth that the Talent of Preaching did not commend a Man in the Primitive time…, is most absurd, if he mean, that a great regard was not had to it, as one of the Chief Qualifications of a Pastor of the Church; if he mean, that this Qualification only is regarded among the Presbyterians, and no more lookt after, it is false and injurious.

§. 23. His next Work is quite out of his present Road: it is not to consider any new Opinions held by the Presbyterians: but to revive a Reproach he had before cast on one P…esbyterian, and which had been sufficiently wiped off: but he is resolved not to be satisfied. I am wholly indifferent whether he be, or not. And yet this Charge he only mentioneth; and therefore I shall not insist on it neither: but it seems, this was but Introductory to what he intended: which is, he will Vindicat a Notion that Grotius hath about foreign, 1 Cor. 12. 28. who had Interpreted that Word as meant of Bishops. I have abundantly Cleared this Matter, and Vindicated that Text from the Exposition put on it by Grotius, in 3d. Sect. of this Work, § 6. 7. to which I refer the Reader, and shall now only Answer what our Author here bringeth afresh. He telleth us foreign signisi…h properly to help one that is ready to fall: this is the Duty of them who are Stronger in the Faith, and higher in Authority: of whom then could it be so well meant as of the Bishop, the Praeses. A most ridiculous way of Arguing: For, 1. It supposeth the Question, that Bishop, or the Praesides Presbyterii, are higher in Authority: which we cannot yield. 2. It can be far better applyed to p. 314Deacons, who relieve them who are ready to Perish. Next saith he: Grotius saw the Episcopal Authority in several Places that the Vindicator will not allow of. A. What Grotius saw, I know not, nor am concerned to know: Some fancy they see a Man in the Moon, which others cannot discern 3. The Apostles might make use of Words to signifie the Episcopal Jurisdiction which are not in use in our Days; there are so many Allusions to the Temple and Syonagogue, that we must know these, that we may be acquainted with the Writings of the New Testament. A. This Reasoning may infer quidlibet ex quolibet: may be (might one say) the Apostles by Baptism, by casting out of the Church, &c. understood some other thing than we do: at this Rate Scepticism about the whole Doctrine of the New Testament may be brought in more effectually than by laying aside Religious Ceremonies of Mens devising. We know the Apostles Wrote in Greek: and we know what foreign signifieth in that Language: if this Author allege that it had then another Signification than now, he should have Proved it, and not drawn his Conclusion from a May be. And if he thinketh that there is any Allusion here to the Practice of the Temple or Synagogue, he should have shewed it, and not thought us so …ame Animals as to acquiesce in his Guess, built on a Possibility, where he cannot shew so much as Probability. His Advice hath been followed, before it was given, in Reading Grotius on the Places he mentioneth; and yet nothing is found that maketh for his Design. He hath another Argument from the Context (which yet is the same above-mentioned, and Answered) that the Apostle having in the preceeding, v. (he should have said in the same v.) distinguished the several Offices, &c. that were then most Observable in the Apostolick Church. I suppose that the helping such as were ready to fall, did most properly belong to the Spiritual Governours. This is above answered: and it is not one whit stronger by being said over again. Further, he Asserteth, but hath not shewed us, how the Context leadeth to this Interpretation: his supposing it to be most proper to the several guids to help them that fall, doth not prove his design; unless he could shew that there was an Officer in the Church who had his Designation from thus helping People: and when he hath done that, he must shew that this is peculiar to the Bishop, and that no other Church Officer is called foreign from helping them who are ready to fall. That Grotius telleth us that the Antient Greeks interpreted the Word, foreign is a wronging of Grotius; who saith not Graeci veteres, but Graeci complures: and it is nothing to his purpose: for Grotius saying it doth not prove it: p. 315nei…her doth Grotius cite any of the Graeci complures. Suiceri thesaurus Ecclesiae I can not get at present: but if he say what our Author alledges, his sole Authority must not carry it against all others, who have written Lexicons. Hamond, on the Place, Expoundeth it of Bishops; not on Account of their foreign, or Governing Power, but because they had the Care of the Poor, and the Dispensing of the Goods of the Church, as I shewed in the Place above Cited of this Book. Which, if it were granted, would make nothing for Episcopal Jurisdiction. We maintain that the Deacons are here meant, and if the Bishops be Deacons, let them have this Place in the List of Church Officers. For they had no Room in it before, nor on the Score of Jurisdiction over other Church Officers. I do not derogate from Grotius his Knowledge of the Signification of Words, nor of his Ability to have Written a Lexicon: but I do not look on him as beyond a Possibility of Mistake, even in that wherein he excelled. And indeed he speaketh very doubtfully of this Matter, as his Words Cited by my Antagonist do shew: nor doth he positively say, that the Bishops are meant by this Word. Another Proof of the Signification of the Word, is from Ps. 48. 3. where the seventy use it to signifie the Lords helping his People: what is this to the Purpose? the Question is not whether this Word have the Notion of Help; but whether it have the Notion of Government: but our Author Mendeth the Matter, making up, by his Latine Translation, what is not in the Greek; for he saith foreign must signifie, cum suscipiet cam, nempe Civitatem, in Tutelam: why must it signifie this: why may it not as well be turned, cum opitulabitur illi? Chrysost. hath it, foreign, ad Munitionem. Aquila foreign, ad Exaltationem. None of all these signifie any thing of Government; but of Defence or Support: so that nothing in this Word agreeth half so well to the Bishops, as to the Deacons Work. I hope he will not think, that because the Lord who is in this Psalm, said to Help His People, doth also Rule them, that it hence followeth, that every foreign is also a Ruler. The same Import hath what he Citeth out of AEmilius Portus, who from Suidas Translateth foreign Propugnator, Defensor, Auxiliator. For none of these Words import Government, all that they signifie, may be applyed better to the Deacon, than to the Bishop. I hope I have (with the Current of …xpositors) offered a better Exposition of the Word we Debate about, than Grotius hath Chosen: and yet shall readily Comply with my Authors Advice, in being far from Comparing my self with that great Man.

p. 316§ 24. What he further saith of that Exposition of Jerom, Quid facit Episcopus, &c. he hath often Repeated, and it hath been as often Answered: to which he had said something, if he had shewed the Consistency of what I said could not agree: but this he thinketh not …it to Attempt: only Entreats me to give a Paraphrase and Commentary on the Conclusion of that very Epistle of Jerom to Euagrius, in which (saith he) Jerom affirmeth, that the Hierarchy of Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon, was Founded on Apostolick Tradition: and that they Hold the same Place in the Christian Church: which the High Priest, Priests and Levites had in the Temple. For Satisfaction to this his Demand, I refer him to Sect. 6. §. 9, 10. where what he Desireth is already Performed: and it is shewed that Jerom meant▪ no such thing as he alledgeth. The hundred Things in my Book that he will not medle with, and which he is pleased to call Triffling Stories, or Personal Reflections, must stand as they are: let the Reader judge of what I have there said, and of his Censure of it. And yet he spendeth some Pages on a Story, that he and I had formerly Debated, which is of least Moment of any of them: his Reason I shall not Enquire into: nor do I intend to be any further Concerned in Jangle about Stories so variously told us, as that is; and which may be many Ways Disguised: no part of which I was Witness to, nor know any thing of, but by Information. For the Personal Reflections he chargeth me with, he mentioneth but two; I leave it to the Reader, who shall think sit to Compare the two Books, to Consider, whether any thing is said of him, but what to be Literally true, himself had given Ground to think: and they are Matters of Fact, and of no great Moment, save that they may derogate from the Strength of what he Writeth. And let all Men of Candor and Understanding Witness between him and me, whether in his Book now under Consideration, and in his former Apology, there be not many for one of mine, of not only Personal Reflections on his Antagonist, but Reflections on the whole Party, without Distinction or Exception: and that by Imputing to them the Worst of Evils; and Treating them with the most Insolent Contempt that Words can express; as I have here and there observed, foreign: and the Reader may find presently after this his Complaint, viz. 332, 333, 334. The Authority that the Presbyter…ans had over she Church of Scotland, and consequently, over the Episcopal Clergy, I had Debated with him before. I need say no more, till he Answer what hath been already Discoursed on that Head. What he saith, p. 332. of his Resolution not to continue this Debate, if not managed by greater Candor and Civility, I do much approve: if he will put that Condition on himself too. If he, or any else, Write in his Strain: yea, if they bring not somewhat that is not yet Answered, and is of Weight. I think our Side will not Trouble them with more Arguings on this Head of Government: there is enough said, if Men will Listen to Argument; if they will not, what▪ is said, is too much. For my Part, I am weary of such Altercations; and shall not be easily drawn into this Paper War any more: th… ▪ I am Resolved, by the Help of God, never to Abandon the right Way of God, nor to withdraw my Poor Help from the Truth and O…dinances of Christ, when it shall be needed; and I shall be in any Capacity to a…ord …t

FINIS.

End of the text · Gilbert Rule, The Good Old Way Defended (1697)