Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	church_n	power_n	synod_n	3,603	5	9.6685	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85313	Presbyterial ordination vindicated. In a brief and sober discourse concerning episcopacy, as claiming greater power, and more eminent offices by divine right, then presbyterie. The arguments of the Reverend Bishop Dr Davenant in his determination for such episcopacy are modestly examined. And arguments for the validity of presbyterial ordination added. With a brief discourse concerning imposed forms of prayer, and ceremonies. Written by G.F. minister of the gospel in defence of his own ordination, being questioned, because it was performed by Presbyters.	Firmin, Giles, 1614-1697.	1660 (1660)	Wing F961; Thomason E1045_17; ESTC R208016	42,577	55

pag. 240.390 F●●b but when Cresconius or other Donatists would bring any thing out of him to prove what Augustin judged an errour he knew how to set the Scri●tures and Apostles above him So doth Cyprian sharply speak against those who brought Tradition for their proof qua ista obstinatio qua presumptio humanam traditionem divine dispositîoni anteponere c Vnde ista traditio Vtrumne de dominica evangelica auctoritate descendens Ep 74. c So Tertullian Non recipio quod extra Scripturam de two infert Bellarmine saith enough Patrum scripta non sunt regula nec habent authoritatem obligandi To the Scriptures then let us go which speak so clear in this controversie that all men even the Papists who call those men Hereticks that deny this superiority of Bishops yet are forced to yield it that in the Apostles time the Bishop and Presbyter were the same Let Cajetan's interpretation be heard upon Tit. 1.5 7. Vbi adverte eundem gradum idemquè officium significari à Paulo nomine Presbyteri nomine Episcopi as cross to Bishop Davenant as can be Anselm the Archbishop of Canterbury in his Comment upon the same verses brings all Hierons Comment where he proves Bishops and Presbyters to be the same and no way opposeth it Estius who in the beginning of his Disputation calls them Hereticks who will not yield the superiority of Bishops and that jure divino in the midst of his Disputation hath these words Quod autem jure divin● sint Episcopi Presbyteris superiores Senten l. 4. d. 24. S. 25. etsi non ita clarum est è saoris literis aliunde ramen satis efficaciter probari potest probatur tam ratione quàm testimoniis veterum It seems then the Scriptures are not clear enough to prove this superiority in his opinion and which is divinely spoken though he could not prove the divine right of this Superiority out of the Scriptures yet he would prove it by reason and testimonies of Ancients Had a Presbyterian written thus he should have been scorned to purpose Take the Papists again in their I. C. dist 60. Sacres Ordines dicimus Diaconatum Presbyteratum hos enimsolos primitiva legitur habuisse Ecclesia According to these then your Antiquity for Episcopacy must not go so high as the Primitive Church One more Papist and I have done with them I find Greg. de Valen. De Sacr. Ord. disp 9. q. 1. p. 2. quoting of Michael Medina one of their own affirming that Hierem and all the Fathers he had named before which were Angustin Ambrose Chrysostom Primasius Theophylact and Otcumenius fuisse planè in errore Acrii but the Church did not condemn this errour in them but bare with them because they were otherwise orthodox but did condemn it in Acrius being otherwise in multis nominibus hareticus Then it seems Acrius who was against this Superiority by divine right had these worthy men in that point to agree with him in Medina's judgment with whom Valentia is not pleased To conclude as to Testimonies Learned and Sober Jewel a Jewel indeed in his defence against Harding p. 101 202. quoting testimonies out of Hierom Ambrose Augustin concludes that by the Scriptures of God a Bishop and Presbyter are all one thus this Reverend Bishop I wonder these Testimonies grounded also on Scripture could not moderate our Brethrens heat in this controversie We hope Presbyterial Ordination will not be so contemptible at last I have but one thing to add and it is considerable the Syriack Translation which is so ancient that in time it came near the Original and is thought by some to have been made in the time of the first Antiochian Christians do not use two words one for Bishop and another for Presbyter as our Translation and the Greek but it hath only the word which signifies a Presbyter unlesse in one place Tit. 1.5 7. For a Presbyter must be blameless So 1 Tim. 3.1 If a man desire the Office of a Presbyter V. 2. A Presbyter then must be blameless So in Phil. 1.1 With the Presbyters and Deacons In Acts 20.28 There it alters the word is originally Greek the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only it hath a Syriac termination being Nomen plurale emphaticum in prima Declinatione In 1 Pet. 2. ult Where Bishop is referr'd to Christ there it hath another word Now this to me carries strong proof that this distinction of Bishop and Presbyter was unknown when that Translation was made for there is not so much as any different names but Presbyter is the only word Whether any have taken notice of this before I know not And though some say that it is a Trite Argument that is drawn from the words Presbyter and Bishop being used promiscuously yet it is such an Argument as hath so much strength in it that it was never answered We use to say that Nomina sunt rerum notae symbola whence if the same persons are called Presbyters or Bishops surely their power cannot be distinct Officers are known by their names and distinct Officers by distinct names in some places in the Scripture though in others they may have a general name common to others Though Paul in one place calls himself a Minister and Peter an Elder yet in other places we find they are called Apostles So the Officers have their distinctions Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors and Teachers Eph. 4.11 But Presbyter and Bishop are never thus differenced no not in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus where of all places they should have been if in those Epistles the Apostle lay the foundation of Episcopacy as say our Brethren but there they are the same as is plain to see and confessed by the Fathers Papists and Protestants Yea and besides the same Names what qualifications are required of one are required of the other the same work is enjoyned both Acts 20.28 1 Pet. 5.1 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The same Names the same Qualifications the same Charge conclude the same Function How then Reverend Davenant comes to find this eminency of power to be given and confirmed by the Apostles let us now consider His first Argument is taken from the Jewish Church thus Arg. 1 God appointed the High Priest superiour in authority over the Priests and the Priests over the Levites Ergo The like order is to be stablished in the Christian Church To which I Answer 1. There was and is still superiority of Officers in the Christian Church there was when there were Apostles Prophets Answ Evangelists Pastors c. there is now the Preaching Elder above the Ruling Elder and the Ruling Elder above the Deacon But he means amongst the Preaching Elders then I answer 2. This Argument will better prove a Vniversal Bishop Bellar. de Rom. Pont l. 1. c. 9. than a Diocesan Bishop and is used by Bellarmine for the same purpose it is his third reason

Acts 14.23 that now a single Bishop can ordain alone The Dr. forgat himself much but this power of Ordination and Jurisdiction he had need to prove to reside as he saith in illis solis else he hath lost his cause But see how much authority he opposeth what woful mischief might this soon produce to the Church 5. It may as strongly be gathered that to preach in season and out of season as do all Bishops to meditate to read to oppose hereticks c do only belong to Bishops because these Commands are given the first I am sure only to Timothy as to gather because Timothy is directed in Ordination how to act that therefore Presbyters must not impose hands Why this proper to him above all the rest 6. Consider I pray that which is added 1 Tim. 5.22 Neither be partakers of other mens sins whether it may not infer the contrary thus Timothy though other Ministers may be rash and not consider what they do in Ordination but would ordain unfit unworthy persons yet do not thou lay on hanas suddenly do not thou partake of their sins in rash Ordinations joyning with them A man may partake of the sins of Ordainers as well as of the Ordained I know nothing contrary to the Analogy of Faith nor to the Context if that sense be given Why saith the Dr. Could not the Ministers of Ephesus ordain before Timothy arrived or of Crete before Titus came thither I cannot learn but Titus went along with Paul to Crete the first time of his preaching there Answ and having laid the Foundations of Churches as Jerom saith left Titus there ut rudimenta nascentis Ecclesiae confirmaret ipse pergens ad alias Nationes c. But however 1. There is a difference between the arrival of Evangelists and the Bishops in question 2. There being abundance of enemies and errours spread about as we see it was the very reason why Paul besought Timothy to stay at Ephesus 1 Tim. 1.3 These men being so able and qualified above others might very well there be lest for a time as to oppose the heresies and errours so to look to the Ministry that none but sound and able men came into it but because these being Evangelists were far more able does it conclude the Presbyters had not the Right to ordain with them 3. Remember that Cajetan confesseth even in these Epistles Presbyter and Bishop signifie the same degree and the same office Had not the Churches been in danger Timothy had not need been there so this denies not their power The Dr. goes on to prove this sole power of Ordination from humane Authority 1. From that Saying of Jerome Excepta Ordinatione quid facit Episcopus quod Presbyter non faciat Answ Jerom speaks de facto the Bishops had engrossed this power but he does not say de jure it ought to be so for he had strongly proved the Bishop and Presbyter from several Scriptures to be the same 2. It should seem it was not a universal Custom For it was one great complaint against Chrysostom saith Bish Downam that he made Ordinations without the Presbytery And in the year 398 about which time Chrysostom flourished that fourth Council of Carthage which opposeth Bishops sole power of Ordination was held However this is but humane 2. He brings in the example of one Colythus a Presbyter of Alexandria who ordained Presbyters but their Ordination was made void and the Ordained returned into the Order of Laicks Still this is but a humane Act grounded on no Scripture Answ and yet there is somthing more to be said about this For 1. I find this Colythus is reckoned among the Hereticks by Augustine and others One of his Opinions Augustin mentions but what more he held I know not 2. He was a man infamis ambitione say the Historians and would make himself a Bishop as the Epistle of the Presbyters of Mareotis in the same Apol. of Athanas intimates whence they call him non verum sed imaginarium episcopum whence the general Council commanded ut se pro Presbytero haberat qualis antea fuisset 3. It appears in both places of Athanasins that this Colythus ordained alone there are none mentioned that joyned with him 4. That Ischyras who was ordained by Colythus and about whom there was so much trouble was not chosen of a Church for so the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 570. Now for a Heretick alone ambitiously making himself a Bishop to ordain a person not elected by a Church is not the same with five Orthodox Presbyters ordaining a Presbyter elected by a true Church The Dr. before he hath done does allow this which is so proper to Bishops to be common to Presbyters in some cases then it seems the power may be ours and whether our case be not as weighty I will consider anon The Third and last is The power of Jurisdiction over both Laick● and Presbyters and instanceth in Excommunication He will allow indeed Presbyters to be consulted with from Cyprians example he might have added the 23 Canon Concil Carthag 4. which make else Sententia Episcopi irrita but for the censure this proceeds only from Episcopal Authority Hence then Presbyters have not the power of Excommunication nor are Judges in it so he saith 2. A Bishop alone may excommunicate Presbyters For the first Presbyters have the power of Excommunication 1. Why else are they called Pastors and Rulers Heb. 13.17 and the people commanded to obey them they must feed the flock and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Pet. 5.1 So 1 Thes 5.12 They are over them in the Lord. 2. There was no Bishop in Corinth when Paul wrote to have the incestuous person cast out yet they had the power of Excommunication 1 Cor. 5.7 12 13. purge judge put away Had they done it before Paul would not have written so sharply 3. Those who have the power of the Keyes have the power of Jurisdiction but Presbyters have the power of the Keyes not denied by the Papists Sent. l. 4. dis 18. S. 14. but affirmed insomuch that Estius moves this Question Vtrum Sacerdotes soli habent potestatem excommunicandi and tels us some were of that opinion Now by soli● Estius does not mean whether they alone without a Bishop For the question he is about is this Penes quos sit excommunicandi potestas and his scope is to prove that others besides Priests have the power but for the Priests that is taken for granted that they had the power and quotes 1 Cor. 5.5 13. And Augustine l. 3. contra Epist Parmen c. 2. Aquinas he also tels us Supplem q. 22. ● 1. that some were of that opinion that the Parochial Priests might excommunicate but thinks his own opinion to be more rational that the Bishop should do it had his distinction a foundation in Scripture 4. Those that have power to take into the Church have power to cast out of the

Church Are the Keyes given to Pastors to turn them but one way Ridiculous 5. How does this agree with Jerom before quoted excepta Ordinatione c. It seems Jurisdiction was not excepted when they had engrossed Ordination Presbyters had that power and at first the Churches were governed by the common advice of the Presbyters thus he Tit. 1. 6. The Priests had that power not only to discern between Lepers and Lepers but as they could judge they could separate them from the Camp of Israel which did shadow out our excommunication 7. It seems very strange that when a Pastor who hath taught it may be baptized a person and now fallen into sin the Church and he have dealt with that person according to rule that now the Church must go to a Bishop to excommunicate this person to whom yet he never bare relation How came this Bishop to have power over this Church which he never saw it may be But let Dr. Fulks speak It is manifest that the Authority of binding and loosing committing and retaining pertaineth generally to all the Apostles alike and to every Pastor in his Cure Answ to Rhem. 2 Cor. 2. Bishop Jewel Reply p. 178. quotes Basil speaking thus Christ appointed Peter to be the Pastor of the Church after him and so consequently gave the same power unto all Pastots and Doctors A Token whereof is this that all Pastors do equally both bind and loose as well as he So Basil 8. In such Cities as Ephesus c. where the Church was one and divers Elders in common governed that Church let the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pronounce the sentence of excommunication I deny it not For his Proofs because Timothy must charge some that they teach no other Doctrine 1 Tim. 1.3 So Tit. 1.11 Mouths must be stopped But I beseech you what is there in this more than Presbyters might do who govern the Church in common that stopping may be meant partly if not chiefly there by Argument convince gainsayers v. 9. I must confess I cannot see the Logick of this Argument though it doth prove Jurisdiction does it prove Presbyters have not the power I thought he would have quoted 1 Tim. 5.19 But because he doth not I let it alone His next is the Angel of Pergamus and Thiatira blamed Rev. 2. for suffering of Jezebel c. 1. Answ Does this exclude the other Presbyters What mean those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 24. But to you I say If the King writes to the Speaker and reproves somthing amiss or complains somthing is not done does it lay the blame on him only and not on the Members of the House as well 2. Suppose these Angels had been guilty of sins for which themselves had deserved excommunication who should have cast them out Are they Lords Paramount above all Christs Laws in his Church I know not but the other Presbyters with the consent of the Churches obeying their Presbyters might have cast these Angels out or no way that I know of The Scriptures know no Archbishops though the Papists and Dr. Hammond do But to have one Bishop alone excommunicate Presbyters this would make as brave work as we have known before the wars begun Let the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Presbyters excommunicate a Presbyter the Church consenting Thus far the Dr. goeth and then undertakes to answer our Arguments but because I see nothing is there said which I have not spoken to before and I am loath to exceed in this discourse I shall only take notice of what he saith in his Answer to the third Objection where he tels us the necessity of Bishops in these respects 1. To ordain Ministers lest the Evangelical Ministry should fail Cannot this evil be prevented by Presbyters as well Answ Are not divers thousands of Presbyters in England more likely to keep up a succession of Ministers in England than 24 Bishops of whom how few now were left Had the succession of Ministers depended upon them in what a sad case had the Church been 2. For the Governing of Presbyters lest by their impure manners heresies and schismes they should destroy the Church And are not Bishops equally liable to these Answ How shall the Church now be saved May we not read with our eyes in Histories and hear with our ears what Bishops have been Have we not seen the excellency of this Government in England as to the impure manners of Ministers being corrected Is it not a Cordolium to the godly in England to have so many who were justly cast out for scandal by the Parliament though some were wronged I know and do as much detest their ejectment to return again not one whit purged that we can fee 2. For Heresie and schism 1. We know what Bellarmine saith Certe Heresiarchae ferè omnes aut Episcopi aut Presbyteri fuerunt and from these Heresies rise Factions among the people saith he so that Bishops are as deep in the mire for heresie and causing schism as the Presbyters Hence he will have a Pope but that Monarchical Government hath not cured Schism we know much less Heresie 2. As for Heresie and Schism both name any National Church under Heaven more free from them than the Church of Scotland before these troubles began and yet there Bishops are not approved of 3. For Schism read but the life of Constantine and there see whether Bishops were not guilty of Schism and the Concil Tolata 1. was called upon some Schism among the Bishops 4. We say that Rome is guilty of the Schism between us and them because Rome gave the cause I leave the Reader to enquire who gave the first cause of the Schisms now in England 5. Why then did not Paul appoint a Bishop in Corinth when Schism was there both in his time and Clemens his time but Clemens mentions none Jerom saith indeed that upon these Schisms Bishops were set up afterwards I write not his known word posted But it is much that these ends of a Bishop which are so great for the good of the Church and it seems can be performed by none but him should not be foreseen by Christ at first and so this Bishop at first appointed but the ordinary main Stud of Christs House should be forgot to be set up till many years after the House was up Sure this means was none of his and so it proves 6. How can the Bishop be a fit means to cure Schism or prevent it I know no way but this that Presbyters must resign all their judgments up to his Chair and he infallibly determine which is right or wrong and so all must yield to his sentence This were brave indeed 7. Let our King withdraw his tender and healing hand and his power from assisting Bishops let us now see how the Bishops will shew forth that wonderful vertue of Episcopacy in healing our Schisms I doubt our King who is as Constantine said of himself the Bishop extra

Ecclesiam must be the great healer under God of our Schisms else the Bishops within the Church will make them much worse but never heal I am sure by all power Episcopal If the Keyes of the Gate-house and other Prisons be at their command then they may do more with those Keyes than their Episcopal Keyes Yet I think Prisons will hardly heal us 8. There was an honest way found out how to cure wrangling schismatical Bishops and the same cure is proper and very apt for Schismatical Presbyters Concil Carthag 4. Can. 25. Dissidentes episcopos si non timor Dei Synodus reconciliet A more apt means than a Bishop because that is Apostolical To wind up all my Discourse concerning this Episcopacy which the Dr. hath asserted now commended as necessary against Schism I will only give the Reader the judgment of Musculus upon the question how effectual it is towards the cure After he had proved Bishop and Presbyter to be the same by Scripture then he comes to give the original of the Bishop out of Jorom Loc. com ● 195. and thus he writes Verum post Apostolorum tempora cum inter seniores Ecclesiarum sicuti Hieronymo placet dissentiones schismata subnascerentur ut mihi vere simile est tentatio illa de majoritate mentes seniorum pastorum at doctorum invaderet paulatim capit de numero seniorum unus aliquis eligi qui reliquis praeponeretur in sublimiori gradu positus Episcopus nominaretur atque ita quod caeteri antea communiter ipse solus ac singulariter vocaretur Profueritus vel seous hoc consilium Ecclesi● Christi quo tales sint Episcopi magis consuetudine ut Hieronymi verbis utar quam Dominioa dispositionis veritate introducti qui majores ossent Presbyteris melius est posterioribus seculis deelaratum quam dum haec consuetudo primum introduceretur cui debe●●us omnem illam principalium equestrium Episcoporum insole●tiam opulentiam tyrannidem imo omnium Ecclesiarum Christi corruptione● quam si Hier. cerneret dubio procul consilium agnosceret non Spiritus Sancti ad tollenda Schismata sicuti praetexebatur sed ipsius Satanae ad vastanda perdenda prisca pascendi Dominici gregis ministeria quo fieret ut haberet Ecclesia non veros Pastores Doctores Presbyteros Episcopos sed sub ●ominum istorum larvis oci●sos ventres ac magnificos Principes qui non modo non pascant ipsi populum Domini doctrina sana Apostolica sed improbissima violentia caveant ne id per quenquam ●lium fiat c. I am far from applying this to all our Bishops no verily This Learned Davenant Hall Brownrig I do much reverence their names now dead and gone and no man upon earth have I so much honoured as that Archbishop Usher but what talk I of him he was in all Respects for Learning soundnesse in the Faith Humility and Holinesse a None-such In what an ill time as to us was he taken away but God is wise CHAP. II. Of Presbyterial Ordination VVHether that which made the greatest Argument against our Presbyterial Ordination be not taken away I leave to the Christian Reader who makes the Holy Scriptures his Rule to judge by Now then for a few Arguments to prove The validity of Presbyterial Ordination These two Propositions however denied by some yet I presume they will be granted by these scorners of our Presbyterial Ordination 1. That Ordination is still an Ordinance of God in force in the Church and so shall be while there is a Ministry 2. That it is an Act of Authority and can be performed by none but by those who are in Authority in the Church Hence then I thus argue Scripture Ordination is valid Ordination Arg. 1 But Presbyterial Ordination is Scriptural Ordination Ergo. Deny the major who dare The minor I thus prove That Ordination which is performed by persons invested with the power thereof by Scripture Authority is Scriptural Ordination But Presbyterial Ordination is Ordination performed by Persons invested with the power thereof by Scripture authority Ergo. Minor If the Scripture hath now invested any others with the power of Ordination they are persons either of an Inferiour or Superiour Order But neither Ergo. Not Inferiour is granted not Superiour the whole Discourse before proves by the judgment of the Scriptures and many agreeing thereto Presbyter and Bishop are the same Objection Presbyters are no where commanded to ordain Answer Prove that your Bishops are and I will prove my Presbyters are 2. Where are Presbyters commanded to Administer the Lords Supper or Baptize Finde that Command and I will finde other Authoritative Acts in it I doubt not our Authority descends from that Command and Commission to the Apostles Matth. 28. Whatever Acts are requisite to encrease to edifie or continue the Church we have the Authority by Succession and so are Pastors and Rulers II. Arg. 2 That Ordination which is performed by persons which have the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven committed to them that is valid Ordination But Presbyterial Ordination is performed by such Nomine clavium signisic tur omnis potestas Ecclesiallica Suppl cham lib. 4. chap. 4. Ergo. Major The Keyes of the Kingdome do contain in them the power of Ordination saith Cor. à Lapide Chemnitius Bucer c. Minor Though the Pope Bishops and Presbyters contend for the Keyes yet that Presbyters have the Keys committed to them is confessed by the Papists Objection The Key of Knowledg Answer I proved before the Key of Jurisdiction I adde That Distribution of the Keyes which is not grounded on the Scripture is a vain Distribution as we say Distinguendum est ubi Scriptura distinguit Sic distribuendum est c. But this distribution of the Keyes so as to give but the Key of Knowledge to the Presbyter is not grounded on Scripture Ergo It is vain To thee do I give the Keyes said our Lord he did not civide the Keyes give one key to one and both to another he gives no single key to any person but keyes and so whatever those Keys serve for Busil and Dr. Fulk speak fully for the Keys of jurisdiction belonging to all Pastors then the Key of Order as well III. Timothies Ordination was valid Ordination Arg. 3 but Timothies Ordination was Presbyterial Ordination Ergo. Laying on of the hands of the Presbyterie 1 Tim. 4.14 Against this is objected 1. Paul did impose his hands in Timothies Ordination and that was sufficient without the Presbytery Answ 1. Diodati conceives That by Pauls hands the miraculous gift was conveyed by the Presbytery Timothy was installed in the Ministry See him on 2 Tim. 1.6 I have spoken to this in another Treatise 2. However the Presbytery imposed hands they had a power to do the work else Paul would no have called them to it Paul did not ordain Timothy quatenus Apostle then your Bishop is gone

by you with those Forms which the Penmen of the Scriptures were directed by the Spirit to compose 2. Impose no other Prayers upon us but Scripture-forms and we shall not refuse to use them though not them only The Lords Prayer is the most compleat of all the Forms yet we are not bound to that form only I hope we may use other prayers keeping that substance 3. The 102 Psal which was made for the afflicted Church a little before the time of their return out of Captivity as the 13 14 15 16 Verses declare did not hinder Daniel Chap. 9. to pray by his own gift upon the same occasion where there is great difference in the Petitions and matter of prayer Object But other Churches have their Formes Answ Not all Churches where men are as orthodox and holy as ours are 2. Irenaeus bids us have recourse to those Churches in which the Apostles were conversant and in them we finde no such thing 3. Those who have Forms do yet condemn ours as witness Apollonius in the name of the Walacrian Classis p. 172. who rejecting Forms of Prayer and Administrations of Sacraments where the matter is vicious or any Superstition cleaves to them c. He adds For this cause we reject the Ceremonies and Forms of Publick Worship in the Church of England in these last corrupt times brought in by the Hierarehical Bishops as those which being Superstitious and Idolatrous have deformed the Church and the worship of God obscurarunt gloriosa Reformationis facem faciem c. In the next Section the same Divines do reject those Forms of Prayer though in respect of the matter of them good whenas they are imposed tyrannically and with violent command upon the consciences of men as being absolutely necessary and essential parts of Gods Worship c. They speak more and that notably what cruelty they have been made the instruments of and Hath not ENGLAND felt it See more in that Learned Author page 173. though he maintains the lawfulnesse of a Form So do the Leyden Professors Synop pu the. p. 499. and yet say it is necessary that Pastors of Churche should stirr up themselves to pray without forms p. 499. And once more for our Common-Prayer Book lately used Bishop Davenant hath commended it to us upon this ground What is there in it that is not approved of the Papists themselves Determ 27. and he confirms the truth of it thus That some of the Bishops of Rome have offered to approve our forme of Prayers provided that we would accept it by their authority A notable Argument to bring Orthodox and holy Christians to hear it though his scope is to prove Ergo the Papists ought to be present at our worship and the Magistrate neglects his Office if he doth not compell them Object But the totall use of Ministers gifts is not taken away Answ I think it was in some places and every where it was in Baptisme and the Lords Supper only before Sermon and after men had the use of their gifts scarce that Object But all Ministers are not able Answ Whose fault is that shew us such Ministers ordained by the Presbyterians that are not in some good measure able to pray without their book though there is difference of Gifts There are a Generation coming in again that I think indeed are not all of them and but very few I deny not but there was wrong offered to some who were turned out and let them come in withall my heart But I speak of Superstititous men pot-companions swearers c. men who have not the Gift of Prayer and despise it in others 2. But what is this to those who are able why must they be forced to read as other insufficient men must wanting Gifts Question But what if a Form of prayer be imposed so as not to take away the total use of Ministers Gifts in any Ordinance they may have their liberty of their own gifts but sometimes use that Forme Answ I should a little desire to know the Authority that enjoins it if a Synod of such Divines as ought to be I mean not superstitious Arminians Orthodox and holy men did order such a thing in a sober way not tyrannically as absolutely necessary as said Apollonius before then I confesse it would trouble me to refuse it though I finde and have heard some of my Brethren say Let the Forms of Prayer be what they will they will submit to none it is an offence they conceive and a wrong to that good spirit who hath pleased to bestow on them the Gift of Prayer to have that hindered by submitting to mens injunctions But I am not satisfied in this 1. Because you have the use of your gift in all Ordinances only sometimes you are required to use a Form 2. A Form of Prayer in it self the matter of it being agreeable to the Word is not unlawfull thus godly and wise men judge 3. I finde that the old holy Non-Conformists were not offended at a bare form of Prayer but some particular things in the Common prayer-Book and truly those are many Yea I finde the Congregationall Divines in New-England though they use no forms they are able indeed yet they dare not condemn all Forms of prayer in the Church Defense of the 9 Positions p. 34. divers of them at least would not do it so Master Shephard Though all of us could not concurr to condemn all set Forms as unlawfull yet for the English Liturgy c. And so after in the same Page Thus also Mr Norton in his Answer to Apollonius alloweth of a form of prayer for Ministers but if they be gifted then to impose is unlawfull But whether he means it is so though they use their own gift and the Forms sometimes I finde not p. 138 139. But do any we now speak of condemn all use thereof c. So again page 38. only there they say That though the thing it self be lawfull yet if not duly circumstantiated it may be evil and scandalous in the use as Meats 1 Cor. 8.13 This to me if we have liberty as in the Question is the greatest trouble how to answer the offence it will give to other Christians in case we cannot satisfie there being we have no command in the Word to use these Forms how will you help us here Will men give the Answer which Bishop Land when he silenced my Father in law gave to him My Father pleaded that Text of Paul He would not offend his weak Brother Why then should the Bishop offend him by imposing the Surplice To that speech of Paul Bishop Laud answered Yea Paul said so when he was alone but do you think Paul would have said so if he had been in a Convocation A rare Answer worthy of a Bishop 4. What think you of this Do we not many times when we are beaten with tentations pray our own conditions more than the Congregations though