A defence of the Resolution of this case viz. whether the Church of England's symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome makes it unlawfull to communion with the Church of England : in answer to a book intitiuled A modest examination of that resolution. Fowler, Edward, 1632-1714. 1684 Approx. 117 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 28 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2009-03 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A70067 Wing F1697 ESTC R14761 12005397 ocm 12005397 52300 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A70067) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 52300) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 982:16) A defence of the Resolution of this case viz. whether the Church of England's symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome makes it unlawfull to communion with the Church of England : in answer to a book intitiuled A modest examination of that resolution. Fowler, Edward, 1632-1714. [2], 52 p. Printed by J. H. for B. Aylmer ..., London : 1684. Attributed to Edward Fowler. Cf. BLC. Reproduction of original in Union Theological Seminary Library, New York. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Church of England -- Doctrines. Modest examination of the resolution of this case of conscience. Lord's Supper -- Early works to 1800. Lord's Supper -- Church of England -- Early works to 1800. 2007-03 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2007-04 Apex CoVantage Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2008-07 John Latta Sampled and proofread 2008-07 John Latta Text and markup reviewed and edited 2008-09 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion A DEFENCE OF THE RESOLUTION OF THIS CASE , VIZ. Whether the Church of England's Symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome , makes it Unlawfull to hold Communion with the Church of England . In Answer to a Book Intituled A Modest Examination OF THAT RESOLUTION . LONDON , Printed by J. H. for B. Aylmer , at the Three Pigeons , against the Royal Exchange in Cornhill . 1684. A DEFENCE OF THE Resolution , &c. SIR , I who know the Author of the Book , which hath given you this trouble , better than any man , do conclude that you are not more a stranger to him , than he is to you , from the Epithets you so frequently bestow upon him throughout your Papers ; except you do it ( which I would not be so uncharitable as to think ) by way of Irony . In your First Paragraph you express a Liking of the Complexion of his Book ; and I perceive you mean , that it pleaseth you to find it not written in a heat , and that there is nothing of a Censorious or Peevish humour , or of a haughty contempt of those he deals with , therein exprest . And he hopes that upon the same accounts , you are no less pleased with the other Resolutions of Cases , which bear this company . But he thinks it no mighty Attainment , to be able in writing to manage a Controversie Coolly and Sedately ; without bitter or provoking Reflexions , or contemptuous Expressions . Though men of warm Tempers may find it somewhat difficult , to govern their Spirits and Passions , as it becomes them , in the heat of disputing by word of mouth ; one would think that a small measure of Humility or Good nature , or of Discretion and Prudence , should make it no hard matter to acquire that other Attainment : And , much more , that no one who is a Christian in Spirit and Temper , as well as in Notion and Profession , can find it a difficult thing to arrive at it . But enough of this . In your Second Paragraph , you seem to intimate , that our Author might have spared his pains in dwelling so long upon the Distance between our Church and the Church of Rome , in points of Doctrine : But he is not satisfied with the reasons you give for the needlesness of so doing . Your reasons are two ; First , because he argued chiefly for Communion in Worship . And Secondly , you never met with the Doctrinal part of the 39 Articles charged as Popish , nor our Church reflected on , as symbolizing with that Idolatrous Church , in Points of Doctrine . But these reasons have not convinced our Author , that he is over long upon this Argument ; for it was not his design to shew , that our Church doth not symbolize in Points of Doctrine with that of Rome , but that She stands at greatest defyance with that Church : Not , that She doth not teach her Corrupt Doctrine in her Articles ; but that she designedly confutes them , and exposeth the falsity and corruption of them . And this surely was worth the shewing in so many instances , for their sakes who never read or considered those Articles ; as I fear very few of the Dissenters have done . And , whereas you say , you never met with the Doctrinal part of the 39 Articles charged as Popish ( and it would be strange if you had ) I say , there is too great cause to suspect , that very few of our Dissenting Brethren do understand how Anti-popish they are , though they do not charge them as Popish . And I doubt you have met with many ▪ ( I am sure very many are to be met with ) who have reflected upon our Church as an Idolatrous Church , though you never heard her accused as symbolizing with the Idolatrous Church of Rome , in Points of Doctrine . But they will find it somewhat hard to understand , how a Church can be Idolatrous in matters of Practice , and yet be pure in her Doctrine from any tang of Idolatry . Surely her Practices must be grounded upon her Doctrines , or they would be strange Practices indeed . And it would be wonderfull , if she should Practise Idolatry , and yet Believe nothing that tends to the encouragement of that soul Sin ; nay believe and teach all those Doctrines that are as Opposite to Idolatry , as Light to Darkness . So that I conceive nothing could be more to our Author's purpose , than to endeavour to remove that prejudice of many , against the Constitution of our Church , which is grounded upon an Opinion of its being near of kin to Popery . And what could signifie more to their Conviction , that there is not any ground for such an Opinion , than the shewing how abhorrent to Popery our Church is in her Doctrine ; and what a testimony she beareth in her Articles against the Idolatrous and Superstitious Doctrines of the Romish Church , and the Practices which she foundeth upon those Doctrines ? As to the several Additions you say may be made to the * Anti-popish Doctrines contained in the 39 Articles , our Author conceives he was not guilty of any Oversight in not preventing you , because some of them are not properly Anti-popish , but contrary to the Doctrine of other Sects , which are to be found among Abhorrers of Popery as well as Papists ; and others of them our Author hath not omitted , but if you 'll look again , you may find them in their proper places . Viz. those Doctrines contained in Artic. VI. and Artic. XI . This , under the head of Doctrines flatly contradicting the Holy Scriptures , pag. 9. That , under the head of the Authority on which each of the two Churches founds its whole Religion , pag. 18. Now I hope by this time , you understand very well what our Author would have you conclude , from this first part of his Performance , which you say * you do not well understand . And whereas you ask , whether it be that the 39 Articles have in them nothing of kin to Popery , as to matters of Faith ? And add that you dare say , there is not a judicious Dissenter in England will say they have . I answer , if there be any injudicious Dissenters in England , that will say they have , I hope these poor people ought not to be so despised , as that we should use no means for the undeceiving of them . But our Author would have you conclude , that he hath done what he designed , which is ( as hath been already said ) not to shew that the 39 Articles have nothing of kin to Popery , but that they are most abhorrent from it ; and that our Church is at the widest and vastest distance from Popery in her Doctrinals ; and consequently one would think too , in matters of Practice . But our Author does not satisfie himself to prove this by this consequence ; but goes on to shew it in the particular instances of matters of Practice , after he had done it in Points of Doctrine . To return now to your Second Page , You say that it is mightily Satisfactory to you to hear our Author assuring you , that our Church alloweth her Members the judgment of Discretion , &c. But , Sir , you needed no Authors to assure you of this , since our Church hath done it as fully , as it can be done by words ; and our Author no otherwise assures you of it , than by citing our Churches Articles . But whereas you add , that this you cannot but think implieth a Liberty , not onely to Believe and Judge , but to Doe also according to what a man believes and judgeth ; surely you will find your self able to think otherwise , when you have considered , what is the necessary and immediate consequence of such a thought , viz. that all such things as Laws are utterly inconsistent with allowing to men the Judgment of Discretion , according to this large notion : And that , therefore our Church doth faultily Symbolize with the Church of Rome , in having any such things as Government and Discipline . You next say , that our Author speaketh very true as to the Popish Rites and Ceremonies , and that those in our Church are comparatively few ; but you much doubt , whether the use of those few was long before Popery appeared in the world , unless he means Popery at its full growth ; for that Mystery of Iniquity , as to Rituals , began to work very early . To this I answer , that the Papists may con you great thanks for this passage , it plainly enough intimating that the Primitive Father and Christians were for the most part Papists , though not fully grown Papists . And as to those words of St. Paul , The Mystery of iniquity doth already work , if you can do any thing like proving that the Apostle meant by the Mystery of iniquity , which began to work in his days , the use of such Rites as those you are offended with in our Church , I will engage for our Author , that he shall immediately set up for a Nonconformist . You say in your Third Page , that you cannot well understand how our Author saith , that our Church doth not impose her Rites as necessary , unless he means as necessary in order to Salvation , &c. But doth he not expresly tell you what he means by necessary ? you found he did , if you read the whole Sentence , which runs thus , pag. 4. And she imposeth her Rites not ( as the Church of Rome does her's ) as necessary , and as parts of Religion , but as merely indifferent and changeable things , as we find in her 34th Article , &c. And why , Sir , did you conceal this part of the Sentence , and thus stop at a Comma ? You thus proceed ; Nor do I well understand how they are not made necessary to Salvation , when the non-observance of them is made sinfull , and meritorious of a being cast out of the Church , &c. And I assure you , that I do as little understand , if this be good arguing , how whatsoever the King commands of his Subjects , or a Master of his Servants , is not made by them necessary to Salvation , since the non-observance of the Lawfull Commands of each , is acknowledged to be sinfull , by all that believe these Precepts binding , viz. Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man , for the Lord's sake , &c. And , Servants obey in all things your Masters , &c. And as to the Penalty you mention , of being cast out of the Church , and cut off from the Body of Christ , which is the same thing , it amounts to thus much ; That those who will by no means be prevailed with , to conform to the Laws of the Society of which they are Members , shall be cast out of it : which all Societies and Bodies Politique whatsoever , have ever thought fit to have inflicted , upon obstinate Transgressors of their Laws , in order to the preservation of themselves , and the upholding of Government amongst them . And our Author I am certain will readily grant , that none but Obstinate Transgressors of the Churches Laws , and such as are incorrigible by all other means first tryed , ought to be cast out of the Church , and that the Sentence of Excommunication should never be pronounced against them , but as the last Remedy : As also that the design thereof ought always to be the Reformation of the Offender ( as well as for example to others ) never his Destruction . But how does this Penalty's being made the Sanction of the Laws of our Church , which ordain Rites and Ceremonies for Order's sake , and the decent administration of Divine Worship in Publique , speak these to be enjoyned as necessary to Salvation , when the non-observance of any of them is no otherwise judged to be sinfull , than as it is an Act of disobedience to Humane Authority ; and when this Penalty is never ( according to the Rules of our Church ) to be inflicted , but in case of the Offender's adding contempt to his disobedience ? If any instances can be given of persons being Excommunicated upon the account of Nonconformity , who are humble and modest and peaceable , and that give good evidence of their willingness to comply with the Laws of their Governours as far as they are able with safe consciences , this I am sure is wholly the fault of Persons , not of our Constitution . But this Objection is too inconsiderable to deserve our bestowing so many words upon it . All that follows to the bottom of your Fifth Page , wherein our Author is concerned , hath been replied to : And there you thus speak . As in England we have a Silent and a Speaking Law , so we have also a Silent and a Speaking Church , &c. We know the Doctrine of the Church of England in the 39 Articles ; but this is but Ecclesia Muta : How many have we that will tell us , We are Ecclesia Loquens , the Living Church of England ; and we tell you , &c. Here follow no fewer than thirteen Doctrines taught by this Ecclesia Loquens , contradictory to the 39 Articles . But 1. You have given us ( we thank you ) the very first information of this Ecclesia Loquens : But why do you expect , unless we knew you better , that we should take your bare word for it ? Nay we have hardly that , for you do not in express terms affirm , but ask this Question , How many have we that will tell us , we are Ecclesia Loquens ? And therefore it might suffice , to give you onely this short answer , Do you tell us how many , or whether there are any , if you know . Surely this Church of yours is an Invisible Church ; or , if not , none but Dissenters Eyes are clear enough to get the least glympse of it . But the truth of it is , 't is a mere Figment , and the very Dream of a Shadow . But 2. Whereas a Positive Assertion of the being of such a Church of England is implied in this Question , you cannot well be otherwise understood , than as asserting , that the Prevailing party of our Church of England Divines , have obtruded upon the World this long Beadroll of Heresies , as Articles of Faith ; and so have turned the Old Church of England out of doors : And therefore you are brought to this miserable pass , that you cannot hold Communion with this New Church , except you will separate from , and bid adieu to the Old. And , in good earnest , if this be so , Dissenters are the onely true Friends of the Church of England , as by Law Established ; and this Church is hugely obliged to them for their Separation . But 3. I am well assured , that you will never be able to make good this charge , or any part of it , against any number of the Divines of our Church . For I who know , I am confident , as many of them , as most men in England , can truly declare as followeth , That I cannot name any one Divine of our Church , who teacheth your First contradictory Doctrine to the 39 Articles , viz. That although we may not terminate our worship in an Image , yet we may bow down and worship the true God before an Image . Nor your Second , viz. That departed Saints know our states here upon Earth , and are praying to God for us ; and therefore we may pray to them . Nor know I any one of our Church , who teacheth your Third , viz. That any Priest may absolve , by commission from God , more than declaratively . I mean , I know no one that maketh the Priest's Absolution to be other in Effect than declarative , though it signifies more than if pronounced by a Layman . Nor your Fourth , That the Natural Body and Bloud of Christ , is in the Elements of Bread and Wine really . Our Church-Catechism saith that , The Body and Bloud of Christ , are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithfull in the Lord's Supper : And I know no Divine of ours that explaineth this otherwise than thus , That Believers feed on the Body and Bloud of Christ , in the Lord's Supper , as truly and really as they do on the Elements ; but not after a corporal and carnal manner , but after a spiritual , viz. by applying to themselves the Benefits of Christ's death by faith . And I presume you will neither assert this to be Popish Doctrine , nor deny that 't is true Doctrine . Nor do I know any one of our Divines that holds your Fifth Proposition , for it may not be called a Doctrine , viz. That our Conformable Congregations are no better than Conventicles , where the Minister reads not the Communion Service at the Altar . Which you assert to be tantamount to the allowing of Prayers in an Vnknown Tongue ; because in multitudes of Congregations , the People cannot hear a line from him . I say , I know of no Divine of our Church , that ever asserted that such Congregations as the forementioned , are no better than Conventicles . There was indeed lately a foolish Book published to Prove them Conventicles , but it is strongly conjectured that this Book was written by a certain Layman : And what Church he is of I cannot say , nor is it a pins matter to know . But I may as much suspect him to be a Protestant Dissenter , as a Popish , upon the score of that his Position ; it being nothing of kin to the allowing of Prayers in an Vnknown tongue . For ( as there is not One of your Multitudes of Congregations , wherein the People cannot hear a line from him that reads at the Communion Table , except you mean , wherein every one of the People cannot ; for , I doubt not , the Major part can in all where the Minister hath a voice to be well heard from the Pulpit , so ) all that is read is known before to those who are not Strangers to our Prayers , or at least they may have Books to enable them to go along with the Minister , whether they can , or cannot hear distinctly one sentence from him . Nor do I know any one of our Divines that hath ever taught your 6th Doctrine , That whole Christ is under each Element : which you intimate is the onely foundation on which the Sacrilegious Romish Practice stands . But if I could believe that Doctrine to be true , I should notwithstanding judge it an intolerable thing to refuse the Cup to the Laity , against the express Institution of our Lord. Nor know I any Divine of our Church guilty ▪ of the 7th particular of your Charge , viz. That there are those who interpret the Ten Commandments so as that he who will ever be saved must do a great many works of supererogation . And if I did know any one that so interpreted the Commandments , as to make any one such work necessary to Salvation , I would not call him a Papist for it , but an Ignoramus ; who understands not the word Supererogation . Nor know I any one that teacheth Original Sin , ( thereby understanding Corruption of Nature ) to be rather our Misfortune than our Fault : which is your 8th Doctrine . Nor consequently , that Concupiscence is no sin ; which is your 9th . Nor your 10th , That man hath a power in his own will to chuse and doe what is spiritually good ; ( i. e. ) without the Assistence of Divine Grace : And with this Assistence I hope you Dissenters do all hold it . Nor know I any one of our Divines who teacheth , That we are not accounted righteous before God ( or Justified ) onely for the Merits of Christ : that is , that there is any other Meritorious cause of our Justification besides the Active and Passive obedience of Christ . Nor your 11th , That we are not Justified by Faith alone : Understanding by Faith , not a dead but a living Faith , that purefies the heart , and works by love . Nor your 12th , That good works must go before justification , and are not the fruits of Faith , but Faith it self . For I know no one of our Church that asserts more than this , that a sincere Resolution to obey all God's Commandments must , in order of nature , go before Justification . Nor your 13th , That there is no Eternal Predestination of persons to life , and the means tending thereunto . I know of none of our Church that have ever taught this Doctrine , as you have expressed it ; nor any worse than this , That Eternal Predestination to life is not Irrespective or Absolute ; which no Article of our Church saith it is . And Abundance of you Dissenters hold this Doctrine , as well as Church of England men . And thus have I gone over all the Doctrines contradictory to the 39 Articles , taught by your Ecclesia Loquens , yours I say , for she is not ours ; and I declare again , that I know of no Divine of our Church , that teacheth or holdeth such Doctrines . If you know any , as one would think you do very many , I pray name them . You say , we spare any names in these cases ; but be you entreated not to spare them . But if you won't be prevailed with , we shall very shrewdly guess at the reason . Sir , to deal freely with you , I cannot but wonder , at your adventuring into the World this other Celeusma ; since the Author of the former had so ill success , and must needs have repented him heartily of that Undertaking . All that have consideratively read his Answerer , I am confident are convinced , that after a Great Cry , Little Wooll appeared ; or rather none at all . Nor can such be ignorant , what foul play was used to make our Divines of the Church of England broach Heresie . And I doubt not but you your self have blushed at it , if you have ever read the Parallela imparia ; five Specimen fidei Celeusmaticae . Could you catch us thus dealing with the Books of your Authors , as ours have been dealt with by that Author , and some others that might be named , we should at another kind of rate have been exposed , than they have been . But , Sir , for God's sake , let us make as much Conscience of vile Calumny , than which there is not a more express Transgression of the Law of God , nor of the very Light of Nature , as of Obedience to Authority in such things as no Divine Law can be produced against ; and nothing but strained and far-fetcht Consequences . And , for God's sake also , let us at length be perswaded to have so great a concern for our common Religion , as to give over exposing it by such unchristian doings , to the Scorn and Derision of our Common Enemy . But I cannot take my leave of this heavy Charge of yours , till I have asked you , what you inferr from thence , on supposition you can make good proof of it ? It is plain your design in all this talk , is to justifie , if not a total , yet a partial Separation . You do indeed ( to conceal nothing of your Candour ) after all acknowledge , * That you are very far from thinking that there are not multitudes of Holy and Learned men in our Ecclesia Loquens , that in these things are of another mind : And therefore , I hope , you will not excuse Separation from their Churches . Nay you say , † That hundreds of the Speaking Church are , as we believe , as far from symbolizing with the Church of Rome ( you mean in Doctrine ) as the Articles ; And that in this thing a Separation from the Silent , as well as this part of the Speaking Church , must needs be highly Sinfull . And in thus declaring , you condemn the generality of those that Separate ; it being well known that Communion with those whom you will acknowledge to be Orthodox Divines , and those which you account Heterodox , is much alike boggled at . But I fear , when all is done , you condemn onely separation in Heart from these Orthodox men ; your Undertaking in your 8th Page makes me fear this ; viz. That all the Valuable persons in Presbyterian and Independent Congregations , shall give any reasonable assurance , that they are not in Heart divided from a Single Person , in the Church of England , that speaketh in matters concerning Doctrine , as our Church doth in her Articles : But if you think that all the Communion you are obliged to hold with these Divines , is onely that of the Heart ; that is , thinking them Orthodox , and loving them as such , but allow it to be lawfull , to refuse to worship God with them , nay and not so much as to hear them , we thank you for nothing . This is such Church Communion as will well consist with rending and tearing the Church in pieces . But I pray do not think that all this while I take it for granted , that 't is lawfull to separate from the Congregations of those Divines whom we take to be in some points Heterodox . Nay upon supposition that your Ecclesia Loquens did as generally depart from the Doctrine of our Church , as the Pharisees in our Saviour's time did from the Law of Moses , I shall be far from granting that Separation from their Congregations is lawfull , except there be a constraint laid upon us to subscribe to their Heterodox Opinions , till you can prove that our Saviour allowed of the Jews Separation from the Pharisees ; which you never can , but the contrary who cannot shew ? He bad his Disciples indeed , to beware of the Leaven of the Pharisees ; and so are we to beware of the Leaven of such Heterodox Teachers ; but not so to beware of it , as not to come within their Churches ; for that that caution of our Saviour is not to be so interpreted , appears not onely from his own practice ( who was far from being a Separatist from the Jewish Temple or Synagogues ) and by what he saith , Mat. 23. 2 , 3. In the last Paragraph of your 9th Page , you return to speak more directly to our Author : And first you reflect upon these words in his Book , p. 24. But I am so far from taking it for granted , that a Church is guilty of Sin in agreeing in some indifferent things with the Church of Rome , that I must needs profess , I have often wondered , how this should become a Question : Seeing whatsoever is of an indifferent nature , as it is not commanded , so neither is it forbidden by any Moral or Positive Law ; and where there is no Law there is no Transgression , &c. To this you say , that it is an obvious begging the Question . And it might be so , if our Author stopt here , but he thus proceeds : And whereas certain circumstances will make things , that in themselves are neither Duties nor Sins , to be either Duties or Sins , and to fall by Consequence , under some Divine Command or Prohibition , I have admired how this Circumstance of an indifferent thing , being used by the Church of Rome , can be thought to alter the nature of that thing , and make it cease to be indifferent , and become sinfull . So that this is the Obvious meaning of our Author's words , that he hath wondered how it should become a Question , whether a Church may lawfully agree in some things with the Church of Rome , which the Law of God hath not forbidden : And whereas somethings that are not forbidden by the Law of God directly , are notwithstanding forbidden thereby Consequentially , he hath admired how the more Circumstance of a thing 's being practised by the Church of Rome , can speak it to be forbidden by God's Law Consequentially . And then he immediately betakes himself to the consideration of some of those Laws given to the Israelites , that prohibit their imitating the Doings of the Egyptians and Canaanites , which are urged by Nonconformists , to prove it unlawfull to imitate the Church of Rome in things of a mere indifferent nature , and that that circumstance of their being practised by that Church makes them cease to be indifferent , and to become Sinfull : And endeavours to shew , that this cannot with any shew of reason be gathered from these Laws . And how , I pray , is this an Obvious begging of the Question ? which is , Whether a Church's symbolizing , or agreeing in some things , with the Church of Rome , be a warrant for separatian from the Church so agreeing ? This , I say , is the Question which our Author handles ▪ But you next make a Question for him , and say it is this , * Whether a thing in its own nature indifferent , be still indifferent as to Christians use in God's worship , when it hath been once used in Idolatrous Services ; if the use of it be neither Naturally necessary to the worship of God , as it is an humane Act , nor suitable to the Ends of it , nor such without which it cannot in common judgment be decently performed ? But our Author much more wonders , how this should become a Question , than how that of his own propounding should . For First , There are three apparent Contradictions in it . It being a contradiction to say concerning the same thing , that it is in its own nature indifferent , and yet naturally necessary to the Worship of God , as it is an humane Act. It being so too , to say of the same thing , that 't is in its own nature indifferent , and yet Vnsuitable to the Ends of Divine Worship . It being a contradiction again , to say of the same thing , that 't is in its own nature indifferent , and yet such as without which the Worship of God cannot in common judgment be decently performed . For you must mean by things in their own nature indifferent , things that are so in Divine Worship : for otherwise , you trifle egregiously in putting this Question , or make your Nonconformists so to doe , for whom you put it . But you abuse them , if you do so ; for that which divers of them do assert , and which occasioned our Author's Resolution of the Case of Symbolizing , &c. is this ; That things which might otherwise be lawfully used in the Worship of God , do become unlawfull , by their having been abused in Idolatrous or Superstitious Services . And some of them do understand this in a more limited and restrained sense ( as our Author hath shewed ) than others of them do . Secondly , as this Question is put , you are sure to have no Adversaries . For who ever doubted whether a thing be unlawfull in the Worship of God , that is Vnsuitable to the Ends thereof , whether this thing hath been abused or no in Idolatrous Services ▪ Now , having thus strangely put the Question , you proceed to shew that from thence will follow several things , as things out of controversie betwixt us . And I perceive you are very cautious herein of reviving a certain Old controversie among your selves , viz. Whether our Old Churches , Bells and Fonts , &c. may still be used . For you thus word your third particular wherein we are agreed , viz. That things of mere conveniency for a Religious Action , for the Service of the Ends of it may be used , though Idolaters have used the like ( you are shy , I perceive , of saying the same ) so as none scruple the using of Churches to meet in , &c. You say not , none scruple the using of the Old Churches which were built by Papists . In your next Page , you tell our Author , that you think that , * Zanchy's Rule is at least Safest , and that he knows that , in dubiis animae tutior pars est eligenda . But I think you might have Englisht it better than thus , in matters of Sin , the Safest part is always to be preferred . For in matters of Sin , or sinfull matters , in my silly judgment , there is no safest part to be preferred . Next you positively assert , that in matters of Divine Worship , if the things used by Idolaters be not necessary , both the abuse and the use also ought to be abolished . And you say , you cannot understand what else is the meaning of the Apostle in that his Application of the words found , Psal . 24. 1. in 1 Cor 10. 28. viz. If any man say unto you , this is offered in Sacrifice unto Idols ; Eat not , for his sake that shewed it , and for Conscience sake : For the Earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof , &c. That is ( you say ) you shall not need to starve , though you do not eat of that meat , &c. To this I answer , that our Author hath freely acknowledged , pag. 36. That all things of an indifferent nature , that have formerly been abused to Idolatry , or Superstition , ought to be taken away by the Governours , whensoever they find their People inclined again so to abuse them : At least , if such abuse cannot probably be prevented by other means . But our Author utterly denies , that those Rites which our Church retaineth , that have been abused , and are still , by the Church of Rome , have been observed to be any temptation to Idolatry , or to the embracing of Popery . And therefore there is ( upon this supposition ) no Argument to be drawn from that Text , against the Sinfulness of using those Rites : because the Apostle there forbids the Strong Christian the eating of that meat , which a Weak Christian shall inform him , was a portion of an Idol-sacrifice , for this reason , lest he be confirmed in , or betrayed to , the sin of Idolatry by his example , not rightly understood by him . And consequently this Christian is supposed to be such a weak one , as would be in danger of making this ill use of his Example ; as being but lately converted from Paganism , and not yet sufficiently instructed in the precepts of Christianity . It is manifest from the immediately following verse , that the Apostle forbiddeth the eating of meat offered to Idols upon this sole account : For saying in the former verse , Eat not for his sake that shewed it , and for Conscience sake , he adds in the latter , that he means not that he should forbear for the sake of his own Conscience , but onely for the sake of the others Conscience . If therefore you can prove that these Rites of our Church are Temptations to any of its Members to go over to the Romish Church , or to commit Idolatry still continuing therein , you shall be so far from being opposed by our Author , that he 'll heartily join with you in endeavouring by all lawfull means to have them abolished ; on supposition that the Temptation cannot otherwise be taken away . But I desire you , by the way , to take notice , that it is not the Design of his Book ( which you could not but see , though you would seem not to see it ) to plead for the continuance of these Rites ( as innocent and harmless things at least as he takes them to be ) but onely to perswade Dissenters not to separate from our Church upon the account of such things ; and to shew that their having been abused is no just ground for Separation . And , having minded you of this , I shall not need to tell you , that the other Old-Testament Text , which you have added to those which he hath replied to , is alledged very impertinently : which yet we 'll bestow two or three words in answer to . But first let us see what you reply to what he saith to these Texts . You say , * you cannot possibly get leave of your self ( considering under what terms of Divine Abhorrence God every where mentioneth Idolatry in Holy writ , &c. ) to be of the mind of our Author , that the Texts , Lev. 19. 2. Deut. 14. 1. Lev. 19. 19. are merely to be understood of things in themselves evil . Nor , by the way , is our Author of that mind , for he acknowledgeth , pag. 27. that the things forbidden in the last of these places are things of so indifferent a nature , that none can be more indifferent . But , he asks , where it is said , that these things were forbidden , because the Heathens used them ? And he addeth , that though Maimonides saith , that the Egyptians used these Mixtures of Seeds , and of Linnen and Woollen in many of their Magical Exploits , yet 't is universally acknowledged , that these things , among many others , were forbidden to the Jews , as Mystical instructions in Moral duties . But to this you are perfectly silent . But why cannot you be of our Author's mind , as to the two other Texts ? You say , The following part of the Chap. Lev. 18. gives some colour to interpret that place of things morally evil ; yet , why are they forbidden under the notion of things done , after the doings of the Egyptians and the Canaanites ? I answer , because they were the doings of those people , whom they were exceedingly prone to imitate , even their greatest Immoralities : And this is a sufficient Answer . Then you tell us , Nor is Deut. 14. 1. or Lev. 19. 8. capable of such a sense . But our Author saith not a word of Lev. 19. 8. for 't is verse the 19th that he speaks to , and ( as hath been said already ) he never saith that in this place the things forbidden are morally evil , but the contrary . But as to those things forbidden in Deut. 14. 1. he sheweth that they are morally evil , nor is your bare saying , that that place is not capable of such a sense , a confutation of him . And now we come to the Text , which you desire your Author to consider , in these words . * But because our Author tells us , he can find no other Texts , that make more , if so much , for this purpose , I shall desire you , Sir , but to consider Hos . 2. 16 , 17. And it shall be at that day saith the Lord , that thou shalt call me Ishi , and shalt call me no more Baali . For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth ; and they shall no more be remembred by their name . Now upon this Text you say , That Baali was a very good name ; if we consider it in its self what doth it signifie more than my Lord ? Adonai is of the same signification , by which name it was never unlawfull to call God : But because the Idol was called Baal , God abhorred it ; though he allowed himself to be called by another name of the same significancy . Nor will I believe our Author himself owns that it was lawfull for the Jews , to apply themselves to God under the name of Baali . Now because you lay so much weight upon this Text , you shall have the fuller Answer ▪ And , 1. I say that God doth not in the former verse give the Jews a Prohibition no more to call him Baali , but makes them a gratious Promise that they shall not . ▪ T is plain by what goes before , that the words are a Promise , viz. by the two foregoing verses : wherein God promiseth them to cease from plaguing them for their Idolatry , ( that is , upon their true Repentance ) and to give them again happy days . And then he saith , Thou shalt call me Ishi , and shalt call me no more Baali . That is , thou shalt call me no more by a name of Fear as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was , but by a name of Love as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is , this signifying Sponsus Benignus , but that , Durus & imperiosus Maritus , or Dominus , such as Baal was to his Worshippers ; as the Criticks will tell you . Which is as much as to say , there shall no more be an occasion given you from my severe usage of you , to call me by a name that signifies , a harsh Lord , or he would not be to them like such a Lord as Baal was , but he would shew them the kindness of a tenderly loving Husband , for the time to come . 2. It is manifest that God's meaning was not , that they should never use that word Baal , because Idolaters used it , and an Idol was called by that name ; for then they might not use the name Jah neither , because the Heathens used the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Nor would God have called himself by the name of Baal , as you will find he does , Isa . 54. 5. if you consult your Hebrew Bible , as that word signifies no more than Husband . 3. Whereas it follows in the next verse , For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth ; and they shall no more be remembred by their name . The following Criticks do give such a sense of them as will not in the least favour your purpose . This is Liveleius's , In the renovation of the Church , Idolatry shall be abolished . Calvin's is , I will cause my people to cast away all their Lies , and to be content with the pure Doctrine of my Law. The Exposition of Vatablus is this , By Baalim God understands the various Images of Baal , which had various names according to the places wherein they were erected ; as there were many Jupiters among the Heathens . And whereas you say , because the Idol was called Baal , God abhorred that name , I must needs tell you , that to think God can abhor a good name merely because of its having been given to an Idol , speaks a childish notion and opinion of that Infinitely perfect Being . But after all this , let us suppose that God here forbad the Jews to call himself for the future by the name of Baal ; this will not in the least affect our Author ; for if it were so , it could be onely upon the account of their vehement inclination to the worship of the Idol Baal ; and therefore they might not take his name into their mouths , that so they might not be tempted , by using it , to worship him again : But our Author hath said enough to convince you , that there is not the least appearance of an Argument to be fetched from hence , against the lawfulness of our Ceremonies ; or to prove , that since they were used without any Idolatry or Superstition by the Ancient Fathers , before they were abused by the Apostate Church of Rome , they may not return to their first use , the Idolatry and Superstition being perfectly removed : and moreover , no danger arising from the using of them , to the Members of our Church , of returning to Popery . But in your * next Page , you find fault with our Author for asserting , as he doth in his 28th Page ; That there is no such inclination in the Members of our Church , to go over to that of Rome ( nor hath any such inclination been observed , ever since the Reformation ) as was in the Jews , to the Superstitious and Idolatrous practices of the Heathens . But need I shew you the impertinency of your Answer to this passage ? which is this , that the people now are more devoutly inclined , I very much doubt ; I am sure they had much more reason then than now , to be averse to it ; having more miraculous Operations and extraordinary appearances of God to them , than we can pretend to . And I am sure the hearts of all are by nature now , as bad as then . But , 1. Doth it argue that our people are more devoutly inclined , than the Jews were , because they are not so inclined to Idolatry ? Men that have nothing of Devotion in their tempers , may have no inclination at all to some certain Vices . But I need onely to ask you , whether the Turks be a devouter sort of people than the Jews then were , or whether the Jews be more devout now , than they were then ? because ( as every body knows ) they both have at present not onely no inclination , but the greatest abhorrence to Idolatry , and so have had for many ages . 2. What if the Jews had more miraculous Operations among them , &c. doth it thence follow , that we must therefore be necessarily as much inclined to Idolatry , as they were ? why then are not the Turks as much inclined , or the present Jews , who have no more Miraculous Operations among them , than we have among us ? 3. What though our hearts be as bad by nature , as the hearts of the Ancient Jews were , must we needs be therefore as much inclined to Idolatry as they were ? Why then , I ask again , are not the hearts of the Turks and Modern Jews as much inclined thereunto ? And yet I fear the hearts of each of these are no better by nature , than theirs were . But I am almost ashamed to make any reply to such talk as this . And how , Sir , is it , that you can perswade your self thus to object , against so plain a matter of fact , as no one can be plainer , or more indisputable ? But in what follows , you suppose that we have a greater antipathy to Popery now , than we had formerly , though you do not grant it ; and then add , that if so , you fear the Irish Rebellion , and the Fire of London and other places , have more contributed to it , than peoples natural inclinations to true Worship , or aversion from Idolatry . Well , let the cause thereof be what it will , if we have a greater Antipathy , that 's as much as our Author asserted : He did not assign the Cause of it . But , I pray , did you observe any greater inclination to Popery before the Fire of London , than you now observe ? Or before the Irish Rebellion either , if you are so old as to be able so early to make Observations ? I may ask too , what hath made the so often mentioned Turks or Modern Jews to be so exceedingly averse to Idolatry , that the Irish Rebellion , and Fire of London must needs make us so , and nothing else ? By this time , I hope you need not to be told the reason , which you say you understand not , why there is not a necessity , for the keeping as wide a distance between Protestants and Papists , as God appointed should be kept between the Jews , and the Egyptians . Though I will lay you a wager , you cannot prove that there is not as great a distance in Rites and Ceremonies between our Church and the Church of Rome , as there was by Divine Appointment between the Jews and the Egyptians . And I 'll lay you another , that there is a greater than was by Divine Approbation between the Jews and divers of the Heathen Nations . The next Page , viz. the 14th , containeth nothing but what hath been already fully answered ; or what is so trifling as not to deserve the least consideration . In your 15th Page , you say that our Author cannot but know that Calvin , P. Martyr , and Zanchy , and others of our Famous first Reformers , have said much more against the retaining unnecessary things abused to Idolatry , than he can bring to testifie any of their Approbation of them . But , in the mean time , I perceive you are very willing to have it thought , that Mr. Calvin made no bones of contradicting himself ; though we beg your pardon for not believing it , till you are pleased to cite those passages wherein he doth so . Methinks you might have favoured us with one at least , in opposition to those many our Author hath cited . But why should you be so altogether silent too , in the quoting of your other Authors ? But if you had been never so copious herein , except you could have brought them in pleading for the Lawfulness of Separation upon the account of the Rites retained in our Church , which are abused by the Papists , you cannot but be aware that all your Quotations had been nothing to the purpose of confuting our Author . But you are so far from being able to doe this , that you cannot find them so much as pleading against the Lawfulness of Ministerial Conformity . But , on the other hand , I presume you need not be told , that divers of them have declared their Judgments for it : Nor that Zanchy particularly , at the same time endeavoured to perswade Queen Elizabeth to moderate the urging of Ceremonies , and to perswade the Ministers not to stand it out against her Majesty's pleasure , if she could not be prevailed with . And this he saith he did by the advice of his Prince , and many Ministers . You proceed to tell us , That our Famous Reformers by the Spirit of Prophecy have lamented the probable future state ( you should have said the certain future state , if they were acted by the Spirit of Prophecy ) of those Churches , that have retained any Nest Eggs belonging to those Old Birds . What Religion is come to the Saxon , and divers other Lutheran Churches , we need not tell our Author ; what is coming among us , time will shew . But no considerative man needs to be told , Sir , that if we should be so miserable as to have Popery again prevail in this Kingdom , we are not to thank our Liturgy , or our Rites and Ceremonies for it , as the true cause thereof , but our as Vnreasonable as Vnchristian Divisions , and our being crumbled into so many Sects and Parties , which have extremely weakened our Church ; which , were she as a City united within her self , would still be , no doubt , as impregnable a Bulwark against the Assaults of the Romanists as she hath ( God be thanked ) hitherto been . And for this reason alone , though these Divisions tended to no other Mischief ( as several other great and lamentable ones are produced by them ) I would not for all the world fall under the guilt of having contributed to them , by instilling such prejudices into the minds of people as might cause them to withdraw from the Communion of our Church , and embody themselves in separate Congregations . ●●ge 15. You next reply to what our Author saith in reference to Hezekiah's breaking in pieces the Brazen Serpent , in his 35th Page . And whereas he saith , 1. That it was not onely a thing defiled in Idolatrous Services , but was made an Idol it self . You reply , but no more than the Cross , or the Picture of the Virgin Mary , is at this day made by the Papists . I answer , do you shew , if you can , what Papists have made an Idol of an Aerial Sign of the Cross . And as to the Picture of the Virgin Mary , is that one of our Ceremonies ? 2. Our Author saith that the Brazen Serpent was at that time actually used as an Idol . You reply , So is the Cross by the Papists . But is this an Answer ? You know the onely pertinent Answer would have been , that it is made use of as an Idol by Church of England-men , as the Brazen Serpent was by Jews . But this is so far from being true , that there is no Cross used among us , that was ever made an Idol , or Object of Worship , by the Papists . 3. Our Author saith , That the Jews were generally lapsed into this Idolatry . You reply , so are the Papists universally . But if you would speak to the purpose , you should have said , and proved , that so are Church of England-men , either universally or generally . 4. Our Author saith , that there was little hope of reclaiming the Jews any other way . You say , there is as little hope of reclaiming the Papists from their Idolatry of the Cross . But I will not a third time repeat the same Answer . Onely I will ask whether there be any hope of reclaiming the Papists from their Idolatry by our laying aside our Ceremonies ? 5. Our Author saith , that although the Brazen Serpent had been a thing onely defiled in Idolatrous Services , yet we freely grant , that it ought to have been destroyed , or removed out of the peoples sight , if the continuance of it in their view were like to be a snare to them , and a temptat●●● to Idolatry . You reply , may not the like be said of what Dissenters plead against ? But you have been already told , that the like may not be said , with any colour or shew of reason . 6. Our Author saith . That if Hezekiah had let it stand , private persons might have made use of it , to put them in mind of the wonderfull mercy of God , expressed by it to their Fore-fathers . This you acknowledge , but say , that the Question at present under our debate is , whether Hezekiah might lawfully have let it stand , and removed it into the Temple ? whether his setting it up by the Ark , or Mercy Seat would have purged it ? But for shame , Sir , do not say that this is the Question in debate between us . In your 16th Page , you express very great offence , at those next words of our Author , pag. 36. And much more might they have lawfully continued in the Communion of the Church , so long as there was no constraint laid upon them , to join with them in their Idolatry . But you leave out what follows , viz. as we do not reade of any that separated from the Church , while the Brazen Serpent was permitted to stand , as wofully abused , as it was , by the Generality . And do you find that the pious Jews did separate upon this account ? Or if they did not , will you say that they were guilty of Sin ? For my part , I dare not say so ; nor that it would be a sin now , not to separate from our Church , though our Governours were so remiss as not to Excommunicate Idolaters , if such were sound therein ; any more than it is so , upon the account of Promiscuous Congregations , and Mixt Communions : As the Worthy person that published the Resolution of that case , hath clearly proved , and proved too that it is Vnlawfull to separate upon that pretence . But you say , you can never believe this , till some can prove to you , that a Wife may lawfully , contrary to the command of her Husband , stay in a Family of Whoremongers , provided that she be not compelled to play the Whore. I answer , that a Wife may not lawfully , though her Husband hath not expresly forbidden it , stay in a Family consisting wholly of Whoremongers , except to bear her Husband company , and in that case it is her duty to stay . But where hath Christ forbidden us to Communicate with a Church out of which Idolaters are not ejected , though Idolatry be not enjoined . You say he hath done it in those words , Rev. 18. 4. — Come out of her my people , but I pray read on , and you have an answer , that ye be not partaker of her sins , and that ye receive not ( viz. by partaking of her sins ) of her plagues ? And moreover , I presume you will acknowledge , that the Babylon which the Christians were commanded to come out of , is the Idolatrous Church of Rome : But I need not acquaint you , that you cannot continue in this Church , except you will your self also be an Idolater . But I will not stand to dispute this point with you , it being nothing to the business of our Author's Book ; and all he asserts as to this matter , doth amount to no more than this , That we are not obliged to renounce Communion in pure Ordinances , with such as we know to be guilty of Idolatry , when it lies not in our power to keep them away . And now you have brought me to our Author's Third Head of Discourse , viz. That the Agreement which is between the Church of England , and the Church of Rome , is in no wise such , as will make Communion with the Church of England unlawfull . You say , Page 17th , That if our Author had said all Communion , ( viz. with the Church of England ) is not unlawfull , you had fully concurred with him ; believing that this Church cannot be justly charged with Idolatry , and that some Communion may , and ought to be held with any Church that is not so charged . If you mean by some Communion , a not being divided in heart , as you before express it , I say again , we thank you for nothing ; the Communion which our Author pleads for , being ( as your self observes in your first Page . ) chiefly Communion in Worship . But you proceed , saying , but as he hath laid it , I cannot agree with it . I am sure Christ had Communion with the Jewish Church , and I believe he had so , in all acts of worship of his Father's Institution , and I am as sure he had no Communion with them in the Traditional part of their worship , as I am , that he would not himself practise , what he condemned so severely . But are you not as sure that our Blessed Lord had Communion with the Jewish Church , in all acts of worship instituted by his Father , as you are that he had no Communion with them in the Traditional part of their Worship ? I am sure , that in the former part of that saying you are too too cautious , and in the latter not so cautious as you ought to have been : For you may be sure of the contrary to what you affirm so positively , when you have considered , that our Lord could not have so freely been admitted into the Temple , had he not observed divers Traditions or Canons of the Elders , without complying with which none might come thither . I shall not stand to instance in particulars , but refer you to Dr. Leightfoot's Temple Service , pag. 115. to 120. And again , you may yet be more sure of the contrary , when you have considered , how our Lord complied with Jewish Traditions , in the celebration of the Passover ; and such too as altered certain circumstances prescribed in its First Institution . Particularly , his ordering the Preparation of the Lamb on the 14th day , when Moses ordained the taking of it up upon the 10th day . His eating the Passover lying along , being the posture in which they ate their ordinary Meals , according to a Jewish Tradition , as you may see in Dr. Leightfoot's foresaid Book , pag. 143 , 144. whereas , according to Moses his Institution , it was to be eaten with their Loins girded , &c. and in haste , or standing . His complying with the Jewish customs of drinking Wine at the Passover , and concluding with the Hallel , or a Hymn . And not these onely but more Traditions than these , Dr. Leightfoot will satisfie you , were conformed to by our Blessed Saviour . But you say Christ condemned severely the Jewish Traditions : But I say , he did not at all condemn all Jewish Traditions , and none but such as by which they made the Commandments of God of none effect : And such as they placed special Holiness in , and necessary to acceptance with God ; as is too evident to need my standing to prove it . And , Sir , when you can prove that our Ceremonies are like to those condemned Traditions , I will undertake that our Author shall be as zealous against complying with them , as he is now against separation from our Church upon the account of them . But to go on , whereas our Author saith , of Episcopal Government and the three other following things , pag. 38. That he takes it for granted that there is nothing of Viciousness or Immorality in any of them , to make them Vnlawfull ; and therefore that they are indifferent in their own nature . You reply , pag. 18. That there are few things to be named unlawfull in this sense . I answer , there are as many things unlawfull in this sense , as there are things prohibited by the Moral Law , and if you please to consult our Expositors of the Decalogue , I presume you 'll find those things not a few . You say at the bottom of this 18th Page , That it troubles you to reade your Author saying , I know not how our Brethren will defend the Apostolical Institution of the Observation of the Lord's day , while they contend that this of Episcopacy cannot be concluded from the uninterrupted Tradition of the Catholique Church , &c. And why , I pray , Sir , doth this trouble you ? You give this reason why , viz. Because certainly , for the Apostolical practice in the Observation of the Lord's day , we have the infallible evidence of Holy Scripture , Acts 20. 1 Cor. 16. But you must prove that we have in those Scriptures , or some other , infallible evidence for the Apostolical Institution of the Observation of the Lord's day , and not for the mere Apostolical practice , or you will say nothing to the purpose . But to save my self the labour of saying more upon this Argument , and of replying to those few lines that follow against the Primitiveness of our Episcopacy , I entreat you to consult Mr. Chillingworth's Apostolical Institution of Episcopacy demonstrated , together with the most Learned Dean of St Pauls his Ample Proof of these two Propositions , in his Vnreasonableness of Separation , p. 244 , &c. viz. First , that our Diocesan Episcopacy is the same for substance which was in the Primitive Church . And Secondly , That it is not repugnant to any Institution of Christ , nor devising a new species of Churches without God's Authority . As to what you say , p. 19. about Liturgies , viz. that they cannot be indifferent , if indeed ( as our Author speaks ) they be highly expedient to be universally imposed , yea necessary . I reply , you have not caught him in a Contradiction , as you think ; for his saying concerning Liturgies , &c. pag. 38. is , That he takes it for granted , that they are all indifferent in their own nature . And tells you what he means by those words , in the next ; viz. that there is nothing of viciousness or immorality in any of them , &c. Now is it a contradiction to say of the same thing , that it is indifferent in its own nature , and that 't is necessary considering certain circumstances ? And I farther say , that Liturgies are necessary , considering , that through humane Weakness and Frailty , the performance of publick worship with that Solemnity and Gravity , which it calls for , cannot be secured ; and yet notwithstanding they are still things in their own nature indifferent ; and so are all those things too which God ' s Positive Laws have made necessary ; as all know who understand the difference between Moral and Positive . But as to the Antiquity of Liturgies , which you say our Author knoweth to be denied , you have had a good while extant that Discourse which he said was expected , and which you say you will patiently wait for , to give you satisfaction , about this matter . And it is excellently fitted ( as I hope you have before now found ) not onely for the satisfying of Dissenters about that point relating to Liturgies , but divers others also . In your next Paragraph , you tell us , that all Divines will readily acknowledge , that such a Method and Order of a Liturgy , as is not contrived in Subserviency to the 3 General Rules , of Doing all to Edification , the Glory of God , and not giving offence to any of the Churches of God , may make it unlawfull . And I also do readily acknowledge this , and am confident that you cannot prove , that Ours is not so contrived as to be made not Subservient unto those Rules . And as to the last of them , whatsoever Churches please to take offence at our Liturgy , I am sure it gives no offence to them . In what follows you profess , that you never thought it unlawfull for any Laick , wholly to separate from the Church of England , because of our Liturgy ( and I hope you think it no more Lawfull for a Clergy-man ) nor did your self ever so separate . But for all that , you know that many hundreds and I fear some thousands do . But you say , there is a new Generation started up , that not onely makes you a Separatist , but all Conformable Ministers , if they do not every time read the Second Service at the Altar . This in good earnest , is somewhat a hard Case ; but I pray Sir , by what figure do you call one Start-up Warm Head a new Generation ? In your next Paragraph , pag. 20. You say , Our Author hath spied four little Thorns in some Dissenters Flesh , which he hath very charitably endeavoured to pick out . And you add , that you will candidly enquire if no bit of them remain which may cause pain , and hinder healing . To make no reflexion , Sir , upon your expressing your self thus phancifully , your meaning must be , that you will enquire whether our Author hath not well defended the four things in our Liturgy , which Dissenters object against as symbolizings with the Roman Service , from being liable to just Offence : Of which , The First is , The shortness of many Prayers . But you say not one word in answer to what he speaks in the Vindication thereof : But tell us , that if some Dissenters think that throughout the Scriptures there is nothing like this to be found , either in the Prayers of Solomon , &c. or any others , and be a little stumbled at it , you cannot condemn them : But you must needs condemn it as an errour in them , to think there are no short Prayers to be found in the Holy Scriptures , when there are many more short , than there are long Prayers : When our Saviour used in the Garden thrice , a shorter Prayer than is any one in our Service : And when the Form he left behind him for our use is a very short one . But if the using of a short Prayer be not the thing blamed , but the using of several such in the same Service , instead of one very long one , I must take leave to say , this is more Wantonness . And whereas you say , you cannot condemn Dissenters , if they be a little stumbled at it ; I say , to be stumbled at it so , as to make it one pretence for not joining with us in our Prayers , is not to be a little stumbled at it . And you know that that which our Author is concerned to doe is , to perswade Dissenters not to be so much stumbled at any thing in our Prayers , as to leave our Communion upon the account thereof . Though he would be very glad to have them so well pleased with all of them , as not to be in the least stumbled at any of them . The Second instance is , The Peoples bearing a part with the Minister in Divine Service . And whereas our Author hath thought it enough to transcribe what Mr. Baxter hath said in five particulars , to vindicate both the Lawfulness and Fitness hereof ; you reply not one word to any of them . But you think you have balanced ( as your word is ) those five with five of your own . 1. You say , These Responses do not suit the gravity and solemnity of Divine Worship . But we say they do ; and our yea is as good as your nay . 2. You say , many read false oftentimes . And whose fault is it , if they do ? But it appears from what is coming , that you cannot prove it . 3. You say , Many Children and Girls , understand not what they doe . And therefore why do you permit them to join in Singing ? And why do you suffer them to hear Sermons ? 4. Those that cannot read , you say , are not edified in a confused noise , not being able to understand what is read . And then I hope you might have spared your second particular ; for those that read falsely cannot then be observed so to doe in this confused noise . 5. You say , Many leud and profane persons , are thus made to bear their share in the Ministerial part of Publique Worship , &c. But do you prove that this is bearing a share in that part of Publique Worship which is proper and peculiar to the Minister ; and then we will grant that not onely no profane men , but no Lay-men neither , be they never so good , may have their part therein . 6. You say , There is no such practice in the Churches of God , in New England , Scotland , France , Holland , &c. Do you think that our Author hath taken the Solemn League and Covenant , that you urge such an Argument as this to him ? If you do , you are much mistaken , Sir. But Mr. Baxter tells you , in his fifth particular , That it was the decay of zeal in the people that first shut out the Responses : And therefore those Churches you mention should doe well to imitate ours in this particular . I am constrained , Sir , to tell you again , that I am ashamed of taking any notice of such talk as this . The Third instance is , The taking of some of the Collects out of the Missal . You say you wish our Author had told us how many . But I say , 't is not worth the knowing ( if it were I could soon tell you ) if those that are taken thence are all good ones . And ( considering what hath been said ) this is a sufficient Answer . Remember our Author hath told you , that our Departure from the Church of Rome , was designed to be a Reformation , not a total Destruction and Extirpation . And I suppose the zeal of some Reformers that hurried them upon making no discrimination between things faulty , and those that were innocent , occasioned that honest saying of Zanchy's , which I have heretofore somewhere met with , viz. Non intelligo istam Reformatorum Mundi Theologiam . As to that which follows to the last Paragraph of pag. 23d . Enough abundantly hath already been said to satisfie you that you might have spared it . Onely let me once for all tell you , that whereas both here and elsewhere , you insist upon our being at perfect liberty as to the using or not using those unnecessary things , wherein we symbolize with the Church of Rome ; you ought to know that while they are Enjoyned , we who are under Government are not at liberty ; as the Christians in the Apostles days were , as to the Eating of Meats , &c. And whereas you touch here upon the topick of Scandal , I can not hope to satisfie you about this Point ; if the two late judicious Resolutions of that Case cannot do it : To which I refer you , and ought so to doe , it not falling within our Author's Undertaking . The Fourth instance is , The Appointing of Lessons out of the Apocryphal Books . And what you say under this head , amounts to thus much , that you think it were better if they were not appointed . And therefore I perceive you are not for making this a Pretence for Separation , and Consequently you can have no controversie with our Author about it . Whether it were better or not , that we should imitate the Primitive Church in reading them now and then on Holy-days and ordinary Week-days , merely for Example of life , and instruction of Manners , but not for the Establishing of any Doctrine , let it be left to our Superiors to judge . But though you have a greater latitude than many other Dissenters , as to this matter , yet you say that all should not be forced out of their wits , nor made to doe what , they cannot , as well as you , apprehend lawfull . No , God forbid , that any one should be forced out of his wits upon such an account . But whom can you name that hath had the least trouble given him , for not being at Church on a Week-day Holy-day ? But I must take notice of one more passage , before I proceed , viz. Holy-days are the same with Sabbath-days , with those who judge that there is nothing but Tradition for either . Here is a good Wipe for our Author . But I pray , Sir , did he say that there is nothing but Tradition for the Observation of the Sabbath ? He said that indeed , pag. 10th , from whence it may be inferred , that he believes that the Apostolical institution of the Observation of the Lord's day , is wholly to be gathered from the uninterrupted Tradition or Practice of the Catholick Church ; and is that such a small matter to found it upon ? When 't is the foundation on which is built the Canon of the Holy Scriptures . But who are they that tell you , that from the Uninterrupted Tradition of the Catholick Church may be gathered the Apostolical institution of the Other Holy-days ? Name any one if you are able that so saith , or that saith that they are of Apostolical institution . Now we are come to those particular Rites and Ceremonies of our Church , in which our Author saith , pag. 15. Our symbolizing with Popery is so much condemned . And you say , pag. 24th . that he observeth in the general , 1. That our Ceremonies are not the hundredth part ( you should have added scarcely ) of those used by the Papists . And this you grant ; but you add , that we may as well Symbolize in thirty as in three . But I must make bold to tell you , you never uttered a more inconsiderative saying . It seems then , 't is no matter how many Ceremonies are used in Divine Worship , so they be all innocent . I am sure St. Augustin was not of this mind . But it may be you 'll say there are none innocent . But if so , you cannot say that we may as well use thirty as three : Because the thirty must necessarily be a great hindrance to that attention of mind that Divine Worship calls for ; but he must have a Weak head indeed , whose mind must needs be diverted by three . 2. Our Author saith , that our Church imposeth them not , as the other doth , on the Consciences of her Members , as things of Necessity , as parts of Religion or meritorious Services . And you need not one word more of Answer to what you object against this than you have had already given you , viz. pag. 6. In your 25th . page , you begin , as our Author does , with the Ceremony of the Surplice ; and 1. You say , he rightly observeth that all are not obliged to wear it . And this is sagaciously indeed observed by him , if he does observe it ; but he onely saith , that he cannot imagine why those who are not obliged to wear it , should be affrighted from our Churches , by the mere sight of so innocent a thing , as he before had proved it to be , as it is used in our Church ; but shewed it is far from being an innocent thing , as it is used in the Church of Rome . 2. You say , that you are not scandaliz'd at the sight of it . But for all that , you know that not a few Dissenters do profess to be so . 3. You say , that you are not sure , that they use a Garment of the same form in the Church of Rome ; though they use some Garment of the same Colour ; so that you doubt , whether in that we do symbolize with the Church of Rome or no. I was in good hope when I had read thus far , that there would have been no Controversie between you and our Author about this Ceremony . But I presently found my self mistaken ; for 4. You make us notwithstanding faultily to symbolize with the Church of Rome , in that we will not suffer this Garment to be worn but in Acts of Worship . So that , you say , it is neither merely for necessity , nor natural decency , nor Ornament , nor for distinction . But I say that this Garment is required , both for Ornament and Distinction . You say it is not required for either , because all Ministers wear it not at other times . But I deny your Consequence ; for it is required as an Ornamental Garment in Divine Worship , and for distinction between a Minister officiating and not officiating . You may as well say that for the same reason , the Judges Scarlet is neither for Ornament nor Distinction . And seeing it is such an Offence that this Garment should be appropriated to Divine Worship , I desire you , Sir , at your Leisure to answer our Famous Hooker's Question , viz. To solemn Actions of Royalty and Justice , their suitable Ornaments are a Beauty ; are they onely in Religion a Stain ? Time was when putting on a Gown merely for the Desk and Pulpit was accounted no Offence by Non-Conforming Ministers , and consequently they did not then espy any Unlawfulness , in appropriating a Garment to Religious exercises . Nor do we place one jot more holiness in a Surplice than in a Gown , or Cloak either . But you say , may not jealousies of some homage by it intended to God , and such thoughts , as those you suggested , arise in weaker Christians ? I answer , whether these thoughts may arise in them or no , you take as effectual a course as you can that they should arise in them . And as for Homage intended to God by wearing the Surplice , I don't think any Christians so weak as to phansie such a thing , if you and others would but let them alone , and not fill their heads with objections against innocent things , when you might employ your time with them to infinitely better purpose . I pray , Sir , be not offended if I once for all freely tell you , that by your possessing these weak Christians with all imaginable objections against the Lawfulness of obeying Governours in things which are made by your selves doubtfull to them , and not with one Objection against the Unlawfulness of Disobedience in doubtfull matters ; is the way to make them everlastingly weak , and to make them worse than weak too . It saddens the hearts of not a few good people to observe , that the fearfull consequents of such doings have not yet made you sensible whose interest you have all along served , by the means of them . You next object three things against the Ceremony of the Cross in Baptism , pag. 26. 1. You say , it is an adding to the Divine Institution unnecessarily . I answer we add nothing to Divine Institution . I mean we add nothing more to Baptism , or any other Ordinance , as of Divine Institution , than your selves do . And as to the Vnnecessariness of this Ceremony : if it were necessary it would be no Ceremony , at least no humane one . If you mean there is no necessity of imposing it . It is enough for a Ceremony that it is imposed for good and profitable ends and uses : And our Church tells you for what ends and uses this of the Cross is required , in the 30th Canon . If you mean there is no necessity of using it , now it is imposed : I beg your pardon for being of a contrary opinion , till you prove it to be a Transgression of any law of God : And when you have done this , I will grant that it is necessary not to use it . 2. You say , we attribute to the sign of the Cross , more than is truly due to it , as the Papists do . But we say , we do not , and shall persist in saying so , till you prove we do . 3. You say , that to expound Dedicated in the Canon by Declared ( you should have said declared to be dedicated ) is a Catachrestical use of the word . What care I for that , if the word ought so to be expounded . You say , you will take no private Doctor 's word for it , though greater than Dr. Burges . But you cannot otherwise understand that word , except you will make our Church to speak contradictions in that Canon . There is nothing you object , or I think can object , against the Ceremony of Kneeling at the Communion , but you may find most satisfactorily answered in the Learned Resolution of the Case of Kneeling , &c. But yet we will not wholly pass by what you say against it . Having called the Declaration of our Church concerning it , an excellent Declaration , pag. 26th , you say , pag. 27th , that it may be it satisfieth you , abstracting your thoughts from the Bread , while you are upon your Knees : And he that cannot , with the greatest ease in the world , abstract his thoughts from the Bread , must be almost starved with fasting . But , it follows , if all cannot be so satisfied , shall they therefore be Ruined for their doubt in this thing ? You shall have no new answer to this , besides asking you this Question , if there be any danger of Ruine in this case , who are most charitable to these Doubters , those that doe their utmost to satisfie them , that they may not come near the danger , or those that use their utmost endeavours to make all means unsuccessfull , that are used for their Satisfaction ? I must needs take notice also of your pleasant answer to this passage in our Author , pag. 49. viz. That there being nothing said of the Gesture in our Saviour's Institution of this Sacrament , he hath consequently left the particular Gesture to the Determination of the Church ; a Gesture being in the general necessary . Your answer is , Our Saviour bad his Disciples Baptize , but saith nothing of Water , nor from what Fountain or River ; hath he therefore left it to the Churches determination ; that Ministers shall Baptize onely with Rose-water , or Water fetched from the River ? Truly , Sir , a smile is the best Reply that is due to this . But do you in sober sadness then think , that nothing is left by Christ to the Churches Determination , neither place , nor time , nor any other Circumstance ? If this be not wild Fanaticism , there is no such thing in nature ; and I know you 'll acknowledge it . But if the Church may determine the place of publick worship , and the times of day when to meet , because our Lord hath not determined such particulars ; why may not the Church determine particular Gestures , when they are not by him determined ? And can you think , Sir , that it is well done after this manner to Ridicule the Churche's Power ? No , I know you cannot think so , and therefore this was an hasty Slip from your Pen , which you will not upon Second thoughts justifie . You say at the Bottom of this page , That you do not think what our Author mentions , pag. 50. of the Ring in Marriage worth the speaking to : Because Dissenters generally believe the Ring a Civil Pledg , &c. I wish they universally thought so , and if they do not ( as time was when you know they did not ) I know not why you should add , that How it comes into our debate you cannot tell . Next you spend the best part of two pages upon our Holy-days , which is our Author's last instance of Rites which Dissenters are offended with , upon the account of our Symbolizing in them with the Church of Rome . And 1. You say , That it is God's Prerogative alone to make a day Holy , i. e. such as it shall be sinfull for any to labour in . But do you think that God ' s Vicegerents have not power given them to set apart days to a holy use ? And in any other sense we do not think that any day is capable of being made Holy. 'T is manifest from what follows , that you do not think so . And if you do not , can you think that our Governours have no power to forbid ordinary Labour upon those days , which they have so set apart ? And if they have this power , can you think it lawfull to disobey those laws of theirs , that prohibit working on those days ? And , if this be not lawfull , then I fear 't is Sinfull . 2. You say , That God's Revelation of his Will for solemn Praises upon the Receipt of Signal Mercies ; or solemn Prayers in times of great Distress , justifieth Magistrates , or Churches in setting apart in such Cases , Days for Praise and Prayers . Then , I hope , the Magistrates or the Church , have power to make a day Holy ; and Consequently , they may forbid opening of Shops , and Ordinary labour , on such a day : And therefore 't is sinfull to disobey them herein . 3. You say , That all such days ought to be intirely spent in Religious Exercises . But notwithstanding you are so dogmatical , in this thing , I am Confident upon second thoughts you 'll acknowledge you were too rash : For you cannot really think what you assert with such Confidence , except you can find in your heart to reprove Ringing of Bells , and innocent Recreations after Sermon , on the Fifth of November , as Profanations of that Holy-day . And I hope we may make bold to call that day a Holy-day ; it being so according to your own Concession in the foregoing particular . 4. You say , That to spend an hour of such a Day in Prayer , and all the rest in Idleness , Drinking , Revelling , Gaming , &c. is not to keep a Holy but a Licentious Day . No body doubts this : But are you obliged by our Church so to spend Her Holy-days ? And if you are not , but may keep them as strictly as you please , what a strange objection is this against the lawfulness of observing them ! 5. You say , That there is no need of keeping any such days , in Commemoration of the Birth , Death , Resurrection or Ascension of Christ ; because God hath appointed fifty two , every year for that purpose . I answer , if you mean by no need , that there is no absolute necessity of the Churches setting apart days for the Commemoration of Christ ' s Birth , Death , &c. we will perhaps grant it ; but what then ? Doth it thence follow that the well observing such days doth not tend to our Edification , to the more building us up in our holy Faith , and encrease in Holiness ? you dare not say or think so . But I say farther , that the well observing them is of admirable use . And nothing would tend more to our Growth in all the Christian Vertues , than besides the general Meditation on the Birth , Death , Resurrection and Ascension of our Lord every Lord's day , to set days apart for the particular Meditation on Each of these Grand Mysteries of our Religion : There being in each of them more than enough to employ a whole day in admiring thoughts of it , and in praises to God for it , and in making Applications of it to our Spiritual Advantage . And therefore I am certain , you would spend your pains to far better purpose , if instead of prejudicing Peoples minds against the observance of such days , you would Excite them ( like the good Fathers of the Primitive Church ) to the well observing , and making the best improvement of them . The generality , God knows , of Professors of Christianity , are too too carelesly and irreligiously disposed of themselves , to need to be disswaded from the using of any helps to their being made more devout , and better People . And where there is one among us that is apt to be too superstitiously inclined , I fear there are some hundreds , who are more enclined to the other Extreme , that of profaneness . But our Author hath sufficiently shewed , that the Popish Superstitions are perfectly removed by our Church from the Observation of Holy-days . And no man that observes them as our Church directeth , can have the least temptation from the Observance of them to be superstitious . 6. You say , That to keep a day Holy to any Saint , is to make an Idol of that Saint . And do you think our Church in her Festivals , designs keeping Days holy to Saints ? if you do not think so , why are you thus impertinent ? But if you do , then you declare that she makes Idols of Saints . And if so , why did you pag. 17th declare it , as your belief , that the Church of England cannot be justly charged with Idolatry ? But I think , that the making an Idol of a Saint , is idolatry . 7. You say , That to keep a Day of Thanksgiving , for blessing the world with such a Saint , is what God hath no where prescribed ; what neither the Jews , nor Christians , in the first times ever did . So that it seems you are not so ignorant , as you now seemed to make your self ; but , do know why many of our Festivals receive their names from certain Saints . And why may we not , on certain Days , meet together , to praise God for blessing the world with such Saints , as have been next to our Blessed Lord , the most Glorious instruments of good to the world ; and at the same time hear those Chapters read wherein their worthy deeds are recorded ; and together with other Prayers put in one , for grace to follow those blessed Examples of a holy Life ( of both active and passive Obedience ) which they have , through the Divine grace , left behind them ? What Sin is there in all this ? Nay , why should not this highly become us , and be of singular advantage to us ? You give two reasons why this is unlawfull . 1. Because God hath no where prescribed it . But must we be at this time of day , told that nothing is lawfull relating to the Worship of God , but what is expresly commanded ; when the Idleness and Folly of that Doctrine , hath been over and over exposed as it hath been ? But 2dly you say , That this is that which the Jews , nor Christians in the first times never did . But , if you mean by the First times , the times of the Apostles , 't is more than you can prove , that the Martyrdom of St. Stephen was never solemnly commemorated by the Christians in their time . And I presume you would not have had the Martyrdoms of the Apostles commemorated , before they were Martyred , what if this be not recorded , is it therefore a certain Argument that it never was ? You find not I think the Martyrdom of any one of the Apostles recorded in holy Scripture , except St. James's . But if you mean by the first times , the Primitive times , I perceive you never read , or have forgotten , The Epistle of the Church of Smyrna , concerning Policarp's Martyrdom . But I hope it needs not to be proved to you , that the Catholique Church observed Martyrum Natalitia , the Days whereon they were crowned with Martyrdom , even from the Second Century : But where do you find it prescribed in God's word , or recorded that it was practised in the Apostles times ( for to be sure you mean those by the First times ) to praise God for the good Examples of Holy men , among other great Blessings , is it therefore unlawfull so to doe , as well as to doe it upon Set Days ? You will not assert so absurd a thing . In short , Sir , think not that we need either Precepts or Examples , to justifie our doing of that , which the very Light of Nature , and Right Reason , do plainly declare to us , to be , though not a necessary duty , yet highly becoming us , and praise-worthy . And we are certain that it is dictated thereby to be highly becoming us , to commemorate , at Annual Selected times , the unspeakable Goodness of God to us in giving us such Shining Lights as the Holy Apostles , &c. and to meditate upon Christ glorified in them , who with admirable courage first preached and propagated his Gospel in the World , and with admirable Patience , for the sake thereof , indured the greatest of Miseries and Calamities , and at last Sealed it with their Blood. 8. You say , But if Devout persons will set apart Days , ( you might have said too , will observe Days set apart by the Church ) to give God thanks for any signal mercies ( among which I think , every Apostle is a most signal one ) or to put up Prayers for any people in distress , provided they do not mock God , in giving him an holy hour , instead of an holy day , and spend the rest of the day in Idleness , Gaming , Drinking , &c. ( And can you think that any of our Devout people , do not abhor such practices as much as you ? ) Dissenters will never blame , or condemn them for it . I hoped you would have said , they will join with us , since Authority requires it . 9. You say , Finally Dissenters will never separate from the Church of England , for the true keeping of a day holy to God , &c. Yes surely they will , if it be a Saint's day at least , as one would think by what you have said . But you add , that they will separate from the Looseness and commonly practised Profanation of it ( and so do thousands of those that are no Dissenters , I hope ) or such as were onely so , in the Pope's Kalendar , as St. George , &c. Now you would , Sir , again feign your self more ignorant than you are ; for , no doubt , you know as well as we , that St. George his day is no Church of England Holy-day . And for all your [ &c. ] you cannot but know too , that Our Church hath no Festival-days called by any Saints names , but such as all Christians own for the Greatest of Saints , except those Innocents who had the honour to suffer for Christ's sake , before they were of age to know him . We have indeed a Fast-day , occasioned by the Horrid Murther of King Charles the Martyr , whom we deservedly honour as a Great Saint . But I never heard that this Saint stands in the Pope's Kalendar , and I 'll warrant you never shall . We should be glad to hear , that He stands in yours ; however we hope He will never be blotted out of ours . And now , having done with our Author , you spend a good part of your five last Pages in such discourse , as is so far from tending to the composing of our Differences , and healing our wide and most dangerous Breaches , that it hath the most apparent tendency to the making them irreparable beyond all Remedy . And 't is enough to convince all sober people , that the cause of those that separate is desperate , to observe what strange principles are taken up of late in the defence of Separation ; even such as the Old Non-conformists would have thought very wild ones , serving no better purpose than the Unhinging of all . And those , Sir , which you here lay down so dogmatically not offering any proof of them , you shall find most shamefully baffled by the Dean of St. Pauls , in his forementioned excellent Book . For my part , I am too much tyred with Scribbling thus long , to take into consideration this close of your Book , farther than reflecting upon two or three passages ; though I am not at all obliged to take notice of those neither , as a Defender of our Author . And indeed ( to deal like a plain-hearted Friend with you ) it was but the other day before I could be perswaded to think it needfull to Reply at all . You say , pag. 31. That Separation in these three Cases is Lawfull , if not Necessary . Your First case is , When such errours are in the Constitution of a Church , as , if they had been known before , ought to have hindered Vnion with it . But you do not tell us what Errours those are . Would you have your Readers take it for granted , that there are such Errours in the Constitution of the Church of England ? But we may guess at one of those Errours in our Constitution , from that which you say , pag. 30. viz. That Governing Churches must have proper Officers , which cannot be , unless elected by the Governed ; who could never part with their Right in chusing Officers , &c. But what Right they have you will soon learn from the Reverend Dean Stilling fleet , in his Vnreasonableness of Separation , pag. 307 , &c. There you will find they have no Right at all , or I am much mistaken . From what you say in these two Pages , and that which follows ( in which your discourse is such , that 't is hard to say certainly what you would be at ) I shrewdly conjecture , that you believe it Lawfull to separate from the Church of England , although she had neither Ceremonies nor Liturgy to score men away . Your Second case is , When a Church is turned Idolatrous ; that then it is necessary to depart from it . And here we have no Controversie . Your Third is , When a Church will not admit a man's abiding in it , unless he will doe something which his Conscience tells him is sinfull . But , Sir , will you not acknowledge , that it cannot justifie our Separation that something is required which we judge sinfull , whilst we will not impartially use all means for the duly informing of our judgments : whilst we call it a running into Temptation , to read what is offered us in Defence of the Lawfulness of that , we have a prejudice against : Whilst we so confide in our own judgments , or in the judgments of our Party , as not to bear to hear that 't is possible we should be mistaken ? Surely all truly good men will acknowledge this . You say , in all these Cases Separating is Lawfull , if not Necessary : For in the two first Cases we ought to Separate ( And then I hope in those cases it is Necessary and not onely Lawfull to Separate ) in the last we may prudently and warily depart , &c. And why do you so mince the matter , by changing your phrase , when your meaning is that you may Separate ? And why do you so mince is too in saying , in the two first Cases we ought to Separate ? which supposeth that in this Case you are at your Liberty , and that , though you may lawfully Separate yet it is not a necessary duty so to doe . And why again do you say , we judge this no sinfull Separation ? Why don't you speak out and say 't is a Necessary one ? Except you think that a man may lawfully act against his Conscience . But you have given me sufficient assurance in your Book , that this you do not think . You say , pag. 33. If any others in former Ages , or in our own , have had any other apprehensions of the significancy ( you would have said signification ) of the Terms , Church , Schism and Separation , whom we own to have been Holy and Excellent men , till we see their Notions justified from Holy Writ ( which alone can determine these things ) we must crave leave to dissent from them , and believe that had they lived in our times , they would have dissented from their own Apprehensions under a more perfect light , &c. But 1. What would you have said to us , if we had given this Answer to your citing Holy and Excellent men , such as Calvin ( whom our Author hath so often appealed to in his Book ) and others against our Notions ? I am sure you would have severely upbraided us with having a wonderfull opinion of our own judgments . Especially if our Notions ran counter to all Antiquity , and the Judgments of all Holy Excellent men in former Ages , and to the generality of such in our own Age and Time. But this I dare say may be asserted of your Notions concerning the Terms , Schism and Separation ; and much of your talk concerning the Term Church too . 2. How came you to have more light than the Holy and Excellent men in former Ages , and in our own Age too ? which you plainly suppose your selves to have . Nay you suppose this , as to multitudes of such persons also as are your Contemporaries . For you say , pag. 7. We are far from thinking that there are not multitudes of Holy and Learned men , in our Ecclesia Loquens , &c. that is , Among Conformable Divines of the Church of England . 3. This Answer would far better become the Quakers than you ; they pretending to inspiration , which you do not . I will now conclude with a Remarque or two on those words , with which you begin the concluding part of your Book . You say , pag. 29. And now how happy should we not onely think our selves , but indeed be , would our Brethren but leave disputing ; how far it is lawfull for the Spouse of Christ , to have Communion with the Great Whore ; and onely argue how far we come short of symbolizing with the First and Purest Gospel Churches , of which we have Records in Holy Writ . To this I say 1. How Unaccountable is this Charge you lay against your Brethren ! when you know that they are in as perfect a Separation as your selves , from the Communion of that Apostate Church , which you mean by the Great WHORE . 2. It lieth not in your power to shew us a Church , which more symbolizeth with the First and Purest Gospel Churches , than the Church of England . And as for those Churches which you believe do come nearer to the First and Purest , it hath often enough been demonstrated with invincible strength , that the main thing ( viz. the point of Government ) in which you conceive they more agree with these Churches , doth speak them far less to agree with them , than the Church of England does : And speaks them to be therein unlike to the whole Catholique Church of Christ for fifteen hundred years together , from the time of the Apostles . We do not pretend that the Constitution of our Church is absolutely perfect , we do believe that such a Constitution is the peculiar privilege of the Church Triumphant ; but we bless God that 't is no more imperfect , and we who live in complete Communion with this Church are well assured that there is nothing either in the Constitution thereof , or in what is required thereby , that hindereth us from being as good Christians as ever were in the world . We cannot find after all the pains that you and others have taken to prove the contrary , that there is imposed upon us any one condition of Communion that does contradict any Law of God ; that tends in the least to the depraving of our Souls , to the gratifying of any one corrupt Affection , or the making us unmeet for the Heavenly Happiness . And this our Holy Martyrs thought as well as we : And gave a Demonstration hereof by their Excellent Lives , and Heroick Behaviour under the greatest Torments ; they not onely patiently but also joyfully enduring them for the sake of Christ . Nor do we find , any more than they did , that we are debarred by our Church of any Helps for the building of us up in our most holy faith . And whereas you express such mighty zeal for Purer Ordinances , we think that zeal would be much better employed in endeavouring after Purer Hearts : And that this contending with your Superiours , and your Brethren about some things enjoined , hath been infinitely more prejudicial to mens Souls , and contributed unspeakably more to the impurity both of mens hearts and lives , than the impure Ordinances you so complain of . And therefore all good and pious Church of England men cannot but say , How happy should we not onely think our selves , but indeed be , would our Brethren but leave disputing with such mighty concern about little things , and things that are perfectly harmless and innocent ▪ Would make no more Sins , than God and their Blessed Saviour have made ▪ Would be as fearfull of culpably Disobeying Authority as of culpably Obeying it ▪ Would be as thankfull that they are in no worse Circumstances , as they are full of Complaints that they are in no better ▪ Would take as much pains to satisfie themselves , how far they may lawfully hold Communion with our Church , as how far they may lawfully Separate from it ▪ Would be as willing to read those Books that are written in the defence of the things enjoined by our Church , as to read those which are written in opposition to them ▪ Would as impartially consider the vast distance between our Church and that of Rome , as thus dwell upon the most inconsiderable Agreement that is between them ; which our Author hath convincingly to any unprejudiced person proved , to be no justifiable pretence for Separation . And if we would well digest those excellent words of the Apostle , Rom. 14. 17 , 18. The Kingdom of God is not meat or drink , but righteousness , peace , and joy in the Holy Ghost : For he that in these things serveth Christ , is acceptable to God and approved of men . And , if we would follow after the things that make for peace , and things wherein one may edifie another . And lastly , if we would at length be perswaded to Let all bitterness , and wrath , and anger , and clamour , and evil speaking , against one another , be put away from us , with all malice : And to be Kind and affectionate one to another ( notwithstanding the Difference of Apprehensions ) tender hearted , forgiving one another , even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven us . I say , if we could once be brought to this temper , we should be unspeakably more happy , than those things you express so passionate a desire of could possibly make us . And without this blessed temper , we shall be miserable wretches , though there were no Agreement in any one Rite between Rome and us , and though our Ordinances were as pure as 't is your wish to have them : Nor will our bidding the greatest defiance to the Antichrist in the Roman Chair one whit avail us , while the Spiritual Antichrist , which is the worse of the two , continues possessed of his Seat in our Hearts . And so , Sir , I heartily bid you Farewell . ERRATA . Page 19. Lin. 12. read in their greatest . p. 27. l. 30. dele ? p. 32. l. 1. read is so contrived . FINIS . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A70067-e180 * pag. 4. * pag. 4. * p. 7. † p. 9. * p. 10. * p. 11. * p. 12. * p. 12. * p. 13. Eccl. pol. Book 5th . p. 228. Last Edit . v. 19. Eph. 4. 31 , 32.