Defense of Non-Conformity, Part 3 · Section 8

Defense of Non-Conformity · Part 3 · Section 8

p. 232SECT. VIII. The other Terms of Communion that they impose, considered.

I proceed now to attend the Learned Dr's Discourse, about thes… other Terms of Communion, that his Church imposeth, and we scruple: And first I take notice, that he chargeth his Answerers with remaining in Generals, and pretending that they judge, they esteem, the Terms of Communion unlawful; but bring no particular Arguments to prove the unlawfulness of them. He saith, Protestants do not do so when they charge the Church of Rome with unlawful Terms of Communion. The Answer to this is easie, 1. They were charged with Separation, and in answering the Dr's Sermon, acted the part of Defendants; it was enough for that de…ence, to plead that they did not Separate without good Ground, and to shew that they scrupled such and such Terms of Communion, imposed on them by the Church. It was not needful in this debate to resume all the Controversie about the Liturgy and Ceremonies. 2. Our Party have given abundant proof of the reasonableness of their scrupling at these things; the Books above mentioned against the Liturgy, and against the Ceremonies; Didoclavius, the Author of the Book, called the English Popish Ceremonies; Mr. Jeans Treasu…e out of Rubish, a Treatise of Divine Worship: English Puritanism. Twelve Arguments against Ceremonies: Smectymn. G. F. questions betwixt Conformists and Non-conformists, and many other pieces. There is so much said in these, and yet unanswered, that it was needless to repeat what is there said. I must be guilty of the same fault, if it be one; having at length disputed against the Ceremonies, and proved them to be unlawful to be used, in a Piece entituled, A Vindication of the Purity of Gospel Worship, against Mr. Geo…ge Ritchel, and others. I may without blame referr the Reader thither and not repeat what is there written; provided I leave nothing unanswered, that the Dr. hath here said on that Subject. 3. Our Party do not stand on equal Ground with the Dr. and his Party: Neither have we the liberty of the Press as they have, nor that immunity to speak out our Arguments; but we are ready to be concluded, by a Prison, instead of Arguments; but let not the Dr. think our Cause is laid low, because our Persons, and worldly Interests are so.

p. 241Sect. 2. He resumeth an Argument (out of his Sermon) against our Separating; that there ought to be no Separation, where there is agreement in Doctrine and Substantial parts of Worship; and that this Agreement is acknowledged in our case. He saith Mr. A. denyeth such Agreement both in Doctrine (of this I have given my judgment above, Part 2. S. 1. Section, 2. also in Substantial parts of Worship, and alledged the Cross in Baptism, to be a Substantial part of Worship: Hence the Dr. undertaketh, p. 335. 1. To shew what he meaneth by Substantial parts of Worship. 2. That the Cross is not made such. The Dr. seemeth to lay some weight on this distinction of parts of Worship, to wit; Substantial and Circumstantial, or Accidental; and alledgeth that many of us are misled, by not considering it. I much desire the clearing of it, and therefore resolve carefully to observe what he saith, and shall be ready to receive Light. He saith, that, The Nonconformists great Principle is, That what ever was any ways intended or designed for the Worship of God, was a Real and Substantial part of his Worship; and when their Adversaries told them, that Divine Institution was needful to make a part of Worship; they said, that made True Worship, but without it an Act might be Worship, that is, False Worship; and yet they allow'd the Application of common Circumstances to Acts of Worship. This Subject I have discoursed at large, in the Book above cited, cap. 3. sect. 1, 3, 4. But shall now a little consider, what representation the Dr. is pleased to make of our Principles. 1. I know no Nonconformist that ever asserted that all that was intended or designed for Worship, was Worship, either Real or Substantial; for they well know, that the Meeting-place, the Ministers Maintenance, the Pulpit, Communion-Table, &c. are designed for Worship, and yet are no Worship, Real nor Imaginary, Substantial nor Accidental, True nor False. If he mean by being designed for Worship; that the person doing such an Act, intendeth to Worship God by so doing (which I cannot take to be his meaning); I hope himself will acknowledg that though such a design is needful to make an act of Worship acceptable; yet Worship may be without it, else the three Children might have fallen down before the Image, keeping their intention to themselves, without the guilt of the external act of Idolatry.

Sect. 3. I observe here, 2. That the Dr. confoundeth his own distinction, by jumbling together the terms of Real and Substantial p. 242Worship: To real Worship, must be opposed that which is no Worship, or but such in imagination: To substantial Worship, must be opposed that which is circumstantial, or accidental Worship. This is as if we should distinguish Eus in substantiam, & accidens; and speaking of the first Member of the Division, call it, substantiam, or eus reale, which comprehendeth both substantia and accidens. Let the Dr. then tell us plainly, whether by substantial Worship, he mean all that is really Worship, or is truly Worship, Veritate Metaphysica, though it be not so, Veritate Theologica. And if this be his Meaning, what needed such a distinction of Worship? Had it not been as easie to deny the Ceremonies, in debate, to be Worship, or any part of Worship, as others of his Party do? What needed he blame the Non-conformists for want of Clearness and Distinction in this matter, when himself hath confounded it? I see no use of this his clear Notion, but to confound the debate, and hide the nakedness of his Cause. We say, the Ceremonies are parts of Worship, though false Worship; others of his Party say, they are no Worship, but meer Circumstances of Worship: The Dr. will clear the Matter, by telling us, That they are accidental Worship, but not real nor substantial Worship: Let any, that hath a cleer sight, judge, whether this be a clearing or a confounding of this Matter.

Sect. 4. The Dr. will now (p. 336.) seriously consider this Matter; because he designeth not to confute, but to convince the Non-conformists; and his work for this end, is, To find out a plain discernable Difference between substantial parts of Divine Worship, and meer accidental Appendices; and this, he saith, may more disintangle scrupulous Minds, than the multiplying of Arguments, to prove the Lawfulness of our Ceremonies. I doubt not of the Doctor's good design, in this debate, but he is not very like to attain it by such Methods, as is this proposing a distinction to clear the Subject in dispute, and then confound the Terms; and then at last, as he doth here, to over-turn it wholly; for here he calleth the Ceremonies, meer accidental Appendices of Worship; that is, no Worship, nor parts of Worship at all. But let him call them what he will, we strive not about Names; we maintain, that they are parts of Worship, (but parts of false Worship) and in such a Religious State, as nothing but the Institutions of Christ can lawfully have; in that they are used in Religion appropriated to it, designed for the Honouring of GOD by them, for the bettering of Religious Actions, and for p. 243the Religious end of edifying the Souls of them that use them: These Qualities are in the Ceremonies; and if these conjoined, do not make an Action to be Religious, and a part of Worship, (they belonging to no other part of Religion) I know not what can make a thing to be an Act of Worship; for to say, that nothing can be a Religious Act, but what hath Divine Institution, is to deny, that there can be such a thing as an external Act of Idolatry, or Superstition.

Sect. 5. In pursuance of this Enquiry, and to find out this plain and discernable difference between substantial parts of Worship, and accidental Appendices of it: The Dr. bringeth several things agreed on both sides; they are five in number; I shall not repeat them, nor except against them, save that I wish he had shewed in the Second of them, how these things under the Law, that by divine Institution, became parts of Worship, were of themselves Ritual, and Ceremonial: I rather think that without divine Appointment, it was unlawful to use them as Rites or Ceremonies in Gods Worship. He cometh now, Sect. 27. To find out the Marks of Distinction, to satisfie the Conscience of the Difference between Innocent Ceremonies, and superstitious parts of Divine Worship. Here is yet another Face of our Proteus-like distinction, but I wave that, finding that the Dr. cannot make it appear, that there is any part of Worship that is not substantial and real Worship; and that all that is a part of Worship, is, even by him, looked on as superstitious, if it be not appointed by divine Authority: For his Notion of Innocent Ceremonies, I apprehend not his Meaning by this Term, Accidental Appendices of Worship he calleth them before, which also needeth a Commentary. If he mean natural Circumstances, I know these may be very innocent, and yet not instituted: But a Ceremony (as I have shewed in the before cited Vindic. of Purit. C. 3. Sect. 3.) is properly a thing in Statu Religioso, or appropriate to Religion, but no natural part of Worship; and therefore I see not how it can be innocent, unless instituted: For accidental Appendices of Worship, if they be any thing beyond natural and necessary Circumstances determined by natural or civil Custome, I see not how these either can be innocent, unless instituted. I humbly conceive, the Dr. hath hitherto brought little light into this Controversie, but rather Darkness and Confusion.

Sect. 6. Seeing we cannot agree about these Notions, let us labour, if we can, to concert the thing. He telleth us of Two ways, p. 244by which Ceremonies may become parts of Worship; 1. By supposing them to be necessary, and pleasing to GOD, without a humane Law imposing them. 2. By supposing them unalterable. We need not debate with the Dr. whether things become parts of Worship, and so superstitious, when not instituted by these two ways or not: But all this Discourse is wide from the purpose, unless he make it appear, that no uninstituted thing can be a part of Worship, nor superstitious, but by one of these Two Means: Or if we can make it appear, that without both these Opinions of men, about the Things that they use in Worship, without Institution, they may be guilty of false Worship, or Superstition; which I here do briefly, because I have done it sufficiently, in the place cited against Mr. Ritshell, who objected the same thing, in defence of the Ceremonies, that the Dr. now doth. 1. If this were true, there could be no external Act of false Worship, without an Erroneous Opinion of the Mind; but that is absurd, for then a man, who, to shun Persecution, should fall down before an Idol, and in Words and Gestures, do all that Idolaters do, should not be guilty of the outward Act of Id…latry; yea, it would follow, that is, the Church should erect a Statue, and impose it as a necessary Term of Communion with her, that her Members should once a week kneel before that Statue, and pray to GOD, and then kiss that Statue, with a reverend Bow, when, mean while, the Church declareth that this is not commanded out of an Opinion that such kneeling, &c. is antecedently pleasing to GOD; nor that this their Command is unalterable, nor binding to all; nor that the things commanded, are unalterable, and so binding; but only the Church judgeth this decent and fit to adorn the other parts of Worship: I say in this case, this bowing, should be innocent Ceremony, and no Act of false Worship; which, I think, will hardly go down with the greatest Ceremony-Mongers: And, in a word, let us but receive this one Principle, that there is no false Worship without such Opinion, as he mentioneth; and men may do what they will, and the Church impose what she will, in the Worship of GOD, provided they keep a right Opinion about the nature of these things; so that it is no more our concern to look to Scripture, that we may learn how to order the external Worship of GOD, but to look to our Opinion, that it be not faulty: And by this means, there are few of the Ceremonies that ever Papists, or Heathens used, but a Church sound in the Faith, and in opinion about Superstition, p. 445might bring them into the Worship of GOD, which is to open the door for Ceremonial Worship a little too wide, in the opinion of most sound Divines.

Sect. 7. Another Exception I make against the Dr. Two ways, how an Act becometh superstitious, is, let them (especially the first of them) be applyed to our Ceremonies, and I doubt not, but even what himself hath said, might condemn them; for however the pliable People that use the Ceremonies, because commanded by the Church, and see no antecedent necessity, or goodness in them, may by this means be acquitted from Superstition; the Church that imposeth them, cannot be so innocent; for either the Church must have reason for this Imposition, or none, but, sic volo, sic jubeo, sit pro ratione Voluntas. The Latter, I hope, the Dr. will not say, lest by purging his Church of Superstition, he make her guilty of as great a Crime; to wit, being Lords over GOD's Heritage, and Church-Tyrants. If he say the Former, this Reason must be, that these things are needful, that they please GOD: No, say our Adversaries, the Churches Reason for imposing them, is, She thinketh them decent, and edifying: But doth she not think this Decency, and that Edification that is by them, to be antecedently pleasing to GOD, and needful for the Church? If she do not, she acteth by meer will; if she do, she is guilty of a superstitious opinion, in supposing uninstituted things in VVorship, to be pleasing to GOD, antecedentally to a humane Law; for if the use of them be pleasing to God, so must the things, out of which that usefulness doth result. And indeed, it may abundantly appear, to the Conviction of all unbyassed Men, what opinion of the necessity of these Ceremonies our Bishops have, when they appoint them by their Canons, impose them with Rigour and Severity, punish the Neglect of them with such Violence; and when they force them upon the Consciences of them, who agree with themselves in all things else; and when they make such distractions and divisions in the Church, rather than lay aside these things. Can any man of common sense, whose reason is not fetter'd by Prejudice and Interest, judge, that men who act so, have no opinion of the antecedent Goodness of the Ceremonies, or that they do not think them pleasing to God? He that thinketh otherwise, can think what he will.

Sect. 8. I come now to examine what the D…. saith in defence of these Two things, which he requireth to make an uncommanded Act in p. 246Worship to be superstitious. The 1st. is, That it be supposed to be necessary and pleasing to God, and the omission of it unpleasing to God, antecedently to a humane Law. All the proof that he bringeth of what he saith, is, that the Observations that Christ condemned in the Pharisees, had no other evil in them, nor were condemned on any other account, but because of this Opinion that they had about them, (as Grocius observeth) that Touching any thing unclean, by Law, did communicate uncleanness to Soul and Body, and that Washing did cleanse both; on which supposition, they thought this Washing pleasing to God. Three things I here reply, before I come to answer the Drs. Proofs of this his Allegation. 1. All this is nothing to our purpose, unless it can be made appear that Christ condemneth only their erroneous Opinion, and not the… Practise; or that they might Lawfully have added these Religious observations, to these that the Lord had appointed in his Law, provided they had no opinon of the antecedent necessity of the things which is so far from being proved, that the Contrary is evident, for our Lord doth expresly Condemn the observing of these things Mark, 7. 8. Ye hold the Tradition of men, as the Washing of Pots and Cups, and many other such things do ye. Their Doing, not their Thinking only, is condemned; Will any man say, that if any of the Pharisees should have laid aside that Opinion that the Dr. imputeth to them, and look'd on these observations, as of no necessity, antecedent to the Tradition of the Elders; and yet observed them Carefully and Religiously, that such a one had sufficiently complyed with Christ's Doctrine? no, surely, for the Controversy between the Disciples and Pharisees, was not about Thinking, but about Doing; the Disciples not only were not of their Opinion, but abstained from their Practice.

Sect. 9. It is evident from Galat. 4. 9, 10. that the Apostle condemneth the observation of the old Jewish Ceremonies, though it is clear, that he is mainly disputeing against their opinion of Justification by works, and these among other works; yet this doth not hinder the practice of these, abstracted from that opinion to be evil, it being expresly condemned; wherefore it is not enough that our practice, in Gods Worship, be not built on a bad opinion; but it self must have warrant from God. 2. Christ in that debate is mainly dealing with the Imposers of these Ceremonies, the Pharisees, who continued that Yoak on the People, that their Ancestors had laid on them; and therefore it is no wonder that he took notice of a perverse opinion in them, which moved them so to impose on the People, whereas the people that obeyed, might be moved only by the authority of their Guides; hence p. 247he calleth them their Traditions, because they continued them, and put new life in them, by their Authority. The parallel then still holdeth between our Case and theirs, as they behoved to have some undue esteem of these washings that made them Impose them with the same (yea more) Zeal than that with which they enjoyned the Ordinances of God; so there must be in our Church-Guides, some apprehension of Good in the Ceremonies more than is meet, that maketh them not only intermix them with Divine Worship, but impose them with equal (if not superiour) Zeal, with the Ordinances of God. 3. Any variation of their opinion about their Washings, from our opinion about our Ceremonies, that can be observed, ariseth from the difference that is between their Church and Ordinances, and ours; and so cannot make their imposition unlawful, if ours be lawful; for God had appointed Washings, for removing of Ceremonial uncleanness, which affected both Soul and Body; to wit, at the touching of the Dead, or any unclean thing; and all … Jews knew, that antecedently to the Command, no uncleannes… …ould be contracted by these Touches, nor removed by these Washings. The Rabbies, in the Apostate State of that Church, added such like observations to Gods, out of a desire of more ample strictness, and that their purity might be more conspicuous; knowing well, that before the Command, these things were in the same state, that the other things were in, before God's Command. Just so doth our Church; God hath instituted some Ceremonies for his own Honour, and Edification of his People; so as we all know, that antecedently to his command, they were indifferent things, as Water, Bread, and Wine; and the Church not content with these, add some other Ceremonies, for further honouring of God; to wit, making his Worship more decent, and further edification, stirring up the dull minds of men; yet protesting, that antecedently to their command, these things are indifferent. Is not here an exact parallel; if it be said, that the Rabbies thought the things that they enjoyned, to be comprehended under God's commanded Worship, before they enjoyned them; this is denyed, and the contrary is evident, from Christ's Reasoning with them; he all along maketh a distinction between God's Command, and their Tradition: which they might easily have objected against, if they had pretended a Command of God, for the things that they by Tradition imposed.

p. 248Sect. 10. In order to the proving his Opinion in this matter, he saith, p. 339. that, the Reason of Christ's opposing the Pharisees was, not because a thing in it self unnecessary was determined by their Superiors, but because of the superstitious opinion that the Pharisees had about these Washings. Here is a wrong state of the Question hinted; we never quarrelled with superiours for determining a thing in it self unnecessary; we know they may determine this Time, and that Place of Worship, and yet neither of these in it self is necessary, seeing another time or place may do as well. But the Question is, whether Superiors may determine a thing, that is not at all needful to be determined? as the Habit, Gesture, &c. and appropriate this their determination to Religious Worship, that so it shall be done in Worship, though it be not so done in other Actions; and this without warrant from the Lord, whom we Worship. His Proofs, that the Pharisees were condemned only because of their superstitious opinion (and if this only be not understood by the Dr. he speaketh not to the point in hand) are two. From the force of our Saviour's Reasoning: Thus then he argue… ▪ p. 340. He proveth that they set up their Tradition above the Law of God; as in the Vow Corban. (The force of which Argument extendeth to all that they observed, because of the Tradition of their Ancestors) therefore they thought these things pleasing to God, and that mens Consciences were strictly obliged to observe them. This is the sum of the Drs. Argument. To which the Answer is obvious; to wit, that this doth not at all prove, that the Pharisees thought these things obliging, antecedently to their Tradition, which is the only thing in Question; Christ's Reasoning proveth no more, but that they had an undue esteem of their own Authority, and did (upon the matter) equal it with, if not prefer it, to that of God; by laying such stress on things that stood meerly on their Authority; but he doth not so much as hint, that they thought these things antecedently obligeing, or that the omitting of them would have defiled the Conscience, though there had been no such Tradition. Is not our Case parallel to theirs in this? VVe say, the Ceremonies oblige not, there is no Sin in not observing them, nor Indecency in not using them, antecedently to the Law; so did the Pharisees of their Washings; and if they were Zealous for their Washings, are not ye so, to as great a degree, for your Ceremonies when imposed? what disobedience, ungovernableness, contempt of the Worship of God, and indecency in it, are we charged with? and p. 249we are prosecuted with more rigour for neglect of these, than others are for the highest Immoralities. Is not this to prefer your Tradition to God's Law? Do not ye make void the Law of God, neglecting Love, studying Unity, Mercy, &c. for these your Traditions?

Sect. 11. But saith the Dr. The Pharisees thought a mans Conscience defiled, if he did not observe the Traditions, as appears by Christ's subsequent Discourse, shewing what it is that defileth a man, and what not. A. This they thought, only because they had put these things in that state, by their Tradition, but never taught that these things would have defiled the man if there had been no such Tradition; and do not our Brethren think, that omitting the Ceremonies now injoyned, defileth a man? Do they not think the Non-conformists have need of Repentance and Pardon for their Non-conformity: If they think not so, why do they so blame, and prosecute them? The Dr. concludeth, p. 341. That the main thing in question, was, whether this Ceremony of washing hands, could be omitted without defileing the Conscience, otherwise, saith he, our Saviour's Conclusion doth not reach the Question. This is a great Mistake (though it were no hazard to our Cause to grant it) for this Question was but consequential to another; to wit, Whether the Church had power to institute Ceremonies, such as Christ had not instituted; and then charge People with sin, and not keeping a good Conscience, for not observing them: This was the main Question, as appeareth by his reproving them for making such Traditions, and for bringing the Commandments of men into God's Worship: Our Saviours Conclusion that he speaketh of; to wit, his discourse about what defileth a man, is not the thing he first intended to prove; to wit, by his reproving them for their Traditions; for the Conclusion of that Argument, is, That men ought not to teach for Doctrines, the Comman…ments of men, i. e. institute in Worship, what Christ hath not instituted: But this discourse, about what defileth a man, is a Consequence drawn from that Conclusion; to wit, That things, so forbidden, may be forborn without sin; and that it is transgressing of God's Command, not of mans, that defileth the Conscience; wherefore there is no ground for what the Dr. saith, that Christ condemned them, not meerly with respect to the Command of Superiours, (understand a Command of Superiours bringing into the Worship of God, what was not instituted by God; otherwise, it reacheth not our Question) for condemning the Traditions of p. 250men, is a condemning meerly with respect to the Command of Superiors, in that sense.

Sect. 12. This next Proof is from the general sense of the Jews, p. 342. for this he sheweth, That Mr. A. himself quoteth several Passages of the Talmudists, to prove, That they equalled their Traditions, with the Commands of God; and h…nce inferreth, that this was not look't …n as an indifferent Ceremony, but as a thing, whose omission brought guilt on the Conscience. The former Answer doth fully take away the force of all that he here discourseth; to wit, the Jews thought the Conscience defiled by such omission, after the thing was imposed by the Authority of the Church, not before; so our Prelatists in reference to the Ceremonies. Wherefore, Mr. A. is far from overturning all the rest of his Discourse, by this one saying, as the Dr. alleadgeth. I well know, what Sanctity the Rabbies placed in the strict Observance of these things, and therefore I contradict none of his Citations out of them: But all this Sanctity they founded, not only natural, or antecedent goodness of the things observed, but on the great duty of Obedience to the Orders of the Church, in which our Brethren are not much inferiour to them. He telleth us, that they said, Whosoever disesteemeth this Custom, deserveth not only Excommunication, but Death too: and what less do the Prelatists say of omitting the Ceremonies, except that it is not yet made death by the Law; though the cruel usage that many have met with on this account, hath brought them to their death. I could tell you of Rabbies in the Church of E…gland, that talk as high against not observing the Ceremonies, as ever the Jewish Rabbies did against not observing their Washings. He admireth, p. 344. That Mr. A. would make People believe, that this was no more but an indifferent Ceremony among the Jews, and required for Order and Decency, as our Ceremonies are. A. He need not admire, for none of us say so of that Washing, when imposed; and he cannot prove that it was any other but indifferent to them before imposition, as our Ceremonies are. That washing was not imposed for Order and Decency, as our Ceremonies are; a Reason of the difference is already given; to wit, That it was an addition to Christ's Ceremonies, for taking away Uncleanness: Ours are an addition to Christ's Institution, for honouring Him, and edifying of Souls.

Sect. 13. He proceedeth, Sect. 28. to enlarge and enforce this Truth, by considering the Popish Ceremonies, and their opinion of washing away Sin, and Justification by them. And for this, he p. 251citeth many Authors, all which pains might have been spared: For this Argument doth not at all differ from what he hath said abou… the Jews opinion of their Washings, and needeth no other Answer. All the Efficacy that Papists attribute to their Ceremonies, is consequent to, and dependent on, their being injoyned by the Church: None of them say, that they have such Efficacy in themselves, and that they attribute, taking away of sin, to them, ariseth from the opinion they have of the Merit of good Works, which the Church of England doth not maintain. The Church of England maketh them good Works, but denieth their Merit; because she denieth that, even to the Works that God hath commanded: The Papists do but make them good Works also, and that they think them meritorious, is from this their opinion, that all good Works are such, and not from an opinion that they can do such Feats by any power in themselves, without Institution. They ascribe spiritual Effects to them, saith he; so do you to your Ceremonies; as, stirring up of dull Minds, engaging the Soul to God, &c. I think the Cross hath no more Efficacy for this, without a Divine Institution, that it has to drive away Devils, as the Papists alledge Amesius ought not to have been charged with disingenuity, by the Doctor, on this ground. He doth not equal the Evil of the English Ceremonies, with these of Rome, but that this Church hath no more power to make them Religious Rites, than that hath to make them Causes of Grace. He telleth us, pag. 346. That our Church receiveth them no otherwise, than as purged from Popish Superstition; and for this, citeth Praef. to Common-Prayer, and Can. 30. Answer. Neither the Dr. nor his Church will be condemned, if they may be their own Judges; it is Amicum Testimonium. I confess they have purged out much Popish Superstition out of them, but to purge out all, is impossible: The things themselves, as stated in the Worship of God, without His Institution, being such: Whatever the Dr. hath gained to his Cause, by this Discourse, our Cause gaineth from it a good Argument against the Ceremonies; viz. That these things (being unnecessary in themselves) that have been so grosly abused to Idolatry and Superstition, ought not to be brought into God's Worship, by them who abhor that way; nor indeed, can they without much scandal: But of this, and other Arguments, I have treated elsewhere.

Sect. 14. His second way, how Ceremonies become parts of Divine Worship, he hath, pag. 347. viz. If they be supposed to be unalterable, and obligatory to the Consciences of all Christians: And p. 252this he purgeth the Church of England from: What is already said, doth abundantly refute this; for I have shewed that Ceremonies may be parts (tho bad ones) of Worship, without this, and the former too. And indeed, if this were necessary to make them parts of Worship, none of the Popish Ceremonies were such; for the Pope will not part with his Power of altering the Worship of God, as he pleaseth, more than the English Convocation will▪ And I believe, there was never Church in the world, that held, That she could injoyn what God had not injoyned, unalterable, and so as to bind all Christians. But still the Doctor (as his Cause doth necessitate every Defender of it to do) maketh an Inconsistency and Irreconcileableness between the opinion of the Church about the Ceremonies, and their Practice, in reference to them: If they be alterable, why will ye rather ruine your Brethren, hazard Souls, rend the Church, than alter them? If they bind not our Consciences, why do ye charge us with Sin, for refusing them? If they bind not all men, why is the Worship of other Churches so cryed out upon, by many of your Church?

Sect. 15. The Reverend Dr. cometh now, Sect. 29. to examine the Charge against the Church, and bringeth the Arguments of his Adversaries, that tend to prove the Ceremonies to be parts of Worship, and answereth them. It is here to be observed, that the Arguments that he mentioneth, are but some of many, that we use against the Ceremonies: And these, not they that are most directly against them. Mr. A. Argueth thus: An outward visible Sign of inward invisible Grace, whereby a Person is dedicated to a Profession of, and Subjection to the Redeemer, is a substantial part of Worship. The Dr. Answereth: An outward visible Sign, representing between men, the duty or engagement of another, is no part, much less a substantial part of Worship. I know not how this answereth the Argument, or to what end it is brought; for the Argument speaketh of a Sign dedicating us to the Redeemer, the answer of one mans duty to another. I also wonder that the Dr. who a little above confounded a real and substantial part of VVorship, should distinguish between some part of it, which is all one with a real part, and a substantial part.

For further Answer, the Dr. distinguisheth a three-fold Sign: 1. Representing Gods Grace to us, as Sacraments. 2. Representing mens subjection to God, these are parts of Worship. 3. Signs from men to men, to repres…nt some other thing, beside the bare Action, and these p. 253are significant Ceremonies, such as is the Cross in Baptism, He saith that, after the child is Baptised, the Cross is used in token that he shall not be ashamed to confess the Faith of Christ Crucified. This sign is made not to God, even as the Primitive Christians used the sign of the Cross as a declarative sign to man; it in Baptism representeth the Duty, not the Grace; that is ours, and we appoint the sign for it; this God's, and he must appoint the sign for it.

Sect. 16. To this his Answer, I repone. 1. Sacraments do not only represent Gods Grace to us, but our Duty to him; for they are Seals of the Covenant, and the Covenant is mutual containing a Promise of Grace from God, and our duty to Him; wherefore, a Sacrament, as it Sealeth both, doth also Represent both. I wonder that the Learned Dr. for the sake of a few paultery Ceremonies, should thus mangle the use of the Sacraments of the New Testament, when he cannot otherwise defend these Ceremonies; but what will not men do or say to serve a design? 2. Signs representing our Duty to God; are parts of Worship, he acknowledgeth; he meaneth representing to God that which is our Duty. Now the Dr. should have told us what are these Signs that represent our Duty to God; it is like, he meaneth Prayer, Praises, and such like; but these do not so much represent to God our Duty, as offer it, or pay it to him: when I pay money to a man that I owed him; this is not a sign representing the mony to him which is his due, but a giving of it to him: And indeed, we cannot without a very unfit Catachresis be said to represent to God, by a sign, what is our Duty. For, Signum (as Augustine defineth it) est res praeter speciem quam sensibus ingerit aliud aliquid ex se faciens in cognitionem venire. And all acknowledge, that it is essential to the notion of a sign, to bring one to the knowledge of somewhat, which cannot be applyed to God who knoweth all things actually, and intuitively, at all times; beside, that a sign is a sensible thing, and Senses are not to be ascribed to God, and therefore God knoweth not any thing by signs.

Sect. 17. 3. His thoughts seem to run very muddy in managing this distinction; especially in explaining the third member of it, Signs from men to men, representing some other thing than the bare Action. VVhat meaneth he by this last Clause? do not all Signs represent somewhat beside the bare Action, or beside themselves? so that he here describeth his third Member of his distinction, by the general notion of the thing distinguished, which is a great error p. 254in Logick. 4. Signs are rather to be distinguished by their Original, which giveth them a signification, or maketh them representative, than by the persons to whom they hold forth what they signify; for every Sign doth represent the thing signified by it, to all that can discern. Hence all who treat of Signs, use to distinguish them in natural, customary and instituted, as having their power to signify, or represent somewhat, either from their nature, or from custom, or from institution, or they will of the Imposer of the signification; and this last sort they make to be Divine, when they are appointed by God for their use of signifying or representing somewhat, or Humane, when they are appointed by man. This distinction of Signs giveth some light, but I know no use of the Drs. new Coined distinction, but to confound the matter and serve a design. Now the Sacraments are Signs instituted by God to represent his Grace, and our Engagement, and this is represented to our selves, and to all the world; the other duties wherein we express our subjection to, and dependance on God before all the world, and offer up our acknowledgments of these to him; these are also appointed by him, and so are parts of VVorship that are acceptable to him; for the Ceremonies, they are meerly humane Signs, appointed by man, and therefore they are not acceptable VVorship; but that they are parts of VVorship, is not from their Original, but from the Religious state that they are placed in; they are Solemn Actions, done in and with the Solemn VVorship of God, and so appropriated to it, as that they are not done but in it; they have all that could make an external act of VVorship, except Divine institution; they are designed for the same uses with true VVorship; viz. Honouring God, and Edifying Men. On these Accounts they are to be accounted parts of VVorship, and want of God's appointment doth not hinder that, otherwise there could be no false VVorship, neither can their signifying to man, what they do signify, hinder it; for the true VVorship of God doth that as hath been said.

Sect. 18. 5. The Dr. seemeth to lay some weight on this, that the Cross is used after Baptism; but he will not deny; 1. That it is used immediately after it, or rather conjoyned with it, as near as two actions can be to one another. Nor, 2. VVill he deny that it is included in, and not used after the complex action of Baptism, which taketh in Instruction about the nature of Baptism, Prayer and Thanksgiving; it is not after all this, and so it is stated p. 255in, and mixed with this solemn piece of Religious VVorship, and therefore must be a religious thing; it cannot possibly be a civil right under such circumstances. 6. It was to no purpose to mention here the Antients use of the sign of the Cross, for that was in War, or other civil Actions, which could have no appearance of making it a Religious Ceremony. 7. That the Cross in Baptism representeth the Duty, and not the Grace of Subjection to the Redeemer, doth not hinder it to be a Sacramental Sign; (though we never thought it a Sign of Grace, as the Sacraments are) for Sacraments represent, also our Duty, as hath been shewed; and its being so conjoyned with the Sacrament; maketh a shew as if men would by it represent that Grace by which we must subject our selves to the Redeemer, which yet they cannot do. VVhen men take upon them to add a new Sign to the Sacramental Sign instituted by Christ, for representing the one half of what is represented by Christ's Sign; viz. one part of the Covenant there sealed which is subjection to, and owning of the Redeemer, and put this their sign, in the same Religious state with Christ's Sign, so as there is no difference between them, but the Authority by which they are instituted; it may be warrantably said that they make a Sacramental Sign, and that they make a new Sacrament as far as man can make it. 8. That we may devise a Sign to represent the Duty in Baptism, because the Duty is ours, as God appointeth the Sign to represent the Grace, because that is his, is a strange assertion; for that is to allow man an equal share with God in instituting a Sacrament, in which both the Grace of God, and the Duty of Man, or his engagement to his Duty, are sealed, and represented. If Ceremonies must have such Divinity to defend them, I shall be less in love with them than before.

Sect. 19. He denyeth, p. 349. that the Cross in Baptism, is intended by the Church as a Sign of immediate Dedication to God, but of Obligation on the person, and laboureth to clear the thirtieth Canon, asserting the contrary, which saith, that by it the Infant is dedicated to the service of him who died on the Cross. VVhat he saith for vindicating this Canon, is, that Baptism is compleat before Crossing, and so it is no part of Baptismal dedication; and that, the Minister Baptiseth in the Name of Christ, but signeth with the Cross in the name of the Church, who by that Rite, receiveth the Infant into their number; and thus understanding the use of the Cross, he saith, all the difficulties about dedicating, covenanting Symbolical Sacramental Signs, will appear to be of no force. Answer, 1. The Dr. would say something, p. 256by mentioning Immediate D…dication: and if what he intendeth by it be to the purpose, it must be, that the Church may not institute a Sign, whereby one is Immediately dedicated to God; but they may institute one, whereby he is Immediately dedicated to God: Now if the Dr. had given any hint of a ground for this distinction, or to shew that the one is more lawful than the other, he would have obliged us; but that not being done his implyed distinction is to be rejected as without all ground. 2. A Sign of Obligation of the Person to dedicate himself to the Redeemer, used in a piece of Gods solemn Worship, and appropriated to that Worship, is by its Signification, its End, its concomitant Circumstances, so stated, as the using of that Sign cannot but be a Religious Act, and so a part of God's VVorship, which (as the Dr. himself confesseth) needeth Divine Institution, and cannot lawfully be appointed by the Church. 3. I wonder why the Dr. should endeavour to vindicate that Canon that he citeth, from meaning what it expresly saith; viz. that by the sign of the Cross, the Infant is dedicated to the service of him who Died on the Cross; it is impossible to shun expounding this of a dedicating Sign without doing the greatest violence Imaginable to the plain words, neither is there the least shadow of ground, to think, that Immediate dedication is not here meant, seeing the Infant is said to be dedicated by this Sign, without the least hint of any intervenient dedicating sign, or cause between the sign, and that which the Dr. will call Immediate Dedication. 4. VVhen he saith the Cr…ssing is no part of Baptismal dedication, the meaning must be, it is not a part of D…dication by that Sign that Christ appointed; viz. Baptising in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, none doubteth of that; but how doth this shew that it is no dedicating sign, as the Canon saith; or no immediate dedicating sign, as the Dr. alledgeth: It is a sign devised by men, to dedicate the Infant, added to the sign appointed by God for the same end. Now our Question is, VVhat warrant have men for making such an Addition to so great an Ordinance of God? 5. The next thing for vindicating the Canon is, that the Minister Baptiseth in the Name of Christ; but Signeth in the Name of the Church, is as little for his purpose: for who gave the Church Power to Institute a dedicating Sign to be Administer'd in her name, and set it up by Christ's dedicating Sign, to be Administer'd in his Name? This seemeth to be an addition to Christ's Ordinance, and a reflection on it as imperfect; as if the Child were not sufficiently dedicated to the Redeemer by Christ's Sign that he hath Instituted for that End. p. 2576. It doth least of all vindicate the Canon, which he addeth; to wit, that by it (the sign of the Cross) the Church receiveth the Infant into their number; for this is a quite other thing than the Canon saith; and to make that the meaning of the Canon, is to take a liberty to impose what meaning upon it he pleaseth. Let the Reader now judge, whether by any thing that he hath said, all the difficulties about Dedicating, Covenanting, Symbolical, Sacramental signs, do appear to be of no force.

Sect. 20. He asketh, page 350. Why may not the Church appoint such a rite of admission of one of her Members, declaring it to be no part of Baptism? Answer. The Church hath not appointed it as a rite of admission of a Member, but a rite of dedicating the Person to Christ as hath been shewed. And the reason why he may not do it, is, because Christ hath already done it sufficiently: He hath appointed Baptism both for dedicating the Person to himself, and for admitting him into his Church: Therefore men ought not to contrive their signs for that end, which he hath abundantly provided for, by his own means. Another reason why this may not be done, is, because this sign is so stated in the Word of God, by being done in the Solemn Exercise of it, for a Religious end; and appropriated to this Religious Exercise, that it cannot be otherwise lookt on than as a piece of Gods Worship. He parallelleth this with holding up the hand, in an Independent-Church presently after Baptism, as a sign of admission into that particular Church. Answer, 1. I know no warrant for such an admitting rite, Baptism is sufficient to make one a Member of Christs Church, and that maketh one a Member of any particular Church, where Providence casteth his lot. 2. If Independents should state this admitting rite in the very Solemnity of Baptism, before the complex action be finished, they were to be blamed, but they do not so; they make an observable difference as to time, and other circumstances, between these two actions. 3. Signing with the Cross, is not a meer admitting sign into a particular Church, as shall afterward be discoursed, but also a dedicating sign; as the Canon expresly saith, and therefore this parallel is null.

Sect. 21. He next blameth Mr. B. for supposing, that the Minister signing the Child, speaketh in the Name of Christ, or as his Officer, and saith, it is evident that he doth it in the Name of the Church; because he saith, We receive him into the Congregation of Christs Flock, and do sign him, &c. Answer, It is not material to our debate, which of the Two be said; for the question is, Whether p. 258the Church hath power to appoint a sign for dedicating a person to Christ, when he hath already appointed a sign for that end? We desire to see a warrant for the Churches appointing Dedication to Christ by her sign, to be done in her name; after the person is already dedicated by Christs sign, and in His name. If he say the Church only appoints him to be received by this sign into her number; and that may be done in her name. I answer, by Christs sign that is also done, by Baptism the person is admitted as a Member of Christs Flock. But beside this, it is evident, that by the sign of the Cross is not intended bare admission as a Member of the Church; but dedicating of the person to Christ, not only from the plain words of the Canon, of which already, but by what followeth in the words used at the signing; which are, We receive him into the number of Christs Flock, and do sign him with the sign of the Cross, in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the Faith of Christ Crucified, and manfully to fight under his banner against Sin, the World, and the Devil, and to continue Christs faithful Souldier and Servant, unto his lives end, Amen. Will any man say that this is meer admission, as a Member of the Church, or into the Church of England; and that no more is intended by these words? Is it not made a sign of our Covenant, or Engagement to the same duties that we are engaged to by Baptism? To wit, all the duties that the Covenant of grace bringeth us under the Obligation of. The absurdity of this notion; to wit, that Crossing is meerly an admitting sign, will yet further appear, if we consider, that in the same office of Baptism, used by the Church of England, the Minister having put the God-fathers in mind of Christs promise to the Infant to be baptised, he is to say: Wherefore after this promise made by Christ, these Infants must also faithfully for their part promise by you that be their sureties, that they will forsake the Devil, and all his works, and constantly believe Gods Holy Word, and obediently keep his Commandments: This is the baptismal Dedication. I hope that will not be denied: Now, is not the Cross used to betoken our obligation to the very same things? And therefore it must be a dedicating Sign, as well as Baptism. And it may as well be said, that Baptism is meerly a rite of admission into the Church, as that is such.

Sect. 22. He telleth us, page 351. that all publick admissions into Societies have some Ceremonie; belonging to them. That we deny not, and therefore Christ hath made Baptism the Ceremony for Solemn admitting the Members of his Church; which he having done, p. 259how dare any take upon them to invent new rites for that end? As Baptism (saith the Doctor) is a rite of admission into Christs Catholick Church, so is the sign of the Cross into our Church of England, in which this Ceremony is used, with…ut prescribing to other Churches.

This now, is the fine new Notion, for the sake of which, all the foregoing discourse is designed: The Dr. deserveth the honour of inventing it; for I do not find that ever any had thought of it before: But I doubt it will prove but a Mouse brought forth by the long labour, and hard throws of a Mountain. I shall here remind the Reader of what I have observed already, Part 2. Sect. 1. Sect. 9. that by this one Notion, the Dr. destroyeth the great design of his Book; which is to charge them with separation; most of whom he here doth implicitely, and by necessary consequence, acknowledge never to have been Members of the Church of England; they never having been signed with the Cross: For if they never were Members, they were not capable of separation, more than another Mans Leg can be said to be cut off from my body, to which it never was united. 2. This to be the use of the sign of the Cross was never declared by the Church, but the quite contrary; as is evident from what is already cited, both out of the Thirtieth Canon, and out of the Office of Baptism, both which are the authentick Writings of the Church; wherefore this is to be lookt on as but one Doctors Opinion; and we are to take the scope, and meaning of the Churches Ceremonies from her own declaration, and not from the thoughts of any one man, when he is streightned in defending of these rites. 3. I ask the Dr. if we who never were yet signed with the Cross, should be willing now to join as Members of the Church; and to submit to all her terms of Communion, whether must we be signed with the Cross at our admission? The same may be enquired concerning any Baptized in France, Scotland, or any other Church. I suppose he will not own such Crossing, I am sure it was never heard of; if he say, it is not to be done, How do these become Members of the Church? The Independents will require some token of owning their Church-Covenant, even where it is not joined with Baptism, why then do not the Church of England, (for the Dr. parallelleth these two admissions into the Church) require this Crossing out of Baptism, if it be meerly a sign of admission into the Church of England? 4. If the Church, and the Dr. too, and all the Divines that Write in defence of the Church, would declare never so often that this is the use, and the only use of Crossing, all this could not satisfy, as long as the words used with it, and the Religious State in which it is by their practice sixed, do make the contrary apparent.

p. 260Sect. 23. Mr. Bs. allowing some Religious use of the sign of the Cross, his Brethren do not approve; yet his argument is good against the use of the Cross as a dedicating, or common professing sign of Baptized Persons; to wit, that God hath appointed Sacraments for that end: Then the Dr. answereth; True, but not only for that end, but to be means and instruments of conveying grace to men; for which God o…ly ought to appoint means. Reply, 1. It is not enough that men do not appoint other means beside Christs for all the ends that they are appointed for; but they ought not to appoint other means for any of these ends; because Christs means are sufficient for all the ends that they are appointed for: Sacraments are not only sufficient to signify Gods promise of giving grace, but also to signify our engagement to perform duty: Wherefore we ought not to add new signs for the one, more than for the other▪ 2. The sign of the Cross is intended as a mean and instrument of conveying grace to men: Ergo, ex concessis, it is unlawful to be appointed by men. The antecedent I prove, for the Church maketh her Ceremonies to stir up the dull minds of men; and this in particular, to be a token that h…reafter the party baptized shall not be ashamed of Christ; therefore it must be a mean of stirring up one to own Christ; and is not this the very use of Baptism? What difference is there, but that the one is a mean appointed by God for conveying the grace that he hath promised; the other is a mean appointed by man for the same end?

Sect. 24. The Dr. chargeth the Church of Rome with Insolence, in appointing Rites for applying the Merits of Christ; and saith, This is the only possible way for a Church to make new Sacraments. Answer, Though we have many other Arguments against the Ceremonies, than that they are Sacraments of mens making; yet we will not pass even from that Argument. The Drs. assertion … false; for a Sacrament is a visible Sign of inv…si…le Grace …nd if men appoint signs of their own, for representing or conveying Grace, they make new Sacraments; tho' they do not intend by these to apply Christs Merit: Sacraments are for applying the Spirit of Christ, as well as for applying the Merit of Christ; and therefore if men pretend to make signs for the one, tho' not for the other, they make new Sacraments. We do not say, that every significant Custom in a Church is to pass for a new Sacrament, as the Dr. would make us say: Sitting at the Sacrament, putting off the hat in Prayer, &c. (which he paralleth with the Ceremonies, are quite of another nature, being Actions made sit by civil Custom, and for their fitness, used in, worship, but not appropriated to it. Mr. B. objecteth against p. 261the Cross, being a bare Rite of admission; that the obligation is to the Common Duties of Christianity. The Dr. Answereth; And is not every Church-Member bound to perform these? How this Answereth the Objection, I see not: For the Question, is not what Church-Members are obliged to, but when Christ hath appointed a Sacramental sign, to represent the common duties of Christianity; whether the Church may appoint another sign for the same end, and join that sign with Christ's sign, to be performed with it, with the same Solemnity, and in the same Office of divine worship? He saith that, To shew that Crossing is a solemn Rite of Admission, the Church alloweth it to be forborn in private Baptism. Answer, 1. This only sheweth it to be a solemn action, not that it is a solemn rite of admission; for all this, it may be a solemn Sacrament, or a solemn piece of other worship. 2. This allowance of the Church doth quite cross the Drs. Conceit of its being a Rite of admission into the Church of England; for if it were so look't on, the Church would rather injoin it then, because without it, the person baptised, should not at all be admitted into the Church, and so be no Member of it; and surely the Rite of administration to the Church, is more needful, where admission into the universal Church; to wit, Baptism is more questionable, whether it hath been done or not, as in private Baptism, than where it is publick and known to all. To Mr. B's. Objection, That Christs Sacraments or Symbols are sufficient, and therefore we need not devise more. He Answereth, If it be lawful, the Church is to judge of the Expediency, and to appoint other Rites that do not encroach on the Institutions of Christ, by challenging any effect peculiar to them, is no charging them with insufficiency. Reply, 1. Mr. B. and others assert, and prove the unlawfulness of these Rites, as the Dr. well knoweth; wherefore he might well have expounded, We need not devise, by, We ought not devise. 2. There are other ways how mens Rites may encroach on Christ's Institutions, than by challenging any effect peculiar to them, when as they are appropriated to Religion, used in, or amidst Religious Exercises, and for Religious Ends. 3. Dedicating a person to God, engaging the Soul to own Christ, and such like, are effects peculiar to Christ's Institutions; for they are instituted for these ends, and nothing else hath any efficacy that way, being destitute of the promise of a Blessing: Wherefore, even on that account, and by his own Confession, our Ceremonies import a charging of God's Ordinances with insufficiency.

Sect. 25. The rest of his debate with Mr. B. pag. 353, 354. I wave, it being ad hominem, only on a principle of Mr. B's. that I p. 260duplicate page p. 261duplicate page p. 262allow not. He pleadeth against Mr. B. pag. 355. that the sign of the Cross, if it had Christ's Institution, would be a Sacrament; because then it should have promises annexed, and the nature of it quite changed, and the Minister should sing in Christ's Name not in the Church's. Answer. The Nature of it would be then changed, no doubt, because it would be a true Sacrament, and have the annexed Blessing; but there would be no other Change from what it now is, than what dependeth upon the Authority, by which it is instituted. But that doth not hinder it to be now a Mock Sacrament, and to have as much of a Sacrament as is possible, without divine institution. The Ministers signing now in the name of the Church, which he then would do in the Name of Christ, saith no more, but that in the one case it is Christ's Ordinance, but in the other case it is Mans Ordinance, but doth not hinder it in that case, to be a humane Sacrament. Whether Mr. B. do misrepresent the Popish Doctrine, about the efficacy of Sacraments, or not (which the Doctor by many Testimonies endeavoureth to prove, pag. 357, 358.) is not much to our business. The Doctor saith, That if by the Protestant Doctrine, the Sacraments do at all convey Grace, whatever way it be done, it sheweth that the sign of the Cross-can never be advanced to that Dignity; since, in no sence it is held to be an Instrument for conveying of Grace. Answer. It is true, it is by this excluded from being a true Sacrament: But it may, for all that, be a false Sacrament; for though it be not their opinion, that it conveyeth Grace, yet it is by them held to be a mean of stirring up the mind, and engaging the Soul to these Acts, to which, nothing but the Grace of God can effectually help a person. I hope the Doctors Conclusion of this debate with Mr. B. may now appear to be groundless; to wit, That this Phrase of a new Sacrament is groundless, and only invented to amuse People: Neither can I understand what sort of people these should be, who have been satisfied against all the other Arguments (which he calleth conveying their prejudices) and have so stuck at this stumbling block; for we bring many Arguments against the Ceremonies, that more weight is to be laid on, though this wanteth not its force.

Sect. 26. The Dr. is pleased, Sect. 32. to engage in a debate with Mr. A. about bowing at the Name of Jesus, and counts opposing it; a blow at the Church. If the Dr. would have defended this Ceremony, he should have answered what is of purpose, learnedly and solidly written against it by Mr William Wicken, and twelve arguments against it by another hand; and not satisfied himself with answering some occasional reflections made on it by Mr. A.: But this Ceremony being p. 263imposed by the Church, as one of the terms of her Communion (which I knew not till I find the Dr. here doth not deny it) I shall a little consider it, by proposing our scruples against the use of it; and taking off the edge of what the Dr. bringeth in defence of it. But we must first consider the true state of the controversy; which is not, whether all possible Honour be due to the Glorious Person who is so Named? Nor whether it be unlawful at the hearing of that Name or any other Name, whereby that Blessed Person, or either of the other Persons of the God-head are designed, to have the heart raised to adore that Majesty, whom Saints and Angels Worship? Yea, nor thirdly, whether it be in it self, and always a sin to express our adoration of him by an outward sign of kneeling, as bowing, or lifting up the eyes, when the heart is thus excited by the mention of his Name or any of these other Names? All these we readily yield: And our Brethren, on the other hand, grant, that no Worship, direct or indirect, mediate, nor immediate, (such as Papists give to their Images) is due to the Name, i. e. the Word. 2. That there is no duty lying upon People always, and every where to bow at the hearing of this Name; for they appoint it only to be done in the time of Worship: The 18 Canon prescribeth it only in time of divine Service; it is not there restricted to the Lessons, and the Creed, as the Dr. alledgeth, page 362. In the Injunctions of Queen Elizabeths Sermons are also taken in, & a general clause (when otherwise in the Church mentioned) carrieth it to all acts of Worship; which the Dr. without ground would limit; to wit, when they are not imployed in any other act of Devotion. 3. They make it no natural, but instituted piece of Worship; the Dr. all along speaketh of it only as lawful, never pleadeth for the necessity of it, and defendeth it only so far as it is required by the Church. It is true, some of them plead Scripture for it; to wit, Phil. 2. 10. and by consequence must make it a duty, as naturally necessary, as praying, and believing: But I do not find that the learned among them do insist on this. The question then is, 1. Whether it be lawful for the Church to command People to use outward signs of reverence, by bowing the head or knee, or otherwise, when ever they hear the Name of Jesus mentioned in Divine Worship, when yet no such injunction is given in reference to any other Name of Gods? 2. Whether it be lawful for People to obey such commands? To both, our Brethren answer affirmatively; and we answer negatively.

Sect. 27. The same reasons will serve for both parts of our opinion. p. 264They are 1. This Bowing is an uncommanded piece of Worship. Ergo, it is unlawful. The consequence dependeth on Christ's condemning of Mens Traditions in his Worship, as vain, on this account, that they are the Commands of Men, Math. 15. 9. Mark 7. 7. of which before. And I think the Doctor will not deny it, who owns that Acts of Worship must have divine Warrant, page, 348. The Antecedent hath Two Parts; to wit, that this Act is uncommanded, and that it an Act of Worship. For the First: Few of our Brethren alledge a Command for it; for then it should not be indifferent, as they make it, and they that plead a Command, found it in Phil. 2. 10. But that place doth no way injoin any such Rite: For first, the Greek Text is plain, not at, but in, the Name of JESUS: foreign; which to expound of Bowing at the hearing of the Word, is the greatest Violence that can be done to plain Words: For the plain sense, is, that subjection to his Dignity and Power, shall be yielded by all Creatures. 2. This Text can no way be restricted to the Reverence given in Divine Service, but must either prove this a duty at all times, when this Name is uttered, or it proveth no such expression of Reverence at all. 3. The Text speaketh only of kneeling; and I know not that it is in the Churches Power, where the Lord commandeth kneeling, to change it into bowing of the Head. 4. If this be injoined, so is confessing with the Tongue, ver. 11. What power hath the Church, to pick and chuse Scripture-Commandments, to injoin one, and neglect another of equal Authority? But why do I stay on this, many Episcopal men, and even some Papists, look on this Text, as nothing to the purpose in hand; for the Second Part of the Antecedent, that this Bowing is an Act of Worship, I hope that will not be denyed, it being a direct and solemn adoring of Jesus Christ; and the stating of it in Divine Service, and appropriating it to that, doth constrain men to look so upon it.

Sect. 28. Argument 2. It is not reasonable Service; Ergo, It is not acceptable Service. The Consequence, I hope, will not be denyed: The Antecedent I prove, because no Reason can be given for bowing at the hearing of this Word, rather than at the mention of these other Names, by which, God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or our Blessed Redeemer are called. It is not enough, that some Reason can be pretended for this practice singly considered: For 1. Whatever Reasons be given for it, do equally concern other Names of GOD and CHRIST; and therefore, must either prove the p. 265Church faulty, in not instituting Worship to all these names, or they prove nothing at all. 2. Our main scruple is at the discrimination that is made by this Ceremony, between this name, and others that are equally holy; therefore, they must either give a reason, why adoration is fit in this case, rather than in the other cases, or they do not reach the Question. The Reasons given by the learned Hooker, Eccles. polic. lib. 5. Sect. 30. are not concludent; to wit, 1. It sheweth a reverend regard to the Son of God. Answer, 1. Let the Father and Spirit have the same reverend regard. 2. Every way of expressing our regard to him, is not warrantable: He hath appointed ways for it, and not left them to our devising. 2. He saith, It maketh much against the Arians, who deny his God: head: Answer, 1. His way of convincing gain-sayers, is by the Word; we must not devise ways of our own to convince Hereticks; Moses and the Prophets, being God's way, are more powerful to convince, than if one were sent from the dead; and therefore, much more than such a foolish Ceremony. 3. If this Argument prove any thing, it would make it our duty rather to bow to him, when his name is mentioned in Blasphemy, or Swearing: Then such a Testimony is more needful, than when all present are worshiping him.

Sect. 29. Argument 3. It is superstitious Worship, not only on the account of its not being commanded; but also because it is impossible to make that use of a name, without ascribing more to it than is due, to a word, or any external sign. I know our Brethren will deny all respect to the word, and affirm that it is only the Person of the Redeemer that they reverence: And I am obliged to believe that they make not the name, the Objectum Terminans, of any part of their Worship, yet the setting such a mark of discrimination on that name, from others, and giving such Reverence on that occasion, is such a violent presumption of some inward Respect to that word, rather than to another of equal Excellency, that a man ought not to believe himself, when he denyeth it of himself, much less are others obliged to believe him: Especially, the Church-Guides, who impose this, must either see some Reason for it, or none; if none, it is Church-Tyranny, to impose so arbitrarily in the Worship of God: If they see a Reason, that Reason cannot shun to be superstitious; to wit, a making a difference in this name from others, where there is no such difference: And if it were possible to free the mind of superstitious Conceits in this matter, it is altogether impossible to free the action from a…candalous appearance of p. 266superstition; for what other Construction can the Beholder put on bowing so many times at the recurrent mention of a word, when no such thing is done at the mention of other words of the same signification? May not one rationally think, that it is not the thing signified, but the sound of the word that moveth men, when they see them bow at that word, and not at another, that expresseth the same thing? If I see a man frighted at the hearing the word Eusis, and not moved at hearing Gladius, I have reason to think, that it is not the apprehension of a Sword, which is signified by both words, that doth so move him, but some Antipathy he hath at the sound of the word E…sis: This is easily applyed.

Sect. 30. Argument 4. It is impossible to observe this usage punctually, without having the mind diverted from that attention to the other Acts of Religion, that is fit. Men may talk what they will, but common Experience will convince the unbyassed, that it is impossible to hear with serious attention, toward the matter read, or otherwise spoken, to go along with it in the heart, and at the same time to be ready at the sound of the word Jesus, to catch it, and to use the Reverence required. I appeal to the Experience of them who do seriously mind this bowing, whether their mind be not taken up with thoughts about the word, waiting for it before they hear it, so as they cannot at the same time, mind what else is spoken, as they ought. Here we may apply that Adage; Vides aliquem de vocibus solicitum, scito animum in pusillis occupatum. The mind cannot be intent on two things at once, such as are one single word, and the matter of a coherent Discourse. Argument 5. It is an usage unknown to the Apostolick & purest Primitive Times of the Church; yea, it is amongst the most novel Inventions of the later, and more corrupted Times of the Church, under the Anti-Christian Apostacy; no mention of it, till the middle of the 13th. Century. It was never injoined, till Concil. Lugdunens. 1273. and Basiliens. 1431. Argument 6th. It hath been grosly abused to Superstition and Idolatry, in the Popish Church, and therefore being confessed to be an indifferent thing, it ought to be abolished. In a Council at Auspurg, this bowing is injoined at the name of the body and blood of Christ, of the Virgin Mary, and several others of their foreign, Concil. Lugdun. it is injoined chiefly in the Mass. It argueth a strange respect to that way, thus to symbolize with them in their usages, that have no warrant in the word; and by so doing, to differ from all Protestant Churches.

p. 267Sect. 31. I come now to attend the Doctor's debate with Mr. A. about this matter, where I am troubled to find the Dr. treating his Adversary with such Contempt, and indecent Reflections, on his learning, which maketh him be honoured in the eyes of men, as able to discern, as they who despise him; telleth us, He had before defenced these things, as required by the Church, against Papists; and Mr. A. borroweth their Weapons, but doth not so well manage them. We give the Author his due Praise for his learned Labours against the Papists, but are not thereby obliged to be silent, when he opposeth any of the Truths of God: But I cannot understand how Mr. A. should borrow the Popish Weapons in this Controversy, seeing the Papists, and the Doctor are in this matter foreign; and Mr. A. doth oppose them both: It is true, a Non-conformist may say, that Papists have as good reason for their Ceremonies, as the Church of England for hers: But this is not to use their Weapons; for we think neither hath reason on their side. Mr. A. blameth the Doctor in answering his Popish Adversary, for saying, That bowing at the name of Jesus, is no more, than going to Church at tolling of a Bell. To which Mr. A. replyeth, That it is Motivum cultus, at least; and so more than the tolling of a Bell, to call people to Church; and he addeth, that an Image may as well give warning to the eye, to worship, as a Bell to the ear. Here Mr. A. is far from either pleading for Popish Tenets, or using Popish Weapons; but sheweth the absurdity of the Doctor's opinion, by a parallel opinion of the Papists, which the Dr. condemneth; which is a good way of reasoning ad hominem, and needed not be so cryed out against. The Dr. giveth some good Reasons, why Images are not to be used in worship, but he doth not touch the Point in hand, between him and Mr. A. who never intended to parallel a Bell and Images any further than this; that a Bell in the Act of Worship (the sound of the word Jesus is in the same quality) must be Motivum cultus, and so is an Image. Therefore, if an Image not only on other accounts, that the Dr. mentioneth, but even on account of this lower use of it, its being motivum cultus, be evil; so is the sound of the word Jesus.

Sect. 32. The Dr. exposeth Mr. A. as a crackt delirious man, for saying, that the Papists go too far in preserring an Image higher than to be motivum cultus, but the question is, whether they do not sin in applying it to this lower use, to make it an ordinary stated motive to Worship. And after, if men sin who make an Image an ordinary stated motive of Worship, p. 268yet how shall we excuse our own adorations? Sure the application of all this to the present Controversy is not so hard to be understood; but that a man, whose wit is not a wool-gathering, may see these are not the words of a delirious man. He doth not charge the Church of England, with using Images, but with using the sound of a word to the same purpose, with the lower use that Papists ascribe to Images; and inferreth, that if the one be a sin, so is the other; and the one may as lawfully be done as the other. The adorations he speaketh of are worshipping God by the help of the sound of that word, as a motivum cultus; and therefore there is no need of proving that ye Worship any other beside God, before ye need excuse your adorations. The Dr. confesseth, page 361. that their Church never denied that men sin in making Images a stated motive of Worship: Hence Mr. A. inferreth, that their Church sinneth in making the sound of a word a stated motive of Worship; but this the Dr. is not pleased to take notice of: But when Mr. A. asserteth, that they may bring in Images with equal reason, the Dr. denieth that we may worship Images on the same reason, that we perform external adoration to Jesus at the mention of his Name; still he will not take notice wherein the parallel, and consequently, the strength of the reason lieth; to wit, in making Images a motive of worship; and making a word such; but the Dr. parallelleth making Images the object of Worship, and making the word Jesus, the occasion only of it; which is to seek subterfuges; not to stand to the argument insisted on.

Sect. 33. Mr. A. giveth a difference between the tolling of a Bell to call People to Church, and the word Jesus occasioning, our bowing, that the one is out of worship, the other in it; when we should be intent on devotion. In answering this the Dr. saith, They contend not for the seasonableness of this bowing when they are in other acts of devotion, and immediate application to God; but about the lawfulness of it in repeating the Lessons or the Creed. Reply, 1. I have before shewed that this is not the sense of the Church, which injoineth it in time of Divine Service; which I hope taketh in prayer: yea, when ever that Name is mentioned in the Church, wherefore the Dr. must be sore put to it, when he must defend the Church by contradicting her, and setting up his private opinion that he is forced upon, against her Authentick and publick Records. 2. Here are two distinctions hinted, equally useless to this design. The first is, he pleadeth not for the seasonableness, but for the lawfulness of this usage; but if it be unseasonable, p. 269even at these times, that he will have it used, then it is also unlawful; seeing duties acceptable to God must be done in their season. 3. The other distinction is, it is not to be done in acts of devotion, and immediate application to God; but in the Lessons and Creed. I desire to know whether hearing the Word read, and hearing the Articles of our Faith rehearsed in a solemn manner, while we are about Worshipping God, be not acts of Devotion, and immediate Application to God, as well as prayer; which he seemeth to understand by that expression. The word read, as well as preached, Heb. 4. 2. should be mixed with Faith, and so should the hearing the Articles of our Faith; and is not Faith in its exercise Devotion, and an immediate Application to God? At least it cannot be denied, that serious exercise of the whole Soul is requisite in these exercises, as well as in that which he will call Devotion; and therefore it must be as unseasonable to be diverted by waiting for the fall of a Word, in the one exercise as in the other. 4. The Dr. taketh no notice of the main strength of Mr. A's. reason; to wit, that the toll of the Bell is out of Worship; the sound of the Word in it. The one is in statu Civili, or Communi; the other in statu Religioso;: For I hope he will not deny these exercises in which this bowing is to be used, to be Religious acts. He saith it signifieth nothing to this purpose whether persons be in the Church or out of if when the Bell rings; for in the same page he (Mr. A.) mentioneth the Mass-bell, which ringeth in Worship; and if the object of their Worship were right, it would make him better understand the parallel. Reply, It is a rash assertion to say there is no difference between the Bell ringing when People are in the Church, and when they are out of it, (he must mean when they are in the act of Worship, and when not; otherwise what he saith is impertinent) for the one is motivum Cultus, and in status Religioso, the other not: It is true, Mr. A. mentioneth the Mass-bell in the next page, but he parallelleth it with the sound of the VVord Jesus; both being a stated motive of Worship, and therefore that is mentioned by the Dr. to no purpose.

Sect. 34. He saith, when it is said in the Injunctions, that we must bow at mentioning the Name Jesus in divine Service—or when it is otherwise in the Church pronounced: Yet, saith he, by the manner of shewing this reverence, viz. with lowliness of courtesy, and uncovering the heads of mankind, it supposeth them at that time not to be imployed in any other act of devotion. Answer, By this way of commenting he may easily make the Church say whatever he pleaseth; for this is to contradict p. 270the Text by his Commentary. Let him tell us when is that Name pronounced in the Church, and yet People at no other act of Devotion: This manner of reverence required, proveth nothing; for it is no wonder to hear them speak inconsistencies in requiring low courtesy, and uncovering of the head in time of Devotion, when the head is already uncovered; who injoin the same in the Church out of that Devotion, when that VVord is mentioned, tho' heads be already uncovered, as all must be in time of Divine Service; by Can. 18. the same that injoineth this Bowing. He saith, it giveth no interruption to Devotion: But doth it give none to other parts of Worship, which he is not pleased to call Devotion? He will still have it lawful, as long as the object of Worship is true; the mention of this Name only expresseth the time as the Bell doth of going to Church. Answer, It will then follow, that if Papists will only Worship God, not the Image; and use it only as a stated motive of Worship, that were lawful too. But he considereth not that the manner and mean of Worship may be sinful; when the object to which it is directed is true; and that this is so, is clear from what hath been said. I have also shewed how irrational it is to parallel the Bell to call People together with a sign stated in Worship to stirr up, or put in mind of it; what Mr. A. objecteth, that there is more need of this reverence in our ordinary converse, I have touched before: The Dr. maketh it a strange crossness, to deny it in Worship, and then plead for it in other cases. But Mr. A. doth not plead for it in any case, but useth this as a good reason to shew the folly of their imposition: But enough of this.

Sect. 35. The rest of his debate with Mr. A. may soon be dispatched. Mr. A. commendeth the moderation of the Canon 640. not imposing Worship toward the East or Altar; but leaving it indifferent, and pleadeth for the same Indulgence in other rites, as little necessary in themselves; as Crossing, Kneeling, &c. according to the Apostles rule, that differing parties should not judge nor censure one another, Rom. 14. 3. The Dr. in his answer, bringeth two reasons of this different practice; one is, the one sort of things were settled at the Reformation, not so the other; another is, the one is settled by Law, the other not. It is strange the Dr. should lay weight on either or both of these reasons in opposition to the Apostles command of forbearance; for the question still recurreth on the first setler of these, either by Law or otherwise: Why did they impose things so severely that the Apostle would have us bear p. 271with one another in? And then it recoileth on the upholders of this unwarantable settlement: Why do they continue such impositions as may be for-born, and divide the Church by so doing? We do prove these things unlawful as the Dr. requireth; but tho' we should fail in that proof, their counting them indifferent is enough to condemn such severe imposing of them. He saith, page 364. that Mr. A. thinketh the rule of forbearance Rom. 14. to be of equal force in all ages, and as to all things about which Christians have different apprehensions; and then Papists may come in for a share as to worshipping the Host, Images, &c. Had Mr. A. talked at this rate, the Dr. would (as he doth on less ground) have said his fancy had been disordered, and all things were not right somewhere. Did ever Mr. A. or any of us say this, or words to that effect? We say this of things indifferent, not of things about which Christians differ; and so I hope the Papists are sufficiently shut out.

Sect. 36. VVhen Mr. A. or any of us, blame the leading Churchmen for using these things that are not imposed, we make this no grounds of Separation, as the Dr. would insinuate. VVhat Mr. A. saith of disagreeing in a circustantial part of VVorship, is not the conclusion of his discourse, to prove a disagreement in substantial parts of Worship; but an Antithesis (sufficiently proved) to the Dr's. assertion, that all our difference was about circumstances of VVorship; and he makes it appear, that not only they with the Dissenters, but they among themselves did so disagree; while some of them Bow to the Altar, others not. If this be not a part of VVorship, I see not how Bowing to an Image can be called such. He further blameth Mr. A. page 365. at the end, for making a sort of middle things (able to justify Separation) between Substantial parts of VVorship, and meer Circumstantials. And the Dr. doth most unjustly inferr from thence, that Separation is justified by things that are neither Substantial nor Circumstantial parts of VVorship, and no part of it at all. For he will not consider, that tho' Mr. A. doth not make the Ceremonies meer Circumstantials, yet he maketh them Circumstantial parts of VVorship; that is, parts of VVorship without, which all that VVorship that Christ hath instituted is confessed to be intire. And if Mr. A. do also go about to prove that the Ceremonies are made by the Churchmen Substantial parts of VVorship, it is no incoherency in him, but in them who talk so variously of these rites; sometimes as the veriest trifles that can be, sometimes as so much conducing to the Glory and Decency of Gospel-VVorship. The truth is, Substantial parts of p. 272VVorship, is a term of the Drs. (as Mr. A. telleth him) none of ours; and therefore if we do not apply it sometimes to his mind, let him blame himself for not making it more intelligible to us by his explication of it.